Agenda packet — Concord City Council, September 5, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

From: Zhen B <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 1:29 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control ordinance

Hello dear Mayor and the City Council Members-

I just found out that Concord is once again considering the rent control and more housing regulations around just cause. The people of Concord previously voted no on rent control, why is it being considered again? As I small landlord with only one rental we are already overwhelmed with all the rules and regulations and additional requirements in the recently passed ordinance by Concord which are also unclear. Please understand that landlords want to keep good tenants in as long as they want stay. Can you please help me understand why the landlord has to pay tenant to move out if a landlord finds themselves in the situation that they need to move back into their own house? I would like to point out that sometimes tenants earn much more than the landlord and landlords struggle themselves. Why are you implementing so many requirements to force us small landlords to shut down our little business?

I kindly ask for your response and thank you for your consideration.

Evgenia

Page 155 of 218 ends

From: Natasha Kapoor-Acuna <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 1:40 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: opposition to rent control

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,

I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord.

These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.

We bought an asset in Concord on California and having more stringent policies than AB 1482 will prevent us from maintaining the property.

Worse, the city still does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. Your own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased. This means the statewide law is working effectively.

Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent.

Sincerely

Natasha Kapoor-Acuña

Page 156 of 218 ends

From: Kelly Zhao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 1:45 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord City Council Meeting - September 5, Public Comment, Item 4 (Rent Stabilization and Just Cause)

Hello,

I am submitting a public comment for a testimony from a student living in Concord. This is for Item 4 Residential Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Workshop:

Maya is a first year student at Diablo Valley College. She has been living in Concord since her family moved here from Pakistan when she was 10 years old and she is the oldest child in her family. Between taking care of her younger siblings while going to school, Maya also helps out with paying rent while living at home. As a first generation college student, Maya feels the pressure to do well academically while also helping out her parents with rent. They currently live in an apartment together, paying $2,800 per month. Living with her parents and her three younger siblings, Maya helps pay half of the rent with her minimum wage job, $1,400 per month, while her parents pay the other half. Balancing between a part time job and school, Maya is constantly juggling her responsibilities while dreaming of building her own life as a young adult.

Because of her parents limited ability to find work, Maya often finds herself stretched thin to help provide for her family. Majoring in biology, Maya dreams about moving out on her own and starting a new life with the goal of becoming a physician’s assistant. However, with rent continuing to rise in the city she is having difficulty saving money to find an affordable place in Concord. She has expressed in a class that, “Even if I want to move out, I can’t– it’s just too expensive and I’ll have to look at other cities like Hayward or Richmond. It’s just too expensive here.” Maya wants to live close to her family, but still have her own space to grow as a young adult. Even while searching with roommates, the cost of renting has become too high in Concord. For young people that grew up in this city, oftentimes there is no choice but to consider looking farther out from home to find a place with affordable housing.

Kelly Zhao (she/her)
Contra Costa Campaign Coordinator
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
Concord office: 2140 Minert Rd, Concord CA 94518
Phone: (416) 606-1369

Page 157 of 218 ends

From: Mario Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 1:49 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control

Dear Mayor Hoffm eister and City Council,

I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s com m itm ent to rem oving obstacles to housing in Concord. These policies affect both new housing and ex isting housing.

Worse, the city still does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. Y our own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy term inations initiated by housing providers decreased. This m eans the statewide law is working effectively.

Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy term inations in 2022, 44 were due to non-paym ent of rent. This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction. Please vote against the proposal and redirect your efforts to true solutions that help renters afford housing in Concord.

Sincerely,

Mario Martinez.

Page 158 of 218 ends

From: Mary Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 1:58 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council

Dear Mayor Hoffm eister and City Council,

I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s com m itm ent to rem oving obstacles to housing in Concord. These policies affect both new housing and ex isting housing.

Worse, the city still does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. Y our own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy term inations initiated by housing providers decreased. This m eans the statewide law is working effectively.

Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-paym ent of rent. This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction. Please vote against the proposal and redirect your efforts to true solutions that help renters afford housing in Concord.

Sincerely,

Regards,

Mary Perez
Regional Manager

2123 Shoreview Ct.

Bay Point, CA 94565
Direct: (707) 340-9958
Mobile: (707) 340-9958
Email: m ary.perez@prim egrp.com

Page 159 of 218 ends

From: Stephanie Mariani <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 1:59 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: No to additional rent control

Dear Mayor Hoffm eister and City Council,

I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s com m itm ent to rem oving obstacles to housing in Concord. These policies affect both new housing and ex isting housing.

Worse, the city still does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. Y our own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased. This m eans the statewide law is working effectively.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Mariani
Counsel
Prime Residential
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-445-7469 (direct)
[email protected]

Page 160 of 218 ends

From: markandjoyce thelinnetts.net <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 2:09 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rental Price Control

Dear Concord City Council Member,

Due to Concord's history of anti-housing provider (aka Landlord) policies, I have taken my rental housing investment monies to the Southern California town of Oxnard where I grew up. There are a multitude of small investor opportunities such as 4-plex properties located there. I have invested in several run down units and proudly brought them up to code and made many cosmetic improvements as well. I am proud of my properties and I have happy tenants. I would have much preferred to have invested locally (I'm a citizen of Martinez) but the hostile nature of local government and the lack of small investor rental inventory drove me 365 miles away.

Effective 2022 the Oxnard city council reacted to the very real problem of their many suffering constituents who were overburdened by too little income to afford proper food, education, health care, housing and clothing. So, rather than findi ng ways to increase their income or decreasing the high costs of living expenses, they decided to put price controls on housing - no price controls on education, food, health care, clothing, recreation, etc. - just housing. It was the 'low hanging fruit'. On the surface, it sure seemed to solve the problem of minimum wages that are unrealistically low. Rent caps were implemented even though the council could not produce ANY data from ANY municipality that has instituted rent price controls where it has been successful in meeting the needs of their constituents who are genuinely hurting. They are still hurting today.

They arbitrarily mandated rent caps at 4% per year on housing providers. By doing so, they have forced the 'invisible hand of the market' into a policy of automatically raising rents every year by 4%. This artificial rate increase every year warps the free market place and harms the renter in the long run. It removes incentive from investors to invest more into the market. My future investments will probably have to move out of California to places like Texas and Tennessee where they welcome housing providers. What's more, rents are much lower there! Did you ever wonder why?
For the sake of the tenants in your district, do the difficult and unpopular thing and vote against rent control. It won't win you votes but you know it's the right thing to do. Don't make Concord another rental mess like San Francisco, Berkeley or Santa Monica. Concord does not want my housing investment dollars ... now Oxnard doesn't either.

Good bye California.

Mark Linnett
567 Webster Dr.

Martinez, CA 94553

Page 161 of 218 ends

From: chris morrison <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 2:15 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: for consideration by the city council

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,

I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord.

These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.

I have been a single-family dwelling la ndlord in Concord for ten years. It is a responsibility of mine to keep market conditions in mind, which includes holding off on a rent increase at the beginning of this year despite major repairs that had to completed last year. My tenant expressed the hardship this would cause them. They have paid on time every month even throughout the pandemic, so I agreed to suspend the increase. This is how the process is supposed to work. I understand there are bad actors out there, and am not entirely opposed to legislation to reel those bad actors in.

My concern is the unintended consequence a local ordinance may have beyond what is already on the books at the state level. Arbitrary limits will begin to affect the inventory we are able to provide. I am not a major corporation, I have a mortgage on the property, along with taxes, insurance, management fees and of course repairs.

Will there be any kind of cap on insurance rates if more companies stop issuing policies in California and raise rates for existing policies?

Please vote no on any further restrictions. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Chris Morrison

Page 162 of 218 ends

From: Stephanie Bergin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 2:52 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on Residential Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Workshop

Hello Council members,

I am the daughter of a couple that own rental property in Concord. They have built this business over 30 years through hard work and dedication. They rent to primarily lower income, minority, women. They are literally a mom and pop set up.

I am writing regarding the residential rent stabilization and just cause ordinance. You would think the state and the cities would concentrate on reducing the cost of living and trying to reduce housing prices, so the tenants can have a chance to buy their own place. I would hope and expect Concord to do so. By restricting evictions and putting Just Cause clauses, you are depressing the rental market and forcing others to live with unpleasant neighbors due to such ordinances.

The rents being what they are, are caused by the politicians not allowing more affordable homes, I notice the city is not controlling everyday costs, like groceries, gas and utilities, but they are controlling rents which isn't fair to these small businesses. Why not put the harsh rules in place for the corporations and give the proven mom and pop owners a little more consideration.

The city is controlling rents, because Mom & Pop landlords are easy targets even though they suffer financially. The landlords carry all the costs and responsibilities because of state and city actions.

I ask that when considering this ordinance it be ruled that mom and pop landlords not be beholden to the same fees/restrictions as big corp because unlike big corp we cannot absorb such costs.

Thank you

Stephanie Bergin

Page 163 of 218 ends

From: reed robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2023 7:23 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Sept 5th rent ordinance meeting.

Hi, To the Concord City Council and Staff.

Some questions

1. Any real estate affected by this ordinance will no longer be worth what it was. How does the city plan to make up the shortfall on tax revenue going forward? What city services do you plan to cut or taxes do you plan to levy on the residents and business? Some combination of the two?

2. Do you have a plan to encourage investment in new apts in the city? With increased taxes and decreased services, plus price controls of unknown variety on multi-family apts why would anyone build into that?

3. And looking at the City council our city(Like California voters) historically has voted against price controls on real estate. Can you talk about why we may to have wait longer for an ambulance if we are choking at christmas dinner? If our home is being invaded how long will the police take to get there? Or pay more real estate or sales tax for something that we don't want and didnt vote for?

Thank you for your time.

Reed Robertson
District 2
Concord

Page 164 of 218 ends

From: Jean-Pierre Maeder <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 9:54 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control and just cause eviction more stringent than AB 1482???

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,

I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord.

These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.

Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent.

This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction. Please vote against the proposal and redirect your efforts to true solutions that help renters afford housing in Concord by increasing the number of rental units while eliminating rental restrictions for units that belong to an HOA (Homeowners Association). There are numerous units currently not available for rent in Concord as their HOA has adopted arbitrary restrictions for owners to rent their units. This forces housing providers such as myself to sell their units instead of keeping them as affordable rental units thereby removing already available rental housing stock.

Sincerely,
Jean-Pierre (JP) Maeder
p: 415-997-3680
p: 925-465-5141
f: 888-464-6508
DRE: 02034080

Page 165 of 218 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support Rent Stabilization

Dear Concord Councilmembers,
I am a renter in Concord.

Renters make up 40% of Concord’s population, contributing to a thriving economy, good schools, and safe communities. However, reasonable rents are out of reach for many working renters and families. Bad-faith and corporate landlords are using loopholes in state policy to carry out “no-fault evictions,” where residents are forced out of their homes despite their compliance with the lease.

Concord needs strong, well-enforced Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for eviction policies to ensure that working families can stay safely in their homes. These protections will minimize displacement and homelessness, stabilizing our community and keeping all Concord residents safe.

Elsie Mills
She, her, hers
925-771-4771
Article: Why I Put Pronouns in My Email Signature

Page 166 of 218 ends

From: Emmanuel Pun <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 5:32 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Julie Pun <[email protected]> Subject: local rent control and “just cause” for eviction ordinance

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,

I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord.

These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.

Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent.

Sincerely,

--
Emmanuel Pun PE # 27247

PUNS & ASSOCIATES INC
Consulting Structural Engineers
280 La Prenda
Millbrae, CA. 94030
Cell : 415 -218-5710

Page 167 of 218 ends

Page 168 of 218 ends

Limits on City’s Options for Regulating Rents and Just Cause for Evictions

Rent Regulations:

City cannot
• regulate rents on any units built after 1995
• regulate rents on single family homes or condominiums that can be sold separately from any other unit
• impose vacancy control

Just Cause:

City can, as long as more protective than AB 1482:
• Impose just cause on all units- including single family homes • Impose additional relocation assistance for no-fault
• Further restrict just causes
• Impose additional requirements for no-fault evictions such as issuance of permits before substantial rehab or demolition evictions • Require additional relocation payments for Ellis Act evictions • Restrict when no-fault notices may be issued, e.g. during the school year City cannot:
• Extend state law noticing time periods, including for Ellis Act evictions • Require city approval, petitions, mediation, or other administrative process prior to a tenancy termination

Page 169 of 218 ends

30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 70% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 110% AMI 120% AMI Extremely Low Very Low Lower Low Low Median Moderate Moderate 1 Person $31,050 $51,800 $62,160 $72,520 $78,550 $103,550 $113,905 $124,250 2 Persons $35,500 $59,200 $71,040 $82,880 $89,750 $118,300 $130,130 $142,000 3 Persons $39,950 $66,600 $79,920 $93,240 $100,950 $133,100 $146,410 $159,750 4 Persons $44,350 $73,950 $88,740 $103,530 $112,150 $147,900 $162,690 $177,500 5 Persons $47,900 $79,900 $95,880 $111,860 $121,150 $159,750 $175,725 $191,700 6 Persons $51,450 $85,800 $102,960 $120,120 $130,100 $171,550 $188,705 $205,900 7 Persons $55,000 $91,700 $110,040 $128,380 $139,100 $183,400 $201,740 $220,100 8 Persons $58,550 $97,650 $117,180 $136,710 $148,050 $195,250 $214,775 $234,300 Income Calculations: This information is based on amounts provided by HUD and CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). It is updated annually in the spring. 60% = 1.2 x 50% AMI. 70% = 1.4 x 50% AMI. 110% = 1.1 x 100% AMI. HUD/HCD provides 30%, 50%, 80%, 100% and 120% AMI. Please note, these are not simple mathematical calculations.

Maximum Income Limits (2023)*
City of Concord
*Based on Area Median Income (AMI) in the Oakland Metropolitan Statistical Area Some affordable housing units are restricted based on income. The table below shows income limits for 2023 (effective June 6, 2023).

Household Size

Page 170 of 218 ends

Rent Stabilization and Just
Cause for Eviction
Ordinances

CONCORD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
1

Page 171 of 218 ends

Purpose
Through its 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, the City
committed to the adoption of a Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance by December 31, 2023.

Since June 2023, staff has engaged in research and community outreach on rent stabilization and just cause for eviction topics in order to better understand the needs of the community.

Staff is now seeking further direction on Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction policy options based on the feedback that has been gathered thus far.
2

Page 172 of 218 ends

Need for Housing Policy in Concord
Rental affordability continues to be a critical issue for renters in Concord:
• Renters occupy approximately 40% of all housing units in Concord • More than 48% of renters in Concord spend over 30% of their income on housing costs
• From 2011 to 2021, median gross rents increased by 62% for all units • From 2021 to 2022 alone, average rents in Concord increased by 9% 3

Page 173 of 218 ends

Research and Community Outreach
• Staff engaged consultant RSG, Inc.
• City received feedback from 119 tenants and 118 property owners/representatives
• Solicited and received feedback from three affordable housing providers in Concord
4

Page 174 of 218 ends

Other Jurisdictions
•Local jurisdictions for comparison: Antioch, Alameda,
Richmond
• 26 out of 538 cities and counties have enacted rent
stabilization polices
•43 out of 538 cities and counties include just cause for eviction polices beyond AB 1482
5

Page 175 of 218 ends

State Law The Costa Hawkins Act - 1995
Local rent stabilization ordinances may not cap
rents on:
• New tenancies following prior tenants vacating the unit (“vacancy decontrol”)
• Buildings constructed after 1995
• Single-family dwellings and condos
There is a measure to repeal Costa Hawkins
on the 2024 Ballot
There are existing
laws in California
that provide certain
protections and
limits relating to
rent stabilization.
6

Page 176 of 218 ends

State Law
Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482) –
2019
• Rent increases limited to the lesser of 10% or
5%+CPI
• Property owners:
• Evictions: must provide a “just cause”
• Relocation assistance: greater of one
month’s rent or $1,000
• Exempts units built in last 15 years
• Sunsets January 1, 2030
There are existing
laws in California
that provide certain
protections and
limits relating to
rent stabilization.
7

Page 177 of 218 ends

City of
Concord
Law
Residential Tenant Protection
Program
• Effective August 2020, expires January
2030
• Mirrors AB 1482
• Additional protections:
• Relocation assistance: 2x monthly rent or
$5,000
• Minimum lease term of 12 or 6 months to new
tenants
• Annual rent registry
Concord residents
are granted
additional
protections under
local law
8

Page 178 of 218 ends

Rent
Stabilization
Factors for
Discussion
• Covered Units
• Rent Increase Limits
• Rent Banking
• Owner Petition for Fair Return
• Owner Petition for Capital
Improvement Pass-throughs
• Tenant Petitions
• Petition Fees
9

Page 179 of 218 ends

Covered Units –
Policy Options & Feedback
Concord Multi Family
Inspection Program & Rent
Registry:
• 4+ units
Other Jurisdictions:
• Range from 2+ units or more
• Single family rentals with
ADUs
10 Community Input
Tenants: all rental units covered
Owners: consistent with Costa-
Hawkins, smaller buildings exempt

Page 180 of 218 ends

Rent Increase Limits –
Policy Options & Feedback
Comparable Jurisdictions:
• Generally range from 2%-8%,
often indexed to CPI
• May establish a lower and/or
upper limit
11 Community Input
Tenants: 60% of CPI with an
upper cap of 3%
Owners: consistent with AB 1482
• 10% or 5%+CPI

Page 181 of 218 ends

Rent Banking
• Some ordinances allow a property owner to “save” or “bank” allowable rent increases that were not imposed on a tenant and add it on in subsequent years.
• Generally includes limits on banking to prevent large and sudden increases
12

Page 182 of 218 ends

Petition for Fair Return
• Owners are entitled to a fair return under State law
• Fair Return on Investment petitions will be drafted into the rent stabilization ordinance to meet State law requirement 13

Page 183 of 218 ends

Petition for Capital Improvement Pass-
Throughs – Policy Options & Feedback
Comparable Jurisdictions:
• Generally averaged per
unit, amortized over time,
capped at certain percent
14 Community Input
Tenants: against pass-throughs
Owners: pass on all capital
improvement costs, concerns
about cost of future policies i.e.
electrification

Page 184 of 218 ends

Tenant Petitions –
Policy Options & Feedback
Comparable Jurisdictions:
• Reviewed by a hearing
officer or board/committee
• Petition process cost may be
covered by the annual
registration fee
15 Community Input
Tenants: dedicated Rent Board
and comprehensive definition
for housing services
Owners: no response

Page 185 of 218 ends

Petition Fees –
Policy Options & Feedback
Comparable Jurisdictions:
• Property owners cover costs
of:
• all petitions,
• property owner petitions, and/or
• pay a nominal petition filing fee.
• Cost fully or partially covered
by the annual registration fee
16 Community Input
Tenants: No input
Owners: Fees / responsibilities
equally shared between
landlords and tenants

Page 186 of 218 ends

Just
Cause for
Eviction
Basics
• Covered/ Exempt Units
• Thresholds/ Requirements
• Relocation Assistance
• Effective Tenancy Period
17

Page 187 of 218 ends

Covered/ Exempt Units
Tenants:
• all rental units covered
• AB 1482 exempts single-family and owner-occupied units • Local jurisdictions may enact “more protective” provisions 18 Owners:
• consistent with AB 1482

Page 188 of 218 ends

Additional Thresholds/
Requirements
Tenants:
• Stricter definitions and
penalties for no-fault evictions
• Special protections for
vulnerable populations
• Right to return at the same
rent after renovations
• Concord provides the same just cause reasons as AB 1482 • Local jurisdictions may enact “more protective” provisions 19 Owners:
• Maintain flexibility around
renovations and owner move-ins

Page 189 of 218 ends

Relocation Assistance
Tenants:
• $10,000 per tenant with a cap
of $30,000 per household
• Double relocation for Ellis Act
and vulnerable populations
• AB 1482: 1 month’s rent or $1,000
• Concord: 2 month’s rent or $5,000
20 Owners:
• Lesser of 2 months rent or
$5,000
• Hardship exemption for
owners that are financially
struggling

Page 190 of 218 ends

Just Cause Effective Period
Tenants:
• Protections to be effective
immediately upon move in
• Under AB 1482 and Concord local law, eviction protections are effective after 1-2 years of tenancy
21 Owners:
• Consistent with AB 1482

Page 191 of 218 ends

Enforcement
and Fee
Structure
Basics
• Enforcement Mechanism
• Administration Costs and Fee
Structure
• Retroactive Enforcement
22

Page 192 of 218 ends

Enforcement –
Policy Options & Feedback
Comparable Jurisdictions:

Oversight options may include:
• Hearing Officer
• Rent Board (or committee)
• Other jurisdictions: Mediation
and Civil Court
23 Community Input
Tenants: Rent Board with
representation of tenants
Owners: Consistent with AB 1482,
mediation services, maintain
flexibility (particularly for “mom
and pop” owners)

Page 193 of 218 ends

Administration and Fees –
Policy Options & Feedback
Comparable Jurisdictions:
• Range from $20-$250/ unit
• Larger fee for fully covered units
versus partially covered units
• May allow 50% of fees to be
passed through to tenants
24 Community Input
Tenants: Pass-through fees not
allowed
Owners: Fees to be equally
shared between landlords and
tenants

Page 194 of 218 ends

Retroactive Rent Limit –
Policy Options & Feedback
Comparable Jurisdictions:
• Retroactive date 3-12 months
prior to the effective date of
ordinance
25 Community Input
Tenants: Retroactive to January
2023
Owners: No response

Page 195 of 218 ends

Questions?
26

Page 196 of 218 ends

Rent Stabilization Policy Direction
Requested
27 Covered Units  Buildings with 4+ units (e.g. City’s Multi-Family Inspection and Residential Rent Registry Programs)
 Buildings with 2+ units (e.g. AB 1482, Alameda, Antioch, and Richmond) o Can include rented single-family homes with rented Accessory Dwelling Units (treated as a duplex)
Rent Increase
Limits
 CPI plus 5%, Max 10% (e.g. AB 1482)
 70% of CPI, Max 5%, Min 1%, include bundled fees (e.g. Alameda)  60% of CPI, Max 3% (e.g. Antioch/Richmond)

Page 197 of 218 ends

28 Petition Types
Allowed
 Tenant petition – for property owner violations
 Capital Improvement
 Fair return petition will be included to meet State Law Capital
Improvement
Passthroughs
 Allow property owners to pass all/ a portion of costs to tenants  Annual limit – 3% over the allowable rent increase (Alameda, Richmond)
Rent Stabilization Policy Direction
Requested

Page 198 of 218 ends

Just Cause Eviction Policy Direction
Requested
29 Covered Units  All units
 Consistent with AB 1482
Optional Additional
Requirements
 Minimum cost of repairs for substantial renovations
 Right of return for tenants displaced
Enforcement  Tenant petition process within program (versus civil procedure)
Relocation assistance for
no-fault evictions
 Increase/decrease from RTTP (greater of 2 months or
$5000)
 Base on number of bedrooms
 Qualified assistance for vulnerable populations
Effective Period  30 days into tenancy (versus 1-2 years under AB1482)

Page 199 of 218 ends

Enforcement and Fee Policy
Direction Requested
30 Enforcement
Mechanism
 Hearing Officer (e.g. Richmond, Alameda, Antioch)
 Rent Board (e.g. Richmond)
 Mediation and Civil Court
Effective Date
(Retroactivity)
 Approximately two (2) months (Antioch)
 Eight (8) months to one (1) year (Richmond)
Petition Costs  No fee – Tenants, Owners, both
 Tenant Petitions - included in registry fees with nominal filing fee  Owners pay for Fair Return and Capital Improvement petitions Rent Registry Fee  Fees for fully vs partially covered units  Increased fee to cover administration costs

Page 200 of 218 ends

Thank You!
31

Page 201 of 218 ends

From: Anna Pavelka-Lodato <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 8:18 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Proposal
Sept
ember 5, 2023
Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,
I am a Concord housing provider, and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord. These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.

Of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent. This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control and just cause eviction. Please vote against the proposal and redirect efforts to true solutions that help renters afford Concord housing.

Sincerely,
Anna Pavelka Lodato, Concord Property Owner
2204 Ridgepointe Ct.

Walnut Creek, CA 94596
[email protected]
Benched Correspondence
R
eceived After 3 p.m.

A
genda Item No. 4.a
September
5, 2023

Page 202 of 218 ends

From: william goodwin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 3:10 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: 4a. Residential Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Workshop: Consider information provided by staff, receive public comment
Dear Council,
I have served the good people of Concord for over 5 years. And I see the real crisis of Housing Affordability in Concord firsthand.

I am glad the City of Concord is finally committed to addressing the excessive rent increases that are harming and displacing so many of our community residents, like seniors on a fixed income, low-income and working families, and Black and Brown renters. I urge you to pass a truly meaningful ordinance that caps rents at 60% of CPI or 3% (whichever is lower). This will contribute to the social and economic welfare of the citizens of Concord. It will benefit our whole community for parents not to have to work multiple jobs just to afford to pay rent.

Affordable rents will allow parents to have more time at home with their children and families to have less anxiety of being displaced. Housing affordability would also help the local economy as workers would remain living in Concord and residents would have more funds to spend on food, services, and other basic needs. Affordable and predictable rents make Concord more stable and stronger as a whole.

The reality is that over 40% of Concord residents are renters and need relief from escalating and unpredictable rent increases. They deserve the same stability that most homeowners enjoy with their fixed rate mortgage payments. Rent stabilization is a crucial step toward fairness and equity, which is long overdue in the city of Concord.

I believe renters deserve protection from unjust evictions. While the majority of landlords are ethical, there are some landlords who retaliate by filing for evictions when renters ask for repairs or raise issues of pests or mold. Concord renters should not live with fear or be subjected to unhealthy conditions. I urge you to pass a strong Just Cause for Eviction ordinance that is effective upon move-in and covers ALL types of units. Why should only some renters be protected based on the type of building they live in?
Also, rent stabilization and just cause ordinances will provide essential protections from today’s rental market that has become increasingly influenced by corporate owners undermining the well-being of our Concord community.

We are counting on your leadership to craft strong policies that will help our children, seniors and working-class families remain in Concord, by stopping unnecessary evictions, and reducing the City’s growing homelessness.

Thank you.

William Goodw in

Page 203 of 218 ends

From: Dan Sullivan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 3:43 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposed

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,

I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord.

These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.

Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent.

Sincerely,

Dan Sullivan
Palm Lake Apartments
780 Oak Grove Road
415-816-4477

Page 204 of 218 ends

From: Judy Weil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 3:45 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control

As a small property owner in Concord we try and maintain the property and raise rents with a sensitivity to economic affairs and tenants.

Rent control lowers property values and does not work. Both SF and Oakland have rent control.

Both Oakland and SF have massive crime, drug use and tents on city streets. If Concord enacts rent control we certainly would not invest new investment dollars in Concord. Investment property would decrease in value. Improvements would be questioned and no longer be as generous as in the past,

Concord has Mom and Pop investors not conglomerates. We already didn't raise rents during Covid and many landlords had tenants not paying rent while due to inflation expenses skyrocketed

Please do not enact rent control beyond what currently exists,

Sincerely

Judy Weil
9257884766
Royal road. Concord

Page 205 of 218 ends

From: Jo Sciarroni <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4:01 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control for City of Concord - Oppose

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,

As a local housing provider, I oppose the current direction the City Council is taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord. The proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord. These policies will and do affect both new housing and existing housing.

The city has not provided evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. The city’s residential rent registry report from October 2022 shows that rent increases, on average, fell below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased.

Out of the 50 owner-initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non- payment of rent. This data suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, not new laws like rent control, and just cause eviction. Please vote against the proposal and redirect your efforts to solutions that help renters afford housing in Concord.

Sincerely,

Jo Sciarroni
Concord Residence and Home Provider
*******************************************************

Jo Sciarroni
Compliance Manager - Broker Associate
RE/MAX Accord
800 S. Broadway, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Office: (925) 947-1777 - Cell: (925) 708-8889
CA License #00585920

Page 206 of 218 ends

From: Jess L. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 5:06 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: AB 1482

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council,

I am a local housing provider and I oppose the direction you are taking to adopt rent control and just cause in Concord.

This proposal contradicts the city’s commitment to removing obstacles to housing in Concord.

These policies affect both new housing and existing housing.

Out of the 50 owner-
initiated tenancy terminations in 2022, 44 were due to non-payment of rent (88%). This suggests that Concord renters need rental assistance, NOT new laws like rent control and just cause eviction.

The city does not have evidence to justify adopting policies stricter than those in the statewide Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482. Your own rent registry reports show that rent increases, on the average, fall below the statewide cap and that tenancy terminations initiated by housing providers decreased.

P
lease vote against the proposal and redirect your efforts to actual solutions that help renters afford housing in Concord.

Sincerely,

Jessica Loberstein

Page 207 of 218 ends

From: Adam Poe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 5:56 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Consideration Item 4(a) - September 5, 2023 To:

Concord City Council
From: Adam Poe, Managing Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid
First, thank you for your consideration of this important issue and for the meaningful engagement of the community and impacted individua ls and families, and for the intensive study of best practices from other cities. Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) provides free legal services for very low-income residents of Concord and all of Contra Costa. Every day we see families facing eviction after receiving unreasonable rent increases, and for dubious claims of substantial renovation and removal from the rental market. There is also a huge gap in state- wide protections allowing for the no-cause eviction of tenants in single-family homes and condos, and even in protected units only after 1 year. The following reforms would have a meaningful impact in reducing evictions, displacement and homelessness amongst BayLegal’s low-income client community by closing these loopholes and strengthening existing state-wide protections. (Note: these policies are more fully briefed in the “Policy Recommendations” found in Attachment 4 to the agenda):
• Expa
nd protection from no-cause evictions to single family homes, mobile homes and condos; protections should begin on Day 1 upon move-in. • Require heightened notice, evidentiary and procedural requirements for landlords attempting to terminate tenancies for “Substantial renovation” or “Ellis Act” causes. • Cap rent increases .03% and/or 60% of (CPI whichever is lower); • Extend rent control protections to LIHTC properties, which are notorious for onerous mass rent increases;
La
stly, the creation of a rent program and independent rent board will be required to make any new protections meaningful. A rent program can provide for the administration and regulations clarifying the ordinance and creating forms and processes to carry it out. Rent programs are essential to outreach, analysis and interpretation of the ordinance, and the rent board should fairly reflect Concord’s community by being comprised of a majority of renters.

Tha
nk you for your consideration of the above. Please let me know if any questions or concerns, I can be reached at 510.903.2616
Thanks.

Page 208 of 218 ends

From: Monica Fraga <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4:01 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Discouraging rent control measure this evening

I am highly DISCOURGAGING you to turn down the ordinance before you this evening. We are responsible landlords and have 6 happy tenants that have always been treated well.

We as property owners believe that the state mandate is enough to provide the necessary protec�ons for the tenants and s�ll make it a viable market for us to make necessary upkeep on our proper�es. The state rent control in place protects the tenants and landlords. You do not want Concord to turn into the next Oakland or the next An�och. Landlords will see no reason to hold on to the proper�es and will take the value of the mul�family units when we all want to pull out. You will be le� with big corpora�ons that are less likely to follow even the state mandates. Mom and Pop proper�es make happy tenants with aﬀordable housing.

Please turn down this measure and give us a reason to stay!

Monica Fraga

Monica Fraga
Property owner of multi family units
President
925-672-9842 (Direct)
925-672-9840 (Main office)

Page 209 of 218 ends

From: Jim Basuino <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 3:45 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Vote "NO" on additional rent control

I urge all Concord City Council Members to vote "NO" on additional rent control. The rents I charge are very reasonable and I have never evicted anyone without Just Cause.

Please do not punish all landlords for the actions of a greedy few.

I vote in Concord and I will certainly not vote for any Council Member who supports these additional rent controls.

Thank you

Page 210 of 218 ends

Dear Mayor and Council Members
City of Concord
My name is Sreenivas Ramireddy, I represent a small group of property owners, which owns single and multi-family properties in Concord.

Below are some important facts to consider before you recommend further restrictive rent control measures on top of what we currently have.
• AB 1482 and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 already regulates rent increases and sets criteria for tenancy termination.
• Further rent control will be too burdensome for landlords to make any money and keep investing in Concord.

This will further curtail the development of new housing. • Landlords are really suffering with outrageous increase in non-controllable operating costs. Below are some of the expenses that I pulled from the properties that I manage. If you would like to see the invoices, I am happy to provide them at any time.
2022 2023 Increase Increase
Property# Expense Category $ $ $ %
Property 1 Trash, recycle and green waste 1,263.65 1,382.70 119.05 9.42% Property 2 Trash, recycle and green waste 505.95 554.15 48.20 9.53% Property 3 Property insurance 553.25 757.92 204.67 36.99% Property 4 Property insurance 90.08 153.34 63.26 70.23% Property 5 Property insurance 77.92 161.75 83.83 107.58% Property 6 Property insurance 60.83 65.75 4.92 8.09%
Per CCWD Water per 100 cubic feet (748 gallon) 5.25 5.66 0.41 7.83% • Controllable costs that are no longer controllable such as normal repairs and maintenance, renovations, material, supplies, etc. are totally out of control. Material and labor costs have gone up at least 75% -100% in the last 3 years.
• In my opinion rents are already stabilized in Concord and other cities and are trending down. • Some of the landlords whose loans are matured or maturing in the next year or two will have significant effect on their portfolio due to increase in interest rates.

Therefore, I request the Council members not to take any further restrictive rent control measures now since the economy is suffering with increased interest rate, controllable and non-controllable costs.

Sincerely,
Sreenivas Ramireddy
Email: [email protected]

Page 211 of 218 ends

SUMMARY TABLES
Existing Laws in Concord
AB 1482 (State Law)
• Prohibits rent increases above the lesser of 5% + CPI or 10% • Requires Just Cause for Eviction
o At-fault just cause
 Default in the payment of rent
 B reach of a material term of the lease
 N uisance
 Committing waste
 Tenant refusal of written lease
 Criminal activity
 Subletting
 T enant’s refusal to allow owner to enter unit
 Unit use for unlawful purposes
 F ailure to vacate
 Tenant Failure to deliver possession of unit
o No-fault just cause following:
 Intent to occupy unit
 Withdrawal form rental market.
 The owner complying with any of the following:
• An order issued by a government
agency or court relating to habitability
that necessitates vacating the
residential real property.
• An order issued by a government
agency or court to vacate the residential
real property.
• A local ordinance that necessitates
vacating the residential real property.
• If it is determined by any government
agency or court that the tenant is at
fault for the condition or conditions
triggering the order or need to vacate
under clause (i), the tenant shall not be
entitled to relocation assistance as
outlined in paragraph (3) of subdivision
(d).
 Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel
the residential real property.
• Relocation for no fault evictions: one (1) month’s rent or $1,000
Tenant Protection
Ordinance
(City of Concord)
• Follows AB 1482 with the following added provisions:
• Minimum lease terms (1 year- 6 months – lesser agreed term) • Relocation for no fault evictions must be the greater of two (2) months’ rent or $5,000
• Rent registration for properties with four (4) or more units • Notice requirements to tenants regarding rights provided • Sunsets January 1, 2030
Benched Summary Table
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023

Page 212 of 218 ends

Anti-Harassment
Ordinance
(City of Concord)
• Owners may not engage in acts or omissions that constitute harassment
o Violate quiet enjoyment
o Habitability
o Access
o Forced vacation
o Discrimination
o Misrepresentation
o Refuse rent payments
o Violate tenant’s right to privacy
o Interfere with tenants right to union representation
o Other acts in violation of the Ordinance

Policies for Council Discussion and Staff Direction
Rent Stabilization
Policy
Number Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions Community Input
Covered Units
A1. Rental Buildings with 4+ units
Concord’s Multi-
family Inspection
and Residential
Rent Registry
Programs
Tenants: all Residential units
covered, including affordable
housing units and those not
covered under AB 1482

Property Owners: Opposed to
greater regulations than
imposed by AB 1482. Exempt
single-family homes, and
smaller “Mom and Pop”
property owners.

A2.

Rental Buildings with 2+ units
• can include rented
single-family homes
with ADUs/JADUs
(treated as a duplex)
AB 1482,
Alameda,
Antioch, and
Richmond
A3. Rented mobile homes1
Rent Increase Limits
B1. CPI plus 5%, Max 10% AB 1482 Tenants: 60% of CPI, Max 3%
Property Owners: Opposed to
regulation of rents in general.

Many feel that they are
currently not getting a fair
return on their investment.

Want no further restrictions
than AB 1482.

B2. 100% of CPI Richmond
B3. 70% of CPI, Max 5%, Min 1% Alameda
B4. 60% of CPI, Max 3% Antioch
B5. Include bundled fees as part
of rent limit increase
Richmond,
Alameda

1 Mobile home space rents in Concord are regulated by the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Program.

Page 213 of 218 ends

Rent Banking
C1. Not allowed AB 1482,
Antioch,
Richmond
Tenants: Opposed to rent
banking
Property Owners: Opposed to
rent banking; feel that it is
difficult to track and
implement, and can have
negative impacts on tenant/
owner relations2
C2. Up to 8%, but no more than
3% per year
Alameda
C3. Up to AB 1482’s cap of 10%,
cumulatively since the last
increase

Petition Process and Discretionary Rent Changes
D1.

Tenant Petition - may file a
petition for a rent decrease
with the City due to
overcharged rent
Alameda,
Antioch,
Richmond
Tenants:

In favor of tenant petitions if
property owner unlawfully
increases rents/harasses
tenants.

Want a comprehensive
definition for housing services.

Property owners:

All maintenance costs and fees
should be considered when
determining a fair rate
In favor of capital improvement
pass-through to maintain
dignity and safety of properties.

D2.

Capital Improvement Pass
Through Petition - Property
owner may file petition to
pass through capital
improvement costs.

Alameda,
Richmond

Petition Costs
E1.

No petition filing fee for:
• tenants
• property owners
• both
No fee for tenants
only: Antioch
No fee for tenants
or property
owners:

No community input received

2 Property Owner feedback received from i n-person workshop held on July 26; most surveyed property owners remain silent on this issue.

Page 214 of 218 ends

Alameda,
Richmond
E2. Tenants pay tenant petition
filing fee
E3.

Property owner covers cost
of fair return and capital
improvement petitions
Antioch
E4.

Nominal petition fee at time
of filing:
• Fee amount for
tenants?
• Fee amount for
property owners?

E5.

Petition costs covered by rent
registration fees
• No: separate filing fee
desired
o Tenant Fee?
o Property
owner fee?
• Fully covered?
• Partially covered?
What percent covered by rent
registration fee and what
percent by petition fee?

Just Cause for Eviction
Policy
Number Tenant Feedback Property Owner
Feedback
Other Examples and Example
Cities
Units Covered
F1.

All rental units, including
mobile homes, single-family
homes, and new
construction
Remain
consistent with
AB 1482
Variations of what is included
under Tenant Feedback
(Richmond and Alameda)

Page 215 of 218 ends

Optional Additional Requirements
G1. Define “substantial” in
substantial renovations (ex.

Require capital
improvements definition to
be met) (Antioch, Alameda,
Richmond)
Remain
consistent with
AB 1482.

Concord has an
aging housing
stock and owners
need flexibility in
policy to renovate
as needed

Protect “mom and
pop” owners
Protect the
diversity of
housing stock
and types of
owners.

Additional At-Fault
Provisions:
• Subleasing
• Tenant caused
substantial damage to
rental
• Tenant refuses to
leave temporary
housing while repairs
occur in rental
(San Francisco and Berkeley)

G2. Obtain building permits prior
to vacating tenant for
substantial rehabilitation
(Richmond)
G3. Tenants right to return to
units after renovations are
complete (Richmond)
G4. Ellis Act- Obtain prior
approval from Concord’s rent
program
Optional Additional Enforcement and Accountability
H1.

Obtain building permits prior
to vacating tenant for
substantial rehabilitation
(Richmond)

Owner move-ins
need to be
protected for the
smaller property
owners
Certification of Owner Move-
In: certification to City within
specified amount of time (ex.
3 days of serving the tenant;
30 days of moving into the
unit) and recertification during
period of time required to
remain in the unit
(ex. each year for 3 years)
(Alameda, Richmond)

H2.

Ellis Act- property owner
annually certifies to being off
market for 10 years
(Alameda, Richmond)
To evict, owner must have:
• Valid business license
• served notice of
program to tenant as
required
• notice delivered to
City w/in 10 calendar
days
(Emeryville)
Relocation
I1. Base payment of
$10,000, plus $5,000
per person with cap
of $30,000 per
household (N/A).

Lower of two
months’ rent or
$5,000, with
special hardship
exemptions for
3 months’ worth of rent or
allow tenant not to pay 3
months of rent (Santa Ana)

Page 216 of 218 ends

Vulnerable
households- double
the amounts
described above
(Alameda, Richmond.
owners that are
financially
struggling.

Owner Move-In and Ellis Act
Evictions- $18,011 with
additional $6,003 for specific
populations such as low-
income, elderly, disabled,
minor children, etc. (Berkeley)
I2. Substantial
renovation-
Temporarily relocate
tenant to comparable
unit in Concord or
payment to cover
hotel, food and
laundry costs
(Richmond).

Effective Date of Protection
J1.

Effective immediately upon
move-in for all covered units
Remain
consistent with
AB 1482 and
remain 12
months.
30 days into tenancy (Santa
Ana)

Both Ordinances
Policy
Number Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions Community Input
Enforcement
K1. Hearing Officer(s)
Alameda,
Antioch,
Richmond3
Tenants: Rent Board
appointed by City Council
with majority tenant Board
members and representation
from low-income communities
of color in Concord.

Property Owners: Generally
opposed to provisions beyond
that of State 1482. Mediation
services suggested. Want to
maintain as much flexibility as
possible, particularly for
“mom and pop” owners.

K2. Rent Board (or Committee) Richmond
K3. Mediation and Civil Court

3 Richmond begins with a Hearing Officer and appeals are heard before the Rent Board; the Rent Board’s decision is final and binding.

Page 217 of 218 ends

Fees
L1.

Fees consistent for both fully
regulated and partially
regulated units.

None received
L2. Larger fee amount for fully-
regulated units.

Alameda,
Richmond

Fee Pass Through to Tenants
M1. Do not allow the pass
through
Richmond

Tenants: Pass-through fees
should not be allowed.

Property Owners: Want the
fees and responsibilities of
enforcement to be equally
shared between landlords
and tenants.

M2. Allow 50% to be passed
through to tenants?
Alameda
Effective Date of Ordinances
N1. 30 days after 2nd reading Tenants: would like the
ordinance to be retroactive to
January of 2023.

N2. 2 months prior to Ordinance
adoption Antioch
N3. 12 months prior Richmond
N4. January of 2023

Page 218 of 218 ends

Staff Report
Date: September 5, 2023
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Kevin Marstall, PE, Director of Community Development Prepared by: Frank Abejo, Principal Planner
[email protected]
(925) 671-3128
Subject: Considering introduction of an Ordinance amending Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.405 (Permit application and processing) and Chapter 18.415
(Design and site review), and adding Chapter 18.402 (Pre- application procedures) in order to implement state law and the 2023-2031 Housing Element, to accelerate housing
production, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading (Housing Element Programs 2.2, 6.1, 15.2, and 22.6[b]); (PL23110 – DC).

CEQA: Not a “project” under Public Resources Code 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c) or 15378 and in the
alternative, if deemed a “project,” exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

Report in Brief
The State legislature has recently adopted various laws to accelerate housing production, and in particular affordable housing, to address California’s housing shortage. Additionally, the 2023-2031 Housing Element (“2023-2031 HEU”) contains various programs to address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).1 1 On August 22, 2023, the City Council approved amendments to the 2023-2031 HEU to address comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

5.a5.a5.a5.a5.a5.a

Page 1 of 49 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
September 5, 2023
Staff proposes amending Concord Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code (“CDC”), for consistency with state law and to implement the 2023-2031 HEU (“Amendments”).

Recommended Action
Introduce the attached Ordinance amending Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.405 (Permit application and processing), and Chapter

18.415 (Design and site review), and adding Chapter 18.402 (Pre-application procedures) in order to implement state law and the 2023-2031 Housing Element by reading of the title only and waiving further reading (Attachment 1).

Background
Recently adopted state laws eliminate or limit the City’s discretion when considering certain housing developments and mixed-use projects by, among other things, requiring a ministerial (i.e., non-discretionary) permit for qualifying projects that meet objective development and design standards. Amendments to the CDC are needed in order to comply with state law, including the following:
 Senate Bill (SB) 9, also known as the California HOME Act, which allows properties in single-family zoning districts to add a second primary residence as well as the ability for the property to be subdivided into two parcels and add up to two additional homes on the newly created parcel, for a total of four units on what used to be a single lot, which is to be approved through a ministerial permit;
 SB 35, which requires cities that have not met their RHNA targets2 to provide a streamlined, ministerial review process for multifamily residential projects with certain minimum affordable housing unit guarantees; and  SB 330 and SB 8, also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which allows qualifying housing or mixed-use developments to undergo a preliminary application review that locks in the policies and fees that will apply to the project, limits the number of public hearings that can be conducted on the project, and limits discretion on projects that comply with objective standards.

SB 8 extended the sunset date of this law from 2025 to 2030.

The Amendments would also implement, in whole or in part, 2023–2031 HEU Programs

2.2, 6.1, 15.2, and 22.6(b). A detailed discussion is provided in the Discussion and Analysis section below as to which components of the programs will be implemented by the Amendments and which will require future amendments. For some programs in the 2023-2031 HEU, full implementation will be a multistep process due to their complexities, staff workload, or the amendment being contingent upon other work needing to be completed first.
2 According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, as of June 1, 2023 only 42 jurisdictions in the entire State of California are not subject to SB 35.

Page 2 of 49 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
September 5, 2023
On August 2, 2023, the Planning Commission (“Commission”) approved a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Amendments with the exception of allowing ministerial design and site review for mixed-use projects (4-0 vote; AYES: Corio, Barbour, Kaushal, Mizutani; ABSENT: Laub). The Commission is concerned that ministerial design review is not adequate for large scaled mixed-use projects, even if the project meets objective design standards3 and minimum residential densities. The Commission recommended allowing ministerial review for mixed-use projects only when mandated by state law. Additionally, the Commission supported including a provision to the Amendments to require a neighborhood meeting for residential and mixed-use projects subject to a ministerial review. These comments are discussed in further detail below.

Analysis
The Amendments would amend two CDC chapters (CDC Chapters 18.405 and 18.415) and add a new chapter (CDC Chapter 18.402). The purpose of these chapters, an overview of the Amendments, and in-depth discussion on specific amendments is provided below.

CDC Chapter 18.405 (Permit application and processing), Exhibit A to Attachment 1.

This chapter contains procedures and requirements for the preparation, filing, and processing of planning permit applications required by the Development Code. It includes provisions addressing concurrent processing of multiple planning permit applications, the review of planning applications in accordance with state law, neighborhood meeting requirements, and preliminary applications.

Amendments are needed to make this chapter consistent with state law where ministerial review is now required for certain housing types. As a technical matter, the amendments would also remove the preliminary application procedures from this chapter to make it consistent with the chapter’s stated purpose of providing procedures for “planning permit applications” since a preliminary application does not constitute an actual planning permit. The preliminary application procedures will be moved to a new chapter and expanded to include projects subject to SB 330 either through a preliminary application or at the time the application is deemed complete.

18.405.020(B)(2). The Development Code currently requires the decision on all planning permits required for a project to be rendered concurrently by the highest level of authority required for any one application. This means that a Design and Site Review application that would typically be reviewed by staff must instead be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the project also requires a discretionary 3 Mixed-use developments are addressed in the draft Objective Design Standards document. The Ordinance to adopt these standards was introduced by the City Council at its August 22, 2023 meeting and could be in effect prior to these amendments.

Page 3 of 49 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
September 5, 2023
permit under the Planning Commission’s review authority, such as a conditional use permit.

A new provision will be added requiring the decision on ministerial design and site review applications to be issued prior to the review authority’s consideration of other discretionary permits required for the project, provided that the permits to construct the project will not be issued until all required planning permits have been approved for the project.

Neither State law nor the 2023-2031 HEU mandate when a ministerial design and site review decision must be made for a project that requires separate discretionary permits. As an alternative, the Council can require ministerial design and site review after the required discretionary approvals have been issued for a project. Staff presented both options to the Planning Commission, who supported issuing ministerial design and site review approvals prior to consideration of discretionary permits.

18.405.050(A)(1). HEU Program 2.2 requires establishing objective criteria for when a neighborhood meeting is required for residential projects or mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds residential floor area. To implement this policy, it is recommended to require a neighborhood meeting when such projects are on sites located within 300 feet of an existing residential use.

18.405.050(B). This provision was added in response to the Commission’s recommendation to require a neighborhood meeting for residential and mixed- use projects that are subject to a ministerial review. The Commission supported staff’s recommendation to require a neighborhood meeting only for projects proposing five or more units or lots and are located within 300 feet of an existing residential use. Property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project would be notified of the meeting. The meeting will occur prior to project approval and will be informational in nature given the City’s limited ministerial review.

CDC Chapter 18.415 (Design and site review), Exhibit B to Attachment 1. This chapter establishes standards and procedures for design and site review by specifying what types of projects are subject to design and site review and establishes the standards and findings that are the basis of the City’s discretionary review. Amendments to this chapter would add projects that are exempt from discretionary design and site review as required by state law and for implementation of the 2023–2031 HEU.

Section titles. Updates are proposed to the titles of sections 18.415.040,

18.415.080, 18.415.090, and 18.415.100 to clarify that these sections are specific to discretionary design and site review.

Page 4 of 49 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
September 5, 2023

18.415.020 Applicability. For clarity, the statement excepting individual single- family homes from design and site review will be relocated to Section 18.415.030 where exempt projects are listed. A provision will be added requiring design and site review for projects that do not comply with objective design standards that would otherwise be eligible for ministerial design and site review approval under state law or the Municipal Code.

18.415.030 Exemptions. Amendments to this section include new design and site review exemptions for the following:

1. accessory dwelling units (consistent with Section 18.200.180 [Accessory dwelling units]);

2. emergency shelters and group housing, including single room occupancy (SRO) developments (Housing Element Program 22.6);

3. residential or mixed-use projects (Housing Element Program 15.2);

4. sites identified in previous Housing Elements (Housing Element Program 6.1); and

5. single-family dwellings on lots created through SB 9.

The Planning Commission recommended limiting ministerial review of mixed-use projects to only those where it is required by state law. This recommendation would conflict with HEU Program 6.2 which requires the City “Provide additional pathways by which residential and mixed-use developments can be permitted by-right by June 2026.” HEU Program 15 also states: “Further, to remove constraints to development associated with the City’s Design and Site Review process and to facilitate the development of housing on the sites identified to accommodate the RHNA, the City will create and adopt objective design standards to provide ministerial (by-right) processing for multifamily and mixed-use developments." Given these two HEU programs, staff does not recommend limiting ministerial review of mixed-use projects to only those projects where it is required by state law. It is important for the City to implement the policies it has committed to within the recently adopted Housing Element Update, which includes this change as recommended by staff.

Section 18.415.030(M). Staff further recommends that the City define a mixed- use project eligible for ministerial design and site review. State law is silent on defining a mixed use development other than stating that at least two-thirds of the square footage must be designed for residential use in order to qualify for a preliminary application review under SB 330. This subsection proposes also using the two-thirds criterion to define mixed-use developments eligible for ministerial design and site review.

18.415.075 Ministerial review. This is a new section to clarify that the Planning Division is the review authority on ministerial design and site review.

Page 5 of 49 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
September 5, 2023
Chapter 18.402 (Pre-application procedures), Exhibit C to Attachment 1. This is a new chapter added to the Development Code that would separate the pre-application procedures required prior to the filing of formal planning applications, which are covered under Chapter 18.405 (Permit application and processing). The pre-application procedures addressed by this new chapter include initial meetings, preliminary applications for projects in general, and preliminary applications subject to SB 330.

18.402.020 Initial Meeting. The City currently requires a “preapplication” to inform applicants of applicable City regulations, required planning permits, and submittal requirements before a formal application for a planning permit is filed. The purpose of this historic requirement is to support applicants in submitting complete applications and to identify significant project issues or requirements so that the review process is streamlined. Staff proposes renaming this process from “preapplication” to “initial meeting” in order to avoid confusion with the preliminary application terminology and process. The City has historically had a preliminary application process that staff proposes to expand as discussed below. Additionally, State law uses the preliminary application terminology for SB 330 eligible projects that will now be incorporated into the City’s regulations.

18.402.030 Preliminary application for projects in general. This section provides the preliminary application process for non-residential and non-SB 330 eligible projects. It includes preliminary application language relocated from Section

18.405.040 in addition to new language requiring a preliminary application for the following projects:

1. residential developments that are not eligible under SB 330 because they do not meet objective development standards;

2. mixed-use projects that are not eligible under SB 330 because they have less than two-thirds of total floor area dedicated to residential uses; and

3. projects that require a preliminary application because a density bonus and/or other incentives or concessions under Density Bonus Law is requested.

Additionally, new language has been added to make the distinction that preliminary applications under this section do not vest the regulations and fees in effect at the time the application is submitted, in contrast with SB 330 preliminary application reviews.

18.402.040 Preliminary Application for Senate Bill 330 Projects. These are entirely new provisions (i.e., not relocated from Chapter 18.405) that essentially incorporates the language of Government Code Section 65589.5 and 65941.1 regarding preliminary applications for SB 330 eligible projects. This chapter includes the following provisions of SB 330:

Page 6 of 49 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
September 5, 2023
 A preliminary application shall be deemed submitted upon providing the information specified in the City’s submittal checklist and payment of the processing fee;
 A project for which a preliminary application has been submitted is only subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was deemed submitted;
 Nullifies the determination that a preliminary application has been deemed submitted and the vesting rights of a project if the project is revised such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision. The housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application until the development proponent resubmits information required by the City’s checklist so that it reflects the revisions; and  Nullifies the determination of a preliminary application being deemed submitted if the formal planning permit application is not filed for the project within 180 days, or considers the preliminary application expired if the applicant fails to provide information required to deem the subsequent formal application complete within 90 days of the City requesting the information. 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation
Much work remains to fully implement the new Housing Element. Staff will continue to undertake the various tasks needed to implement state law and the 2023–2031 Housing Element Programs into the City’s review procedures. This includes creating or updating submittal checklists and FAQ’s. The City has already completed many of these tasks, including the creation of submittal checklists for SB 9, SB 35, and SB 330 projects.

The following HEU Programs will be implemented, in whole or in part, by the proposed amendments.

Program 2.2: Provide objective criteria for determining when a Neighborhood Meeting is required for housing development;
The proposed amendment to CDC Section 18.405.050 will fully implement this program by requiring a neighborhood meeting for residential projects or mixed- use projects with at least two-thirds residential floor area on sites zoned for such uses if the site is located within 300 feet of an existing residential use. The amendments will also specify that only non-residential projects are subject to current subjective criteria, such as criteria based on potential controversy or potential effect on surrounding properties. A new criterion is added that will require neighborhood meetings for all projects, including residential

Page 7 of 49 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
September 5, 2023
developments, that require a legislative action such as a general plan amendment or rezoning.

Program 6.1: Amend the Development Code by January 2024 to permit by-right development on sites previously identified in past Housing Elements in which at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households in accordance with the specifications of Government Code Section 65583.2(c); The addition of CDC 18.415.030(N) will exempt projects from design and site review when proposed on a site identified in past Housing Elements and that meet the affordability requirement; however, additional amendments will also be necessary to fully implement this program, such as eliminating other discretionary permits (e.g., use permit) required for qualifying projects under the current Code.

Program 15.2: Amend the Design and Site Review Process by July 2024, to require staff-level ministerial review for multifamily housing projects.

Amendments will also include allowing multifamily housing by-right in mixed-use districts when objective design and development standards are met and allowing 25% additional density in the Transit Station Overlay District by right for projects that meet objective standards for this District; and
The amendment adding Section 18.415.030(M) will exempt multi-family projects that meet objective standards. Additional amendments are necessary to fully implement this program and will come back for public, Commission and Council review at a later time.

Program 22.6(b): Ensure that Emergency Shelters, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) uses, and Group Housing are not subject to a discretionary Design and Site Review process.

The amendment adding Section 18.415.030(L) in addition to the adoption of the Objective Design Standards will implement this particular component of Program

22.6. Additional amendments will be necessary to fully implement this program, such as simplifying the regulations for emergency shelters and addressing the parking requirements for group housing and emergency shelters. Such additional amendments will come back for public, Commission and Council review at a later time.

Development Code Amendment Findings
Pursuant to CMC Section 18.455.070, a Development Code amendment may be approved only if all the applicable findings are made. Staff’s analysis on how the project meets each finding as follows:

Page 8 of 49 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
September 5, 2023
1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan; The proposed amendments consists of updates to chapters within the Development Code and the addition of a new chapter in order to implement State law and the 2023–2031 Housing Element, and is in conformance with the General Plan by providing a balanced supply of housing types and prices to meet the needs for all economic segments of the community and promoting the expansion of housing opportunities for all groups with special housing needs, such as supportive, transitional, and group housing. The proposed amendment is also internally consistent with all other provisions and elements of the General Plan.
2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and
In response to California’s housing shortage, the State has adopted laws to accelerate housing production by removing or limiting the City’s discretionary review on housing developments. The proposed amendment would implement state law in addition to the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. On the contrary, the proposed amendments will serve the City’s public interest by facilitating and streamlining the review of residential projects that will help alleviate the City of Concord’s housing shortage.

In the event the City has discretion on residential projects facilitated by the proposed amendments, the City will evaluate the projects against applicable policies to ensure they will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, 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.

Financial Impact
The Amendments project is funded by a Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant and will have a negligible financial impact to the City.

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,

Page 9 of 49 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
September 5, 2023
Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the proposed Municipal Code Amendments 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 not 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 Municipal Code Amendments did constitute a project under CEQA, the amendments 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 Amendments do not warrant further environmental review.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted. Notification was published in the East Bay Times, as required by state law and the Concord Municipal Code. This item has also been posted at City Hall at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.

Attachments

1. Ordinance
Exhibit A – Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.405 (Application filing and processing)
Exhibit B – Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.415 (Design and site review)
Exhibit C – New Chapter 18.402 (Pre-application procedures)

Page 10 of 49 ends

1 Ord. No. 23-XX
ORDINANCE NO. 23-XX

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CONCORD MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE
18 (DEVELOPMENT CODE), CHAPTER 18.405 (PERMIT APPLICATION AND PROCESSING) AND CHAPTER 18.415 (DESIGN AND SITE
REVIEW), AND ADDING CHAPTER 18.402 (PRE-APPLICATION

PROCEDURES)
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, the State of California has declared housing a matter of statewide importance; and WHEREAS, to address the housing shortage, the State of California has enacted laws to accelerate housing production by, among other things, requiring local governments to streamline approvals for certain types of residential, mixed-use, and special needs housing developments; and WHEREAS, the State of California has found that local governments have a responsibility to facilitate the development of housing for all economic segments of the community (Government Code Section 65580(d)); and
WHEREAS, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) assigned to the City of Concord by the Association of Bay Area Governments requires that the City plan for 5,073 units of new housing between 2023 and 2031, including 2,883 units affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households; and
WHEREAS, the City has not produced a sufficient number of affordable units to meet its RHNA in prior Housing Element cycles; and
WHEREAS, the shortage of affordable housing in the City has led to insufficient supply of housing for the local workforce and student population, leading to overcrowding in some units, placing a cost burden on households, and long commutes as workers seek affordable housing in other communities; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a 2023-2031 Housing Element in compliance with state law that includes goals for providing a balanced supply of housing types, densities, and prices to meet the needs of all income groups residing or who wish to reside in Concord, and promoting the expansion of Attachment 1

Page 11 of 49 ends

2 Ord. No. 23-XX
housing opportunities for all groups with special housing needs; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the housing supply shortage for persons of very low-, low-, and moderate-incomes and persons with special housing needs is detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and that it is a public purpose of the City, and a public policy of the State of California, to make an adequate supply of housing available for persons of all income groups and persons with special housing needs; and
WHEREAS, amendments are proposed to the Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.405 (Permit application and processing), Chapter 18.415 (Design and site review), and adding Chapter 18.402 (Pre-application procedures) for consistency with state law and implementation of 2023-2031 Housing Element Programs 2.2, 6.1, 15.2, and 22.6(b); and WHEREAS, the amendments collectively are shown in the form of the proposed Development Code, attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C (hereafter referred to as “Amendments”); and WHEREAS, the City has complied with the requirements of the Local Planning Law (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 Amendments, received the staff report and staff presentation, received comments from the public and interested parties, and after closing the public comments portion discussed the matter (the “Planning Commission Hearing Information”); and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2023, the Planning Commission, after consideration of all pertinent plans, documents, testimony and Planning Commission Hearing Information, recommended the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on September 5, 2023 to consider this Ordinance; and

Page 12 of 49 ends

3 Ord. No. 23-XX
WHEREAS, at such public hearing, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments and at the public hearing, the oral report from City staff, the written report from City staff dated September 5, 2023, attached materials, exhibits presented, the Planning Commission Hearing Information, and all other information that constitutes the record of proceedings relating to the proposed Ordinance, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Concord City Clerk, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA (collectively, “City Council Information”).

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

Section 1. All of 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. The City Council finds that the proposed Municipal Code Amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) or 15378 in that they do not constitute a “project” as defined by CEQA since they do not have the potential to result in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. If the Ordinance did constitute a “project” under CEQA, the Ordinance falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), excluding project 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 Municipal Code Amendments do not warrant further environmental review. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.

Section 5. The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan. The proposed

Page 13 of 49 ends

4 Ord. No. 23-XX
Amendments consist of updates to current Development Code chapters and the addition of a new chapter in order to implement state law and 2021–2031 Housing Element programs, and is in conformance with the General Plan by providing a balanced supply of housing types and prices to meet the needs for all economic segments of the community and promoting the expansion of housing opportunities for all groups with special housing needs, such as supportive, transitional, and group housing. The proposed Amendment is also internally consistent with all other provisions and elements of the General Plan.

Section 6. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city. The proposed Amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city. In response to California’s housing shortage, the State has adopted laws to accelerate housing production by removing or limiting the City’s discretionary review on housing developments. The proposed Amendments would implement state law in addition to Housing Element Programs. The proposed Amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. On the contrary, the proposed Amendments will serve the City’s public interest by facilitating residential projects to help alleviate the City of Concord’s housing shortage and special housing needs. In the event the City has discretion on residential projects facilitated by the proposed Amendments, the City will evaluate the projects against applicable policies to ensure they will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City.

Section 7. 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. The Amendments do not include any amendments to the zoning map.

Section 8. The City Council does hereby pass and adopt this Ordinance No. 23-XX.

Section 9. Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.405 (Permit application and processing) and Chapter 18.415 (Design and site review) are hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibits A and B respectively, and Chapter 18.402 (Pre-application procedures) is hereby added, as

Page 14 of 49 ends

5 Ord. No. 23-XX
set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Section 10. This Ordinance No. 23-XX shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption or the effective date of Ordinance No. 23-6 an Ordinance adding Chapter

18.152 – Objective Design Standards to the Concord Municipal Code (Title 18), whichever occurs last. 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 M. Hoffmeister
Mayor
ATTEST:

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
(Seal)
//
//
//
//
//
//

Page 15 of 49 ends

6 Ord. No. 23-XX
Ordinance No. 23-XX was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord held on September 5, 2023, and was thereafter duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on September 26, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing 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.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
Exhibit A: CMC Chapter 18.405 (Permit application and processing) Exhibit B: CMC Chapter 18.415 (Design and site review)
Exhibit C: CMC Chapter 18.402 (Pre-application procedures)

Page 16 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.405 PERMIT APPLICATION FILING AND

PROCESSING

Page 1 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

Chapter 18.405

PERMIT APPLICATION FILING AND PROCESSING
Sections:

18.405.010 Purpose.

18.405.020 Multiple permit applications.

18.405.030 General Aapplication requirements.

18.405.040 Preliminary application.

18.405.05040 Application review.

18.405.06050 Neighborhood meeting.

18.405.07060 Environmental review.

18.405.08070 Revised materials.

18.405.09080 Evaluation and staff report.

18.405.010 Purpose.

This chapter contains procedures and requirements for the preparation, filing, and processing of discretionary planning permit applications required by the development code. Projects shall complete the applicable pre-application requirements of CDC Chapter 18.402 (Pre-application procedures) prior to completing and filing a permit application under this chapter [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-867].

18.405.020 Multiple permit applications.

A. Concurrent Filing and Approvals. When a single project requires multiple discretionary permit applications and Table 18.400.020 shows more than one review authority, all applications shall be filed, processed, reviewed, and approved or disapproved concurrently by the highest level of authority required for any one application. For example, a project with a zoning map amendment and use permit shall be filed, processed, reviewed, and approved or disapproved by the city council (after a recommendation from the planning commission) where a use permit application by itself may be reviewed and acted upon by the planning commission. (Similarly, a minor use permit with a major subdivision would be acted upon by the planning commission where the minor use permit by itself would be acted upon by the zoning administrator.) B. Exceptions.

1. At the discretion of the zoning administrator, a design and site development review application in connection with a minor subdivision for single-family dwellings may be processed and reviewed following approval of the minor subdivision and recordation of the parcel map. [Ord. 17-5 § 2 (Exh. F); Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-868].

2. When state law or the Concord Municipal Code requires ministerial design and site review for a project, the decision to approve or deny the project’s design shall be issued prior to the review authority’s consideration of other discretionary permits required for the project, provided that the permits to construct the project shall not be issued until all required planning permits have been approved for the project.

18.405.030 General aApplication requirements.

A. Preapplication Meeting. Prospective applicants shall arrange a meeting with staff prior to completing and filing a permit application in order to:

1. Inform the applicant in general of city requirements as they apply to the proposed project; Exhibit A to Attachment 1

Page 17 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.405 PERMIT APPLICATION FILING AND

PROCESSING

Page 2 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

2. Review the city’s approval process, possible project alternatives, or modifications;

3. Determine the type of permits required for the project;

4. Review the submittal requirements in the application checklist; and

5. Identify any necessary technical studies and information relating to the environmental review of the project.

BA. Submittal Requirements.

1. Application Checklists. The planning division shall prepare and maintain an application checklist or multiple checklists that specify the information required for each type of planning permit application required by the development code. The checklists shall identify application materials such as fees, plans, drawings, statements, photographs, color, and material samples, photo simulations, models, renderings, and other items necessary to show existing conditions and to convey the details of the project.

2. Filing.
a. Each application required by the development code shall be accompanied by the information on all applicable checklists, as identified at the preliminary meeting initial meeting (if applicable) on all applicable checklists, in compliance with the procedures listed in this chapter.
b. The planning division may authorize use of a single application form and submittal materials for multiple land use applications required by the development code.

3. Additional Information. The planning division may require additional information as necessary to determine the level of environmental review required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and any adopted city environmental review procedures.

4. Eligibility for Filing. Applications shall be filed by the owner of the subject property, authorized agent, or representative, with the written consent from the property owner.

5. Fees. All required fees shall accompany each application. Fees are established by the city council resolution of fees and charges for various municipal services, in effect as of July 1st of any given year (hereby referred to as the “city or city’s fee schedule”). No application shall be deemed complete and processing shall not commence on any application until all required fees and deposits have been paid.

6. Public Information. All submitted materials become the property of the city and will be available to the public. Any person may review an application and supporting materials in the planning division offices, subject to city procedures. Copies of such materials shall be made available at cost as established by the city. [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-869].

18.405.040 Preliminary application.

A preliminary application process is intended to provide information on relevant general or specific plan policies, development code regulations, design guidelines, policies, and procedures related to projects subject to legislative or discretionary approval pursuant to the development code. This review is required for the following discretionary projects: all infill residential projects, projects located within 300 feet of a residential district, complex projects with multiple applications, and potentially controversial projects or uses. The planning division

Page 18 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.405 PERMIT APPLICATION FILING AND

PROCESSING

Page 3 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022. may waive this requirement, as appropriate, when determined that there would be no additional benefit for preliminary review.

A. No preliminary application will be accepted for review without payment of the fee established by the city’s fee schedule and submission of materials identified on the application checklist on file with the planning division.

B. A preliminary application is not subject to the requirements of the California Permit Streamlining Act or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as determined by state law.

C. Preliminary application review shall include conceptual design and site review by the design review board, as applicable, and any required neighborhood meeting.

D. The planning division shall provide the applicant with a written summary of staff’s preliminary comments on the project, within 30 days of the review. [Ord. 17-5 § 2 (Exh. F); Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-870].

18.405.05040 Application review.

A. Development Advisory Committee.

1. The development advisory committee (DAC) comprised of city staff shall review preliminary applications and other legislative or discretionary applications for completeness, consistency with city requirements, and accuracy before accepted as a complete application and officially filed. The determination of completeness shall be based on the city’s application checklist for each type of application filed, in addition to other information identified by city staff in the preliminary application meeting.

2. Application materials shall be distributed to DAC members and referred to any public agency that may be affected by or have an interest in the proposed project, at the discretion of the planning division, or where otherwise required by the development code, local, state, or federal law.

3. Neither the preliminary application meeting nor The development advisory committee meeting shall not be construed as a recommendation for approval or denial of the application, project, or use by city staff. Failure by city staff to identify all required studies or all applicable requirements does not constitute a waiver of those requirements.

B. Complete Application 1. As required by Government Code Section 65943, within 30 calendar days of application filing, the applicant shall be informed in writing, that the application is complete and has been accepted for processing, or that the application is incomplete and lists the items that need to be submitted in order to deem the application complete.

2. The official filing date of an application shall be the date on which the planning division receives the last submission of a map, plans, or other materials as required to deem the application complete, in compliance with this chapter.

C. Information for Environmental Review. After an application has been accepted as complete, the planning division may require additional information as needed for environmental review of the project.

Page 19 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.405 PERMIT APPLICATION FILING AND

PROCESSING

Page 4 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

D. Incomplete Application. When an application is deemed incomplete, the date of any new submittal shall begin another 30-day review period as described above. The time used by the applicant to submit the required information shall not be considered as part of the time within which the determination of completeness shall occur.

E. Expiration of Application.

1. If an applicant fails to provide the additional information required to complete the application, specified in the planning division’s completeness letter, within six months after the date of the first filing of the application, the application shall expire and shall be deemed withdrawn, without any further action by the city.

2. Upon request, the planning division may grant an extension for up to an additional six months, based on reasonable explanation for the delay in submitting the required additional information. Any extension shall be subject to any additional fees.

3. After an application expires, a completely new application shall be filed, including all submittal requirements and current filing fees, in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.

F. Violations on the Site.

1. The planning division may reject and not process an application or find it complete, if any condition exists on the site in violation of the development code, the Concord Municipal Code, or any permit or other approval granted in compliance with the development code or Concord Municipal Code, except for any permit application needed to correct the violation.

2. The planning division authority under this section shall apply whether:
a. The current applicant was the owner of the subject property at the time the violation occurred; or
b. The applicant is the current owner of the subject property with or without actual or constructive knowledge of the violation at the time of acquisition of the subject property. [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-871].

18.405.06050 Neighborhood meeting.

A. When required, All applicants shall conduct a neighborhood meeting, in accordance with city procedures, following submittal of a preliminary application under CDC Section 18.402.030 or formal application to the planning division. Neighborhood meetings shall be required for the following projects that require discretionary approval:

1. All infill residential projects or mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds residential floor area that are located within 300 feet of an existing residential use;

2. Non-residential Pprojects located within 300 feet of a residential district;

3. Complex non-residential projects with multiple applications;

4. Potentially controversial non-residential projects; or

5. Non-residential Uses projects that have the potential to affect surrounding properties.

Page 20 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.405 PERMIT APPLICATION FILING AND

PROCESSING

Page 5 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

6. Any project that requires a legislative action such as a general plan amendment or rezoning.

B. Prior to the approval of a residential or mixed-use project subject to ministerial review, the project proponent shall conduct a neighborhood meeting, with meeting notice provided to properties within 300 feet of the project boundaries, if the project proposes five or more dwelling units or lots and site is located within 300 feet of an existing residential use.

BC. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all of the adjacent residents and property owners in accordance with the city’s public notification requirements and procedures as outlined in a handout on file with the planning division.

CD. At the meeting, the applicant shall present the project plans and provide basic information about the project, including a site analysis that graphically depicts the existing site and shows the surrounding conditions and neighborhood context.

DE. Notwithstanding the above, if the project does not present issues of sufficient concern to warrant a neighborhood meeting, or if the neighborhood meeting would exceed the limit of five hearings or meetings pursuant to California Government Code Section 65905.5, the planning division may waive this requirement. [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-872].

F. When required, the neighborhood meeting shall be conducted as soon as adequate information on the project has been provided to the City, and when feasible, prior to the application being deemed complete.

18.405.07060 Environmental review.

After acceptance of a complete application, the project shall be reviewed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and any adopted city environmental review procedures. [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-873].

18.405.08070 Revised materials.

A. Whenever an applicant files revised materials, the materials shall be submitted at least 15 days before any scheduled public meeting or hearing on the application, with the exception of plans submitted for design and site review, which may be up to one day prior to the meeting, as determined by the planning division.

B. The planning division may accept revised materials after the above deadline if they determine that there is sufficient time to review the revised materials before the scheduled hearing date.

C. The review authority may continue an application to the next available meeting in order to adequately evaluate any materials received after receipt of the application package. [Ord. 12-4.

DC 2012 § 122-874].

18.405.09080 Evaluation and staff report.

A. The planning division shall review all applications for compliance with application requirements and the development code to determine whether they comply and are consistent with the general plan, the provisions of the development code, and other applicable provisions of the Concord Municipal Code (CMC).

B. The planning division shall provide a written report to the applicable review authority and a recommendation on whether the application should be approved, approved subject to conditions, or disapproved. The report shall address all findings required by the development code.

Page 21 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.405 PERMIT APPLICATION FILING AND

PROCESSING

Page 6 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

C. Staff reports shall be furnished to the applicant at the time they are provided to the review authority, prior to the scheduled hearing. [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-875].

Page 22 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.415 DESIGN AND SITE REVIEW

Page 1 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

Chapter 18.415

DESIGN AND SITE REVIEW
Sections:

18.415.010 Purpose.

18.415.020 Applicability.

18.415.030 Exemptions.

18.415.040 Discretionary Rreview authority.

18.415.050 Application.

18.415.060 Design review board.

18.415.070 Scope.

18.415.075 Ministerial design review.

18.415.080 Discretionary Ddesign review criteria.

18.415.090 Discretionary Rreview.

18.415.100 Discretionary Ddecision and findings.

18.415.110 Post-decision procedures.

18.415.010 Purpose.

This chapter establishes standards and procedures for design and site review. The purpose of design and site review is to recognize the interrelationship between the appearance of open spaces, buildings, and structures in order to ensure the orderly development of the city, the stability of land values, and the construction of structures, additions, or alterations with proper attention to the harmony, compatibility, and aesthetic quality of site design, architecture, landscape architecture, signs, and engineering. [Ord. 17-2 § 2 (Exh. L); Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-901].

18.415.020 Applicability.

A. Design and site review shall be required for all of the following, with the exception of individual single-family homes and related improvements, except as identified in subsection (A)(8) of this section:

1. Prior to construction, use or alteration of any building, structure, or sign;

2. Prior to substantial alteration of any landscaping or site topography;

3. Prior to any new tenant improvement subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.535 CDC (Nonconforming Physical Improvements/Property Upgrades);

4. Prior to construction or alteration of any new parking lot improvements or alteration to existing parking lots including circulation, layout, or dimensions;

5. Prior to the approval of a sign plan or master sign programs pursuant to Chapter 18.180 CDC (Signs);

6. Prior to any improvement on property adjacent to or including a creek as defined in CDC

18.305.020;

7. Prior to the use of a lot for any storage or staging purposes;

8. Single-Family Dwellings.

Exhibit B to Attachment 1

Page 23 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.415 DESIGN AND SITE REVIEW

Page 2 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022. a. New single-family dwellings within a proposed minor or major subdivision; b. Any addition resulting in a single-family dwelling with an FAR greater than 30 percent;
c. Second-story additions where the area of the second floor portion is 40 percent or more than the area of the original structure located on the second floor, or second stories that are set back less than 10 feet from a side property line; and d. New single-family dwellings and additions to existing single-family dwellings on sloped lots, subject to the requirements in Chapter 18.300 CDC (Hillside Protection);

9. Prior to the installation of pavement on any portion of a lot; and

10. Prior to any other site improvement that requires further review in order to determine compliance with the development code or other city ordinances, except for one single-family dwelling or accessory dwelling unit on a single lot or parcel.

11. Residential and mixed-use projects that do not meet objective design standards that would otherwise be eligible for ministerial approval under state law or the Concord Municipal Code.

B. Design and site review approval of plans, pursuant to this chapter, shall be required prior to the issuance of any construction permit, including building, encroachment, grading, demolition, or other permit.

C. Design and site review approval is required in addition to all other planning permits or approvals required by the development code.

D. All departments of the city vested with the authority to issue permits or licenses shall conform to the provisions of this chapter, and no permit or license for uses, buildings, or purposes shall be issued in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Any such permit or license issued in conflict with the provisions of this chapter shall be invalid. [Ord. 17-2 § 2 (Exh. L); Ord. 13-5; Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-902].

18.415.030 Exemptions.

The following improvements are exempt from design and site review:

A. The continuation of a previously approved or permitted use and structure; B. Individual tenants within a multi-tenant commercial building or commercial center that has not been more than 50 percent vacant for a continuous period of over one year when the use is consistent with a previously approved use permit or other discretionary permit; C. Projects that do not require a building permit, including accessory buildings less than 120 square feet in area;
D. Additions and alterations to individual existing residential dwellings and structures that do not increase the floor area of the building or total building footprint by more than 50 percent over a three-year period, which are not subject to the requirements in Chapter 18.300 CDC (Hillside Protection);
E. Exempt signs, as identified in Chapter 18.180 CDC (Signs);

Page 24 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.415 DESIGN AND SITE REVIEW

Page 3 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

F. Individual signs conforming to a master sign program approved in compliance with Chapter

18.180 CDC (Signs);
G. Individual signs replacing existing legal signs where the new sign is smaller or the same size as the existing sign and complies with Chapter 18.180 CDC (Signs); and H. Temporary structures or buildings which are intended to be and are used in connection with an approved temporary use such as the sale of Christmas trees or pumpkins in accordance with this division, and that remain on the site only for the temporary period specified for such use. [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-903];
I. Single-family homes except as identified in section 18.405.020 (A)(8) of this chapter; J. Accessory dwelling units unless required by CDC Section 18.200.180; K. Any future State law or City regulations that require ministerial approval for residential or mixed-use projects;
L. Emergency shelters and group housing, including single room occupancy (SRO) developments that comply with applicable objective design standards; M. Residential or mixed-use development projects that conform to objective design standards.

For purposes of this section, a mixed-use development shall mean a project with at least two- thirds of total square footage designed for residential use (including residential amenities) and that meets the minimum residential density required by the General Plan.

N. Residential or mixed-use development on sites previously identified in past Housing Elements in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households in accordance with the specification of Government Code Section 65583.2(c), and which conform to object design standards; and
O. Residential development eligible for ministerial approval under the California HOME Act (SB 9), Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7.

18.415.040 Discretionary Rreview authority .

Discretionary Ddesign and site review applications shall be approved as follows:

A. Planning Division. The planning division shall be the initial review authority for design and site review. The planning division may refer the application to the design review board, zoning administrator, or planning commission for review and approval.

B. Zoning Clearance. Improvements to existing properties such as painting with a similar color scheme, window replacement, or minor storefront changes may be approved by staff with a zoning clearance and shall not require a separate design and site review application.

C. Administrative Design and Site Review. Minor projects/improvements that do not otherwise require other a discretionary permit approvals and where the planning division determines that the project will not substantially affect the property rights of owners or adjacent parcels may be approved through administrative design and site review, with or without review by the design review board, as determined by the planning division. Examples of minor projects/improvements include:

1. Minor additions to existing multifamily residential buildings that are not exempt under CDC Section 18.415.030;

Page 25 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.415 DESIGN AND SITE REVIEW

Page 4 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

2. New occupancies in existing nonresidential buildings when the property is in conformance with the development standards applicable to the property;

3. New occupancies in existing nonresidential buildings when the property is not in conformance with the development standards applicable to the property where the project includes plans to substantially upgrade the exterior of the building and/or makes significant upgrades to landscaping, parking areas, and other site improvements;

4. Minor additions and alterations to nonresidential buildings that are not in the core downtown area or on prominent streets or gateways throughout the city; and

5. Master signage programs that meet the city’s sign ordinance requirements for maximum size, height, and number of attached and freestanding signs.

D. Other Discretionary Approvals. Design and site review applications shall be considered and acted upon concurrently with any associated planning permit, such as an administrative permit, minor or major use permit, variance, minor or major subdivision, planned development use permit, or hillside development permit.

E. Referral. The planning division may refer any application for design and site review to the design review board if there are significant concerns with the proposed design.

F. Recommendation. The design review board shall recommend approval or denial of a project to the appropriate review authority, with or without conditions of approval.

G. Decision. When the design review board makes a recommendation for denial of a project or recommends a condition of approval that is not acceptable to the applicant, the decision shall be referred to the appropriate review authority. For administrative design and site review or projects typically reviewed by the zoning administrator, the planning division may refer the project directly to the planning commission for a public hearing and decision, in accordance with Chapter 18.500 CDC (Public Hearings). [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-904].

18.415.050 Application.

Applications for design and site review shall be completed, filed, and processed in accordance with this chapter. Applications shall be accompanied by the information identified in the design and site review checklist, on file with the planning division, and all applicable fees in accordance with the currently adopted city fee schedule. [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-905].

18.415.060 Design review board.

This section describes the process for projects that are reviewed by the design review board (DRB). The DRB has the authority to revise this procedure as necessary in order to facilitate the resolution of project issues and to avoid unnecessary hearings. Alternative procedures could include consideration and approval of projects in a single meeting, holding a single or multiple study sessions, or appointing a two-person subcommittee to work with the project design team outside of the regularly scheduled DRB meetings. When an alternative procedure is used, the project recommendation shall require final action by the full DRB at a regular DRB meeting.

A. Conceptual Design and Site Review. Conceptual design and site review is a part of the preliminary application review process. When required or requested, this process provides general comments and direction to applicants prior to submitting a formal application. Plans are not expected to be complete or fully detailed. The board provides comments on the design concept, massing, bulk, site plan layout and function, building orientation, preliminary elevations

Page 26 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.415 DESIGN AND SITE REVIEW

Page 5 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022. and architectural style, adequacy of landscaped areas and site amenities, and the integration of stormwater requirements into the site design.

B. Preliminary Design and Site Review. Preliminary design and site review is scheduled after a formal application has been submitted with detailed project plans that are either complete or nearly complete, as follows:

1. Staff reviews projects that have been through conceptual design and site review for conformance with the board’s initial comments;

2. Staff reviews new projects for compliance with the development code and any applicable design guidelines and provides a recommendation to the board;

3. If the board’s recommendations require a significant alteration to the plans or a significant project redesign, a subsequent preliminary design and site review meeting will be required;

4. When the board is generally satisfied with the project design but needs additional plans or details to verify the project design, the board recommends resubmittal of plans for final design and site review approval; and

5. When a project scheduled for preliminary design and site review has incorporated the board’s comments from conceptual design and site review, and complete plans have been submitted, the board may approve the project without an additional meeting for final design and site review.

C. Preliminary/Final Design and Site Review. A project scheduled for preliminary design and site review may be approved without a subsequent final design review hearing, if:

1. All of the project details required in the application checklist for final design and site review have been submitted; and

2. The board has only minor comments which will not affect the overall design of the project nor require further review.

D. Final Design and Site Review. Final design and site review is a review of plans submitted in response to comments made by the DRB at preliminary design and site review and typically includes additional project details. If the board is satisfied that the project plans meet the applicable design and site review criteria, the board “recommends approval” to the applicable review authority. The board may make their recommendation with or without conditions of approval. [Ord. 13-5; Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-906].

18.415.070 Scope.

The scope of design and site review shall include, but not be limited to:

A. Building proportions, massing, and architectural details; B. Exterior colors and materials as they relate to the overall appearance, one another, and surrounding development;
C. Site design, orientation, and location of buildings, relative to existing structures on adjacent property, location of the site, topography, and other features of the natural and built environment;
D. The size, location, and arrangement of on-site parking and paved areas;

Page 27 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.415 DESIGN AND SITE REVIEW

Page 6 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

E. Grading of property;
F. Height, materials, colors, and variety of fences, walls, and screen plantings; G. Location, type, and design of landscaping, including selection and size of plant materials, hardscape, street furniture, and irrigation;
H. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of all signs; I. Location and screening of above-ground utility structures and equipment; and J. Any other features identified in applicable city-approved design guidelines. [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-907].

18.415.075 Ministerial design review.

For projects subject to ministerial design and review as required by state law or the Concord Municipal Code, the review authority for the project shall be the Planning Division. The decision to approve or deny the project shall be based on the project’s conformance with the applicable objective development and design standards, or other basis for denial provided for in state law.

18.415.080 Discretionary Ddesign review criteria.

Design review recommendations shall be based on the following criteria and any other applicable design guidelines:

A. The building design and landscaping supports public safety and security by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere on the site.

B. The design is compatible with the historical or visual character of any area recognized by the city as having such character.

C. The project design preserves major view and vistas along major streets and open spaces and trails and enhances them by providing project amenities.

D. The proposed lighting and fixtures are designed to complement on-site buildings, are of an appropriate scale for the development, and provide adequate light for safety and security while minimizing glare.

E. All mechanical, electrical, and utility equipment is located, screened, or incorporated into the design of the buildings so as not to be visible from off site, and screening devices are consistent with the exterior colors and materials of the buildings.

F. The overall design of the project, including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping, enhances the appearance and features of the project site and surrounding natural and built environment.

G. The project design is appropriate to the function of the project and will provide an attractive and comfortable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.

H. The architectural details, colors, materials, and landscaping are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.

Page 28 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.415 DESIGN AND SITE REVIEW

Page 7 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

I. The project is compatible with neighboring development in the same zoning district by avoiding large differences in building scale and character and provides a harmonious transition between the proposed project and surrounding development.

J. The project creates an attractive and visually interesting built environment with a variety of building styles and designs, well-articulated structures that present varied building facades, rooflines, and building heights within a unifying context.

K. The landscaping is compatible with and enhances the architectural character of the buildings and site features, and blends with the surrounding landscape. Landscape elements complement the buildings and rooflines through color, texture, density, and form. Landscaping is in scale with on-site and off-site buildings, and plantings have been selected and located to avoid conflicts with views, lighting, infrastructure, utilities, and signage.

L. Stormwater treatment areas have been integrated into the landscape design.

M. New construction does not need to match existing surrounding development or buildings; however, the design shall complement or enhance existing development. [Ord. 13-5; Ord. 12-4.

DC 2012 § 122-908].

18.415.090 Discretionary Rreview.

Design and site review shall be approved when it is determined that the proposed improvements conform to all applicable development and use standards including the following:

A. The interrelationship between the orientation, location, and elevations of buildings and structures and site improvements are mutually compatible and aesthetically harmonious; B. The orientation, location, and elevation of the buildings and structures and site improvements are compatible with and are aesthetically harmonious with adjacent development or the character of the neighborhood;
C. Landscaping, irrigation systems, walls and fences, or features to conceal outdoor activities, utility enclosures, and trash facilities meet current requirements or provide a significant upgrade and improvement to the site and the appearance of the neighborhood; and D. Parking, pedestrian access, and traffic circulation are adequate or improved for all modes of circulation. [Ord. 13-5; Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-909].

18.415.100 Discretionary Ddecision and findings.

A. Decision and Findings. The review authority shall consider the recommendations from the design review board and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application after finding that:

1. The project is consistent with the general plan;

2. The project meets the relevant criteria in CDC 18.415.080 (Design criteria); and

3. The project overall reflects design principles and/or incorporates design features that are consistent with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city council that are in effect at the time of approval.

B. In approving a design and site review, the review authority may impose conditions of approval as deemed necessary to:

Page 29 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.415 DESIGN AND SITE REVIEW

Page 8 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

1. Ensure that the proposal conforms to the general plan and other applicable plans or policies adopted by the city council; and

2. Ensure that the proposal meets the requirements of the applicable zoning district, applicable provisions in the Concord Municipal Code, and other standards in the development code. [Ord. 17-5 § 2 (Exh. G); Ord. 13-5; Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-910].

18.415.110 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 design and site review. [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-911].

Page 30 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.402 PRE APPLICATION PROCEDURES

Page 1 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

Chapter 18.402

PRE-APPLICATION PROCEDURES
Sections:

18.402.010 Purpose.

18.402.020 Initial Meeting.

18.402.030 Preliminary application review for projects in general.

18.402.040 Preliminary application review for Senate Bill 330 projects.

18.402.010 Purpose.

This chapter contains procedures and requirements for the review of development projects prior to the submittal of a formal planning application, as required by the development code or state law.

18.402.020 Initial Meeting.

A. Preapplication Initial Meeting. Except for projects subject to preliminary review under Section

18.402.040 or when waived by the Planning Division, prospective applicants shall arrange are required to preapplication meeting with staff prior to completing and filing a permit application or preliminary application under Section 18.402.030 in order to:

1. Inform the applicant in general of city requirements as they apply to the proposed project;

2. Review the city’s approval process, possible project alternatives, or modifications;

3. Determine the type of permits required for the project;

4. Review the submittal requirements in the application checklist; and

5. Identify any necessary technical studies and information relating to the environmental review of the project.

18.402.030 Preliminary application for projects in general.

A preliminary application process is intended to streamline the formal application process and help achieve conformance with applicable City policies and regulations by providing information on relevant general or specific plan policies, development code regulations, design guidelines and standards, policies, and procedures. The planning division shall prepare, update, and maintain the preliminary applications and any related checklist provided for in this chapter. related to projects subject to legislative or discretionary approval pursuant to the development code. This review is required for the following discretionary projects: all infill residential projects, projects located within 300 feet of a residential district, complex projects with multiple applications, and potentially controversial projects or uses..

A. Projects that meet any of the following shall submit a preliminary application in conformance with this section prior to filing a formal planning application:

1. Requires a general plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval;

2. Does not appear to qualify for an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
Exhibit C to Attachment 1

Page 31 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.402 PRE APPLICATION PROCEDURES

Page 2 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

3. New non-residential buildings;

4. Residential projects that are not eligible for a preliminary application under Government Code Section 65941.1(a) and Section 18.402.040 of this chapter.

5. Non-residential subdivisions and condominiums.

6. Any person wishing to apply for a density bonus and/or other incentives or concessions under Density Bonus Law shall make a preliminary application in writing to the Community Development Department. The application shall identify what specific measures (e.g., modifications to standards, density bonus, or fee subsidies) the developer is requesting in conformance with Chapter 18.185 (Affordable Housing).

B. A preliminary application review can also be requested under this section for projects that do not require a preliminary application.

C. The planning division may waive the preliminary application requirement, as appropriate, when determined that there would be no additional benefit in undergoing preliminary application review.

D. No preliminary application will be accepted for review without payment of the fee established by the city’s master fee and charges schedule and submission of materials identified on the application checklist on file with the planning division.

E. A preliminary application is not subject to the requirements of the California Permit Streamlining Act or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as determined by state law.

F. Preliminary application submittals review shall may include conceptual design and site review by the design review board, as applicable, and any required neighborhood meeting required by CDC Chapter 18.405 (Permit Application Filing and Processing).

G. The planning division shall provide the applicant with a written summary of preliminary comments on the project for use in preparing their formal application. within 30 days of the review. A preliminary application submitted under this section does not grant a vested right to develop the project under the regulations and fees in effect at the time the application is submitted or when comments are issued.

18.402.040 Preliminary Application for Senate Bill 330 Projects.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1(a), and as may be amended, prospective applicants of eligible housing development projects may submit a preliminary application under state law and this section.

A. Projects subject to the preliminary application under this section include any of the following:

1. Residential units only;

2. Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designed for residential use; or

3. Transitional housing or supportive housing;

Page 32 of 49 ends

Concord Municipal Code
Chapter 18.402 PRE APPLICATION PROCEDURES

Page 3 ends

The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 22-13, passed December 6, 2022.

B. A preliminary application shall be deemed submitted upon providing the information specified in the City’s applicable submittal checklist and payment of the processing fee.

C. The project for which a preliminary application has been submitted shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was deemed submitted.

D. If the development project is revised such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, the housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the applicant resubmits the information required by the City’s applicable submittal checklist so that it reflects the revisions. For purposes of this subsection, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).

E. Within 180 calendar days after submitting a preliminary application, the application(s) required for the development project shall be submitted with all of the information required to process the development application consistent with state law, including but not limited to, Government Code Sections 65940, 65941, and 65941.5.

F. If the City determines that the application for the development project is not complete pursuant to Government Code Section 65943, the development proponent shall submit the specific information needed to complete the application within 90 days of receiving the agency’s written identification of the necessary information. If the development proponent does not submit this information within the 90-day period, then the preliminary application shall expire and have no further force or effect.

Page 33 of 49 ends

Housing Acceleration Development Code Amendments
PL23110 – DC
Community Development Department
Project Planner: Frank Abejo, Principal Planner
City Council Regular Meeting
September 5, 2023
Agenda Item 5.a

Page 34 of 49 ends

Presentation Overview
I. Background
II. Amendments - state law
III. Amendments - Housing Element
IV. Policy Discussion Items
• timing of ministerial design and site review approvals • neighborhood meetings for ministerial projects
• mixed-use project definition
• ministerial design and site review for mixed-use projects V. CEQA Exemption
VI. Recommendation
2

Page 35 of 49 ends

I. Background
Purpose of amendments:
1) Comply with state law, including Senate Bill (SB) 9, SB 35, and SB 330;
2) Implement in whole, or in part, Housing Element Programs 2.2, 6.1,

15.2, and 22.6(b); and
3) Utilize LEAP grant funding.

On August 2, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Amendments with the exception of allowing ministerial design and site review for mixed-use projects on a 4- 0 vote.
3

Page 36 of 49 ends

II. Amendments – state law
Design and site review exemptions. Exempts following projects from design and site review when meeting applicable objective design standards.
• Accessory dw elling units
• Emergency shelters and group housing, including single room occupancy (SRO)
• Residential and mixed-use development
• Residential projects on sites identified in previous Housing Elements that meet the affordability requirement (20% affordable to lower income)
• Single-family dwellings on lots created through SB 9
4

Page 37 of 49 ends

III. Amendments – state law
Create new chapter for pre-application procedures.
• Relocate existing pre-application procedures from
Chapter 18.405 (which will now only address formal
application reviews) to a new Chapter 18.402
• Pre- application procedures addressed by this new
chapter include initial meetings, preliminary applications for projects in general, and preliminary applications
subject to SB 330
5

Page 38 of 49 ends

III. Amendments – Housing Element
Program 2.2: Provide objective criteria for determining when a Neighborhood Meeting is required for housing development. • For di scretionary residential projects or mixed use projects, neighborhood meeting will be required if the site is located within 300 feet of an existing residential
use
• Current subjective criteria will only apply to non-r esidential projects • New c riteria is added that will require neighborhood meetings for all projects, including residential developments, that require a legislative action such as a general plan amendment or rezoning 6

Page 39 of 49 ends

III. Amendments – Housing Element
Program 6.1: Amend the Development Code by January
2024 to permit by-right development on sites previously identified in past Housing Elements in which at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households in accordance with the specifications of Government Code
Section 65583.2(c).
• Added to design and site review exemptions
• Additional amendments required to fully implement program 7

Page 40 of 49 ends

III. Amendments – Housing Element
Program 15.2: Amend the Design and Site Review
Process by July 2024, to require staff-level
ministerial review for multifamily housing
projects...that meet objective design standards.
• Added to design and site review exemptions
• Additional a
mendments required to fully implement
program
8

Page 41 of 49 ends

III. Amendments – Housing Element
Program 22.6(b): Ensure that Emergency Shelters,
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) uses, and Group
Housing are not subject to a discretionary Design and
Site Review process.
• Added to design and site review exemptions
• Additional a
mendments required to fully implement
program
9

Page 42 of 49 ends

IV. Policy Discussion
Exceptions to concurrent decision on ministerial
design and site review applications when associated
with other planning permits.
• State law and HEU does not mandate when ministerial
a
pprovals must be issued
• Discuss pre- vs. post-decision on other planning
entitlements
• Planning Commission supports approval prior to
c
onsideration of discretionary permits
10

Page 43 of 49 ends

IV. Policy discussion
Neighborhood meeting criteria for housing
developments (HEU Program 2) and mixed use projects
subject to ministerial review.
• Prior to the approval of a residential or mixed use project subject to m
inisterial review, the project proponent shall conduct a neighborhood meeting, with meeting notice provided to properties within 300 feet of the project boundaries, if the project meets both of the following: 1) the project proposes five or more dwelling units or lots; and 2) the project site is located within 300 feet of an existing residential use. 11

Page 44 of 49 ends

IV. Policy Discussion
Define mixed-use projects eligible for
ministerial design and site review under HEU
Program 15
•State law and HEU silent on this question
•Staff recommends “two-t hirds” rule used under
SB 330 to define eligible mixed-use projects
12

Page 45 of 49 ends

IV. Policy Discussion
Ministerial design and site review for mixed-
use projects
•Planning Commission recommends requiring
d
esign and site review, particularly for large-scale
mixed-use projects
•Recommendation would violate Housing Element
P
rograms 15 and 6.2
13

Page 46 of 49 ends

V. CEQA Exemption
Not a “project” under Public Resources Code 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c) or 15378 and in the alternative, if deemed a “project,” exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 14

Page 47 of 49 ends

VI. Recommended Action
Introduce an Ordinance amending Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.405 (Permit application and processing) and Chapter 18.415 (Design and site review), and adding Chapter 18.402 (Pre-application procedures) in order to implement state law and the 2023-2031 Housing Element, to accelerate housing production, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. 15

Page 48 of 49 ends

Questions?
16

Page 49 of 49 ends

Concord City CouncilSeptember 5, 2023

Concord City Council
September 5, 2023