Concord City Council
September 5, 2023

1 COUNCILMEMBERS
Laura M. Hoffmeister, Mayor
Edi E. Birsan, Vice Mayor
Dominic D. Aliano
Laura M. Nakamura
Carlyn S. Obringer
Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org
Regular Meeting of the
Concord City Council
Tuesday,
September 5, 2023
6:00 p.m. - Open Session Council Chamber
1950 Parkside Drive
and/or Various
telephonic/electronic
locations
*IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEETING PARTICIPATION* UPDATED AUGUST 31, 2023
Members of the public are invited to attend and participate at: Council Chamber, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA.

Members of the public may provide live remote oral public comment via the City’s Zoom Platform. Members of the public desiring to provide comments as a part of the meeting are encouraged to either submit written comments by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting or to attend the meeting in person.

Spanish interpretation is available in the Council Chamber during the meeting.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE
The public is invited to participate in the City Council meeting using any of the following methods:

1. IN PERSON:
a.Members of the public can provide in-person comments in the Council Chamber.

Members of the public are encouraged, but not required, to fill out a speaker card. The Council Chamber will have seating available for members of the public to attend in person up to full seating capacity.

Please note
6:00 p.m.

Meeting Start
2 2. REMOTE:
a. Zoom:
https://cityofconcord.zoom.us/j/85965085811?pwd=QTladkZ5QkxRWTFhNC9Ld04xZ2U rQT09 or Zoom Webinar ID: 859 6508 5811 and Passcode: 157047 b.Zoom Phone Numbers. Dial Toll Free: (669) 900-6833 or (346) 348-7799 or (253) 215- 8782.
c.During the meeting, each period for public comment will be announced, and participants may use the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom to request to speak. If calling in via Zoom use *9 to raise and lower your hand. The meeting host will call on you, by name, and promote you to panelist in the webinar so you can be seen via your camera. Please enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak. In order to ensure the orderly administration of the meeting using this method, providing your name is encouraged, but is not required. (If you need instructions on how to use this feature, please contact the City Clerk by 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date at [email protected]).

3. EMAIL:
a.Public comments can also be submitted via email to [email protected]. Please note that emailed comments will not be read aloud by staff. Any public comments received up until 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date will be:

1. distributed to the Council before the meeting,

2. posted online for public inspection at
https://stream.ci.concord.ca.us/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/Search, and

3. inserted into the meeting record.
b.As emails containing public meeting comments are part of the official record, note that personal contact information may be published if it is included with your email.

4. TO WATCH OR LISTEN ONLY:
a.Watch on TV on Comcast Channel 28, Astound/Wave Channel 1026, and AT&T U-verse Channel 99
b.Watch the TV broadcast through the City’s website by following THIS LINK c.Watching Live Streaming of the meeting by following THIS LINK d.Join the Zoom webinar by following THIS LINK
3 OPEN SESSION

1. OPENING
Roll Call – Announcements/Consideration and Approval of Requests by Councilmembers to Participate Remotely Pursuant to AB 2449, including an announcement by Councilmember Nakamura of her remote participation for just cause.

Pledge of Allegiance – Councilmember Obringer

2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
This is a 15-minute Public Comment Period for items within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction that are not on this agenda. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes.

State law prohibits the City Council from acting at this meeting on any matter raised during the Public Comment Period. Please see “How to Participate” above.

3. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the Consent Calendar before or during the City Council’s consideration of the Consent Calendar. Adoption of the Consent Calendar may be made by one motion of the City Council, provided that any Councilmember, individual or organization may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.

If a request for removal of an item from the Consent Calendar has been received, the Mayor may defer action on the particular item and place the same on the regular agenda for consideration in any order s/he deems appropriate. Please see “How to Participate” above. a. Considering – approval of the minutes from the August 22, 2023, meeting.

Recommended by the City Clerk.
b. Considering – approval of the purchase of 75 Cradlepoint 5G ruggedized network routers and antennas for use in police vehicles from CDCE Inc. in an amount not to exceed $231,106.57, including a 10% contingency, in accordance with the City’s technology replacement schedule. (General Fund) Recommended by the Director of Information Technology.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378. c. Considering – approval to renew the agreement between the City of Concord and the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office, Forensic Services Division, for the County to provide forensic services from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2025 (2-years) with a not-to-exceed cost of $525,000 for each fiscal year, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (General Fund) Recommended by the Chief of Police.
4 d. Considering – designation of Mayor Hoffmeister as the Voting Delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo on September 20-22, 2023. Recommended by the City Clerk.
e. Considering – the City's Response to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Affordable Housing: "A Plan Without a Home." Recommended by the Director of Community Development.
f. Considering – approval of a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $648,000 (base agreement of $589,000 plus staff authority to spend up to a 10% contingency of $59,000) to BKF Engineers for project design and related services for the Willow Pass and Landana Sewer Capacity Improvements Project (Willow Pass Road and Landana Drive) [Project Nos. 2702 and 2704]; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (Funded by Sewer Enterprise Funds) Recommended by the Director of Community Development.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and/or 21080.19, Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15061(b)(2), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378.
g. Considering – adoption of a Resolution accepting and appropriating grant funding from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in the amount of $275,000 for Select Traffic Enforcement and appropriation of funds and approval for use for the City’s Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (Project No. 2711). Recommended by the Chief of Police.

CEQA: Exempt/not a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), 15273, and/or 15378 including subsection (b)(3).
h. Considering –

1. Award of a Construction Contract in the not-to-exceed amount of $1,981,000 to St. Francis Electric, LLC, authorizing staff to utilize the available project contingency for contract change orders up to an additional 10% of the contract amount for the Monument Boulevard Signal Upgrade (Project No. 2578) located on Monument Boulevard between Concord Boulevard and Mohr Lane; and authorizing the Mayor to execute the contract in a form acceptable to the City Attorney;

2. Approval of an Agreement for Professional Services with Mark Thomas and Company, Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $349,495.30 (base agreement of $317,723 plus staff authority to spend up to a 10% contingency of $31,772.30) to provide construction management, inspection, and materials testing services for Monument Boulevard Signal Upgrade (Project No. 2578) located on Monument Boulevard between Concord Boulevard and 5 Mohr Lane; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; and

3. Authorizing the City Engineer to accept the improvements upon completion of Project No. 2578, and directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. (Funded by Measure V, Fund 407) Recommended by the Director of Community Development.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c), 15061 (b)(3), 15378, 15301, 15302, 15303, 15304, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

4. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda before or during the City Council’s consideration of that item.

Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes. Please see “How to Participate” above. a. Residential Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Workshop:

Consider information provided by staff, receive public comment, and provide feedback on elements to be incorporated into a Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Amendments to the Just Cause for Eviction Component of the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance. Report by Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378.

5. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
Persons who wish to speak on Public Hearings listed on the agenda will be heard when the public hearing is opened, except on public hearing items previously heard and closed to public comment.

After the public has commented, the item is closed to further public comment and brought to the Council level for discussion and action. Further comment from the audience will not be received unless requested by the Council. No public hearing shall commence after 10 p.m. unless approved by majority vote of the City Council. Please see “How to Participate” above. a. 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 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). Report by Frank Abejo, Principal Planner.

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).

6. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence received at the City Council meeting will be listed here on the Annotated Agenda. 6 7. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Closed Session Announcements
City Manager or Staff Reports
Council Reports

8. ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Regular Meeting
Date: 9/12/2023 6:00 p.m.

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited by California law to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the hearing or in a written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the hearing.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Law, it is the policy of the City of Concord to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and require a copy of a public hearing notice, or an agenda and/or agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require other accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinator Tianjun Cao at (925) 671-3243 or [email protected], at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

CONCORD CITY COUNCIL

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
1950 PARKSIDE DRIVE

CONCORD, CALIFORNIA AND VARIOUS

TELEPHONIC/ELECTRONIC LOCATIONS
TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2023
The Concord City Council met in a regular meeting in the Council Chamber, located at 1950 Parkside Drive and via various telephonic/electronic locations at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 22, 2023, with Mayor Hoffmeister presiding. The pledge of allegiance was led by Councilmember Aliano. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Dominic Aliano, Edi Birsan, Laura Nakamura, Carlyn Obringer, Laura Hoffmeister (Councilmember Birsan
arrived at 6:15 p.m.)
STAFF PRESENT: Valerie Barone, City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager; Joelle Fockler, City Clerk; Monique Robinson, Administrative Secretary; Greg Taylor, Director of Information Technology; James Nakayama, Police Captain; Kevin Marstall, Director of Community Development; William Tarbox, Director of Public Works; Karan Reid, Director of Finance; Kevin Marstall, Director of Community Development; Carlton Thompson, City Engineer; Bernard Enrile, CIP Manager; Justin Bosch, Associate Civil Engineer; Damaris Sambajon, Systems and Programming Manager; Kit Jory, Parks Manager; Aaron Sage, Principal Planner; Joan Ryan, Principal Planner; Leng Power, Community Services Manager

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WHO ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL: Josh Sonnenfield; Hope Johnson, Concord; Aaron Tiedemann, EBHO; Ady Olvera, Concord

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Mayor Hoffmeister opened the public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

PRESENTATIONS
MAYOR’S CUP GOLF TOURNAMENT
Mayor Hoffmeister presented the proceeds from the Mayor’s Cup Golf Tournament held May 19, 2023, to the Concord Junior Giants (received by Ana Villalobos).

Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Mayor Hoffmeister introduced East Bay Regional Park District Ward 6 Board Member John Mercurio, who presented a District update.

3.a

City Council Minutes August 22, 2023
2 Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period.

Josh Sonnenfield thanked Board Member Mercurio for his presentation.

Mayor Hoffmeister closed the public comment period.

CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period.

Hope Johnson, Concord, spoke in opposition to Agenda Item No. 4.c, adoption of Ordinance approving an increase in City Council compensation effective after the November 2024 election.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – August 8, 2023
A motion was made by Aliano and seconded by Birsan to approve the minutes from the August 8, 2023, regular meeting. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 23-4 – Amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 15.08 A motion was made by Aliano and seconded by Birsan to adopt Ordinance No. 23-4 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 15.08 (Appeals of the City of Concord Construction Code), Chapter 15.10 (Building Code), Chapter 15.20 (Plumbing Code), and Chapter 15.50 (Multi-Family Rental Dwelling Units)." Ordinance No. 23-4 was introduced on August 8, 2023, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 23-5 – Councilmember Compensation This item was pulled from consideration on the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Obringer, who opposed the increase to Council compensation.

A motion was made by Birsan and seconded by Aliano to adopt Ordinance No. 23-5 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 2.10 (Officers and Employees), Article II (Compensation), Section 2.10.020 (Councilmembers) increasing Councilmember Compensation to $1,900 per month, to be effective after the November 2024 City Council election." Ordinance No. 23-5 was introduced on August 8, 2023, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. The motion passed by the following vote of the Council:

AYES: Aliano, Birsan, Nakamura, Hoffmeister NOES: Obringer ABSENT: None AUTHORZING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 532 A motion was made by Aliano and seconded by Birsan to authorize the Mayor to send a letter that opposes Senate Bill 532, which if signed by the Governor, would increase seven state-owned San Francisco Bay Area bridge tolls by $1.50. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council. 2023 WILLOW PASS ROAD PATCH REPAIR AND OVERLAY PROJECT (Project No. 2593-1) – Willow Pass Road from Landana Drive to Avila Road
This item was pulled from consideration on the Consent Calendar by Mayor Hoffmeister, who highlighted the project for the public.

A motion was made by Birsan and seconded by Nakamura to approve the following for the 2023 Willow Pass Road Patch Repair and Overlay Project (Project No. 2593-1) located on Willow Pass Road from Landana Drive to Avila Road:

City Council Minutes August 22, 2023
3 1. Award a construction contract in the amount of $875,648.25 (Measure V Projects Fund 490) to MCK Services, Inc., and authorize Staff to utilize the available project contingency for contract change orders that become necessary up to 10% of the contract amount; and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

2. Authorize the City Engineer to accept the improvements upon completion of Project No. 2593-1 and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.

The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.
2023 CITYWIDE ASPHALT PATCH REPAIR PROJECT (Project No. 2593-2) – Ygnacio Valley Road from Alberta Way to Clayton Road
This item was pulled from consideration on the Consent Calendar by Mayor Hoffmeister, who highlighted the project for the public.

A motion was made by Birsan and seconded by Nakamura to approve the following for the 2023 Citywide Asphalt Patch Repair Project (Project No. 2593-2) located on Ygnacio Valley Road from Alberta Way to Clayton Road:

1. Award a construction contract in the amount $480,972.25 to MCK Services, Inc., for the Base Bid of 2023 Citywide Asphalt Patch Repair Project (Project No. 2593-2); authorize staff to utilize the available project contingency for contract change orders that become necessary up to 10% of the contract amount; and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

2. Approve a related budget transfer of $420,000 (2021 Debt Issuance Measure V Fund 407) from Pavement Management Annual Program - HOLDING ACCOUNT (Project No. 2157) to 2023 Citywide Asphalt Patch Repair Project (Project No. 2593) and appropriate such funds for Project No. 2593-2.

3. Authorize the City Engineer to accept the improvements upon completion of Project No. 2593-2, and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.

The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 23-60 AMENDING THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Principal Planner Aaron Sage presented the staff report and reviewed the project background, HCD comments and recommended amendments, sites inventory and capacity summary, and recommended actions.

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

Aaron Tiedemann, East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO), commented on Regional Housing Needs Requirements (RHNA).

Mayor Hoffmeister closed the public comment period.

Following discussion by the Council, a motion was made by Birsan and seconded by Obringer to adopt Resolution No. 23-60 entitled, “A Resolution Finding the Amendments to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (“2023-2031 HEU Amendments”) Consistent with the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Adopted 2023-2031 HEU; Finding the 2023-2031 HEU Amendments Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the Common Sense Exemption; Finding the 2023-2031 HEU Amendments Substantially Comply with Government Code section 65580 et seq. (“Housing Element Law”); Approving a General Plan Amendment adopting the 2023-2031 HEU Amendments; Authorizing

City Council Minutes August 22, 2023
4 the City Manager or Designee to Make Changes to the 2023-2031 HEU Amendments to Achieve Internal Consistency or Address Non-Substantive Changes or Amendments Requested by the Department of Housing and Community Development to Certify the 2023-2031 HEU; and Making other Related Findings and Delegations as Appropriate (PL23109 – GP).” The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 23-6 – Objective Design Standards Principal Planner Joan Ryan presented the staff report and reviewed the project background, goals, standards, revisions, and updates.

Following questions from the Council, Mayor Hoffmeister opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

Following discussion by the Council, a motion was made by Obringer and seconded by Hoffmeister to introduce Ordinance No. 23-6 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending the City of Concord’s Development Code (Title 18) by Adding Chapter 18.152 – Objective Design Standards (2023-2031 Housing Element Objective 15.3) (PL23101 – DC)” by reading of the title only and waiving further reading, with two modifications including adding the word “similar” to Table 1 and adding a footnote stating “City staff will maintain a list of acceptable materials” on page 14. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

Mayor Hoffmeister recessed the meeting at 9:03 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:17 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM

UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE HOMELESS STRATEGIC PLAN
Community Services Manager Leng Power introduced D. Scott Thurmond, Principal, and Isaiah Rich-Wimmer, Director of Projects & Programs, Thurmond Consulting, LLC, who presented the staff report on the Homeless Strategic Plan draft vision and goals, ending by reviewing the requested Council action including:
 Endorsing the Vision Statement;
 Providing feedback on goals and additional focus areas; and  Providing feedback for the types of strategies the Working Group should consider.

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

Ady Olvera, Concord, spoke in support of the proposed goals.

Hope Johnson, Concord, stated that the Plan should focus on and incorporate strategies that are known to work.

Mayor Hoffmeister closed the public comment period.

Following discussion, Council expressed broad support for:
 The Vision
 Goal I: Increase Homeless Prevention Services
 Goal III: Increase Coordination of Emergency Response Efforts  Goal V: Explore Avenues of Equitable Support for Target Populations  Goal VI: Strengthen System Support

City Council Minutes August 22, 2023
5 The Council expressed support for the following themes:
 Focus on those that can or are willing to accept help;  Prevention services;
 Increased advocacy at the state level;
 Leveraging the City’s $5 million through grants, etc.;  Partner with private, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations;  Openness to scattered site housing;
 Support faith-based organizations that want to implement tiny home concepts; and  Include proven results and data on strategies in Strategic Plan A motion was made by Birsan and seconded by Obringer to endorse the vision as follows: “The City of Concord envisions a community where every person has a safe, affirming, and stable place to live.

This vision endeavors to reduce homelessness through community involvement, collaboration with partner agencies, and enhanced services that are carried out in a dignified, compassionate, and equitable manner.” The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CORRESPONDENCE
a. Agenda Item No. 3.a, Update on East Bay Regional Park District PowerPoint b. Agenda Item No. 4.d, Oppose Senate Bill 532 Benched Correspondence c. Agenda Item No. 5.a, Housing Element Update PowerPoint d. Agenda Item No. 5.b, Objective Design Standards PowerPoint e. Agenda Item No. 6.a, Homeless Strategic Plan Update Benched Correspondence f. Agenda Item No. 6.a, Homeless Strategic Plan Update PowerPoint

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

There was consensus of the Council to put support of SB 43 on a future agenda if necessary.

ADJOURNMENT
By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned on August 22, 2023, at 11:20 p.m.

LAURA M. HOFFMEISTER
MAYOR

JOELLE FOCKLER, MMC

CITY CLERK

Staff Report
Date: September 5, 2023
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Greg Taylor, Director of Information Technology [email protected]
(925) 671-3189
Subject: Considering approval of the purchase of 75 Cradlepoint 5G ruggedized network routers and antennas for use in police vehicles from CDCE Inc. in an amount not to exceed
$231,106.57, including a 10% contingency, in accordance with the City’s technology replacement schedule. (General Fund) CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c),
15061(b)(3), and/or 15378.

Report in Brief
The City of Concord’s Police Department utilizes mobile data computer and various other in-vehicle technologies to perform law enforcement duties. These systems require specialized ruggedized mobile network routers to securely connect to the Internet and ultimately to reach Police Computer Aided Dispatch systems and other Public Safety programs. The current Cradlepoint routers were purchased in 2018 and in accordance with the City’s Replacement Schedule are due for replacement.

The total cost to replace 75 in-vehicle Police Cradelpoint routers and antennas with new, 5g capable, routers is $210,096.88 (Attachment 1). After adding in a 10% contingency, the total not to exceed amount requested is $231,106.57. All requested funding has been previously identified and approved in CIP #2218, Citywide Technology Hardware and Software Replacement.

3.b3.b

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.b
September 5, 2023
Recommended Action
Authorize the City Manager to approve the purchase of 75 Cradlepoint 5G ruggedized network routers and antennas for use in police vehicles from CDCE Inc. in an amount not to exceed $231,106.57, including a 10% contingency, in accordance with the City’s technology replacement schedule, and make the CEQA determinations as provided in this staff report.

Background
The City maintains a replacement schedule and fund for IT equipment to ensure reliability and optimal performance. The mobile systems located within the vehicles must securely connect to the internet and the Cradlepoint routers allow for Computer Aided Dispatch, critical Public Safety notifications, and secure data transmissions. The current Cradlepoint mobile routers were purchased in 2018 and in accordance with the City’s replacement schedule are due for replacement.

Analysis
The new Cradlepoint R1900 series router is an industry standard for public safety in- vehicle networking and is offered through a State of California contract. By leveraging the National Association of State Procurement Officers (NASPO) Value Point Cooperative contracts, the City can obtain superior pricing through economies of scale.

Cradlepoint routers are part of the NASPO Value Point Master Price Agreement Contract No. AR3189, of which the State of California participates through California Cooperative Agreement No. 7-20-70-47-02. The City can use the NASPO Value Point Cooperative to purchase Cradlepoint routers at lower prices than those the City would obtain through its own competitive bidding.

The Cradlepoint R1900 series router was purpose-built to handle high-performance mobile 5G connectivity and edge computing. It is able to withstand extreme environments and the all-in-one mobile networking design is ideally suited for installations in first responder vehicles. The R1900 provides connectivity, network, security, location, and IoT services to connect everything in the vehicle, while providing access for secure remote management, troubleshooting and analytics. The City also conducted pilot testing comparing current Cradlepoint routers to the new R1900 series and found that, using the better 5G technology and new hardware, Police systems were able to increase maximum download speeds from 25Mbps to 250Mbps.

This action will authorize the purchase of 75 Cradlepoint R1900 routers and associated antennas from CDCE Inc. in an amount not to exceed $231,106.57, including a 10% contingency, using the NASPO Value Point Cooperative Purchase Agreement Contract No. AR3189.

Procurement Process
Pursuant to Municipal Code-Title 3 Revenue and Finance-Chapter 3.10 Purchasing, the City may participate in a cooperative purchase or “piggyback” off of an existing contract

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.b
September 5, 2023
and join with other public jurisdictions in cooperative purchasing plans or programs when determined to be in the City’s best interest. NASPO is aggressive in searching for the best prices by issuing nationwide RFPs inviting top manufactures to submit proposals for the various government needs. After the bid opening occurs, NASPO and the partnering government entity enters into a contract with the best vendor. This is an example of the waiver of bidding regulations, as stated in the Municipal Code section

3.10.080.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), and/or 15061(b)(3), award of this contract is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, as it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.”
Financial Impact
There is no additional fiscal impact associated with this action as all necessary funding has been previously budgeted and approved in the Citywide Technology Hardware and Software Replacement CIP project #2218.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

1. CDCE, Inc. Cradlepoint R1900 routers and antennas quote

800-373-5353Telephone:

CDCE, Inc.
226
41 Old Canal Road
Yorba Linda, CA 92887
City of Concord Police Department
135
0 Galindo Street
Concord, CA 94520
United States
City of Concord Police Department
1350 Galindo Street
Concord, CA 94520
United States
Sales Quote
121170-B
CIC
ONCORPDCustomer No.

Sales Quote No.

Ship ToBill To
Contact:

Telephone: Telephone:

Contact:
925-671-3338
Ryan Smiley
925-671-3338
Ryan Smiley
Payment Method
Customer PO Number F.O.B.Ship Via
To Be Determined
Drop Ship Destination
Entered By Ordered BySalesperson
Ryan SmileySandra BandelSandra Bandel
Order
Qty
Extended
Price
Unit
PricePart # Description
Quote Date
08/17/23
E-mail: E-mail:[email protected] [email protected] Line
Item
75 163,875.002,185.00DM-400156EE0277097ER1900 router with WiFi (5G modem) 5-yr NetCloud Mobile1 Performance Essentials Plan, no AC power supply or antennas, Global.

MFG
#: MB05-19005GB-GA

PRICING ON NASPO CONTRACT
75 27, 375.00365.00ANT-94108096BE694E2EParsec PTA Australian Shepherd Antenna 8 in 12 4 LTE (SMA M),
2 W
iFi (RP SMA M),
Bluetooth (SMA M),

GNSS (SMA M),
.75"" Threaded Bolt,
Black,
15' Cables,
MFG Part Number: PTA8AS4L2WBG15B

PRICING ON NASPO CONTRACT
**Purchase orders must include all part numbers, descriptions, quantities, and price. Purchase orders must also include payment terms and bill to/ship to addresses** Antennas shipping estimate ARO - 2 weeks. Will need to confirm MFG time when placing order.

Cradlepoint Entitlements:

Ryan Smiley
[email protected]
925.671 .3338
Antennas must be ordered all at once.

Cradlepoint NASPOValuePoint Contract Number:AR3189
08/14/23
05:30:39 PM
Page No.

Print Time
Print Date
Continued on Next Page
96BE694E2E

Printed by Hubmate User: SBandel
ATTACHMENT 1

800-373-5353Telephone:

CDCE, Inc.
22641 Old Canal Road
Yorba Linda, CA 92887
City of Concord Police Department
1350 Galindo Street
Concord, CA 94520
United States
City of Concord Police Department
1350 Galindo Street
Concord, CA 94520
United States
Sales Quote
121170-B
CICONCORPDCustomer No.

Sales Quote No.

Ship ToBill To
Contact:

Telephone: Telephone:

Contact:
925-671-3338
Ryan Smiley
925-671-3338
Ryan Smiley
Payment Method
Customer PO Number F.O.B.Ship Via
To Be Determined
Drop Ship Destination
Entered By Ordered BySalesperson
Ryan SmileySandra BandelSandra Bandel
Order
Qty
Extended
Price
Unit
PricePart # Description
Quote Date
08/17/23
E-mail: E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Line
Item
California Cooperative Agreement Number: 7-20-70-47-02
***This quote is valid for 30 days from the stated Quote Date*** 08/14/23
05:30:39 PM
Page No.

Print Time
Print Date
Order Total
Sales Tax9.750 %
Freight
Subtotal
210,096.88
18,646.88
200.00
191,250.00
96BE694E2E

Printed by Hubmate User: SBandel

Staff Report
Date: September 5, 2023
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Bustillos, Chief of Police
Prepared by: Sean Donnelly, Police Lieutenant
[email protected]
(925) 671-5067
Subject: Considering approval to renew the agreement between the City of Concord and the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office, Forensic Services Division, for the County to provide forensic services from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2025 (2-years) with a not-to-exceed cost of $525,000 for each fiscal year, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (General Fund)
Report in Brief
The Concord Police Department’s (PD) primary forensic services contract has historically been with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, Forensic Services Division. This contract supports the investigative needs of the Police Department by making specialized scientific equipment and staff expertise available to support criminal investigations.

Recommended Action
Approve the renewal of our agreement between the City of Concord and the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, Forensic Services Division, for the County to provide forensic services from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2025, (2-years) for a not-to-exceed cost of $525,000 each fiscal year; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

Background
The PD relies primarily on Contra Costa County for forensic services and has for many years. The PD has found the forensic services provided by Contra Costa County to be

3.c3.c

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.c
September 5, 2023
responsive, professional, and cost effective and desires to continue the relationship.

The County provides services to the PD such as analysis of narcotics/drugs, forensic examination of trace evidence in homicide and sexual assault investigations, all of which provide critical contributions toward solving cases and making the community safer.

Analysis
Highly technical forensic analysis and comparison of evidence is not within the capabilities of the PD. The comprehensive forensic services provided by the County require a large staff, expensive scientific equipment, and significant ongoing training.

Additionally, to maintain this level of staffing, equipment, and training would be cost prohibitive to the PD. For these reasons, the Police Department contracts these services with the County.

As part of this agreement, the Forensic Services Division also provides 24 hour per day, 7 days per week, on-call technical consultation and availability of trained crime scene experts in the event of a crime scene call-out.

Through this agreement the City would be continuing its contract with the County for forensic services. The quality of forensic services, proximity to Concord, and the professional staff at the Sheriff’s Office allows the PD to provide a high level of customer service and processing of evidence for our community. The Forensic Services Division is able to perform the necessary analysis for the PD and complies with AB 1517, the State Assembly bill that encourages the timely screening of sexual assault evidence kits.

This inter-agency agreement exists pursuant to Government Code sections 6500 et. seq. and applies only to services provided by the Forensic Services Division. The agreement continues in force until terminated by either party, which requires a 30 day written notice or mutual agreement by both parties. The agreement does not identify an amount to be expended in any given year, as charges are levied based on services used. Historically, the City has spent approximately $410,000 to $460,000 in fiscal years (FY 2017-2018 to FY 2019-2020). For FY 2020-2021, only $260,000 was expended.

The drastic decrease in expenditures for FY 2020-2021 was due to anomalies created by the COVID-19 pandemic; however, prior years’ spending and utilization patterns for these services should resume moving forward. For FY 2022-2023, approximately $390,000 was expended. Additionally, with homicide cases, the Major Crimes Unit Detectives are relying more on Crime Scene Investigation assistance from the County, due to their technical expertise and success of locating more critical evidence. Council has historically approved $525,000 in years prior for these services. Therefore, for the next two fiscal years, the PD requests $525,000 for each fiscal year. This is considered a reasonable amount expected to adequately cover the costs associated with this agreement.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.c
September 5, 2023
Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for Crime Lab services for Fiscal Year 2023-2025 is $1,050,000, totaling $525,000 per singular fiscal year (FY2023/2024 and FY2024/2025).

These costs are built into the City’s approved budget.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

1. Inter-Agency Agreement between the County of Contra Costa and the City of Concord

1 _______ _______
A
gency County
INT

ER-AGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA and CITY OF CONCORD FOR

THE PROVISION OF FORENSIC SERVICES
Thi
s Agreement is entered into between the County of Contra Costa, (hereinafter “County”) and the City of Concord (hereinafter “Agency”) to provide Forensic Services (hereinafter “Agreement”). The parties to this Agreement mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Te rm. The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 2023 , and terminates June 30, 2025.

2. Pur pose of Agreement . The Co unty will provide forensic services (through the Forensic Services Division of the Office of the Sheriff ) to Agency to assist in the investigation of criminal matters.

3. Count y’s Obligations. This Agreement applies only to services provided by the Forensic Services Division ( FSD) of the office of the Sheriff for incidents occurring on the effective date of and before the termination of the Agreement.

A. Count
y will provide forensic services when requested by the
Agency. County reserves the right to determine if the
service will or can be provided, and the type of service needed based on a review of the evidence and case
circumstances.
1) If Cou
nty will not or can not provide the service,
Agency will be advised of the reason and be provided
an alternate resource if the request is determined to be forensically legitimate.

B. Count
y, through staff of the Sheriff’s Fiscal Unit, will monthly invoice Agency for services rendered.
(1) T
he invoice will itemize the charges to include each
request completed during the invoiced time period and
the services provided for each request.

C. Count
y will prioritize the requests received first based on
severity of the crime and urgent public safety concerns, followed by trial deadlines. Routine requests that do not have exigent public safety concerns or trial deadlines will be prioritized based on the date of request.

Attachment 1

2 _______ _______
Agency County

D. County will endeavor to provide as timely a service possible based on resources available. If County can not meet
Agency’s timeline needs for a particular case, Agency may retrieve the evidence at any time to send to an outside forensic resource. Agency will not be charged for any
administrative overhead under these circumstances.

(1) If examinations had occurred by County prior to Agency withdrawing the evidence, Agency will be charged for the cost of the examinations conducted to date.

E. County will provide witness and expert testimony for services rendered at no additional cost to Agency.

F. County reserves the right to modify, add, or stop the scope of forensic services that can be provided dependent upon resources and justice system needs.

G. County will maintain an on -call crime scene expert who will be available twenty-four (24) hours seven (7) days a week, to provide technical advice to Agency for homicide or other major felony scene processing involving complex evidence issues.

(1) Agency must have trained staff respond to scenes to handle the routine aspects of crime scene documentation or processing on cases involving call out of County staff. (2) County will, per Officer Involved Protocol, assume lead crime scene responsibility for O fficer Involved Protocol cases.

H. County will provide forensic consultation services to Agency at no charge to assist Agency in their investigation or to advise Agency as to what evidence sho uld be submitted
and what forensic services should be requested.

4. Agency’s Obligations.

A. The cost for the service provided by County will be based on the Board of Supervisor’s approved Forensic Services Fee Schedule that is in effect during the fiscal year when the request for service is made. Agency shall pay County, in full, no later than 60 days after receipt of invoice.

3 _______ _______
Agency County

B. Agency will abide by County’s requirements for evidence packaging and request for service procedures.

1) County may change packaging or request procedures
and will notify Agency of such changes.

C. Agency will notify County of exigencies pertaining to the prioritization needs of the request such as public safety concerns, urgent investigative needs, and suspect flight risks.

D. Agency will e nsure a request for service is rescinded if the work is no longer needed.

1) County will not be responsible for work done on a
request in cases where Agency failed to notify County
that the work was no longer needed.

E. Agency will promptly notify County of any requests that are considered confidential such as internal affairs inquiries.

5. Accountability of Funds. County shall account for all funds provided hereunder and maintain appropriate records and reports regarding all work. County shall provide a financial report upon request following each fiscal year in which this agreement was in effect.

6. County’s Employees. County retains control over County’s officers and employees providing services hereunder.

7. Property and Equipment. All property and equipment purchased and/or used in the performance of services hereunder by County shall be and remain the property and equipment of the County throughout the term of this A greement and upon termination of this Agreement. County shall have responsibility for the mai ntenance of the facilities, equipment, and property used in the performance of services hereunder by County.

8. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party, at their sole discretion, upon thirty -day advance written notice thereof to the other, and may be canceled immediately by written mutual consent.

9. Disputes. Disagreements between County and Agency concerning the meaning, requirements, or performance of this Agreement shall be subject to final written determination by the head of the county

4 _______ _______
Agency County

department for which this Agreement is made, or his designee, or in accordance with the applicable procedures (if any) required by the state or federal government.

10. Independent Contractor Status. This Agreement is by and between two independent contractors and is not intended to and shall not be construed to create the relationship between the parties of agents, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association.

11. Restrictions. As required by Government Code Section 26227, the powers of t he parties under this A greement shall be subject to the restrictions on such powers applicable to Contra Costa County.

12. Modifications and Amendments. This Agreement may only be modified or amended by the mutual written agreement of Agency and the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors.

13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. Except as expressly provided herein, no other understanding, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto.

14. Mutual Indemnification. County agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Agency for the County’s share of any and all claims, costs and liability for any damage, injury or death of or to any person or the property of any person, including attorneys fees, arising out of the willful misconduct or the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the County in the performance of this Agreement.

Agency agrees to indemnify and hold harmless County for the Agency’s share of any and all claims, costs and liability for any damage, injury or death of or to any person or the property of any person, including attorney’s fees, arising out of the willful misconduct or the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Agency, its officers or employees.

15. Notices. Any notices, requests, demands or other communications required or permitted to be given under this contract shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given on the date of service if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given, by first-class mail registered or certified, postage prepaid, or on the day after dispatching by Federal Express or another overnight delivery service, and properly addressed as follows:

By
By
COUNTY
AGENCY:

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Chair, Board of Supervisors
or Designee
ATTEST:

Jad Keileh
Office of the Sheriff
Chief of Management Services
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By
Deputy
Office of the Sheriff-Coroner
1850 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Contracts and Grants
Chief of Police
City of Concord
1350 Galindo Street
Concord, CA 94520

CITY OF CONCORD
By
City Manager
ATTEST:

By
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
5 Cou
Agency County

City of Concord

Date:

Account Code:

100-71901Z01-63800-200

Amount:

$525,000

I hereby certify that adequate funds exist or will be received during the current fiscal year 2023/2024 to pay the anticipated expenses to be incurred pursuant to this contract.

_______________________________________

Finance Director

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU

FORENSIC SERVICES DIVISION

FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2023-2025

Alcohol Services

Alcohol Analysis $100 /sample
Blood Withdrawal Services Cost plus 5% program fee
DUI Checkpoint $250 /hour

Toxicology Services

Tox Analysis Screen $300 /sample
Tox Analysis Confirmation $250 /confirmation

Drug (Solid Dosage) Services

Solid Dose Analysis $180 /sample

Fingerprint Services

ABIS Entry No Charge
ABIS Notification No Charge
Latent Print Comparison No Charge
Latent Print Processing $250 /hour

Fees are for services not funded by the Cal-ID program

Drug, Alcohol, and Toxicology Section (Muir Lab)
1960 Muir Road, Suite 201
Martinez, CA 94553
925-313-2800
Criminalistics Section (Summit Lab)
2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 200
Martinez, CA 94553
925-335-1600

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU

FORENSIC SERVICES DIVISION

FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2023-2025

Comparative Evidence Services

NIBIN Testing No Charge
NIBIN Lead Notification No Charge
Firearms Make & Model Determination $250/ hour
Firearms Function Test $250 /hour
Firearms Comparison (including NIBIN Lead Confirmation) $250 /hour Serial Number Restoration $250 /hour
Distance Determination $250 /hour
Toolmark Comparison $250 /hour
Footwear/Impression Comparison $250 /hour

Forensic Biology Services

Sexual Assault Kit Screening $250 /hour
Biological Screening $250 /hour
DNA Typing (STR profiling, including CODIS upload if applicable) $250 /hour CODIS Notification No Charge
CODIS Hit Confirmation $250 /hour

Crime Scene Services

Scene Response $250 /hour/CSI
Crime Scene Reconstruction $250 /hour
Technical Assistance $250 /hour

Crime scene response is limited to homicides, OIS (protocol invoked cases), and other major felony cases involving complex physical evidence issues. Agencies are required to have their own CSI or competent evidence technician available to assist with proce ssing and to collect evidence. Upon request, the FSD may provide technical assistance to an agency for specialized services such as trajectory analysis, bloodstain pattern documentation, recovery of human remains, and sexual assaults that require the use of an alternative light source.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU

FORENSIC SERVICES DIVISION

FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2023-2025

Division Services

Priority (Rush) Analysis $200 /request (except DNA) $500 /DNA request

Examinations (except DNA) requiring analytical results within (5) court days will be charged an additional $200 per request. Priority DNA requests that are not in the submitted backlog where results are needed within 30 calendar days will be charged an additional $500 per request.

These priority fees do not apply to investigative needs before the case is filed, only to cases where the case has been filed with the District Attorney’s Office, the preplanning for trial purposes was delayed, and the priority request requires laboratory management to reshuffle resources to meet the trial deadlines.

Outsourced or Referee Analysis $250 /hour

Samples forwarded to an outside laboratory by lab staff at the request of the submitting agency, attorney, or pro per defendant will be charged the hourly rate of $250/hour to prepare the evidence.

Testimony No Charge - lab analysis

$250 /hour - when no lab
analysis was performed

The Forensic Services Division does not charge for testimony resulting from our own laboratory analysis, scene response, or evidentiary breath test results from our breath testing instruments. Expert witness testimony being requested when laboratory analysis was not performed will be charged the hourly rate of $250/hour.

Fees charged by the hour are calculated at full hour or part thereof. The above fee schedule does not apply when fees are specifically regulated by the State of California, or as provided by state law.

Inquiries regarding the Fee Schedule or for services not listed should be directed to the Chief of Forensics at 925-335-1600.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU

FORENSIC SERVICES DIVISION

FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2023-2025

Service Definitions

Alcohol Services

Alcohol Analysis: Analysis of blood , urine , or coroner’s samples to quantitively determine ethanol content using headspace gas chromatography.

Blood Withdrawal Services: The Forensic Services Division manages the county-wide contract for phlebotomists or nurses to be available on-call to respond at the agencies request for blood withdrawal.

DUI Checkpoint: Criminalists can be requested to bring an evidential breath testing instrument to a DUI checkpoint.

Toxicology Services

Tox Analysis Screen: Presumptive analysis of blood or urine to determine if drugs may be present in the sample. Drugs and drug classes include: Opiates, Opioids, Dextromethorphan, Meprobamate, Methamphetamine, Amphetamine, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepines, Methadone,
Phencyclidine, Cocaine Metabolite (BE), Zolpidem, Tricyclic Antidepressants, Cannabinoids (C -THC), Tramadol, Fentanyl, Buprenorphine

Tox Analysis Confirmation: Confirmatory analysis following a positive screen to confirm if specific drugs are present in the sample.

Drug (Solid Dosage) Services

Solid Dosage Analysis: Analysis of solids, liquids, pills, or botanical materials to determine if a controlled substance is present. Testing involves both presumptive and confirmatory tests.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU

FORENSIC SERVICES DIVISION

FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2023-2025

Fingerprint Services

ABIS Entry: Finger or palm prints of suitable quality are uploaded into the Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS) and searched against local, regional, or national fingerprint databases to try to determine the identity of the person who left the print.

ABIS Notification: A report notifying an agency that an evidentiary sample entered into the ABIS database generated a Hit.

Latent Print Processing: Use of physical and chemical techniques on evidence to develop and collect ridge detail. These processes are more sensitive and better at recovering latent prints than the typical black powder methods used in the field.

Latent Print Comparison: The comparison of latent prints, either submitted by outside agencies or developed during FSD’s own latent print processing service, to named individuals.

Comparative Evidence Services

NIBIN Testing: The entry of test-fired cartridge cases from submitted firearms into the ATF’s National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) database . The unique marks the firearm has left on the cartridge case are then searched in NIBIN to determine if that firearm has been used in a crime. Cartridge cases from crime scene can also be uploaded to determine if other cases are linked. Bullets are not suitable for entry.

NIBIN Lead Notification: A report notifying an agency that an evidentiary sample entered into the NIBIN database generated a Lead.

Make & Model Determination: Determination of the possible brands and models of firearms that could have fired the cartridge cases and/or bullets recovered from a crime scene.

Firearms Function Test: Determines the operating characteristics of a firearms and whether those characteristics fall within the specifications of the manufacturer. Also includes Assault Weapon determination and sound suppressor or silencer determination.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU

FORENSIC SERVICES DIVISION

FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2023-2025

Firearms Comparison: This service is the manual inter -comparison between cartridges, bullets, and/or firearms to determine if the items are from the same source. The comparison can result in identifying the firearm that fired the evidence cartridge case or bullet.

Serial Number Restoration: The use of physical or chemical procedures to visualize obliterated serial numbers.

Distance Determination: The use of visual, physical, and chemical procedures to determine how far away the muzzle of a firearm was at the time it shot a target (usually the victim).

Toolmark Comparison: Determination if a submitted tool made the marks left on an item of evidence or inter -comparison of tool marks between items of evidence to establish a commonality.

Footwear/Impression Comparison: A manual comparison between marks left by shoes, whether on the surface or impressed, to shoes suspected of leaving the marks. If no shoes are available, a make and model determination can be done to provide a list of possible brands and models of shoes that could have left the marks. Shoe marks from different cases can be inter - compared to try and establish a commonality.

Forensic Biology Services

Sexual Assault Kit Screening: Examination of the individual contents of a Sexual Assault Evidence Kit (SAEK) for biological or, if needed, trace evidence. Positive SAEK screens usually result in the evidence being forwarded for DNA analysis.

Biological Screening: Examination of physical evidence for biological stains, generally but not limited to blood, semen, or saliva. The stains are characterized to their probable biological origin . If important, their physical appearance is documented and interpreted relative t o the circumstances of the case. Evidence with positive biological screens can be forwarded to DNA typing if needed.

DNA Typing: The generation and comparison of a STR DNA profiles from individuals and crime scene evidence . Suitable profiles can be uploaded and searched against the FBI’s CODIS database.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU

FORENSIC SERVICES DIVISION

FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2023-2025

CODIS Notification: A report notifying an agency that an evidentiary sample entered into the CODIS database generated a Hit.

CODIS Hit Confirmation: If a hit in the CODIS database occurs to an offender, a fresh reference standard must be obtained from that individual and submitted to the FSD for DNA typing to ensure the integrity of the CODIS hit.

Crime Scene Services

Scene Response: Criminalists and Crime Scene Investigators are on -call to provide telephonic consultation or scene response for homicides, officer - involved protocol cases, and other major felonies that have complex physical evidence issues. Agencies must have trained evidence technicians who will respond to assist FSD personnel with the scene processing and to collect the physical evidence.

Crime Scene Reconstruction: Criminalists can be requested to perform trajectory analysis , shooting incident reconstruction and general reconstruction to assist investigators and attorneys in understanding the actions that occurred during the commission of a crime that resulted in the presence of physical evidence.

Technical Assistance: Criminalists and Crime Scene Investigators are on-call to provide technical assistance. Agencies must have trained evidence technicians who will respond to assist FSD personnel with the scene processing and to collect the physical evidence.

Staff Report
Date: September 5, 2023
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Joelle Fockler, MMC, City Clerk
[email protected]
(925) 671-3390
Subject: Considering designation of Mayor Hoffmeister as the Voting Delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo on September 20-22, 2023.

Report in Brief
Consider the appointment of Mayor Hoffmeister as the Voting Delegate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo to be held September 20-22, 2023, in Sacramento, CA.

Recommended Action
Appoint Mayor Hoffmeister as the Voting Delegate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo to be held September 20-22, 2023, in Sacramento, CA.

Background
Consistent with the League of California Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates may be designated by the city council. Designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor. Mayor Hoffmeister is the only councilmember attending the League conference this year.

The voting delegate and alternate must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they can register for Friday only. To cast the city’s vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city’s voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternate, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

3.d3.d

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.d
September 5, 2023
The City Clerk must return the Voting Delegate Form to the League office by Wednesday, September 6, 2023.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

1. Annual Conference Voting Procedures with Voting Delegate/Alternate Form

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, June 21, 2023
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
Leag
ue of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 20-22, 2023, Sacramento SAFE Credit Union Convention Center
Every
year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Takin
g place on Sept. 22, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast
a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Pleas
e complete the attached voting delegate form and email it to Cal Cities office no later than Monday, August 28.

New th
is year, we will host a pre-conference information session for voting delegates to explain their role. Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre- conference communications with voting delegates.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Action
by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council.

Please
note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Council Action Advised by August 28, 2023
Attachment 1

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the SAFE Credit Union Convention Center in Sacramento, will be open at the following times:

Wednesday, Sept. 20, 8:00 a.m.- 6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 21, 7:30 a.m.- 4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 22, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to Cal Cities office by Monday, Aug. 28. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Form
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org

General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

CITY: ________________________________________
2023 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to Cal Cities office by Monday, August 28, 2023.

Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates.

To vote at the General Assembly, voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council.

Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the General Assembly. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the voting delegate desk.

1. VOTING DELEGATE
Name:

Title:

2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
Name:

Title:

Email: _______________________________
Email: ______________________________

3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
Name:

Title:

Email: _____________________________

ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).

Nam
e: ____________________________________ Email: _________________________________ Mayor or City Clerk: ________________________ Date: __________ Phone: ________________ (circle one) (signature)
Please complete and email this form to [email protected] by Monday, August 28, 2023.

Sixty days before the
Annual Conference and
Expo, Cal Cities members
may submit policy
proposals on issues of
importance to cities. The
resolution must have the concurrence
of at least five additional member cities
or individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions
Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure that we are representing California cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policy that erodes local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how Resolutions and the General Assembly works.

The petitioned resolution
is an alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during the
annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of member
cities, and submitted to the Cal Cities
President at least 24 hours before the
beginning of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities President
assigns general resolutions
to policy committees where
members review, debate,
and recommend positions for
each policy proposal. Recommendations are
forwarded to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions
Committee includes
representatives from
each Cal Cities diversity
caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly
is a meeting of the
collective body of
all voting delegates —
one from every
member city.

Seven Policy
Committees meet
throughout the year to
review and recommend
positions to take on
bills and regulatory
proposals. Policy
committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division,
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions Committee.

Potential Cal Cities bylaws amendments are also
considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a
member-informed
process, grounded
in the voices and
experiences of city
officials throughout
the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions Committee
considers all resolutions.

General Resolutions approved
1 by either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee
are next considered by the General
Assembly. General resolutions not approved,
or referred for further study by both a policy
committee and the Resolutions Committee
do not go the General Assembly. All
Petitioned Resolutions are considered by the
General Assembly, unless disqualified.
2 • Voting delegates will receive increased communications to prepare them for their role during the General Assembly.
• The General Assembly will take place earlier to allow more time for debate and discussion.
• Improvements to the General Assembly process will make it easier for voting delegates to discuss and debate resolutions.

What’s new in 2023?
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).

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: Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3369
Subject: Considering the City's Response to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Affordable Housing: "A Plan Without a Home."
Report in Brief
The Contra Costa County (“County”) Grand Jury (“Grand Jury”) has issued Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Affordable Housing: “A Plan Without a Home” (“Report”) (Attachment 2). The Report requires a City Council (“Council”) approved response letter (“Response”) to the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report.

Recommended Action
Authorize the City Manager to submit the attached Response (Attachment 1) to the Grand Jury on behalf of the City of Concord.

Background
Each year the County Grand Jury selects governmental issues to research and analyze on behalf of the citizens of the County. Their reports are intended to help bring exposure to important government issues, provide research and analysis, and make findings and recommendations for possible solutions. The result is a report to which identified public entities are required to respond.

The FY 2022-23 Grand Jury elected to issue a Report to all jurisdictions within the County, including the City of Concord (“City”). The Report was issued on June 16, 2023, and provides analysis, findings, and recommendations. The Grand Jury has requested

3.e3.e3.e

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.e
September 5, 2023
that the City respond to the findings and recommendation in the Report. The attached letter is a draft response for the City.

Analysis
The Report topics and the required formatting of the Response are discussed below.

The format of the Response to the findings and recommendations is prescribed by law (Penal Code Section 933.05). The City has complied with that format.

With regard to the findings, the City must provide a response of agreement, disagreement, or partial disagreement with discussion of any reasons for “nonagreement.”
With regard to the recommendations, state law requires a response to be in one of the following four formats:
 The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing the implemented action.
 The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
 The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scope and parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Report.
 The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation thereof.

The Report’s discussion section consists of three distinct sections, which correspond to the County’s understanding of the following three components of affordable housing production:

1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Targets and City and County Responsibility

2. Additional Obstacles that Hinder Development of Affordable Housing

3. Cities and Their Relationship with the State of California The Report outlines findings and recommendations intended to improve how local governments address affordable housing production.

The Response drafted by the City is in advance of the 90-day response timeframe granted pursuant to Penal Code Section 933(c), and satisfies the requirements set forth in Penal Code Section 933.05.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.e
September 5, 2023
Financial Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the City by responding to the Report.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Proposed Response to Grand Jury Report No. 2036

2. Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Affordable Housing: “A Plan without a Home”

September 6, 2023
By U.S. Mail and email ([email protected]) Ms. Cynthia Roberts, Foreperson
Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: City of Concord Response to June 16, 2023, Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Affordable Housing: “A Plan without a Home”
Dear Ms. Roberts:

This letter serves as the response from the City of Concord (“City”) to the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations set forth in Report No. 2306, hereafter referenced as the “Report” in this letter. This letter was reviewed and approved by the Concord City Council at its September 5, 2023, meeting, and I was directed to submit the response for the City of Concord. This response satisfies the City’s response requested by September 13, 2023.

The City recognizes the lack of adequate affordable housing is a matter of vital importance to the economic security of California families and creates challenges for employers striving to retain and recruit workers; however, Contra Costa County’s lack of affordable housing production is not unique. In fact, as of June 1, 2023, according to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), only 42 jurisdictions in the entire state have fulfilled their obligation by meeting their RHNA targets1. This is a statewide issue and not confined solely to jurisdictions within Contra Costa County. Further, the Report only focuses on one facet of affordable housing, production, and did not examine protection or preservation, which are two important approaches to maintaining the existing supply of affordable housing.

To address the State’s housing challenges a holistic approach regarding governmental policies is necessary.

For example, the State Legislature has not taken action to address Article 34 of the California Constitution, which requires voter approval for public housing to be built, has not taken action to address Costa Hawkins which prohibits cities from imposing rent control on post-1995 units, and repealed California Communities Redevelopment laws which had previously provided funds 1 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/sb35_statewidedeterminationsummary.pdf Attachment 1

City of Concord Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 September 6, 2023

for local match dollars to stimulate affordable housing development. Despite these failures, the State Legislature – and by extension the Grand Jury -- incomprehensibly fault local governments with an inability to produce affordable housing without the legal ability, or funding sources, to serve their populations.

Despite many of the challenges to affordable housing production being outside the control of local governments, the City has made significant progress on the protection, preservation, and production of housing for all residents. The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element2 (“2023-2031 HEU”) provides a summary of all current City tenant protection and housing programs and services (Section 1.5) and contains over 100 programs (Section 1.6) that will be implemented over the next eight years to meet the goals of the 2023-2031 HEU and to remove barriers and constraints to facilitate housing development
Findings
F1. Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

By State law, Cities must plan for their RHNA of housing units and remove barriers to their construction. All of which Concord has done within its current Housing Element.

The actual construction of the units is in the hands of private property owners, non- profits, and developers. As stated in the page before local governments are actually legally prohibited from constructing residential units without a vote of the people.

Further it is worth noting that the costs to construct affordable units is currently averaging between $750,000 to $1 million dollars for each unit constructed. Thus, funding is a critical issue in building adequate supplies of affordable units. The State eliminated the historic source for local funding for affordable housing when the State eliminated Redevelopment Agencies and so far the State has not “replaced” local match affordable housing dollars. Further development of housing is highly influenced by the regional economy, local economics, interest rates, and other factors beyond local government control.

For those actions within its control, the City has designated the Planning Manager as the position responsible for overseeing the implementation of the programs and objectives as identified in the 2023-2031 HEU. Implementation of the 2023-2031 HEU in Concord includes taking active steps to remove constraints to development, reducing costs, and expediting and streamlining approvals for residential development across all levels of affordability. More information about the HEU and its implementation are available at:
https://concordhousingelement.org.
2 https://concordhousingelement.org/

City of Concord Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 September 6, 2023

F2. City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

Without a dedicated funding source from the State of California or other mechanism to obtain additional funding, the majority of jurisdictions throughout the State of California will continue to miss their RHNA targets for very low- and low-income households. Units affordable to lower income households require significant subsidies since the cost of construction exceeds the return on investment and there is inadequate funding to support the housing need.

The high cost of subsidizing affordable units also limits the number of units inclusionary housing ordinances can require of developers, as too high of a burden will simply stifle market-rate development and thereby further exacerbate the housing crisis. The City has to work within those larger market realities and economic conditions when adopting and amending its inclusionary housing ordinance to ensure very low and low-income units are developed alongside market rate units to the extent economically feasible.

Unfortunately, rising construction costs, high interest rates, labor shortages, and the cost of labor are currently exacerbating the ongoing economic challenges of constructing affordable units.

F3. There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.

Response: The City disagrees with the finding.

While there are no legal or financial penalties if the City does not achieve their RHNA targets (nor should there be as the actual construction of these units is dependent in large part upon the private sector and the availability of funding) there are punitive consequences. For jurisdictions that do not meet their RHNA targets, developers may choose to use a ministerial, streamlined process for housing projects pursuant to Senate Bill 35. This removes local control regarding these important land use decisions.

F4. Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low-income and 4x for low-income residents).

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

The noted increase within the finding (16x for very low-income and 4x for low-income residents), however, does not match the increases for the City. The table below shows

City of Concord Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 September 6, 2023

fifth- and sixth-cycle allocations by income group and the percentage increase within the City of Concord.

Table 1: Concord’s RHNA Targets by Income Level
Income Level 5th Cycle RHNA 6th Cycle RHNA Increase
Extremely/Very
Low
798 1,292 494 (61.9%)
Low 444 744 300 (67.6%)
Moderate 559 847 288 (51.5%)
Above Moderate 1,677 2,190 513 (31.6%)
Total 3,478 5,073 1,595 (45.9%)
F5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very low and low-income housing, including:
a. Limited availability of land;
b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d. Limited available funding;
e. Lack of community support;
f. NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.

Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding.

While it is true that items a, c, d, and f can hinder the development of affordable housing, the City has taken significant steps to promote the development and preservation of affordable housing, including the recent award of $14.44 million (almost the entirety of its remaining Redevelopment Successor Agency funds) for the construction of a 62-unit affordable project and the acquisition and rehabilitation of 116 units that are currently affordable and with this purchase will remain affordable. All of these units will be deed-restricted, guaranteeing their affordability for 55 years. The City has also approved a 313-unit project under the provisions of SB 35 and approved building permits within the last year for a total of 103 units of deed-restricted multifamily housing.

The City is also taking further actions in connection with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to expedite and fast track residential development projects with very low-and low-income housing. These efforts by the City have received broad community support and recent projects with very low- and low-income housing have been celebrated by the City and within the community it serves.

F6. Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development.

City of Concord Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 September 6, 2023

Zoning obstacles include:
a. Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b. Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c. Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.

Response: The City disagrees with the finding.

Housing Element law requires jurisdictions to demonstrate there is adequate capacity to meet their RHNA and if adequate sites do not exist, rezoning is required. Demonstrable capacity also must include a buffer between 15-30% over the RHNA target. Concord has done so in its Housing Element. Zoning standards may also have to be amended based on the constraints analysis of the Housing Element.
a) The City of Concord has seen a number of its identified sites develop with housing. Further, under recent changes to housing element law, the sites identified within the Housing Element are required to be analyzed to demonstrate their true potential for development or redevelopment; therefore, the identified sites cannot be “poor land choices for AH development.” b) The City has zoning designations that allow up to 100 units per acre and also provisions for a 25% density increase around its BART stations. The City has found that height has not been a constraint to achieving identified densities in Concord. c) The City of Concord has an inclusionary housing ordinance and at the City Council’s direction is currently going through the process of amending it to create an even more expansive program.

F7. Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

F8. Builder's Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

F9. When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA’s) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities, did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative

City of Concord Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 September 6, 2023

funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

The loss of RDA funding has had a significant impact on the City’s ability to provide funding for projects that target very low- and low-income households. See Response F5 for additional information regarding the City’s recent use of the majority of its remaining RDA Successor Agency funding.

F10. Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low- income residents.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

F11. Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer’s overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

Measure X is allocating $12 million per year for affordable housing development. This funding level is woefully inadequate when compared to the amount of funding required to facilitate construction of low- and very low-income housing development throughout the County. Affordable housing developers typically require multiple sources of financing such as federal and state grants, tax credits, private investments, and partnerships with nonprofit organizations. While local funding like Measure X can enhance a project’s financial feasibility and facilitate its development, this local funding is only one piece of a complex tapestry of funding necessary for a project to move forward in today’s economy.

F12. Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.

Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding.

While the factors listed above help attract developers, there are many other factors that can prevent a project from moving forward despite a city’s best efforts. Other factors include high land costs and limited availability of developable sites, increasing labor and materials costs, expenses associated with compliance with the California Environmental

City of Concord Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 September 6, 2023

Quality Act (CEQA) and associated project opposition, a lack of adequate infrastructure, transit and other amenities, environmental constraints, supply chain and material/labor costs, and unwilling landowners. Even where a project is approved by a city and set to move forward, circumstances can change that result in the development not moving forward. For instance, the City of Concord approved an SB 35 project for 313 units in close proximity to BART; however, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee changed their scoring criteria, which resulted in the project no longer being competitive for that critical funding.

F13. The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very low and low-income housing.

Response: The City agrees with this finding.

As shown in Table 1 above, RHNA targets for the number of units expected to be developed for Concord have increased for very low- and low-income groups.

Recommendations
R1. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.

Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

The Planning Manager has been assigned to ensure those elements of meeting the allocated RHNA targes that are within the City’s control (the programs and objectives of the Housing Element) are implemented. The goals of these programs and objectives are to reduce barriers and constraints for housing development to facilitate achieving the RHNA targets, but the City is not ultimately responsible for achieving RHNA goals (i.e., constructing housing units); this is done by the private market. The Planning Manager’s role is to ensure those assigned to completing the program or objective do so within the timeframe identified within the 2023-2031 HEU.

R2. Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor Meetings.

City of Concord Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 September 6, 2023

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.

The City is already required by law to submit its annual progress report (APR) report to the state on its Housing Element implementation and RHNA progress (including very low- and low-income households) and does so each year. This report is reviewed by the City Council during a public meeting, which ensures transparency and an opportunity for the public to easily access and track this information. Biannual reporting will not be implemented, as it is not warranted and it would impact the already heavy workloads of our staff. Construction projects take time and reporting annually allows the community and the State to track progress. Increased frequency of reporting would be difficult to achieve with current staffing levels given the amount of data that must be assembled R3. Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community voice in the process and helping to identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.

The City of Concord already has established planning mechanisms and committees responsible for addressing affordable housing issues. In fact the City just held many, many public meetings on this topic as part of developing the current Housing Element.

These existing structures provide platforms for community engagement and collaboration, making the formation of a separate commission redundant and potentially duplicative of efforts. Further, establishing and maintaining a dedicated commission would require additional financial and administrative resources. At present, the City is already allocating resources to multiple initiatives aimed at addressing affordable housing needs and implementing the policies and programs spelled out in the Housing Element. Adding another commission will spread resources too thin and hinder the efficiency of current efforts.

R4. Each city and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RHNA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in their Community.

City of Concord Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 September 6, 2023

Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

As required by state law, the City has reviewed existing processes and identified programs to address any potential constraints to development through the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update process.

R5. Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.

Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

Each jurisdiction must prepare an annual progress report (APR) on the jurisdiction’s status and progress in implementing its housing element using forms provided by HCD.

The APR is available to the public through the City’s and HCD’s websites.

R6. Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned "suitable for residential use," without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.

Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

As required by state law, jurisdictions are required to prepare a site inventory identifying land suitable and available for residential development to meet the City’s regional housing needs by income level.

R7. Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.

Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

Through the City’s 2023-2031 HEU process, the City reviewed its zoning policies and identified potential affordable housing development constraints and developed programs to address those constraints. More information is available at https://concordhousingelement.org/.

R8. Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of 2023 (if not already in place).

City of Concord Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 September 6, 2023

Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

The City already has an adopted inclusionary housing ordinance3 and is currently going through the process of amending the program to make it more expansive. These amendments will be considered by the City Council in the late summer/early fall of 2023.

R9. Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.

Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

The City of Concord has an Affordable Housing Incentive Program4 available for affordable housing developers. This program provides increased densities, alternative development standards (lot coverage, height, setbacks, etc.), and a streamlined and expedited review process for projects that include a certain number of units affordable to lower income households.

R10. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.

Response: This recommendation has been implemented.

The City of Concord has incorporated the following program within its Housing Element to address affordable housing:
“Within 3 months following the adoption of program guidelines for the award and distribution of Measure X affordable housing trust funds, coordinate with Contra Costa County staff to determine potential funding that will be available for programs and/or projects within Concord. If necessary to meet Concord’s housing needs, continue coordinating with County staff and elected officials within 1 year of adoption of Measure X guidelines to evaluate and advocate for potential expansion of Measure X affordable housing funds including the evaluation of a partnership between the City and County.” 3 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Concord/#!/Concord18/Concord18185.html#18.185.040 4 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Concord/#!/Concord18/Concord18185.html#18.185.060

City of Concord Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 September 6, 2023

Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager for the City, is available to answer any question or provide any additional information concerning the above responses. You can reach her at (925) 671- 3369 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Valerie Barone
City Manager

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
2022-2023
Contra Costa County
Civil Grand Jury
Report 2306
June 14, 2023
ATTACHMENT 2

Contact: Cynthia Roberts
Foreperson
(925) 608-2621

Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 2306

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home

TO:

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
City Councils for All Cities in Contra Costa County

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 i of i Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Table of Contents
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ...................... 1 SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 2 METHODOLOGY................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 3 DOCUMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3 INTERVIEWS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3 BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 12 RHNA TARGETS AND CITY AND COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY ................................ ........... 12 ADDITIONAL OBSTACLES THAT HINDER THE DEVELOPMENT OF AH ........................ 13 Limited Availability of Land ................................ ................................ ............................... 13 Restrictive Zoning Policies Specific to AH Development ................................ .................... 13 Developer Interest to Bring Projects Forward ................................ ................................ ...... 14 Limited Funding ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 14 Lack of Community Support ................................ ................................ ............................... 14 NIMBY Opposition & City Council response to NIMBY opposition ................................ ... 14 CITIES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ........................ 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ .............. 16 FINDINGS: ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 16 RECOMMENDATIONS: ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17 REQUIRED RESPONSES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 19 REFERENCES: ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 20 BIBLIOGRAPHY: ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 20 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................

A-1. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME 2022 ................................ . 21 A-2. 2022 CCC WAGES, RENT TO INCOME, AMI STATUS ................................ ................ 22 A-3. BAY AREA RHNA ALLOCATIONS AND PROGRESS ................................ ................... 23 A-4. SB 35 VERY LOW-INCOME AND LOW-INCOME DETERMINATION SUMMARIES .. 27 A-5. NEWS ARTICLES REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ................................ ........ 34

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 1 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AH Affordable Housing
Allocations State-issued housing goals by income category that must be planned for and included in each County and city housing element plan AMI Area Median Income – Refer to Table 1
Builder’s Remedy A provision found in California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) that allows developers of affordable housing projects to bypass the zoning code and general plan of cities that are out of compliance with the Housing Element Law.

Extremely Low
Income
30% or less of area AMI
HEP Housing Element Plans
HCD The State Department of Housing and Community Development Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance
Regulation, when adopted by a city or the County, requires new residential developments to include a minimum percentage of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households into residential developments of five units or more (generally 15%)
Low Income (LI) 50- 80% or less of area AMI.

RDA Redevelopment Agency - dedicated to urban renewal.

RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Measure X Housing
Fund
Contra Costa County’s 20-year, $12 million annual share of Measure X ½ cent sales tax to be used for housing & services.

NIMBY Not in my back yard
SB 35 California Senate Bill 35 streamlines the housing construction process for cities and counties that fail to build enough housing to meet state-mandated requirements for very low- and low-income households.

Very Low Income
(VLI)
30-50% of area AMI. Qualifications for this designation are based on the collective income of all the persons in a household (total household income).

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 2 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

SUMMARY
The civil grand jury began this investigation to understand how Contra Costa County is addressing the need for affordable housing. We started by reviewing California Housing and Community reports titled Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) results for the County.

These reports, issued at the end of each Housing Element cycle, show housing permits issued for various resident income classification groups against state mandated targets. Each city plus unincorporated County areas of responsibility results are listed. Appendix 3 comprises results for the past 3 Housing Element cycles plus targets for the latest cycle 2023-2031.

After reviewing these reports, we realized that most cities and our County were not providing the required number of housing permits primarily for very low- and low-income resident housing.

Close examination of these reports reveals the scale and accelerated progression of missed targets. Additionally, these reports show that the very low- and low-income resident categories reflect the largest percentage of missed RHNA and plan targets over the past 20 years.

Based on these initial findings, we focused our efforts on housing for residents classified as very low or low income. We wanted to understand who in local government is responsible for implementation of approved housing plans and why were those plans failing to address permit targets for very low- and low-income residents. What are the drivers/obstacles behind these missed targets, and what actions were being taken to increase the availability of affordable housing for these residents throughout our County.

What we found was that although there is ownership for the creation and approval of Housing Elements that address affordable housing targets, we could not find clear assigned responsibility inside local government to implement plans after approval. This problem, combined with the myriad of challenging obstacles outlined in this report has translated into years of missed targets for residents classified as very low or low income. Without significant changes to how local governments address affordable housing, cities and the County risk the imposition of State mandated solutions that bypass local development protocols. This report is a summation of our work, findings and recommendations for improvement.

.

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 3 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

METHODOLOGY
Documents
The grand jury reviewed numerous documents from local, County, regional, and State agencies. For a comprehensive list see the References section of this document.

Interviews
The grand jury conducted interviews with city and County leaders knowledgeable about the housing development process in the west, central and east County cities. We also interviewed:
• developers that specialize in affordable housing construction projects • leaders with experience in addressing housing development issues • various staff members with housing responsibilities

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 4 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

BACKGROUND
The housing element cycle was introduced in 1969, when the California State Legislature passed laws requiring that all cities and counties adequately plan to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state).

The process involves significant planning from experts in local government, and citizens are asked proactively for input on these proposed plans before being submitted to the State for approval. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approves all HEPs.

The role of the state, besides approval of each HEP, is to identify the total number of homes required by resident income classification so that cities and counties can include these numbers in their HEPs. These numbers are required to be included in each city and County HEP.

Determining individual income classifications is a County-specific exercise. It starts with a determination of County Area Median Income (AMI). As noted in Table 1 below, the state defines for each County, which is then extrapolated into specific resident income classifications.

After development of housing allocation numbers by HCD, the data is passed down to the regional authority, the Association of Bay Area Governments, (ABAG), as a Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND). This is the first step in California’s process to plan for the housing needs in each region of the state. It is RHND’s responsibility to also track permits issued against allocation targets in each Housing Element Plan (HEP). This tracking of progress against targets is communicated through ABAG issued reports (Appendix 3).

The next step, allocation, is also the role of the regional authority, ABAG. It is their responsibility to allocate a share of the RHND housing numbers to each city and County as a Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). These numbers are broken out by resident income, classified as very low income, low income, moderate income and above moderate income.

The next two tables reflect Contra Costa County’s average median income, occupation, and wages of some of the County residents. We wanted to understand who in our community is part of the very low- and low-income groups. We realized that we all probably know someone who may be impacted by the shortage of affordable housing in the County.

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 5 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Table 1 below, from the California Department of Housing and Community Development website, shows the state definition of income limits for residents in Contra Costa County based on the calculation of the average median income (AMI). AMI is based on the collective income of all the persons in a household (total household income).

Table 1: 2022 State Income Limits by Household

Contra Costa County

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 6 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Table 2 below contains data from govsalaries.com. It identifies by occupation some of the County occupations that fall into the very low- and low-income classifications as well as a few occupations that are just over the threshold, falling into the median income group.

Table 2: 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status

In addition to residents in these occupational categories, a lack of very low- and low-income affordable housing impacts senior County residents (over the age of 65). Seniors are one of the fastest growing population segments in the County. The most recent US Census for the County indicates that 6.7 percent of the total population, over 200,000 residents, is over the age of 65, an increase of 12.5 percent since 2010. The California Department of Aging projects that this group of residents will grow by over 150 percent by 2060.

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 7 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury The next two charts contain data extracted from published ABAG housing reports (Appendix 3).

They highlight the disappointing results in housing permits issued against mandated allocations for very low- and low-income residents.

Chart 1 shows a 21-year decline in the percentage of permits issued for very low-income residents, even as allocation targets stayed relatively flat. For the upcoming 2023-2031 allocation cycle for very low-income housing, allocations have tripled.

Chart 1: Very-low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 1999-2006 Progress 2007 -2014 2015 -2020 2023-2031
Percentage
Thousands
RHNA Cycle
Contra Costa County Very Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
RHNA Allocation Permits Issued Percent of Allocation Permitted

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 8 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Chart 2 shows a 15-year decline in low-income housing permits, with an uplift in the most recent allocation cycle. However, the County still only issued permits for about half of the allocations mandated by the state for this same period. And again, the upcoming allocation cycle for 2023- 2031 has a significant bump in the mandated allocation for low-income housing.

Chart 2: Low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC

The data published in charts 1 & 2 above illustrates that over the period 1999-2020 the County has failed to provide the number of housing units mandated by the State of California and as they have planned for in their individual city and County element plans for very low- and low-income residents.

To understand the allocation targets and whether all income groups were equally impacted, the grand jury again looked at whether there had been any progress made against RHNA targets within any of the other income groups. What we found was that housing permits for high income housing had outpaced other income groups, with high income permits more than double all other income group housing permits combined. Close examination of the details published in the reports found in Appendix 3 validates this reality. The next 2 charts again use graphic descriptions of this published data to reinforce the magnitude of the problem.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1999-2006 Progress 2007 -2014
Progress4325
2015 - 2020 Progress 2023 - 2031
Percentage
Thousands
RHNA Cycle
Contra Costa County Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
RHNA Allocation Permits Issued Percent of Allocations Permitted

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 9 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Chart 3 looks at the past three Housing Element cycles results against allocations for the four income categories measured by RHNA reports for Contra Costa County. It also identifies new allocations for the current 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle. The income categories are VLI (very low), L (low), M (moderate), and H- (above moderate), which align with income categories measured in RHNA published progress reports. This chart also shows what percentage of the planned permits (allocation) resulted in a corresponding permit (Permits Issued) being issued for each income group as a percentage (Percent Permitted).

Chart 3: Contra Costa County
RHNA Allocations and Permits by Income Group

0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 VLI L M H VLI L M H VLI L M H VLI L M H
1999-2006 2007 -2014 2015 -2020 2023-2031
Thousands
Contra Costa County RHNA Allocations
and Permits
Allocation Permits Issued Percent Permitted

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 10 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Chart 4 below takes a representative sample of cities in the County and shows the percentage of housing permits issued for very low- and low-income residents measured against all housing permits issued for the time period 1999-2020. Most of the cities identified fell short of their allocation goals.

Chart 4: Very Low and Low-Income Housing Permits as a % of All Permits by City

Chart 5 is a listing of all 19 cities in the County, showing how much housing was permitted for very low- and low-income residents in the last Housing Element cycle 2015-2020 and what is expected to be accomplished in 2023-2031. As the chart shows, the State of California has increased the mandatory allocation for very low- and low-income housing for many Contra Costa County cities and for the County itself.

Chart 5: Very Low and Low-Income Permit Allocations by City

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 11 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Whether reviewing individual city details in Appendix 3 or reviewing the County results overall, the track record regarding very low- and low-income permitted units for affordable housing over the past 20 years is dismal. How will each city and the County meet more challenging targets (Appendix 5) for very low- and low-income housing in the next Housing Element cycle and what might enable attainment in the future?

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 12 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

DISCUSSION
In every interview the grand jury conducted with city and County officials, all communicated that they care deeply about the affordable housing issue in their communities. However, none of those interviewed acknowledged or identified themselves, their department or any other agency as having responsibility for the actual attainment of RHNA housing targets. Although we found the Housing Element Plans on the various city and the County entities, we did not find any language or group description that identified an owning entity that is either accountable or responsible for the execution of the Housing Element Plan, identifying and addressing obstacles, or attaining state mandated targets. The grand jury was unable to find any owner for the actual achievement of state mandated housing targets. Meaning that once a Housing Element plan containing the mandated housing targets for each income group was approved, no individual or department was responsible for implementing the approved Housing Element plan or accountable for the progress/results against the established targets within the plan.

Our investigation looked at three specific areas that should enable affordable housing. First, the RHNA targets identified in housing element plans and who in local government takes ownership to implement approved HEPs. Second, what control do our cities and the County have in the affordable housing development process? Finally, the state’s relationship with our cities and the County: how decisions by the state impact affordable housing development in our County.

RHNA Targets and City and County Responsibility

Each city is required by the State of California to provide an updated housing element plan for approval every eight years. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a Bay Area local government consortium whose mission is to strengthen cooperation and collaboration across local governments in order to build healthier and stronger communities, receives the affordable housing target data from the state. This data outlines how much housing will be needed, by income category, for the next reporting cycle. ABAG distributes the individual targets for each city and the County for the current cycle. ABAG then provides a report, before the next housing element cycle, which documents each city and the County results against targets.

Contra Costa County city and County performance in issuing housing permits for very low- and low-income residents for the last three housing element cycles, 1999-2006, 2007-2014 and 2015- 2020, showed significant misses of actual permits issued against the targets.

The charts in Appendix 3 reflect the number of permits issued by city, against RHNA allocation targets for each housing element. Appendix 5 is the final RHNA allocation for 2023-2031. All data presented in appendices 3 and 5 reflect that our cities and County are permitting housing, primarily for residents in the 120 percent of median or higher income classification.

City and County officials are primarily focused on getting HCD to approve an individual housing element plan. In multiple interviews with various city officials, after HEP approval we did not find examples of consistent communication of progress to meeting targets for very low- and low- income residents. In these same interviews, RHNA targets were described as “aspirational, not

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 13 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury realistic, or not attainable.” Interviewees used different words, but overall, RHNA targets were considered mostly an academic exercise that no one takes seriously. Furthermore, we did not find a specific owner for attainment of the housing element plan allocations, leading us to believe that this could well be one of the key reasons for our County’s failure to realize (permit and build) affordable housing for very low- and low-income residents.

Additional Obstacles that Hinder the Development of AH
Six additional obstacles to the development of AH for residents identified as very low- and low- income are:
• limited availability of land;
• restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; • limited developer interest to bring projects forward; • limited funding;
• lack of community support;
• NIMBY – an industry term that denotes opposition to development in a neighborhood, community, or city.

These obstacles are not uniform or constant across the County. Rather, some are more pronounced in one area or at one time.

Limited Availability of Land
Cities with less available land, but access to mass transit hubs, benefit from incentives to build AH close to transit centers. West County cities have benefitted the most from these projects. East County cities with large tracts of undeveloped land have had recent success in building AH projects for very low- and low-income residents. The Antioch Family and Senior Apartments project, completed in 2022, is an example of a successful AH project, in that it was submitted, approved, and completed in a relatively short time period with minimal roadblocks (References/ Bibliography East Bay Times October 22, 2022). Central County cities must balance extremely high land costs against AH development needs.

Restrictive Zoning Policies Specific to AH Development
City zoning ordinances vary greatly throughout the County but in many instances are not conducive to the development of AH. For instance, we conducted a limited proactive review of existing zoning policies to see if there were any subtle changes to local building codes that could be made to ease the approval of AH projects. Some cities zone land for AH development, but land that is far from basic services, in very expensive-to-develop areas, or in environmentally sensitive locations. Some cities have restrictive height zoning ordinances. Many cities do not have an inclusionary housing ordinance. (An inclusionary housing ordinance requires developers to set aside select units for very low- and low-income residents when proposing projects or to pay cities for the exclusion creating a local funding opportunity.)

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 14 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Developer Interest to Bring Projects Forward
Actions by local city councils greatly influence how developers view their ability to successfully create an AH development. In our interviews with city officials and developers, it was determined that city councils that work openly to mitigate community concerns, don’t flip flop after a project has been properly vetted, and are willing to team with developers as partners throughout the long approval and development process are viewed as fostering conducive and supportive environments for AH development. Failure to team with a developer or to actively address obstacles during the approval and development process often results in failing to meet AH targets.

Limited Funding
The lack of funding and the complexity associated with getting funding support for AH projects are obstacles. The state prioritizes AH projects that provide some local funding support.

Developers who rely on tax incentives to help secure project funding get a better place in line to have their projects approved if there is demonstrated local funding support. City officials attribute the elimination of redevelopment agencies as a local funding source in 2012 as a key reason local funding has been so difficult to obtain. The County has been slow to provide alternative funding sources. Voters passed Measure X in 2020, and housing funds will finally be available in 2023. Other Bay Area counties took a more assertive role in providing alternative funding support for their cities.

In 2016, Alameda County passed measure A1, which dedicated $580 million for AH. In 2016, Santa Clara County passed Measure A, which allocated $950 million for AH. In Contra Costa County, Measure X carved out $240 million as a dedicated housing fund, with a stipulation that only $12 million annually for 20 years will be allocated to support housing. No funds are dedicated specifically to building housing for very low- and low-income residents, and there is no direct link of fund requests to achieving RHNA targets.

Lack of Community Support
Cities across the County have a wide range of policies around outreach and education about AH.

The effort to educate communities as to why this housing issue is so important is broadly different across the County. In reviewing successful AH projects completed in the County citizen involvement and participation has shown to lessen local opposition to AH.

NIMBY Opposition and City Council response to NIMBY Opposition NIMBY opposition was frequently cited by the developers that we interviewed as a primary cause of wasted resources and unnecessary project delays. Communities where projects get tied up in extensive local battles with non-supportive citizens or with city councils that reverse earlier decisions made through the normal local development process were cited by developers as influencing whether they would consider proposing AH projects in these communities.

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 15 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Cities and Their Relationship with the State of California The state grants cities and counties broad independence to do what is best for their community regarding housing development. But the state retains the ability to override local city jurisdiction.

The Builder’s Remedy provision in California’s Housing Accountability Act has been in place since 1990. It grants developers the authority to bypass any local zoning or approval process and move projects forward if a local government entity is not in compliance with its current Housing Element plans. Compliance has meant meeting the requirement to have an approved HEP. While in place for many years, the state, until recently, has rarely enforced this provision. City and County officials who were interviewed recognize that there is now a more intense state oversight process to plan submissions, and there are potential penalties for poor content plans or plans that do not get approved by state deadlines. This renewed intensity of focus has forced cities and counties to improve the quality of their Housing Element plans. The Builder’s Remedy is the draconian solution that the state may enforce if cities insist on proposing Housing Element plans that are not implementable. The city and County officials interviewed for this investigation expect to get their housing element plans approved. But again, plan approval does not equal plan implementation.

Senate Bill 35 allows qualifying development projects with certain minimum affordable housing guarantees to move more quickly through the local government review process. The bill amended the Government Code to restrict the ability of local governments to reject these projects. A project approved under SB 35 cannot be challenged under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is an important feature of projects developed under SB35 as much has been discussed publicly about how CEQA lawsuits have been used to slow or stop the development of AH projects. Appendix 4 identifies individual cities and counties that have met their prorated very low- and low-income RHNA goals for the latest reporting period.

It’s a small list. In this County, only El Cerrito qualified for exemption from SB 35. We did not find examples of projects being developed in this County that have been or could be streamlined under SB 35.

Cities in this County that propose Housing Element plans, implement their approved plans, and meet RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents will not run the risk of losing local development control through either Builder’s Remedy or SB35.

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 16 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Findings and Recommendations
Findings:

F1. Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.

F2. City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.

F3. There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.

F4. Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low-income and 4x for low- income residents).

F5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very low- and low-income housing, including:
a. Limited availability of land;
b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d. Limited available funding;
e. Lack of community support;
f. NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.

F6. Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development.

Zoning obstacles include:
a. Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b. Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c. Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.

F7. Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval

F8. Builder’s Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.

F9. When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA’s) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 17 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury F10. Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low- income residents.

F11. Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer’s overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.

F12. Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.

F13. The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very low- and low-income housing.

Recommendations:

R1. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.

R2. Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress, biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor meetings.

R3. Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community voice in the process and helping to identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community.

R4. Each city and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RHNA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in their community.

R5. Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.

R6. Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned “suitable for residential use,” without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 18 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury R7. Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.

R8. Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of 2023 (if not already in place).

R9. Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.

R10. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 19 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

REQUIRED RESPONSES
As required by California Penal Code sections 933(b) and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Contra Costa County civil grand jury requires responses from the following governing bodies:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors F1--F13 R1-R7 & R9-R10 Antioch City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Brentwood City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Clayton City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Concord City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Danville City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
El Cerrito City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Hercules City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Lafayette City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Martinez City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Moraga City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Oakley City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Orinda City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pinole City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pittsburg City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pleasant Hill City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Richmond City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
San Pablo City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
San Ramon City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Walnut Creek City Council F1-F13 R1-R10

These responses must be provided in the format and by the date set forth in the cover letter that accompanies this report. An electronic copy of these responses in the form of a Word document should be sent by e-mail to [email protected] and a hard (paper) copy should be sent to:

Civil Grand Jury – Foreperson
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 20 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury REFERENCES:

Bibliography:
• Association of Bay Area Governments:
o RHNA 1999-2006 Final Report
o RHNA San Francisco Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 o RHNA 2015 - 2020 Bay Area Building Permit Activity Report o RHNA Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031
o RHNA - Regional Housing Needs Allocation
o RHNA: Housing Element Law Changes from 1969 to 2020
• U.S. Census Quick Facts / Contra Costa County, CA
• Fannie Mae Area Median Income Lookup Tool / Contra Costa County, CA • CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act
• SB35 Affordable Housing: Streamlined Approval Process • Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.51): Builder's Remedy and Housing Elements
• Mercury News, February 13, 2023: New bill would extend controversial California housing law
• Mercury News, October 20, 2022: Antioch unveils its newest and largest affordable income apartment complex
• Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, 2015-2016, Report 1614: Where Will We Live? The Affordable Housing Waiting List is Closed
• Contra Costa Conservation and Development: Measure X Housing Fund • Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing: 2016 Measure A - Affordable Housing Bond
• Alameda County HCD: Measure A1 Implementation Policies - Rental Housing Development Fund & Innovation and Opportunity Fund

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 21 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Appendices
A-1. Contra Costa County Average Median Income 2022

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 22 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

A-2. 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 23 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

A-3. Bay Area RHNA Allocations and Progress
CCC Progress in Meeting 1999-2006 Regional Housing Need Allocation

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 24 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury CCC Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation

CCC Progress in Meeting 2015 - 2020 Regional Housing Need Allocation

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 25 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Jurisdiction RHNA
Permits Issued %
RHNA
Met
RHNA
Permits Issued %
RHNA
Met
RHNA
Permits Issued %
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Issued
%
RHNA
Met Deed
Restricted
Non-
Deed
Restricted
Total Deed
Restricted
Non-
Deed
Restricted
Total Deed
Restricted
Non-
Deed
Restricted
Total
Contra Costa County 5,264 798 19 817 16% 3,086 1,580 116 1,696 55% 3,496 260 953 1,213 35% 8,784 14,020 128% Antioch 349 175 18 193 55% 205 299 1 300 146% 214 0 34 34 16% 680 795 117% Brentwood 234 2 0 2 1% 124 6 10 16 13% 123 0 85 85 69% 279 3,192 1144% Clayton 51 0 0 0 0% 25 0 5 5 20% 31 0 0 0 0% 34 8 24%
Concord 798 0 0 0 0% 444 0 0 0 0% 559 5 5 10 2% 1,677 501 30% Danville 196 20 0 20 10% 111 3 27 30 27% 124 2 38 40 32% 126 484 384% El Cerrito 100 62 0 62 62% 63 6 0 6 10% 69 0 13 13 19% 166 459 277% Hercules 220 0 0 0 0% 118 0 16 16 14% 100 0 217 217 217% 244 509 209% Lafayette 138 7 0 7 5% 78 6 0 6 8% 85 24 40 64 75% 99 319 322% Martinez 124 0 0 0 0% 72 0 0 0 0% 78 0 0 0 0% 195 88 45% Moraga 75 0 0 0 0% 44 0 0 0 0% 50 0 6 6 12% 60 86 143%
Oakley 317 8 0 8 3% 174 170 0 170 98% 175 26 208 234 134% 502 1,273 254% Orinda 84 0 0 0 0% 47 0 0 0 0% 54 0 30 30 56% 42 254 605% Pinole 80 0 0 0 0% 48 0 0 0 0% 43 0 1 1 2% 126 25 20%
Pittsburg 392 75 0 75 19% 254 708 34 742 292% 316 0 71 71 22% 1,063 976 92% Pleasant Hill 118 0 0 0 0% 69 19 0 19 28% 84 0 41 41 49% 177 112 63% Richmond 438 266 0 266 61% 305 81 0 81 27% 410 0 0 0 0% 1,282 612 48% San Pablo 56 0 0 0 0% 53 3 4 7 13% 75 8 21 29 39% 265 36 14% San Ramon 516 25 0 25 5% 279 87 0 87 31% 282 164 0 164 58% 340 1,547 455% Walnut Creek 604 96 0 96 16% 355 18 10 28 8% 381 0 44 44 12% 895 1,210 135% Contra Costa
Unincorporated 374 62 1 63 17% 218 174 9 183 84% 243 31 99 130 53% 532 1,534 288% RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
%RHMA Met >100
75> %RHNA Met >100
%RHN Met <75

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 26 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Final RHNA Allocations for 2023-2031

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 27 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

A-4. SB 35 Very Low Income and Low-Income Determination Summaries
Cities and Counties Not Currently Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions This determination represents Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) data received as of June 1, 2022. The following 38 jurisdictions have met their prorated Lower (Very-Low and Low) and Above-Moderate Income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the Reporting Period and submitted their latest APR (2021).

These jurisdictions are not currently subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining), but the jurisdictions are still encouraged to promote streamlining. All other cities and counties beyond these 38 are subject to at least some form of SB 35 streamlining, as indicated on the following pages.

For more detail on the proration methodology or background data see the SB 35 Determination Methodology.

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 ATHERTON 20 MILL VALLEY
2 BELL 21 MONTE SERENO
3 BELLFLOWER 22 NEWPORT BEACH
4 BEVERLY HILLS 23 NORWALK
5 BUENA PARK 24 PLUMAS CO.
6 CALISTOGA 25 ROHNERT PARK
7 CARPINTERIA 26 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
8 CORTE MADERA 27 SAINT HELENA
9 EL CERRITO 28 SAN BERNARDINO CO.
10 FOSTER CITY 29 SANTA ANA
11 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 30 SANTA CLARA CO.
12 GUADALUPE 31 SANTA MONICA
13 HILLSBOROUGH 32 SIERRA CO.
14 INDUSTRY 33 SOLVANG
15 LA HABRA 34 SONOMA CO.
16 LA QUINTA 35 UKIAH
17 LAGUNA NIGUEL 36 VILLA PARK
18 MENDOCINO CO. 37 WESTMINSTER
19 MENLO PARK 38 WOODSIDE

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 28 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Cities and Counties Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions When Proposed Developments Include ≥10% Affordability
These 263 jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their Above Moderate income RHNA and/or have not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) (2021) and therefore are subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 10% affordability.

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 ADELANTO 28 BURBANK 55 DEL REY OAKS
2 ALAMEDA CO. 29 BUTTE CO. 56 DELANO
3 ALISO VIEJO 30 CALAVERAS CO. 57 DESERT HOT SPRINGS
4 ALTURAS 31 CALEXICO 58 DIAMOND BAR
5 AMADOR 32 CALIFORNIA CITY 59 DORRIS
6 AMADOR CO. 33 CALIPATRIA 60 DOS PALOS
7 APPLE VALLEY 34 CARSON 61 DUNSMUIR
8 ARCADIA 35 CERES 62 EAST PALO ALTO
9 ARCATA 36 CHOWCHILLA 63 EL CAJON
10 ARROYO GRANDE 37 CITRUS HEIGHTS 64 EL CENTRO
11 ARVIN 47 38 CLAYTON 65 EL MONTE
12 AUBURN 39 CLEARLAKE 66 ESCALON
13 AVALON 40 CLOVERDALE 67 ESCONDIDO
14 AVENAL 41 COACHELLA 68 ETNA
15 AZUSA 42 COLMA 69 EUREKA
16 BAKERSFIELD 43 COLTON 70 EXETER
17 BANNING 44 COLUSA 71 FAIRFAX 107
18 BARSTOW 45 COLUSA CO. 72 FARMERSVILLE
19 BEAUMONT 46 COMMERCE 73 FERNDALE
20 BELVEDERE 47 COMPTON 74 FILLMORE
21 BENICIA 48 CONCORD 75 FIREBAUGH
22 BIGGS 49 CORCORAN 76 FORT JONES
23 BISHOP 50 CORNING 77 FORTUNA
24 BLUE LAKE 51 COSTA MESA 78 FRESNO CO.
25 BLYTHE 52 CRESCENT CITY 79 GLENN CO.
26 BRADBURY 53 CUDAHY 80 GONZALES
27 BRAWLEY 54 DEL NORTE CO. 81 GRASS VALLEY

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 29 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
82 GREENFIELD 117 LEMON GROVE 152 NOVATO
83 GRIDLEY 118 LEMOORE 153 OCEANSIDE
84 GUSTINE 119 LINCOLN 154 OJAI
85 HALF MOON BAY 120 LINDSAY 155 ORANGE COVE
86 HANFORD 121 LIVINGSTON 156 ORLAND
87 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 122 LOMA LINDA 157 OROVILLE
88 HAYWARD 123 LOMPOC 158 OXNARD
89 HESPERIA 124 LOOMIS 159 PACIFICA
90 HIGHLAND 125 LOS ANGELES CO. 160 PALMDALE
91 HOLTVILLE 126 LOS GATOS 161 PARLIER
92 HUGHSON 127 LYNWOOD 162 PASO ROBLES
93 HUMBOLDT CO. 128 MADERA 163 PATTERSON
94 HUNTINGTON BEACH 129 MADERA CO. 164 PERRIS
95 HUNTINGTON PARK 130 MARICOPA 165 PICO RIVERA
96 HURON 131 MARTINEZ 166 PINOLE
97 IMPERIAL 132 MARYSVILLE 167 PLACERVILLE
98 IMPERIAL CO. 133 MAYWOOD 168 PLEASANT HILL
99 INGLEWOOD 134 MCFARLAND 169 POMONA
100 INYO CO. 135 MENDOTA 170 PORTERVILLE
101 IRWINDALE 136 MERCED CO. 171 PORTOLA
102 ISLETON 137 MILLBRAE 172 POWAY
103 KERMAN 138 MODESTO 173 RANCHO CORDOVA
104 KERN CO. 139 MONTAGUE 174 RED BLUFF
105 KINGS CO. 140 MONTEBELLO 175 REDLANDS
106 KINGSBURG 141 MONTEREY 176 REDONDO BEACH
107 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 142 MONTEREY PARK 177 REEDLEY
108 LA MIRADA 143 MORENO VALLEY 178 RIALTO
109 LA PUENTE 144 MORRO BAY 179 RICHMOND
110 LAKE CO. 145 MOUNT SHASTA 180 RIDGECREST
111 LAKE ELSINORE 146 NATIONAL CITY 181 RIO DELL
112 LAKEPORT 147 NEEDLES 182 RIPON
113 LAKEWOOD 148 NEVADA CITY 183 RIVERBANK
114 LANCASTER 149 NEVADA CO. 184 RIVERSIDE

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 30 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
115 LASSEN CO. 150 NEWMAN 185 RIVERSIDE CO.
116 LAWNDALE 151 NORCO 186 ROLLING HILLS
187 ROSS 213 SANTEE 239 TUOLUMNE CO.
188 SACRAMENTO 214 SARATOGA 240 TURLOCK
189 SACRAMENTO CO. 215 SAUSALITO 241 TWENTYNINE PALMS
190 SALINAS 216 SEASIDE 242 VALLEJO
191 SAN BERNARDINO 217 SEBASTOPOL 243 VENTURA CO.
192 SAN BRUNO 218 SELMA 244 VICTORVILLE
193 SAN DIEGO CO. 219 SHAFTER 245 VISALIA
194 SAN DIMAS 220 SHASTA CO. 246 WATERFORD
195 SAN FERNANDO 221 SHASTA LAKE 247 WEED
196 SAN GABRIEL 222 SIGNAL HILL 248 WEST HOLLYWOOD
197 SAN JACINTO 223 SISKIYOU CO. 249 WEST SACRAMENTO
198 SAN JOAQUIN 224 SOLANA BEACH 250 WESTLAKE VILLAGE
199 SAN JOAQUIN CO. 225 SONORA 260 251 WESTMORLAND
200 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA 226 SOUTH GATE 252 WHEATLAND
201 SAN LEANDRO 227 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 253 WILDOMAR
202 SAN MARINO 228 STANISLAUS CO. 254 WILLIAMS
203 SAN MATEO CO. 229 STOCKTON 255 WILLITS
204 SAN PABLO 230 SUISUN CITY 256 WILLOWS
205 SAN RAFAEL 231 SUTTER CO. 257 WINDSOR
206 SAND CITY 232 TAFT 258 WOODLAKE
207 SANGER 233 TEHACHAPI 259 YOLO CO.
208 SANTA CLARITA 234 TEHAMA 260 YREKA
209 SANTA CRUZ CO. 235 TEHAMA CO. 261 YUBA CITY
210 SANTA MARIA 236 TORRANCE 262 YUCAIPA
211 SANTA PAULA 237 TULARE CO. 263 YUCCA VALLEY
212 SANTA ROSA 238 TULELAKE

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 31 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Cities and Counties Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions When Proposed Developments Include ≥ 50 Percent Affordability These 238 jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their Lower income RHNA (Very low- and low-income) and are therefore subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 50% affordability. If the jurisdiction also has insufficient progress toward their Above Moderate income RHNA, then they are subject to the more inclusive streamlining for developments with at least 50% affordability.

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 AGOURA HILLS 28 CANYON LAKE 55 DINUBA
2 ALAMEDA 29 CAPITOLA 56 DIXON
3 ALBANY 30 CARLSBAD 57 DOWNEY
4 ALHAMBRA 31 CARMEL 58 DUARTE
5 ALPINE CO. 32 CATHEDRAL 59 DUBLIN
6 AMERICAN CANYON 33 CERRITOS 60 EASTVALE
7 ANAHEIM 34 CHICO 61 EL DORADO CO.
8 ANDERSON 35 CHINO 62 EL SEGUNDO
9 ANGELS CAMP 36 CHINO HILLS 63 ELK GROVE
10 ANTIOCH 37 CHULA VISTA 64 EMERYVILLE
11 ARTESIA 38 CLAREMONT 65 ENCINITAS
12 ATASCADERO 39 CLOVIS 66 FAIRFIELD
13 ATWATER 40 COALINGA 67 FOLSOM
14 BALDWIN PARK 41 COLFAX 68 FONTANA
15 BELL GARDENS 42 CONTRA COSTA CO. 69 FORT BRAGG
16 BELMONT 43 CORONA 70 FOWLER
17 BERKELEY 44 CORONADO 71 FREMONT
18 BIG BEAR LAKE 45 COTATI 72 FRESNO
19 BREA 46 COVINA 73 FULLERTON
20 BRENTWOOD 47 CULVER CITY 74 GALT
21 BRISBANE 48 CUPERTINO 75 GARDEN GROVE
22 BUELLTON 49 CYPRESS 76 GARDENA
23 BURLINGAME 50 DALY CITY 77 GILROY
24 CALABASAS 51 DANA POINT 78 GLENDALE
25 CALIMESA 52 DANVILLE 79 GLENDORA
26 CAMARILLO 53 DAVIS 80 GOLETA
27 CAMPBELL 54 DEL MAR 81 GRAND TERRACE
82 GROVER BEACH 114 LOS ALAMITOS 146 OAKLEY

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 32 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION

83 HAWTHORNE 115 LOS ALTOS 147 ONTARIO
84 HEALDSBURG 116 LOS ALTOS HILLS 148 ORANGE
85 HEMET 117 LOS ANGELES 149 ORANGE CO.
86 HERCULES 118 LOS BANOS 150 ORINDA
87 HERMOSA BEACH 119 LOYALTON 151 PACIFIC GROVE
88 HIDDEN HILLS 120 MALIBU 152 PALM DESERT
89 HOLLISTER 121 MAMMOTH LAKES 153 PALM SPRINGS
90 IMPERIAL BEACH 122 MANHATTAN BEACH 154 PALO ALTO
91 INDIAN WELLS 123 MANTECA 155 PALOS VERDES ESTATES
92 INDIO 124 MARIN CO. 156 PARADISE
93 IONE 125 MARINA 157 PARAMOUNT
94 IRVINE 126 MARIPOSA CO. 158 PASADENA
95 JACKSON 127 MENIFEE 159 PETALUMA
96 JURUPA VALLEY 128 MERCED 160 PIEDMONT
97 KING CITY 129 MILPITAS 161 PISMO BEACH
98 LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 130 MISSION VIEJO 162 PITTSBURG 99 LA MESA 131 MODOC CO. 163 PLACENTIA
100 LA PALMA 132 MONO CO. 164 PLACER CO.
101 LA VERNE 133 MONROVIA 165 PLEASANTON
102 LAFAYETTE 134 MONTCLAIR 166 PLYMOUTH
103 LAGUNA BEACH 135 MONTEREY CO. 167 POINT ARENA
104 LAGUNA HILLS 136 MOORPARK 168 PORT HUENEME
105 LAGUNA WOODS 137 MORAGA 169 PORTOLA VALLEY
106 LAKE FOREST 138 MORGAN HILL 170 RANCHO CUCAMONGA
107 LARKSPUR 139 MOUNTAIN VIEW 171 RANCHO MIRAGE
108 LATHROP 140 MURRIETA 172 RANCHO PALOS VERDES
109 LIVE OAK 141 NAPA 173 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
110 LIVERMORE 142 NAPA CO. 174 REDDING
111 LODI 143 NEWARK 175 REDWOOD CITY
112 LOMITA 144 OAKDALE 176 RIO VISTA
113 LONG BEACH 145 OAKLAND 177 ROCKLIN

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 33 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
178 ROSEMEAD 199 SEAL BEACH 220 TULARE
179 ROSEVILLE 200 SIERRA MADRE 221 TUSTIN
180 SAN ANSELMO 201 SIMI VALLEY 222 UNION CITY
181 SAN BENITO CO. 202 SOLANO CO. 223 UPLAND
182 SAN CARLOS 203 SOLEDAD 224 VACAVILLE
183 SAN CLEMENTE 204 SONOMA 225 VENTURA
184 SAN DIEGO 205 SOUTH EL MONTE 226 VERNON
185 SAN FRANCISCO 206 SOUTH PASADENA 227 VISTA
186 SAN JOSE 207 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 228 WALNUT
187 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 208 STANTON 229 WALNUT CREEK
188 SAN LUIS OBISPO 209 SUNNYVALE 230 WASCO
189 SAN LUIS OBISPO CO. 210 SUSANVILLE 231 WATSONVILLE
190 SAN MARCOS 211 SUTTER CREEK 232 WEST COVINA
191 SAN MATEO 212 TEMECULA 233 WHITTIER
192 SAN RAMON 213 TEMPLE CITY 234 WINTERS
193 SANTA BARBARA 214 THOUSAND OAKS 235 WOODLAND
194 SANTA BARBARA CO. 215 TIBURON 236 YORBA LINDA
195 SANTA CLARA 216 TRACY 237 YOUNTVILLE
196 SANTA CRUZ 217 TRINIDAD 238 YUBA CO.
197 SANTA FE SPRINGS 218 TRINITY CO.

198 SCOTTS VALLEY 219 TRUCKEE

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 34 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury A-5. News Articles Regarding Affordable Housing
Bay Area News Group article

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 35 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 36 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

East Bay Times article

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 37 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Builder’s Remedy Article - The Fix

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 38 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Staff Report
Date: September 5, 2023
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Kevin Marstall, PE, Director of Community Development Carlton Thompson, PE, City Engineer
Bernard Enrile, PE, CIP Manager
Prepared by: Tianjun Cao, PE, Associate Civil Engineer
[email protected]
(925) 671-3243
Subject: Considering approval of a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $648,000 (base agreement of $589,000 plus staff authority to spend up to a 10% contingency of $59,000) to BKF Engineers for project design and related services for the Willow Pass and Landana Sewer Capacity Improvements
Project (Willow Pass Road and Landana Drive) [Project Nos. 2702 and 2704]; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (Funded by Sewer Enterprise Funds)
CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and/or 21080.19, Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15061(b)(2), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378.

Report in Brief
The sewer infrastructure on Willow Pass Road, between Fry Way and Landana Drive, and on Landana Drive, between Larkspur Drive and Willow Pass Road, is in need of capacity improvements based upon evaluations completed as part of the Citywide Sewer Master Plan (Master Plan). The Willow Pass and Landana Sewer Capacity Improvements Project (Project Nos. 2702 and 2704) will construct sewer capacity improvements on those streets based upon recommendations from the Master Plan and investigation during project design. The current recommendations are to improve certain

3.f3.f3.f3.f

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.f
September 5, 2023
segments of the sewer main along Willow Pass Road, within Fry Way, and on Landana Drive. See attached Location Map for project limits (Attachment 1).

The project is on an accelerated project design schedule in order to meet construction completion by June 2024, in advance of the Willow Pass Road Repaving Project.

Recommended Action
Approval of a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $648,000 (base agreement of $589,000 plus staff authority to spend up to a 10% contingency of $59,000) to BKF Engineers for project design and related services for the Willow Pass and Landana Sewer Capacity Improvements Project (Willow Pass Road and Landana Drive) [Project Nos. 2702 and 2704]; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, and make the CEQA determinations as provided in this staff report.

Background
On June 6, 2023, City of Concord (City) staff (Staff) presented the Mid-Cycle budget update to City Council (Council). Two of the projects recommended to be funded were the Willow Pass Sewer Capacity Improvements Project (Project No. 2702) and the Landana Sewer Capacity Improvements Project (Project No. 2704). These projects were created based upon the recommendations provided in the Master Plan. The current recommendation on Willow Pass Road is for sewer main line upsizing in two segments, from Fry Way to East Street and from Granada Drive to San Vicente Drive.

The segment between the National Guard Armory and Granada Drive is currently recommended for pipe lining. The recommendation on Landana Drive, between Larkspur Drive to Willow Pass Road, is to upsize the sewer main line. Project scope and limits of work may vary from the Master Plan recommendations following start of design and review of current field conditions.

The decision was made to combine the two projects into one for the purposes of design and construction due to the connectivity of the sewer lines and proximity of work. The project is on an accelerated project design schedule in order to meet construction completion by June 2024, in advance of the Willow Pass Road Repaving Project currently scheduled for Summer 2024 construction.

Procurement Process
Staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a consultant to provide civil engineering design services on June 29, 2023. The RFP was advertised in the local newspaper and on the City’s Procurement Website. Four (4) proposals were received, which were reviewed and ranked by the selection committee.

Based on the analysis of the proposals, interviews, and references, BKF Engineers (BKF) of Walnut Creek, CA was selected as the most qualified firm to provide civil engineering design services for the Willow Pass and Landana Sewer Capacity

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.f
September 5, 2023
Improvements Project (Project Nos. 2702 and 2704). Staff and BKF negotiated the scope of work and cost for the services and agreed upon $589,000 as a fair and reasonable compensation for the services needed to complete the design phase of this project.

Financial Impact
The total budget for this project is $8,250,000, with $7,500,000 from the Willow Pass Sewer Capacity Improvements Project (Project No. 2702) and $750,000 from the Landana Sewer Capacity Improvements Project (Project No. 2704). There is sufficient budget available for this Professional Services Agreement. Both projects are funded by Sewer Enterprise Funds (Fund 710).

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and/or 21080.19, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15061(b)(2), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378, award of this agreement is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, as it does not constitute a “project”, does not commit the City to a definite course of action, does not constitute discretionary approval of a specific project, and will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and in the alternative is exempt from CEQA. No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Location Map

2. Professional Services Agreement

Attachment 1
Location Map
Willow Pass and Landana Sewer Capacity Improvements Project (Projects 2702/2704) Project Limits

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10/2022 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on September 5, 2023, between the City of Concord, a California municipal corporation, ("CITY") and BKF Engineers, 1646 N. California Blvd, Suite 400, Walnut Creek CA 94596 (“CONSULTANT”).

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

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

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

1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on September 5, 2023, and expire on June 30, 2024.

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

3. PAYMENT. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT including payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules in detail in Exhibit A. However, shall in no event shall the amount CITY pays CONSULTANT exceed six-hundred forty- eight thousand dollars ($648,000) for the term of this Agreement. Any Amendment to this Agreement that includes an increase to this compensation amount shall be made in accordance with Section 5 below.

CONSULTANT may submit monthly statements for services rendered; all statements shall include adequate documentation demonstrating work performed during the billing period. It is intended that CITY review such statement and pay CONSULTANT for services rendered within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a statement that meets all requirements of this Agreement. Payment by CITY shall not be deemed a waiver of unsatisfactory work, even if such defects were known to the CITY at the time of payment.

4. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. Authorized representatives shall represent CITY and CONSULTANT in all matters pertaining to the services to be ordered by CITY or rendered Attachment 2

10/2022 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
by CONSULTANT under this Agreement except where approval for the CITY is specifically required by the City Council. The CITY’s authorized representative is Carlton Thompson, City Engineer of the Community Development Department. The CONSULTANT’s authorized representative is Dan Schaefer, Principal-in-Charge.

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

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

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

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

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

10/2022 3
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CONSULTANT shall not represent that CONSULTANT, or its officers, agents, employees, volunteers or subcontractors are agents or employees of the CITY, and CONSULTANT shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of the CITY in any capacity whatsoever as an agent, and shall have no authority, express or implied, to bind the CITY to any obligation whatsoever, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement.

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

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

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

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

10/2022 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
representative as the person primarily responsible for the day-to-day performance of CONSULTANT'S work under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not change the CONSULTANT’S representative without the prior written consent of the CITY. Unless otherwise expressly agreed by the CITY, CONSULTANT'S representative shall remain responsible for the quality and timeliness of performance of the services, notwithstanding any permitted or approved delegation hereunder.

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

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

10. INDEMNIFICATION.

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

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

10/2022 5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Agreement. This indemnification obligation on CONSULTANT’s part shall not apply to the demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the CITY.

11. INSURANCE. CONSULTANT agrees to have and maintain the policies set forth in Exhibit B entitled “INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. All policies, endorsements, certificates, and/or binders shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney as to form and content and shall be provided no later than thirty (30) calendar days following the execution of this Agreement by both parties. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver only if so approved in writing by the CITY. A lapse in any required insurance coverage during this Agreement shall be a breach of this Agreement. The insurance contemplated under this provision shall remain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement.

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

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

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

10/2022 6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

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

A. Equal Employment Opportunity. In connection with the execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of any protected class pursuant to California law. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, promotion, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rate of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship.

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

C. Solicitations for Subcontractors including Procurement of Materials and Equipment. In all solicitation, either by competitive bidding or negotiations, made by CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a subcontract including procurement of materials or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor, supplier, or lessor shall be notified by CONSULTANT of CONSULTANT’S obligation under this Agreement and the regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the basis of any protected class pursuant to California law.

16. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

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

B. CONSULTANT is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because CONSULTANT:
(1) Will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to its rendition

10/2022 7
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
of information, advice, recommendation, or counsel independent of the control and direction of the CITY or of any CITY official, other than normal contract monitoring; and (2) Possesses no authority with respect to any CITY decision beyond the rendition of information, advice, recommendation, or counsel. (2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18700(a)(2).)

17. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable Federal, State of California, and local laws, rules, and regulations and shall obtain all applicable licenses, including a business license with the City of Concord, and permits for the conduct of its business and the performance of the services.

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

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

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

21. INTEGRATION. All exhibits identified in this Agreement are attached hereto and

10/2022 8
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
incorporated herein by reference. The Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the parties as to the subject matter of this Agreement. It merges and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, commitments, representation, writings, and discussions between CONSULTANT and CITY, whether oral or written.
//
//

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

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

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

To CITY: Carlton Thompson, City Engineer
Community Development Department
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519-2578
Phone: (925) 671-3182
Email:

[email protected]

10/2022 9
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
To CONSULTANT: Dan Schaefer, Principal-in-Charge
BKF Engineers
1646 N. California Blvd, Suite 400
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (650) 280-0309
Email:
[email protected]

25. NON-LIABILITY. No member of the CITY and no other officer, official, agent, employee or volunteer of the CITY shall be personally liable to CONSULTANT or otherwise in the event of any default or breach of the CITY, or for any amount which may become due to CONSULTANT or any successor in interest, or for any obligations directly or indirectly incurred under the terms of this Agreement.

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

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

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

CONSULTANT CITY OF CONCORD, a Municipal
Corporation
By: ________________________________ By: ______________________________ Name: Dan SchaeferError! Reference source not found. Name: Valerie J.

Barone
Title: Principal-in-ChargeError! Reference source not found. Title City Manager Address: 1646 N. California Blvd, Suite 400 Address: 1950 Parkside Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Concord, CA 94519
Telephone: (650) 280-0309 Telephone: (925) 671-3150
Email:
[email protected]
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Susanne Meyer Brown Joelle Fockler, MMC Page 13 of 23 10/2022 10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
City Attorney City Clerk
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION:

Concord, California
Date:

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS EXIST OR WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2023/2024 TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.

THE SUM OF $648,000. Account Code 710-9500-C999-74500 / 710-2702-113-74500.

Finance Director's Signature

10/2022 11
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
EXHIBIT “B”
CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims from injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by CONSULTANT, their agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE.

Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability Policy: CONSULTANT shall maintain during the term of this Agreement a commercial general liability insurance policy providing coverage of at least one million ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence or two million ($2,000,000) aggregate limit for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope or protection afforded to CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees, or volunteers. CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance, risk pooling arrangement, or self-insurance maintained by CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

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

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

4. Workers Compensation: CONSULTANT covenants that it will insure itself against liability for Workers' Compensation pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code §3700, et seq.

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

10/2022 12
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
If CONSULTANT maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the CITY requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by CONSULTANT. A lapse in any required insurance coverage during this Agreement shall be a breach of this Agreement.

The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:

1. Additional Insured. CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as an additional insured as respects: Liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of CONSULTANT and operations of CONSULTANT, premises owned, occupied, or used by CONSULTANT. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope or protection afforded to CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees, or volunteers.

Except for worker's compensation and professional liability insurance, the policies mentioned in this subsection shall name CITY as an additional insured and provide for notice of cancellation to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also provide timely and prompt notice to CITY if CONSULTANT receives any notice of cancellation or nonrenewal from its insurer.

2. Primary Coverage. CONSULTANT'S insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance, risk pooling arrangement, or self-insurance maintained by CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of CONSULTANT'S insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. Reporting Provisions. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect the coverage provided to the CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees, or volunteers.

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

5. Inclusion in Subcontracts. To the extent any of the services required of CONSULTANT under this Agreement are subcontracted to a third party, CONSULTANT shall include all of the provisions of this Section in all such subcontracts as obligations of the subcontractor.

EXHIBIT A

BKF ENGINEERS

DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK
Civil Engineering Design Services
Willow Pass and Landana Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project City Project Nos. 2702 and 2704
I. Project Information
This project is derived from the recommended improvements from the City of Concord Sewer Master Plan that was established in March 2023. The project limits of the work will be on Willow Pass Road between Landana Drive and Fry Way, and Landana Drive between Willow Pass Road and Larkspur Drive.

There is a current need for capacity improvements in both areas and different recommendations are provided in the Sewer Master Plan. For Willow Pass Rd the assumption for design scope of work will be segments 1-3 with Scenario 3-5.

The recommended capacity improvement for Landana Dr is summarized in Table 7-3 of the Sewer Master Plan.

This project is anticipated to be constructed by Summer 2024 (unless CIPP lining is used) as there will be an extensive paving project on Willow Pass Rd, between Galindo St and Landana Dr, beginning in Summer 2024.

II. Consultant Scope of Services
TASK 1 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT

1.1 Project Management
Consultant’s Project Manager to coordinate all Consultant operations with CITY, including but not limited to, tracking progress of the work and administering s
ubcontracts with subconsultants. Consultant Project Manager will provide overall project management, coordination, and supervision of project staff to facilitate the performance of the work in accordance with standards and requirements of the CITY and other applicable standards and requirements. Consultant Project Manager will prepare and submit monthly project progress or progress status reports to CITY Project Manager.

Deliverables:
• Monthly Progress Reports/Progress Status Report

1.2 Coordination and Meetings
Consultant Project Manager will conduct regular meetings with CITY, and will c
onduct meetings and coordination with other stakeholders, including Caltrans,

City, and other agencies, in monthly Project Development Team (PDT) meetings or technical workshops and focused meetings as necessary. Consultant Project Manager will be responsible for preparation of agendas and meeting minutes, Communication and distribution of project records and information, and responses to all internal requests for information about the project.

Deliverables:
• PDT meeting notices, agendas, handouts/exhibits, and minutes.

1.3 Administration
Consultant Project Manager will prepare and update the Project schedule on a monthly basis or as needed. Project schedule will be logical, complete, and will c
onsider CITY peer reviews. Consultant Project Manager will provide regular reporting on the project status, including, but not limited to, schedule, contract budget, general progress on project tasks, and project issues and concerns and procedures.

Deliverables:
•
•
Project Schedule
Monthly Invoices
TASK 2 – PREPARE BASE MAPS AND PLAN SHEETS

3.1 Base Map
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Consultant will review the CCTV video inspection performed for the City via a 3rd Party consultant/contractor for the segments identified as the scope of work. Based on the information provided by 3rd Party and a review of the logs and videos, Consultant will advise the City as to the completeness of the work and use to develop an alternatives analysis and design parameters for pipeline rehabilitation and comparison to the recommendation from the Sewer Master Plan.

Utility locating is anticipated to be preformed in the location of the existing sewer trench corridor to locate the presence of non-gravity utilities.

Existing sewer manholes will be inspected to analyze their suitability for reuse and their condition.

Consultant will collect data of the rim and inverts of the sewer pipeline and main storm drainage system and laterals in order to establish existing conditions. This information together with as-built maps, block maps, and GIS aerial photo to establish the project design file and CADD base maps.

Approximate right of way lines will be pulled from City GIS data. Existing utilities identified on Consultants drawings/plans are based on information obtained by Consultant, or provided to Consultant, and may not be accurately documented in their horizontal location or vertical profile. Other utilities may be present that were not disclosed.

Preliminary Geotechnical Letter will be prepared. Borings, if needed, and a final report would be considered as an additional service and are not part of the base scope of services.

Deliverables:
• Design Mapping Data

3.2 Preliminary Design (35% strip plan)
a)
b)
c)
d)
Design alternatives of the rehabilitation options will be developed for each segment of pipeline. These will likely include replacement, CIPP, or pipebursting. Consultant understands that sewer laterals will not be video inspected and that sewer lateral replacement is not part of the scope of work, although repair of the sewer lateral connection to the main may be required depending on the repair method and condition of the lateral penetration into the sewer main.

A Basis of Design memorandum will be prepared that identifies the selected rehabilitation option and any Exceptions to Design Standards.

Consultant understands that the City will rely on the Sewer Master Plan model, and that no additional modeling of the sewer system hydraulics is needed for this design. Additionally, the sewer segments and upsizing delineated in the RFP will be the basis for the design and that upsizing to accommodate the Concord Naval Weapons area redevelopment is not part of this project.

Consultant will prepare 35% engineering strip map showing the preliminary design.

Based on review of the 35% preliminary design, potholing will be preformed in locations anticipated for excavation for bore/receiving pits and at other key locations prior to final design. Consultant will provide traffic control and will obtain City encroachment permit. It is assumed that the fees for permit will be waived.

Deliverables:
•
•
•
Design Alternatives Matrix
Basis of Design
35% Preliminary Design Strip Map
TASK 4 – PREPARE DRAFT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS & ESTIMATE (PS&E)

4.1 Draft Plans
Consultant will prepare the PS&E plans set for the project. Preparation of the PS&E plans set will include, but not be limited to the preparation of the following engineering plan sheets:
-
-
Title Sheet
Sewer Rehabilitation Plan and Profile

Preparation of the roadway plans will be consistent with City design standards to the greatest extent feasible. Consultant will perform an internal QA/QC plans c
heck and review and will submit copies to CITY for review prior to moving to the next deliverable.

Consultant will notify the CITY’s Project Manager if the Consultant is seeking any exceptions to any applicable design standards. Consultant will prepare c
onstruction staging plans with anticipation of upcoming paving project limits on Willow Pass Rd relative to scope of work for this project.

Deliverables:
•
•
65% Plans
95% Plans

4.2 Draft Specifications and Cost Estimates
Consultant will prepare the Technical Specifications and Special Provisions and PS&E Quantities and Engineer’s Estimates for the project following the City Standard Specifications. Consultant will notify the CITY’s Project Manager if the Consultant is seeking any exceptions to this requirement.

Deliverables:
•
•
Draft Specifications and Special Provisions with first design submittal Draft Engineer’s Estimates
TASK 5 – PREPARE FINAL PS&E PACKAGE
This task includes the distribution of the draft final combined PS&E package for final review by the CITY and other agency stakeholders. Consultant will address c
omments received and incorporate changes as appropriate in the final combined PS&E package. Under this task, Consultant will perform an internal QA/QC plans check and review. Consultant will be responsible for completion of the draft final combined PS&E package in a manner where there is sufficient time to address comments during the independent review and finalize the PS&E package within the project schedule.

Deliverables:
• Final Combined PS&E Package
TASK 6 – PERMITS & AGREEMENTS (not deemed necessary for work scope) -
-
Construction Details
Construction Staging Plans

TASK 7 – CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT

7.1 Construction Support
Consultant will respond to all Contractor Request for Information (RFI), Design changes and/or revisions. Consultant will also review contractor submittals on an as-needed basis. It is assumed that the City will provide or contract with a Construction Engineering firm to manage the construction and that the Consultants efforts will be to provide design support during construction.

Deliverables:
•
•
•
Respond to RFI’s
Review Submittals
Design Changes

7.2 Record Plans
Consultant will coordinate with the Construction Engineering firm, and Contractor to prepare Record Drawings based on Contractor and Construction Engineering ‘As-Built’ Markups.

Deliverables:
• Record Drawings

Cornerstone
Earth Group BESS Total Flow
Geotech
Engineering
Locating/
Potholing
Manhole
Inspections
TASK 1 – STARTUP, MANAGEMENT, AND MEETINGS

1.       Project Management 24 24 6,912$

2.       Coordination and Meetings 24 40 64 16,032$

3.       Administration 24 8 32 8,736$

4.       Outreach and Exhibits (NIC) 0 - $
72 0 48 0 0 0 120 31,680 $
TASK 2 - BASE MAPS

1.       Sewer CCTV Review 4 16 16 36 7,392$

2.       Utility Locating and Manhole Inspections 1 8 22,000$ 17,000$ 9 41,112 $

3.       Topographic and Right of Way Survey 1 16 8 16 96 96 233 58,208$

4.       Prelim Geotechnical Investigation (borings NIC/contingency item) 1 2 7,000$ 3 7,744$ 7 16 34 16 112 96 281 114,456 $
TASK 3 – PRELIMINARY DESIGN

1.       Design Alternatives 8 20 40 68 13,344$

2.       Basis of Design 4 4 16 16 40 8,816$

3.       35%/Preliminary Design Strip (pre-potholing) 16 4 60 16 100 196 38,504$ 28 8 96 32 140 0 304 60,664 $
TASK 4 – DRAFT PS&E

1.       65% Plans (post potholing) 16 24 120 160 160 480 93,888$

2.       95% Plans 10 20 72 96 96 294 57,904$

3.       Draft Specifications and Special Provisions; Engineer's Estimate 6 8 40 60 60 174 33,808$ Total Hours
BKF Engineers
Project Management - Engineering - Surveying
Principal & PM
Associate
Project
Engineer/Surveyor
Willow Pass and Landana Sewer
Capacity Improvements Project
City of Concord
Design
Engineer/Surveyor
TASK 2 - BASE MAPS SUBTOTAL:
8/7/2023
TASK 1 – STARTUP, MANAGEMENT, AND MEETINGS SUBTOTAL:

TASK 3 – PRELIMINARY DESIGN SUBTOTAL:

Total Fee
Field Crew
Engineering Manager
BKF Engineers 7/20/2023 Page 1

Cornerstone
Earth Group BESS Total Flow
Geotech
Engineering
Locating/
Potholing
Manhole
Inspections
Total Hours
BKF Engineers
Project Management - Engineering - Surveying
Principal & PM
Associate
Project
Engineer/Surveyor
Willow Pass and Landana Sewer
Capacity Improvements Project
City of Concord
Design
Engineer/Surveyor 8/7/2023 Total Fee
Field Crew
Engineering Manager
32 52 232 316 316 0 948 185,600 $
TASK 5 – FINAL PS&E

1.       Final Combined PS&E 4 8 20 40 40 112 21,712$
4 8 20 40 40 0 112 21,712 $
TASK 6 – PERMITS & AGREEMENTS

1.  Allowance for supporting permits & right of entry agreements (NIC) 0 - $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - $
TASK 7 – BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT

1. Bidding Support 2 12 12 26 5,256$

2. Construction Support Services 8 60 60 60 188 36,864$

3. Record Drawings 2 24 8 40 74 14,016$
12 0 96 68 112 0 288 56,136 $
Labor Hours 155 84 526 472 720 96 2,053 470,248 $
$288 $260 $228 $186 $162 $348 1 1 1
Travel + Data Collection 5,752$
T
raffic Control - Allowance 15,000$
Aerial Photography (not required) - $
BESS TestLab (Potholing) - Allowance assuming 40 potholes 98,000 98,000$ Subtotal Reimbursable Expenses - 98,000 - 118,752 $ Total Labor Plus Reimbursable Expenses 7,000 120,000 17,000 589,000 $ TASK 4 – DRAFT PS&E SUBTOTAL:
445,000
20,752
TASK 7 – BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SUBTOTAL:

TASK 5 – FINAL PS&E SUBTOTAL:

TASK 6 – PERMITS & AGREEMENTS SUBTOTAL:
5,752
Reimbursable Expenses
Billing Rates
-
15,000
BKF Engineers 7/20/2023 Page 2

Staff Report
Date: September 5, 2023
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Bustillos, Chief of Police
Prepared by: Shaun Parsley, Police Corporal
[email protected]
(925) 603-5963
Subject: Considering adoption of a Resolution accepting and appropriating grant funding from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in the amount of $275,000 for Select Traffic Enforcement and appropriation of funds and approval for use for the City’s Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (Project No. 2711).

CEQA: Exempt/not a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), 15273, and/or 15378 including subsection (b)(3).

Report in Brief
The Concord Police Department has been approved for grant funds from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in the amount of $275,000 as part of a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program. The funds will be used for conducting traffic enforcement operations in the City of Concord from October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024 and in covering the costs of additional training for traffic enforcement personnel. The approved funds will be administered by the Police Department Traffic Bureau.

Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution accepting and appropriating grant funding from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in the amount of $275,000 for Select Traffic Enforcement and appropriation of funds and approval for use for the City’s Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (Project 2711).

3.g3.g

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.g
September 5, 2023
Background
The City of Concord continues to experience a significant number of vehicle traffic collisions, alcohol involved fatal and injury traffic collisions, and traffic collisions involving pedestrians.

Between October 1, 2022, and September 30, 2023, the Concord Police Department Traffic Bureau used previous OTS grant funding to conduct one DUI checkpoint with two more to be completed by September, 2023, 11 DUI Saturation Patrols, six Speed/Primary Collision Factor (PCF) enforcement patrols (the final to be completed on September 22, 2023), three Distracted Driving enforcement operations, one Motorcycle Safety enforcement operation, two Bicycle/Pedestrian enforcement operations, eight collaborative enforcement operations with neighboring agencies and six Traffic Safety Education presentations to local schools and community groups. With the support of the OTS grant monies, 17 drivers were arrested for DUI, two sworn employees completed Standardized Field Sobriety Testing certified training, and one sworn employee completed Drug Recognition Expert recertification.

Analysis
The OTS grant funds will be used to pay for all personnel and related material costs associated with the grant objectives during the period of October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024, and will be used for the following purposes:
 To send two law enforcement personnel to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST), complying with Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) - certified training;  To send two law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE), POST- certified training;  To send one law enforcement personnel to the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training;
 To send two law enforcement personnel to the DRE Recertification training;  To send two law enforcement personnel to SFST Instructor training;  To conduct three DUI checkpoints;
 To conduct twelve DUI Saturation Patrol operations;
 To conduct nine Traffic Enforcement operations, including but not limited to PCF;  To conduct four Distracted Driving enforcement operations targeting drivers using hand held cell phones and texting;
 To conduct two Motorcycle Safety enforcement operation;  To conduct two Nighttime Click It or Ticket enforcement operations;  To conduct two Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety enforcement operation in identified areas of high bicycle and pedestrian traffic;
 To conduct two Traffic Safety Educational presentations;

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.g
September 5, 2023
 To conduct four specialized enforcement operations focusing specifically on street racing and sideshows;
 To conduct four collaborative DUI Enforcement operations; and  To conduct four collaborative Traffic Enforcement operations.

Environmental Determination
This item is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), 15273, and/or 15378 including subsection (b)(4).

If this were determined to be a “project” for CEQA analysis, this activity falls within the "Common Sense" CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required to accept and appropriate the grant funds.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

1. Resolution Accepting and Appropriating Grant Funds for Selective Traffic Enforcement

Res. No. 23-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Accepting and Appropriating Grant
Funding from the California Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) in the Amount of $275,000 for Select Traffic
Enforcement and Appropriation of Funds and
Approval for Use for the City’s Selective Traffic
Enforcement Program(Project No. 2711)
Resolution No. 23-XX
/
WHEREAS, the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) approved grant funds to the Concord Police Department in the amount of $275,000 as part of a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used for conducting selective traffic enforcement operations in the City of Concord during the period of October 1, 2023, to September 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, the appropriation of these funds and approval for conducting selective traffic enforcement operations amends the budget for Project No. 2711 - FY23/24 OTS Selective Traffic Enforcement Grant Project; and
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has recommended acceptance of the California Office of the California Office of Traffic Safety grant funds in the amount of $275,000 for the Concord Police Department’s Selective Traffic Enforcement Program to enhance public safety.

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

Section 1. This item is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), 15273, and/or 15378 including subsection (b)(4). If this were determined to be a “project” for CEQA analysis, this activity falls within the "Common Sense" CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

Section 2. Accepts grant funds in the amount of $275,000.

Section 3. Authorize the appropriation, of these funds and the Chief of Police to use these funds for expenditure on the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program.

Section 4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

Attachment 1

Res. No. 23-XX 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on September 5, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 23-XX was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on September 5, 2023.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

Staff Report
Date: September 5, 2023
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Kevin Marstall, PE, Director of Community Development Carlton Thompson, PE, City Engineer
Bernard Enrile, PE, CIP Manager
Prepared by: Deyuanne Lei, PE, Associate Civil Engineer [email protected]
(925) 671-3049
Subject: Considering:

1. Award of a Construction Contract in the not-to-exceed amount of $1,981,000 to St. Francis Electric, LLC,
authorizing staff to utilize the available project contingency for contract change orders up to an additional 10% of the contract amount for the Monument Boulevard Signal
Upgrade (Project No. 2578) located on Monument
Boulevard between Concord Boulevard and Mohr Lane;
and authorizing the Mayor to execute the contract in a form acceptable to the City Attorney;

2. Approval of an Agreement for Professional Services with Mark Thomas and Company, Inc. in the not-to-exceed
amount of $349,495.30 (base agreement of $317,723 plus
staff authority to spend up to a 10% contingency of
$31,772.30) to provide construction management,
inspection, and materials testing services for Monument Boulevard Signal Upgrade (Project No. 2578) located on
Monument Boulevard between Concord Boulevard and
Mohr Lane; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; and

3. Authorizing the City Engineer to accept the improvements upon completion of Project No. 2578, and directing the City

3.h3.h3.h3.h

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.h
September 5, 2023
Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. (Funded by Measure V, Fund 407)
CEQA: Not a project/exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c), 15061 (b)(3), 15378, 15301, 15302, 15303, 15304, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

Report in Brief
The Monument Boulevard Signal Upgrade (Project No. 2578) will install conduit and fiber optic lines along Monument Boulevard from Concord Boulevard to Mohr Lane.

Signal related equipment is also to be added and/or upgraded at various intersections.

The project has been designed and competitively bid and is at the point of construction contract award. If award is approved by the City Council (Council), project construction is expected to begin in October 2023 and be completed by February 2024.

Construction of Project No. 2578 (Project) consists of the following along Monument Blvd, from Concord Blvd to Mohr Ln:, the installation of fiber optic communications cable in conduit, pull boxes, fiber optic splicing, modifications of traffic signals including reflective traffic signal borders and battery backup system upgrades, and such other items or details that are required by the Plans, Standard Specifications, or Special Provisions.

Recommended Action

1. Award a Construction Contract in the amount of $1,981,000 to St. Francis Electric, LLC, authorizing staff to utilize the available project contingency for contract change orders up to an additional 10% of the contract amount for the Monument Boulevard Signal Upgrade (Project No. 2578) located on Monument Boulevard between Concord Boulevard and Mohr Lane; authorize the Mayor to execute the contract in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; and make the CEQA determinations as provided in this staff report.

2. Approve an Agreement for Professional Services with Mark Thomas and Company, Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $349,495.30 (base agreement of $317,723 plus staff authority to spend up to a 10% contingency of $31,772.30) to provide construction management, inspection, and materials testing services for Monument Boulevard Signal Upgrade (Project No. 2578) located on Monument Boulevard between Concord Boulevard and Mohr Lane; authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; and make the CEQA determinations as provided in this staff report.

3. Authorize the City Engineer to accept the improvements, upon completion of Project No. 2578, and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.h
September 5, 2023
Background
In March 2018, the City of Concord (City) released its Broadband Master Plan. The City partnered with Magellan Advisors to assist in the development of a Fiber-Optic Strategy Plan, with the goal to gather information and better understand the needs of the City and other stakeholders to learn about the needs to deliver broadband services, improve communication between City facilities and local businesses, and provide better interconnection between City traffic signals.

The Project will construct fiber optic interconnection along Monument Boulevard between Concord Boulevard and Mohr Lane. Fiber interconnect on Monument will allow seamless communication between signals on Monument Boulevard, Willow Pass Road, and Clayton Road, thereby allowing significant improvements to signal timing and vehicle detection systems. The Project is consistent with implementing the first phase (Concord Core Network Buildout) of the City’s Broadband Master Plan.

In June 2020, Council approved the Two-Year CIP Budget for Fiscal Years (FY) 2021- 22, which included funding for design of the Monument Boulevard Signal Upgrade (Project No. 2578).

In June 2023, Council adopted the mid-cycle adjustments to the CIP Budget for FY 2023-24, with an included appropriation of $2,700,000 to fund the construction of Project No. 2578.

Procurement Process
Construction Contract
The Project was advertised for construction bids as required by state law and City policy. The Engineer’s Estimate for the Total Bid is $2,250,000. During the bid period, one Bid Addendum was issued. Bids were opened on July 27, 2023. Four (4) bids were received in the amount ranging from $1,981,000.00 to $3,247,346.00. The lowest bid was received from St. Francis Electric, LLC (St. Francis) of San Leandro, CA. A summary of the three lowest bids is as follows:

BID

SCHEDULE
Engineer's
Estimate
St. Francis
Electric, LLC
Ray’s Electric WBE
Base Bid $ 2,250,000 $1,981,000.00 $1,985,201.00 $2,061,849.00 St. Francis was the low bidder and submitted a responsive and responsible bid. St.

Francis has an appropriate and valid contractor’s license and satisfactory work references.

City staff (Staff) completed analysis of St. Francis’s bid, determining that this firm along with its subcontractors possess appropriate and valid licenses, and are not on any

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.h
September 5, 2023
debarred lists. St. Francis is registered with the Department of Industrial Relations as required by SB 854. St. Francis and their subcontractors have submitted the required agreement to be bound to the Citywide Project Stabilization Agreement.

Professional Services Agreement for Construction Management Construction management, inspection, and materials testing services are needed to ensure work during construction by the contractor is performed and completed in a manner satisfactory to the project contract documents and the City.

Before the construction bid period, Staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a consultant to provide construction management, inspection, and materials testing services on June 20, 2023, for Monument Boulevard Signal Upgrade (Project No. 2578). The RFP was advertised in the local newspaper and on the City’s Procurement Website. Five (5) proposals were received, and the staff Selection Panel evaluated the proposals and interviewed the short list of Proposers. Based on Mark Thomas and Company, Inc.’s (Mark Thomas) superior proposal and interview, including project approach, proposed staffing, and relevant work experience, Staff recommends the agreement be awarded to Mark Thomas. Mark Thomas and their material testing sub- consultant, Construction Testing Services (CTS), have also agreed to be bound to the Citywide Project Stabilization Agreement.

Staff negotiated the scope of work and cost for the services and agreed upon $317,723.00 as a fair and reasonable compensation for the services needed to complete the construction phase of this project.

Financial Impact
To award the base bid contract and also provide for construction management, inspection and testing services, staff oversight, and an appropriate contingency of 10%, a total of $2,600,000 is required. The available funds in the project after accounting for the project design and bidding is approximately $2,700,000. The award amount falls within the available funds of the project.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061 (b)(3), , 15378, and Public Resources Code Section 21065, award of this contract is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, as it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In the alternative, award of this contract is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 – Existing Facilities, 15302 – Replacement and Reconstruction, 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and/or 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, as it involves constructing concrete sidewalk, landscaping, traffic signal equipment, striping, and paving work. No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.h
September 5, 2023
analysis. The Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Clerk’s office following the Council award of the construction contract.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Project Location Map

2. Bid Summary

3. Mark Thomas and Company, Inc. for Monument Boulevard Signal Upgrade (Project No. 2578) Fee Estimate

Attachment 1

Project Location Map
Monument Boulevard Signal Upgrade – Project No. 2578

City of Concord
Bid Sheet
PROJECT #2578 Bid Opening:

Monument Blvd Signal Upgrade Thursday
July 27
3:00 p.m.

City Managers Conference Room
Engineer’s Estimate: $2,250,000 - $2,750,000 To be awarded:

COMPANY TOTAL BID
St. Francis Electric, LLC
975 Carden Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
$1,981,000.00
Ray’s Electric
411Pendleton Way, Suite B
Oakland, CA 94621-2115
$1,985,201.00
WBE
90 Hill Road
Novato, CA 94945
$2,061,849.00
Columbia Electric, Inc
1980 Davis Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
$3,247,346.00
Co
ntact: Dey Lei x3049
Attachment 2

PrincipalInͲCharge
ProjectManager
ResidentEngineer
Construction
Inspector
Sr.Project
Accountant
CTS
$426 $370 $254 $214 $146 NonͲDBE

1.0 CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT

1.1 PreͲConstruction 0$ 0 $ 0

1.1.a Attend TeleconferenceKickoffMeetingw/Client. 1 2 4 1 8 $2,396 $2,396

1.1.b
Coordinate,Perform,andDocumentPreͲConstructionProject SiteConditionInspection. 12 12 $3,048 $3,048

1.1.c Review ConformedSetofProjectPlansandSpecifications. 12 4 16 $3,904 $3,904

1.1.d Prepare forandChairPreͲConstructionConferenceMeeting. 1 1 12 14 $3,844 $3,844

1.1.e
MiscellaneousPreͲConstructionTasks,AssistwithVarious PreͲConstructiontasks,SetUpProjectFiles. 16 16 $4,064 $4,064

1.1.f
AttendVirtualKickoffMeetingwithTJKM/DesignTeamfor coordinationonvariousitems. 1 1
4 6 $1,812 $1,812

1.1.g Receive andprocessContractor'sEarlySubmittalsandRFIs. 16 3 19 $4,706 $4,706

1.1.h Project Management. 1 4 4 6 15 $3,798 $3,798

1.2 Construction 0$ 0 $ 0

1.2.a Perform RE/ConstructionManagementTasks. 480 480 $121,920 $121,920

1.2.b Perform ConstructionInspectionsandreporting. 580 580 $124,120 $124,120

1.2.c Perform SoilsCompactionTesting(CTS). $0 $11,821 $11,821

1.2.d Perform ContractorPayappReviewandRecommendations. 40 20 60 $14,440 $14,440

1.2.e Perform DocumentControl. 40 40 $10,160 $10,160

1.2.f Project Management. 8 8 40 6 62 $17,404 $17,404

1.3 PostͲConstruction 0$ 0 Ͳ $0

1.3.a Final InspectionsandProvideRedͲLinedSetofPlanstoClient. 16 32 48 $10,912 $10,912

1.3.b Perform ProjectCloseout. 2 4 56 8 70 $18,268 $18,268

1.3.c Project Management. 2 4 8 6 20 $5,240 $5,240
SubtotalPhase1 16 24 760 648 18 1466 $315,616 $11,821 $327,437 TOTALHOURS 16 24 760 648 18 1466
SubͲConsultantMarkup(5%) $591 $591
OTHERDIRECTCOSTS $995 $0 $995
TOTALCOST $6,816 $8,880 $193,040 $138,672 $2,628 $351,031 $12,412 $363,443 Notes:

1.Costproposalisbasedontheassumptionthattheprojectdurationwillbe90workingdaysaspercontractspecifications.

2.CostproposalisbasedontheassumptionthatprojectwillbeginaroundSeptember2023andendinJanuary2024.

4.PrevailingWageRatesaresubjecttoincreasespursuanttotheStateofCalifornia'sDepartmentofIndustrialRelationsWageRateDeterminations.

5.WagesforinspectionsubjecttoCalif.LaborCodeSection1772.

6.RatesarebasedonDepartmentofIndustrialRelation(DIR)PrevailingWageDeterminationNCͲ63Ͳ3Ͳ9Ͳ2020Ͳ2.

7.FeeProposalshowingFeeandCostBreakdownͲRevisiondated7/28/2023.

3.CostbreakdownfortheMaterialTestingservicesproposedtobeprovidedbyCTSisincludedinAttachment1forreview.Pleasenotethat5%SubconsultantMarkuphasbeenappliedtotheestimate providedbyCTS.

TotalMT
Cost
COSTPROPOSALFORPROJECTSCOPE:ConcordͲCM&MaterialTestingMonumentBlvd Subconsultants
TOTALCOSTTotal
Hours
SeeNote3below
Please note that the rates shown are for estimating purposes only.

See rate schedule for actual rates/ranges. 7/31/2023
Attachment 3

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: Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3387
Subject: Residential Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Workshop: Consider information provided by staff, receive public comment, and provide feedback on elements to be
incorporated into a Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Amendments to the Just Cause for Eviction Component of the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c),
15061(b)(3), and/or 15378
Report in Brief
On January 12, 2023, as part of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update adoption efforts, City Council directed staff to prioritize drafting a Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance for Council to consider and adopt by December 31, 2023. Housing Staff, in conjunction with consultant group, RSG, Inc. has researched such policies and programs, and engaged the Concord tenant and property owner community for input. This staff report presents policy options for City Council’s consideration. The goal of the Council Workshop on September 5 is to receive direction on the development of both prospective ordinances. Subsequently, staff will bring a draft Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance before Council for consideration and introduction at Council’s November 28, 2023 meeting.

Recommended Action
Consider information provided by staff, receive public comment, and provide feedback on elements to be incorporated into a Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance and

4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
Amendments to the Just Cause for Eviction Component of the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance.

Background
Housing affordability in California and the Bay Area continues to be a critical issue. In Concord, In Concord, there are approximately 47,000 housing units and 45,700 occupied units. Out of the occupied units, approximately 18,000 are occupied by renters; this is approximately 40% of all occupied housing units. More than 48% of renters spend over 35% of their income on housing costs. Out of the approximately 18,000 rental units in Concord, 33.5% (approximately 6,300) are single-family homes, while about 66.5% (approximately 12,000) are in buildings with two or more units. Only

10.5% of units (approximately 2,000) are in rent-restricted affordable developments.

Over the ten years 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%1. According to the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update report, nearly half (48%) of renters pay more than 30% of their income on housing related costs, while over a quarter (26%) of renters pay more than 50% of their income on housing related costs. Of renters paying more than 50% of their income on housing costs, 20% (3,665 households) are considered extremely low-income.

The City of Concord is invested in creating effective housing policies that provide protection and opportunities for both tenants and property owners in the City and address tenant displacement. Since 2016, the City Council, its Housing and Economic Development (HED) Committee, and the Rental Housing Ad Hoc Committee have convened over 35 public meetings to specifically discuss the topic of rent stabilization and tenant protections, and have received approximately 100 hours of public testimony on this subject. These efforts have led to the adoption of the City’s Residential Rent Review Program (discontinued), Tenant Protection Ordinance, Rent Registry Program, and Residential Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance.

To further mitigate the risk of tenant displacement in Concord, the City Council committed to the adoption of a Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance by December 31, 2023 as a program within the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. This commitment was made at a Council meeting on January 12, 2023.

City staff engaged a consulting firm, RSG Inc. (RSG), to assist with researching policy options including evaluating policies adopted in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions, engaging with stakeholders for input and feedback, presenting policy options to City Council to receive further direction, and assisting with the preparation of draft Ordinances in collaboration with Housing staff and the City Attorney. 1 The sources of Concord housing data include the City’s 2019 Rental Housing Data Book, with the latest available updates from the Census’ 2021 American Community Survey, and the City’s 2022 Residential Rent Registry Report.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
Housing staff and RSG kicked off the process by holding two stakeholder engagement sessions on July 26 and 27, 2023. The first was with property owner representatives and the second was with tenant representatives. Attendees included representatives from the California Apartments Association, Contra Costa Association of Realtors, Centro Legal De La Raza, Monument Impact, Raising Juntos, Todos Santos Tenants Union, EBASE, Public Advocates, Front Porch and others.

Staff also solicited responses from a broader group through the use of non-statistically valid online surveys, available in both English and Spanish, on the City’s website from July 31 through August 20, 2023. One survey was geared toward tenants and one toward property owners. Notice of the surveys was sent via social media platforms, the City’s e-newsletter, the Housing interested parties list, and by various organizations that work with tenants and/or property owners. A flyer was also made available during three of Concord’s Music and Market events held on August 3rd, 10th and 13th, respectfully.

Housing staff also solicited feedback from affordable housing providers to better understand the potential impact of rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinances on these housing providers. Housing staff also corresponded with affordable housing providers to better understand the potential impact of rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinances on these housing providers.

Collectively, through the in-person workshops and the online surveys, 119 tenants/tenant representatives, 118 property owners and their representatives, and three of Concord’s affordable housing providers provided their feedback. A detailed account of the input received from the tenants and property owners has been included in Attachment 3 and a summary of the results have been incorporated in the body of this staff report in appropriate locations as each major topic is discussed. Similarly, staff reached out to Concord affordable housing providers and collected their feedback.

Their feedback is located in Attachment 5 and incorporated in appropriate locations within this staff report.

Concord Rents
According to information gathered via the City’s Residential Rent Registry Program, for the reporting period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, the average market-rate rents in Concord were $1,715 for a one-bedroom unit and $1,979 for a two-bedroom unit. Based on a January 23, 2023, report generated through CoStar, in 2022, the average market-rate one-bedroom rent in Concord was $2,107 per month, and the average two-bedroom rent in Concord was $2,401 per month. Rents in Concord currently support households earning between 70% to 80% AMI, which is considered to be accessible to low to moderate income households and is generally accessible to working families.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
The Ellis Act2
The Ellis Act allows rental property owners in rent restricted jurisdictions the right to exit the rental housing market, while also placing certain conditions and restrictions on property owners who evict tenants in order to exit the market. For cities which have adopted local rent control, these conditions include a requirement to notify most tenants 120 days prior to withdrawing a unit; however, the notification requirement increases to one year for tenants who are disabled or over the age of 62. Under the Ellis Act, cities which have adopted local rent control may also place restrictions on owners who after removing their units from the rental market choose to re-enter the rental market. These restrictions can include the price they re-rent units, and a requirement that owners offer former tenants a first-right-of-refusal to re-rent their former units.

Analysis
The Analysis Section of this staff report is broken down into seven major components for ease of reading, as follows:

1. Costa-Hawkins and Ballot Measure to Repeal

2. State Law Protections Under AB 1482 and AB 978

3. City of Concord Residential Rental Programs

4. Rent Stabilization Basics

5. Just Cause for Eviction Basics

6. Enforcement and Fees Basics

7. Policy Direction Needed to Develop Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinances for Concord
o Relating to a Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Policies A-E) o Relating to a Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance (Policies F-J) o Enforcement of Both Ordinances (Policy K)
o Rent Registry Fee Increase and Pass-Through (Policies L & M) o Effective Date of Ordinances (Policy N)
The Costa-Hawkins Act3 and Ballot Measure to Repeal
The California legislature adopted the Costa-Hawkins Act, restricting local agencies from establishing rent limits for single-family homes and condominiums, units in buildings constructed after 1995, and tenancies in a newly vacant unit (otherwise known as “vacancy decontrol”). The Secretary of State’s Office announced in April of 2023 that an AIDS Healthcare Foundation initiative to repeal the 1995 Costa Hawkins Rental 2 Government Code Sections 7040 et seq.
3 Government Codes Sections 1954.50 et seq.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
Housing Act had gathered enough signatures to be eligible for the November 2024 ballot. Similar state-wide initiatives asking California voters to repeal Costa-Hawkins have occurred twice in the past and failed twice.

Should this ballot measure pass in 2024, Council could request these Ordinances return to them at a public meeting to consider revision of any aspects of the rent stabilization ordinance adopted by the Council affected by the repeal.

State Law Protections under AB 14824
In late 2019, the State Legislature passed the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, otherwise known as Assembly Bill 1482 (AB 1482),which established statewide housing affordability and tenant protection policies, including maximum rent increases, just cause eviction policies, and relocation assistance. AB 1482 went into effect on January 1, 2020 and sunsets on January 1, 2030, unless reauthorized by the State. AB 1482 law does not amend the Costa-Hawkins Act. Local ordinances must comply with the minimum standards of AB 1482 but may also provide further protections and assistance to tenants. AB 1482 includes the following key provisions:

Rent Increases allowed under AB 1482
 Places an annual rent increase limit based on the lesser of  five percent (5%) plus the local cost of living inflation (CPI)5, or  10 percent (10%)
 Prohibits more than two rent increases over a 12-month period  Rent increase limit is only applicable to existing tenants. When filling vacant units or establishing a new tenancy where no tenant from the prior lease remains, the owner can establish a new rent amount based on the market.

Exemptions from AB 1482
 Properties issued a Certificate of Occupancy within last 15 years  Single family homes, townhouses, and condominiums, unless owned by investment trust, corporation or LLC
 Owner occupied duplexes
 Properties subject to more restrictive local rent control ordinances 4 AB 978 extended just cause protections to renters of mobile homes. The City of Concord currently regulates mobile home space rents under its Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Concord Municipal Code Chapter

15.105).
5 Consumer Price Index. Based on the one year change in regional CPI of 4.2% as of April 2023, Concord’s maximum rent increase under AB 1482 would currently be 9.2%.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
 Deed-restricted affordable housing for very low, low, or moderate income  Higher education dormitories
At-Fault Just Cause Policies in AB 1482
Property owners may evict tenants who have occupied the premises for 12 months, based on one or more of the following At-Fault Just Causes:
 Non-payment of rent
 Criminal activity
 Material breach of lease term
 Commission of nuisance, waste, or criminal acts
 Refusal to signing a new lease with similar duration and provisions  Subletting in violation of the lease
 Refusal to allow owner access
 Unlawful use of premises
 Failure to vacate after providing notice of intent to do so Noticing Requirements in AB 1482
Property owners must provide notice to tenants of the protections provided under AB 1482 as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement. A property owner claiming exemption from AB 1482 must also include notice to the tenants. A tenancy may not be terminated unless the landlord provides notice in writing with one of the allowable just causes.

No-Fault Just Cause Policies in AB 1482 and Relocation Assistance Property owners must provide relocation assistance in the amount of one month’s rent, or $1,000 (whichever is greater) for any no-fault termination. No- Fault Just Causes include:
 Compliance with a government order or a local ordinance that requires vacation of the unit (unless the tenant caused conditions triggering the order);  Removal of the rental unit from the marketplace;
 Intent to demolish or substantially remodel the unit; or  Intent to occupy the residential property or for specified family members of the landlord to occupy the property (only if the tenant agrees to such termination or if the lease allows for unilateral termination).

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
City of Concord Residential Rental Programs
Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance:

In 1994, the City adopted a Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Concord Municipal Code Chapter 15.105). The ordinance regulates mobile home space rent increases, controls the frequency of rent increases and ties any adjustments to the regional consumer price index (CPI): once every 12 months, mobile home park owners are permitted to increase the rent on mobile home spaces by 80 percent of the percentage increase of the CPI. This policy covers all mobile home parks in the City, which together offer approximately 1,800 mobile home spaces. Although mobile home park space rents are covered by this ordinance, the mobile homes themselves that are being rented by tenants are not covered. The California Mobile Home Residency law provides just cause protections for mobile home owners who rent their space. Just cause for eviction provisions apply to renters of mobile homes through the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program (see below).

Residential Tenant Protection Program:

In 2020, the City of Concord adopted its own local Residential Tenant Protection Program, effective August 2020 and which currently sunsets in January of 2030, concurrent with the sunset of AB 1482. While the City’s ordinance mirrors the just cause protections under AB 1482, it provides for significantly higher relocation assistance for no-fault evictions: the greater of 2 months’ rent or $5,000. The City’s ordinance also requires minimum lease terms: landlords must first offer prospective tenants a written 12-month lease and, if not accepted by the tenant, a written 6-month lease before offering a mutually agreed upon written lease for a shorter term, including a written month-to-month lease. The City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program also provides just cause protections to tenants renting mobile homes.

The City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program also established an updated Residential Rent Registry Program (Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40), which went into effect on July 1, 2021. It applies to all residential rental buildings with four (4) or more units (95% of all multifamily rental units). Property owners must register with the City’s contracted Program Administrator. The 2023-24 annual fee is $5.25 per unit. The City produces an annual report sharing key data obtained from the program.

Residential Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance:

In 2022, the City established the Residential Tenant Anti-Harassment Program (Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.50) which applies to all Concord rental units, including single-family homes, condominiums, duplexes, and apartments, with the goals of preventing landlords and their representatives from harassing tenants, encouraging landlords to follow the law and uphold their responsibility to provide habitable rental properties, giving tenants legal recourse if landlords violate the Residential Tenant Anti- Harassment Program, and providing for tenant recovery of civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
Residential Rental Multi-Family Inspection Program:

The City also operates a Multi-Family Inspection Program whereby multifamily complexes of four or more units are inspected at least every two years. The purpose of the program is to proactively identify blighted and deteriorated multi-family residential buildings, ensure rehabilitation or elimination of rental housing that does not meet minimum Building and Housing code standards, and to ensure that rental housing conforms to maintenance standards. The program also responds to complaints.

Rent Stabilization Basics
Rent stabilization policies regulate rental housing costs to protect tenants from excessive rent increases, while still allowing property owners to achieve a fair return.

The key provision is establishment of an annual limit on rent increases, which may be based on inflation or set an established fixed upper limit, or both.

A Rent Stabilization Ordinance may include the following Parameters:
 Covered Units – Not all rental units in a community may be covered by rent stabilization policies. The Costa-Hawkins Act restricts local agencies from establishing rent limits for single-family homes and condominiums, for units in buildings constructed after 1995, and for tenancies in a newly vacant unit (otherwise known as “vacancy decontrol”). In addition, under AB 1482, limits on rent increases cannot be applied to buildings which received a Certificate of Occupancy within the past 15 years. The purpose of this provision is to encourage development of new rental housing.

The City’s Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance restricts space rent increases, but does not regulate rents for tenants renting a mobile home.

Table 1 reviews the potential multi-family units eligible for participation in Rent Stabilization for properties constructed prior to February 1, 19951.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
Table 1 Potential Units Eligible for Participation in Rent Stabilization – Pre- 1995 Properties
Building Type Number of Units (*)
Duplexes, excluding affordable units 428
Built before 1995 (212 properties) 424
3 units and homes with 2-3 rental units on-site,
excluding affordable units 98
Built before 1995 (30 properties) 98
4 units, excluding affordable units 651
Built before 1995 (163 properties) 651
5-12 units, excluding affordable units 953
Built before 1995 (121 properties) 933
13-24 units, excluding affordable units 731
Built before 1995 (39 properties) 698
25-59 units, excluding affordable units 2,160
Built before 1995 (59 properties) 2,124
60+units, excluding affordable units 3,456
Built before 1995 (27 properties) 3,065
Total Market Rate Units, built before 1995 (651
properties) 7,993
Source: Contra Costa County Assessor Data, City of Concord Rental Housing Data Book 2016  Rent Increase Limits – Rent stabilization ordinances, which may only regulate certain pre-1995 units, set annual rent increase limits that are typically within a range of 2-8% or which tie rent increases to the change in the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI).6 Some jurisdictions use 100 percent of CPI as the allowable rent increase, some allow only a percentage of CPI such as 60%, and others allow an amount over CPI, such as CPI + 2%. Some ordinances may establish a rent increase floor that allows for a minimum allowable rent increase even in years when inflation is flat or negative. Some jurisdictions also include bundled services in their definition of rent, such as fees required for parking, utilities, pets, furniture, subletting and security deposits for damages and cleaning. The City’s Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance caps rents at 80% of regional CPI and includes applicable bundled fees in its rent calculations.

CPI in Concord increased by 32% from 2011 to 2021, while rents increased by 62% during the same period. The annual median income for renter households rose by 49%1. However, as noted in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Report, 60% of Concord’s renters are very low-income households earning 50 percent 6 CPI measures the costs of inflation for items such as food and beverages, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care, recreation, education and other goods and services.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
AMI or below, and 27% of renters earn above 80 percent of the Area Median Income.
 Rent Banking – Some ordinances include a provision that allows a property owner that did not increase rent by the allowable rate in a given year, to “save” or “bank” the allowable increase and add it on in subsequent years. With such provisions there will still likely be an overall annual limit to prevent large and sudden rent increases.
 Fair Return and Property Owner Petitions – Under State law, property owners are entitled to receive a fair return on their investment in residential property.

There is no set standard methodology that is required to be used in determining what constitutes a fair return. However, an ordinance may include a standard or method of calculating an acceptable return on investment within its own jurisdiction. A best practice is to utilize a method known as “Maintenance of Net Operating Income” (MNOI) that is based on allowing a property owner to maintain a similar net operating income for their property as existed before the ordinance was established. This is also the methodology utilized in Concord’s Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

Under fair return policy provisions, the property owner must be allowed to petition for a rent increase above the allowable limit if they can demonstrate they are unable to achieve a fair return.

Testimony and surveys from Concord’s property owners (Attachment 3) suggest that the cost to maintain rental properties is high and rising, with some property owners unable to recoup the costs necessary for property upkeep. Some property owner costs are captured in the CPI, but CPI often excludes items such as property insurance, property management fees, property taxes, repairs and capital improvements, landscaping, pest control, and administrative costs/salaries. These items are factored in when determining if a property owner who files a petition is receiving their fair return on investment as required by State Law.
 Capital Improvements and Property Owner Petitions – It is in the interest of both tenants and property owners that buildings are maintained in good repair and are kept safe and habitable. Capital improvements include major repairs, renovations, and rehabilitation that are beyond ordinary maintenance and repairs, often involving replacement and repair of major building systems such as heating, plumbing, electrical upgrade, and roofs. In order for property owners to afford these investments, ordinances can provide for a method by which some or all of the cost of improvements may be recovered by supplemental rent increases amortized over a given period of time. The amount that can be recovered by a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
property owner may be limited in a given year based on a percentage of the total or by spreading the increase over several years.

In some cities, property owners must file a petition for this type of increase, providing documentation of the capital costs. A decision would then be provided with the start and stop date of any capital improvement increase that would be allowed.

Concord’s older housing units often require increased maintenance, improvements, and remediation. During the in-person workshop held on July 26, property owner representatives stated that in recent years, the cost of supplies, labor and insurance have all increased causing repairs to be increasingly costly to the property owners, especially to the smaller “mom and pop7” property owners. These types of costs could be considered when making a determination for allowing rent increases above the established City limit.  Tenant Petitions – All jurisdictions surveyed have provisions allowing a tenant to file a petition asserting various types of claims against a landlord. Examples include requests for a decrease in rent due to a landlord’s failure to comply with various housing laws, substantial decrease in housing services provided, failure to repair or maintain a unit, or failure to discontinue a capital or utility pass- through.
 Rental Registry – Adoption of rent stabilization policies at the local level are typically accompanied by creation of a rental registry and a requirement that all property owners subject to the policy register their property and units with pertinent tenancy information, including rental rate increases and any notices or violations. The registry allows tenants, property owners, and City staff to monitor and report on this data.

Concord’s Residential Rent Registry program went into effect on July 1, 2021. It requires properties with four or more units to register and report on unit and tenancy information during the annual registration period of June 1 – July 31; from this information, staff publishes an annual report. The City’s Residential Rent Registry program will need to be updated to support the program Council adopts for Rent Stabilization.

Just Cause for Eviction Basics
Concord established Just Cause for Eviction policies in 2020 through its Residential Tenant Protection Program, which includes allowable at-fault and no-fault just causes for eviction, and generally follows the provisions of State Law AB 1482 as described in 7 National Association of Realtors defines “Mom and Pop” property owners as those that privately own small rental properties, typically 1-4 units, and locally own 1-3 properties. Out of the 618 total multifamily properties, Concord has 348 properties that are 1-4 units; 339 of Concord’s property owners own 1-3 properties1.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
the section below. Concord’s no-fault just-causes protections trigger relocation payments equivalent to the greater of two months of rent or $5,000 dollars. This is more protective than that offered by the State’s relocation assistance requirement of one month’s rent or $1,000, whichever is greater (more information regarding these provisions is provided further in the report). The Residential Tenant Protection Program additionally provides just cause protections to tenants that rent a mobile home.

Just cause for eviction protections limit a property owner’s ability to terminate a tenant’s lease. Such ordinances include a list of “at-fault” causes that a property owner can cite as a valid reason for terminating a lease. It would also provide a list of “no-fault” reasons when a property owner could require a tenant to vacate.

Local Just Cause for Eviction Ordinances can include the following elements that go beyond that offered by AB 1482:
 Expand the scope of covered/exempt units for just cause and no fault evictions  Establish thresholds/ requirements for the at-fault and no-fault protections  Greater enforcement and accountability
 Greater relocation assistance
 Greater noticing periods for termination
 Shorter length of tenancy requirements before the protections apply Enforcement and Fees Basics
 Enforcement - Jurisdictions typically identify program enforcement mechanisms that can include items such as hearing officers, rent boards, and/or provisions for filing in the Civil Court system. Penalties for non-compliance would also be identified. These items are typically associated with an established per unit fee for the Rent Registration Program, which would be utilized to cover the personnel and administration costs. It may also cover certain petition costs should the City choose to do so (see Rent Stabilization Administration Fee section below).  Jurisdictions either use hearing officers or an appointed commission (or board) to preside over petitions (appeals), which can also be coupled with mandatory mediation. Among local comparable jurisdictions, Richmond8 and Alameda utilize a Rent Board and Rent Review Advisory Committee, respectively, while Antioch relies on Hearing Officers. Concord engages the services of a hearing officer to implement its Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and requires mandatory mediation between mobile home owners and park owner for non- rental disputes. Retroactive Enforcement – Some jurisdictions established an initial retroactive provision for rent increases. This is intended to keep property 8 Richmond uses Hearing Officers for the initial decision.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
owners from increasing rents before adoption of the ordinance. Jurisdictions may choose a particular timeframe or event to define the effective date for the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. If this is pursued, it is usually tied to when the Council first made the commitment to pursue the Ordinance, which in Concord would be the Council public hearing on the Housing Element on January 12, 2023.  Administration – A Rent Stabilization Ordinance program requires administration of items such as compliance monitoring, hearings, public information and outreach materials/efforts, and the rent registry. These activities will require hiring additional staff, although how many will depend upon the scope of the program Concord adopts. Examples of staff dedicated to rent stabilization programs in nearby cities: Alameda’s program has ten (10) Full-Time Equivalent employees (FTEs), Antioch includes approximately two (2) FTEs (although the need for more has been expressed by their staff), and Richmond is staffed by 12 FTEs.

This count varies depending upon the departments involved in managing the program, the number of units in the program, and the breadth and design of the program. As programs are set up to self-fund, the number of staff necessary to run the program translates into costs to the property owner and possibly tenants.

The use of a board or commission, rather than a hearing officer greatly increases the number of staff needed to run a program.
 Rent Stabilization Administration and Petition Fees – It is common for local agencies to charge property owners a fee to fund the administration of a rent stabilization ordinance and the rent registry. Petition filing fees may also be charged against a filing party, or the City could carry some or all of these costs for the tenants filing a petition, for example.

Fee structures vary by jurisdiction and can range from $20 to $250 per rental unit. The average fee per unit in California for a rent stabilization program is $195 per unit. In some jurisdictions, as with Concord’s Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance, a portion of the fee, generally 50%, is passed on to tenants.

Concord’s Residential Rent Registry fee is currently established as $5.25 per unit; however, it does not include any costs associated with implementing rent control.

Policy Direction Needed
Direction from City Council is needed regarding specific elements for the two prospective ordinances: Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction. Staff’s target schedule is to present the draft Ordinances for Council consideration and introduction at the Council meeting of November 28, with second reading on December 12, and effective dates for the ordinances “going live” 30-days after or January 11.

Staff is requesting feedback from Council in the sections below. As a basis for comparison, provisions from AB 1482 as well as those from the ordinances in the three

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
local jurisdictions of Alameda, Antioch and Richmond are noted. These three sample jurisdictions were chosen due to their similarities in renter populations and demographics, and their proximately to Concord. Staff When applicable, input from tenant and property owner stakeholders has also been included.

Relating to a Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Policies A-E) A. Units Covered by a Rent Stabilization Ordinance
What type of rental units should be subject to the City’s rent stabilization ordinance?
Policy
Number Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions Community Input
A1. Rental Buildings with 4+
units
Concord’s Multi-
family Inspection
and Residential
Rent Registry
Programs
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 homes9
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.

Please see Attachment 1 for further unit coverage details for the cities of Antioch, Alameda and Richmond.

B. Rent Increase Limit
What should the rent increase limit be set at?
9 Mobile home space rents in Concord are regulated by the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
Policy
Number
Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions
Community Input
B1. CPI plus 5%, Max
10% 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
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.

C. Rent Banking
Should owners be able to “bank” an allowed rent increase, that they voluntarily choose not to apply, and allow the rent increase to be applied to and compounded with other allowable increases in a future year? Policy
Number Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions Community Input
C1. Not allowed
AB 1482,
Antioch,
Richmond
C2.

Up to 8%, but no
more than 3% per
year
Alameda
C3.

Up to 10%,
cumulatively since the
last increase
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 relations10
10 Property Owner feedback received from in-person workshop held on July 26; most surveyed property owners remain silent on this issue.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
D. Petition Process and Discretionary Rent Changes:

Should the following petitions be allowable?11
11 Fair Return on Investment petitions will be drafted into the rent stabilization ordinance to meet State law requirements as explained in the Fair Return and Property Owner Petitions section of this report.

Policy
Number Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions
Community Input
D1.

Tenant Petition - may
file a petition for a
rent decrease with
the City due to
overcharged rent
Alameda,
Antioch,
Richmond
D2.

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

Alameda,
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.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
E. Petition Costs
Should Concord charge a petition filing fee? Please choose one of the following options:

Policy
Number Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions
Community
Input
E1.

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

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?
o What percent covered by
rent registration fee and
what percent by petition
fee?
No
community
input
received
Relating to a Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance (Policies F-J):

The City’s current just cause for eviction protections are contained in the adopted Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance which outlines allowable at-fault and no-fault just causes for eviction, and generally follows the provisions of State Law AB 1482 as described in its corresponding section above. Concord’s no-fault just-causes trigger a relocation assistance provision that is equivalent to two months of rent or $5,000

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
dollars, whichever is greater. This is more protective than that offered by the State’s relocation assistance requirement of one month’s rent or $1,000, whichever is greater.

The in-person workshops and survey results from the tenants and the property owners reveal a desire to add or amend certain provisions of the City’s just cause for eviction ordinance. The input received from the community is summarized below each ordinance provision.

However, the City may choose to adopt additional provisions. Most jurisdictions in California follow AB 1482 with additional elements, similar to Concord’s Residential Tenant Protection ordinance. For this reason, jurisdictions other than the three comparable cities of Antioch, Alameda, and Richmond are also included, where applicable.

Tenant Requests and Inconsistencies with State Laws
Certain requests received from tenant representatives (Attachment 4) pertain to longer noticing periods and restricting rent increases in government regulated affordable housing. The view of the City Attorney’s Office is that these policy recommendations are prohibited by State law. These policies not included in the policy direction requests in the subsequent sections. All other requests from Attachment 4 and other feedback received from the workshops/surveys have been incorporated for Council’s consideration. Specifically, the requests that are not included are:
 A noticing period of 6 months to one year to tenant in the case of substantial renovations and Ellis Act Evictions, with additional noticing requirements for vulnerable populations12. The Ellis Act requires property owners provide a 120-day notice to tenants, with a 12 month notice to disabled tenants or those 62 years of age or older.
 Requiring prior approval from Concord’s rent program to remove property per Ellis Act. The City can require that the property owner provide notice for this occurrence to the City, but the City has no authority to approve/deny under the Ellis Act. 12 The joint letter received from tenant representatives on August 18, 2023 from Monument Impact, EBASE, Todos Santos Tenant Union, and Rising Juntos (Attachment 4), define Vulnerable Populations as “seniors, people with disabilities or terminal illnesses, educators, parents with school-aged children, and low-income households”.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
Council input is requested in each of these categories:

F. Which units should be covered by the Just Cause for Eviction ordinance? Policy
Number
Tenant
Feedback
Property
Owner
Feedback
Other
Examples and
Example
Cities
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)
G. Should Concord establish additional thresholds/requirements for at-fault and no-fault protections?
Policy
Number Tenant Feedback Property Owner
Feedback
Other Examples and
Example Cities
G1.

Define “substantial” in
substantial renovations
(ex. Require capital
improvements definition
to be met) (Antioch,
Alameda, Richmond)
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
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)

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
H. Should there be additional enforcement and accountability in the ordinance? Policy
Number Tenant Feedback
Property
Owner
Feedback
Other Examples and
Example Cities
H1.

Obtain building permits
prior to vacating tenant
for substantial
rehabilitation
(Richmond)
H2.

Ellis Act- property owner
annually certifies to
being off market for 10
years (Alameda,
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)
To evict, owner must
have:
 (1) Valid business
license
 (2) served notice
of program to
tenant as required
 (3) notice
delivered to City
w/in 10 calendar
days
(Emeryville)

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
I. Should relocation assistance be amended?
Policy
Number Tenant Feedback Property Owner
Feedback
Other
Examples and
Example
Cities
I1.

Base payment of
$10,000, plus
$5,000 per
person with cap
of $30,000 per
household (N/A).

Vulnerable
households-
double the
amounts
described above
(Alameda,
Richmond.

I2.

Substantial
renovation-
Temporarily
relocate tenant to
comparable unit
in Concord or
payment to cover
hotel, food and
laundry costs
(Richmond).

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

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
J. Should the ordinance take effect sooner than required by AB 1482? Policy
Number Tenant Feedback Property Owner
Feedback
Other
Examples and
Example
Cities
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)
Enforcement of Both Ordinances (Policy K):

Which one or more enforcement mechanism should Concord adopt? Note, the City utilizes a hearing officer to enforce its other ordinances such as mobile home rent control, the Cannabis competitive application appeal process, and code enforcement.

Policy
Number Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions Community Input
K1. Hearing
Officer(s)
Alameda, Antioch,
Richmond13
K2. Rent Board (or
Committee) Richmond
K3. Mediation and
Civil Court
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.
13 Richmond begins with a Hearing Officer and appeals are heard before the Rent Board; the Rent Board’s decision is final and binding.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
Rent Registry Fee Increase and Pass-Through (Policies L & M):

Concord’s Rent Registry fee of $5.25 per unit will increase to support the implementation and enforcement of the ordinances. The most significant program costs stem from the need for additional staff to administer the programs and the rent registry software/program.

Both the rent stabilization ordinance and amendments to the City’s just cause for eviction provisions may apply to properties with two or more dwelling units built before February 1, 1995 (i.e. fully regulated units). However, just cause for eviction may be applied to all properties, including single-family homes (partially regulated units). As such, the fee schedule can also change based on if the rental property is fully regulated or partially regulated. Once Council indicates what provisions to include in the respective ordinances, staff will estimate the costs and propose fees.

In evaluating costs, staff has the following questions for Council:

Should there be a separate fee structure for fully regulated units and another for partially regulated units?
Policy
Number Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions
Community
Input
L1. Fees consistent for both fully regulated
and partially regulated units.

L2. Larger fee amount for fully-
regulated units.

Alameda,
Richmond
None
Received

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
Should property owners be allowed to pass through some of the cost for being subject to these ordinances and participating in the rent registration program onto the tenants? If so, how much?
Policy
Number Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions Community Input
M1. Do not allow the pass
through
Richmond
M2. Allow 50% to be passed
through to tenants?
Alameda
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.

Effective Date of Ordinances (Policy N):

What should be the effective dates of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and any updates to the City’s Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance?
Financial Impact
It is difficult to project costs until the Council defines the depth and breadth of the programs they are establishing under the new ordinances. However, for context please see Attachment 2 for a summary of program administration costs in other jurisdictions.

The following costs should be taken into account: additional staff requirements to Policy
Number Policy Options Sample
Jurisdictions Community Input
N1. 30 days after 2nd
reading
N2. 2 months prior to
Ordinance adoption Antioch
N3. 12 months prior Richmond
N4. January of 2023
Tenants: would like
the ordinance to be
retroactive to
January of 2023.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
administer the ordinances, rental registry software and administration costs and enforcement.

Additionally, the Council specifically asked for information on the impact of rent control and just cause for eviction ordinances on property tax values and the likelihood of continued residential investment in the community. There is little information and research on the impacts of rent stabilization and just cause for eviction on property values and investment. The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) is a third-party nonpartisan research project sponsored by universities including University of California Berkeley. In 2021, UDP published their White Paper on Anti-Displacement Strategy Effectiveness (Paper). The Paper notes that there is evidence of when rent control is repealed, the value of a previously regulated property increases slightly. However, the Paper notes that evidence is inconclusive.

The effect of the presence of rent control policies on non-regulated units is unclear.

While it seems that the rent and property values of surrounding, non-regulated units may also remain lower with rent control, the Paper notes that the effect is limited and there is uncertainty as to whether this applies in all contexts. The effect of rent stabilization on new development also seems limited since jurisdictions usually exclude new construction from these types of measures.

The City’s property tax consultant, HdL Companies, reiterates the lack of complete information. However, they mention that in California the values of properties that do not sell or add new construction are going to grow a maximum of 2% or the CPI whichever is less every year. This means that the tax bills for these rentals continue to increase annually, regardless of the amount of rent charged. Some of the cities with the highest property values have rent control such as San Francisco, Santa Monica, and Beverley Hills. Even this limited information is predicated on the existence of Costa-Hawkins regulations and the existence of vacancy de-control under local rent control regulations.

Public Contact
The City Council meeting agenda was posted. Notice was sent by e-mail to all individuals on the interested party list on August 31, 2023.

Housing staff and RSG held two stakeholder engagement sessions on July 26 and 27, respectively, with property owner representatives and tenant representatives. Staff also solicited responses through an online survey, available on the City’s website in both English and Spanish from July 31 through August 20, 2023. Notice of the survey was sent via social media platforms, City e-newsletter, and the Housing interested parties list. A flyer was also made available during Concord’s Music and Market events.

Collectively, through the in-person workshops and the online surveys, 119 tenants/tenant representatives, and 118 property owners/property owner representatives provided their feedback. Housing staff also corresponded with affordable housing providers to better understand the potential impact of rent

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
September 5, 2023
stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinances on these housing providers. Please see the Background section of this staff report for more information.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), the proposed Ordinance for establishing a rent registry program, Council action on this item does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), or 15378 because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the revision is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), “Review for Exemptions” of the CEQA Guidelines because there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and no further environmental review is required. Moreover, even if Council action on this item does comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” None of the exceptions identified in Guidelines Section 15300.2 are present. No unusual circumstances are present.

Therefore, the proposed Municipal Code amendments do not warrant further environmental review.

Attachments

1. Local Jurisdiction Research Tables

2. Examples of Program Administration Costs and Activities

3. Summary of Feedback Received from Tenants and Property Owners

4. Collective Policy Recommendations from Monument Impact, EBASE, Todos Santos Tenants Union, and Rising Juntos

5. Summary of Feedback Received from Affordable Housing Providers

6. Correspondence Received