Concord City Council
January 23, 2024

Summary of Implementation Options

Project Subject
to Inclusionary
Requirement
Build Units
Onsite
If inclusionary
requirement results in a
fractional unit, round up
if fraction is 0.5 or higher
and provide units onsite.

If inclusionary
requirement results in a
fractional unit of less
than 0.5, round up and
provide unit onsite OR
round down and pay fee
on fraction of unit.

Alternative
Means of
Compliance
Pay in-lieu fee
Submit Alternative
Housing Proposal (*) of
equivalent or greater
value. Acceptance is at
City's discretion.
(*) Alternative Housing Proposals may include a range of options, such as different inclusionary requirements and/or different income targets; off-site construction; land dedication; and, acquisition, rehabilitation, and deed-restriction of market rate units.

The details will need to be approved at the City’s discretion.

APPENDIX A:

Survey of Inclusionary Requirements in
Select California Jurisdictions

16 Survey of Inclusiona ry Requirements in
Select Californi a Jurisdictions
As part of the feasibility analysis, EPS surveyed key features of inclusionary programs in nearby jurisdictions, or jurisdictions of similar size and character. While the market conditions informing these jurisdictions’ inclusionary housing policies can vary substantially, it can nevertheless be informative to use other local governments’ policies as a benchmark for reasonableness.

In other jurisdictions, onsite inclusionary requirements range from 5 to 15 percent for both ownership and rental projects, with in-lieu fees up to $20. Key aspects of several jurisdictions’ inclusionary programs are listed in the following tables.

Table A-1 Survey of Other Jurisdictions’ Ownership Inclusionary Programs Jurisdiction Threshold
Applicability
Inclusionary
Requirement
In-lieu Fee Alternative Means of
Compliance
Concord 5+ units  6% Low;
OR
 10%
Moderate
$0-9/sq. ft.;
varies by
project size

Contra Costa
County
5+ units  15%
overall
 At least 1/5
Very Low
Calculated by
formula
 Off-site affordable
housing construction
or acquisition
 Land dedication
Hayward 2+ units  10%
Moderate
$19.82/sq. ft.  Off-site affordable
housing construction
 Provide income-
restricted rental
units

Pittsburg 5+ units  6% Very
Low + 9%
Low; OR
 20% Low
Update in
process
 Off-site affordable
housing construction
or acquisition
 Land dedication
Pleasant Hill 5+ units  5% Low;
OR
 10%
Moderate
Calculated by
formula
 Off-site affordable
housing construction
or acquisition
Richmond 10+ units  7% Low;
OR
 10%
Moderate
$0-12/sq. ft.;
varies by
location
 Off-site affordable
housing construction
 Provide income-
restricted rental
units (10% Very
Low)
San Ramon 10+ units  10%
Moderate
Calculated by
formula
 Off-site affordable
housing construction
or acquisition
 Land dedication
 Provide income-
restricted rental
units
Walnut
Creek
All units  6% Very
Low; OR
 7% Low;
OR
 10%
Moderate
$18/sq. ft.  Off-site affordable
housing construction
or acquisition
 Land dedication

18 Table A-2 Survey of Other Jurisdictions’ Rental Inclusionary Programs

Jurisdiction Threshold
Applicability
Inclusionary
Requirement
In-lieu Fee Alternative Means of
Compliance
Concord 5+ units  6% Very
Low; OR
 10% Low
$4/sq. ft.

Contra
Costa
County
5+ units  15%
overall
 At least 1/5
Very Low
Calculated by
formula
 Off-site affordable
housing construction
or acquisition
 Land dedication
Hayward 2+ units  3%
Extremely
Low + 3%
Very Low;
OR
 3% Very
Low + 3%
Low
$19.82/sq. ft.  Off-site affordable
housing construction
Pittsburg 5+ units  6% Very
Low + 9%
Low; OR
 20% Low;
OR
 6%
Extremely
Low
Update in
process
 Off-site affordable
housing construction
or acquisition
 Land dedication
Pleasant Hill 5+ units  5% Very
Low; OR
 10% Low
Calculated by
formula
 Off-site affordable
housing construction
or acquisition
Richmond 10+ units  9% Very
Low; OR
 10% Low
$12/sq. ft.  Off-site affordable
housing construction
San Ramon 10+ units  7.5% Very
Low +

7.5% Low
Calculated by
formula
 Off-site affordable
housing construction
or acquisition
 Land dedication
Walnut
Creek
All units  6% Very
Low; OR
 7% Low

$18/sq. ft.  Off-site affordable
housing construction
or acquisition
 Land dedication

A
PPENDIX B:

Schedule of Onsite Build Requirements for Rental
and Ownership Development Projects

Ownership
Units in
Project
Inclusionary
Requirement Very Low Low Moderate
Onsite
Units
Very
Low Low Moderate
Fractional
Units ( < 0.5)
Pay Fee
Fee on
Fractional
Units
15% 0% 7.5% 7.5% $254,838
50 . 7 5 - 0.38 0.38 1 0 0 1 60 .90 - 0.45 0.45 1 0 0 1 71 .05 - 0.53 0.53 1 0 0 1 0.05 $12,742 81 .20 - 0.60 0.60 1 0 0 1 0.20 $50,968 91 .35 - 0.68 0.68 1 0 0 1 0.35 $89,193 10 1.50 - 0.75 0.75 2 0 1 1 11 1.65 - 0.83 0.83 2 0 1 1 12 1.80 - 0.90 0.90 2 0 1 1 13 1.95 - 0.98 0.98 2 0 1 1 14 2.10 - 1.05 1.05 2 0 1 1 0.10 $25,484 15 2.25 - 1.13 1.13 2 0 1 1 0.25 $63,710 16 2.40 - 1.20 1.20 2 0 1 1 0.40 $101,935 17 2.55 - 1.28 1.28 3 0 1 2 18 2.70 - 1.35 1.35 3 0 1 2 19 2.85 - 1.43 1.43 3 0 1 2 20 3.00 - 1.50 1.50 3 0 1 2 21 3.15 - 1.58 1.58 3 0 1 2 0.15 $38,226 22 3.30 - 1.65 1.65 3 0 1 2 0.30 $76,451 23 3.45 - 1.73 1.73 3 0 1 2 0.45 $114,677 24 3.60 - 1.80 1.80 4 0 2 2 25 3.75 - 1.88 1.88 4 0 2 2 26 3.90 - 1.95 1.95 4 0 2 2 27 4.05 - 2.03 2.03 4 0 2 2 0.05 $12,742 28 4.20 - 2.10 2.10 4 0 2 2 0.20 $50,968 29 4.35 - 2.18 2.18 4 0 2 2 0.35 $89,193 30 4.50 - 2.25 2.25 5 0 2 3 31 4.65 - 2.33 2.33 5 0 2 3 32 4.80 - 2.40 2.40 5 0 2 3 33 4.95 - 2.48 2.48 5 0 2 3 34 5.10 - 2.55 2.55 5 0 2 3 0.10 $25,484 35 5.25 - 2.63 2.63 5 0 2 3 0.25 $63,710 36 5.40 - 2.70 2.70 5 0 2 3 0.40 $101,935 37 5.55 - 2.78 2.78 6 0 3 3 38 5.70 - 2.85 2.85 6 0 3 3 39 5.85 - 2.93 2.93 6 0 3 3 40 6.00 - 3.00 3.00 6 0 3 3 41 6.15 - 3.08 3.08 6 0 3 3 0.15 $38,226 42 6.30 - 3.15 3.15 6 0 3 3 0.30 $76,451 43 6.45 - 3.23 3.23 6 0 3 3 0.45 $114,677 44 6.60 - 3.30 3.30 7 0 3 4 45 6.75 - 3.38 3.38 7 0 3 4 46 6.90 - 3.45 3.45 7 0 3 4 47 7.05 - 3.53 3.53 7 0 3 4 0.05 $12,742 48 7.20 - 3.60 3.60 7 0 3 4 0.20 $50,968 49 7.35 - 3.68 3.68 7 0 3 4 0.35 $89,193 50 7.50 - 3.75 3.75 8 0 4 4 51 7.65 - 3.83 3.83 8 0 4 4 52 7.80 - 3.90 3.90 8 0 4 4 53 7.95 - 3.98 3.98 8 0 4 4 54 8.10 - 4.05 4.05 8 0 4 4 0.10 $25,484 55 8.25 - 4.13 4.13 8 0 4 4 0.25 $63,710 56 8.40 - 4.20 4.20 8 0 4 4 0.40 $101,935 57 8.55 - 4.28 4.28 9 0 4 5 58 8.70 - 4.35 4.35 9 0 4 5 59 8.85 - 4.43 4.43 9 0 4 5 60 9.00 - 4.50 4.50 9 0 4 5 61 9.15 - 4.58 4.58 9 0 4 5 0.15 $38,226 62 9.30 - 4.65 4.65 9 0 4 5 0.30 $76,451 63 9.45 - 4.73 4.73 9 0 4 5 0.45 $114,677 64 9.60 - 4.80 4.80 10 0 5 5 65 9.75 - 4.88 4.88 10 0 5 5 66 9.90 - 4.95 4.95 10 0 5 5 67 10.05 - 5.03 5.03 10 0 5 5 0.05 $12,742 68 10.20 - 5.10 5.10 10 0 5 5 0.20 $50,968 Income Distribution % Unit Distribution

Ownership
Units in
Project
Inclusionary
Requirement Very Low Low Moderate
Onsite
Units
Very
Low Low Moderate
Fractional
Units ( < 0.5)
Pay Fee
Fee on
Fractional
Units
15% 0% 7.5% 7.5% $254,838
Income Distribution % Unit Distribution
69 10.35 - 5.18 5.18 10 0 5 5 0.35 $89,193 70 10.50 - 5.25 5.25 11 0 5 6 71 10.65 - 5.33 5.33 11 0 5 6 72 10.80 - 5.40 5.40 11 0 5 6 73 10.95 - 5.48 5.48 11 0 5 6 74 11.10 - 5.55 5.55 11 0 5 6 0.10 $25,484 75 11.25 - 5.63 5.63 11 0 5 6 0.25 $63,710 76 11.40 - 5.70 5.70 11 0 5 6 0.40 $101,935 77 11.55 - 5.78 5.78 12 0 6 6 78 11.70 - 5.85 5.85 12 0 6 6 79 11.85 - 5.93 5.93 12 0 6 6 80 12.00 - 6.00 6.00 12 0 6 6 81 12.15 - 6.08 6.08 12 0 6 6 0.15 $38,226 82 12.30 - 6.15 6.15 12 0 6 6 0.30 $76,451 83 12.45 - 6.23 6.23 12 0 6 6 0.45 $114,677 84 12.60 - 6.30 6.30 13 0 6 7 85 12.75 - 6.38 6.38 13 0 6 7 86 12.90 - 6.45 6.45 13 0 6 7 87 13.05 - 6.53 6.53 13 0 6 7 0.05 $12,742 88 13.20 - 6.60 6.60 13 0 6 7 0.20 $50,968 89 13.35 - 6.68 6.68 13 0 6 7 0.35 $89,193 90 13.50 - 6.75 6.75 14 0 7 7 91 13.65 - 6.83 6.83 14 0 7 7 92 13.80 - 6.90 6.90 14 0 7 7 93 13.95 - 6.98 6.98 14 0 7 7 94 14.10 - 7.05 7.05 14 0 7 7 0.10 $25,484 95 14.25 - 7.13 7.13 14 0 7 7 0.25 $63,710 96 14.40 - 7.20 7.20 14 0 7 7 0.40 $101,935 97 14.55 - 7.28 7.28 15 0 7 8 98 14.70 - 7.35 7.35 15 0 7 8 99 14.85 - 7.43 7.43 15 0 7 8 100 15.00 - 7.50 7.50 15 0 7 8 101 15.15 - 7.58 7.58 15 0 7 8 0.15 $38,226 102 15.30 - 7.65 7.65 15 0 7 8 0.30 $76,451 103 15.45 - 7.73 7.73 15 0 7 8 0.45 $114,677 104 15.60 - 7.80 7.80 16 0 7 9

Rental
Units in
Project
Inclusionary
Requirement Very Low Low Moderate
Onsite
Units
Very
Low Low Moderate
Fractional
Units ( < 0.5)
Pay Fee
Fee on
Fractional
Units
6% 1% 1% 4% $173,034
50 . 3 0 0.05 0.05 0.20 0 0 0 0 0.30 $51,910 60 . 3 6 0.06 0.06 0.24 0 0 0 0 0.36 $62,292 70 . 4 2 0.07 0.07 0.28 0 0 0 0 0.42 $72,674 80 . 4 8 0.08 0.08 0.32 0 0 0 0 0.48 $83,056 90 . 5 4 0.09 0.09 0.36 1 0 0 1 10 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.40 1 0 0 1 11 0.66 0.11 0.11 0.44 1 0 0 1 12 0.72 0.12 0.12 0.48 1 0 0 1 13 0.78 0.13 0.13 0.52 1 0 0 1 14 0.84 0.14 0.14 0.56 1 0 0 1 15 0.90 0.15 0.15 0.60 1 0 0 1 16 0.96 0.16 0.16 0.64 1 0 0 1 17 1.02 0.17 0.17 0.68 1 0 0 1 0.02 $3,461 18 1.08 0.18 0.18 0.72 1 0 0 1 0.08 $13,843 19 1.14 0.19 0.19 0.76 1 0 0 1 0.14 $24,225 20 1.20 0.20 0.20 0.80
1 0 0 1 0.20 $34,607
21 1.26 0.21 0.21 0.84 1 0 0 1 0.26 $44,989 22 1.32 0.22 0.22 0.88 1 0 0 1 0.32 $55,371 23 1.38 0.23 0.23 0.92 1 0 0 1 0.38 $65,753 24 1.44 0.24 0.24 0.96 1 0 0 1 0.44 $76,135 25 1.50 0.25 0.25 1.00 2 0 1 1 26 1.56 0.26 0.26 1.04 2 0 1 1 27 1.62 0.27 0.27 1.08 2 0 1 1 28 1.68 0.28 0.28 1.12 2 0 1 1 29 1.74 0.29 0.29 1.16 2 0 1 1 30 1.80 0.30 0.30 1.20 2 0 1 1 31 1.86 0.31 0.31 1.24 2 0 1 1 32 1.92 0.32 0.32 1.28 2 0 1 1 33 1.98 0.33 0.33 1.32 2 0 1 1 34 2.04 0.34 0.34 1.36 2 0 1 1 0.04 $6,921 35 2.10 0.35 0.35 1.40 2 0 1 1 0.10 $17,303 36 2.16 0.36 0.36 1.44 2 0 1 1 0.16 $27,685 37 2.22 0.37 0.37 1.48 2 0 1 1 0.22 $38,067 38 2.28 0.38 0.38 1.52 2 0 1 1 0.28 $48,450 39 2.34 0.39 0.39 1.56 2 0 1 1 0.34 $58,832 40 2.40 0.40 0.40 1.60 2 0 1 1 0.40 $69,214 41 2.46 0.41 0.41 1.64 2 0 1 1 0.46 $79,596 42 2.52 0.42 0.42 1.68 3 0 1 2 43 2.58 0.43 0.43 1.72 3 0 1 2 44 2.64 0.44 0.44 1.76 3 0 1 2 45 2.70 0.45 0.45 1.80 3 0 1 2 46 2.76 0.46 0.46 1.84 3 0 1 2 47 2.82 0.47 0.47 1.88 3 0 1 2 48 2.88 0.48 0.48 1.92 3 0 1 2 49 2.94 0.49 0.49 1.96 3 0 1 2 50 3.00 0.50 0.50 2.00 3 0 1 2 51 3.06 0.51 0.51 2.04 3 0 1 2 0.06 $10,382 52 3.12 0.52 0.52 2.08 3 0 1 2 0.12 $20,764 53 3.18 0.53 0.53 2.12 3 0 1 2 0.18 $31,146 54 3.24 0.54 0.54 2.16 3 0 1 2 0.24 $41,528 55 3.30 0.55 0.55 2.20 3 0 1 2 0.30 $51,910 56 3.36 0.56 0.56 2.24 3 0 1 2 0.36 $62,292 57 3.42 0.57 0.57 2.28 3 0 1 2 0.42 $72,674 58 3.48 0.58 0.58 2.32 3 0 1 2 0.48 $83,056 59 3.54 0.59 0.59 2.36 4 1 1 2 60 3.60 0.60 0.60 2.40 4 1 1 2 61 3.66 0.61 0.61 2.44 4 1 1 2 62 3.72 0.62 0.62 2.48 4 1 1 2 63 3.78 0.63 0.63 2.52 4 1 1 2 64 3.84 0.64 0.64 2.56 4 1 1 2 65 3.90 0.65 0.65 2.60 4 1 1 2 66 3.96 0.66 0.66 2.64 4 1 1 2 67 4.02 0.67 0.67 2.68 4 1 1 2 0.02 $3,461 68 4.08 0.68 0.68 2.72 4 1 1 2 0.08 $13,843 Income Distribution % Unit Distribution

Rental
Units in
Project
Inclusionary
Requirement Very Low Low Moderate
Onsite
Units
Very
Low Low Moderate
Fractional
Units ( < 0.5)
Pay Fee
Fee on
Fractional
Units
6% 1% 1% 4% $173,034
Income Distribution % Unit Distribution
69 4.14 0.69 0.69 2.76 4 1 1 2 0.14 $24,225 70 4.20 0.70 0.70 2.80 4 1 1 2 0.20 $34,607 71 4.26 0.71 0.71 2.84 4 1 1 2 0.26 $44,989 72 4.32 0.72 0.72 2.88 4 1 1 2 0.32 $55,371 73 4.38 0.73 0.73 2.92 4 1 1 2 0.38 $65,753 74 4.44 0.74 0.74 2.96 4 1 1 2 0.44 $76,135 75 4.50 0.75 0.75 3.00 5 1 1 3 76 4.56 0.76 0.76 3.04 5 1 1 3 77 4.62 0.77 0.77 3.08 5 1 1 3 78 4.68 0.78 0.78 3.12 5 1 1 3 79 4.74 0.79 0.79 3.16 5 1 1 3 80 4.80 0.80 0.80 3.20 5 1 1 3 81 4.86 0.81 0.81 3.24 5 1 1 3 82 4.92 0.82 0.82 3.28 5 1 1 3 83 4.98 0.83 0.83 3.32 5 1 1 3 84 5.04 0.84 0.84 3.36 5 1 1 3 0.04 $6,921 85 5.10 0.85 0.85 3.40 5 1 1 3 0.10 $17,303 86 5.16 0.86 0.86 3.44 5 1 1 3 0.16 $27,685 87 5.22 0.87 0.87 3.48 5 1 1 3 0.22 $38,067 88 5.28 0.88 0.88 3.52 5 1 1 3 0.28 $48,450 89 5.34 0.89 0.89 3.56 5 1 1 3 0.34 $58,832 90 5.40 0.90 0.90 3.60 5 1 1 3 0.40 $69,214 91 5.46 0.91 0.91 3.64 5 1 1 3 0.46 $79,596 92 5.52 0.92 0.92 3.68 6 1 1 4 93 5.58 0.93 0.93 3.72 6 1 1 4 94 5.64 0.94 0.94 3.76 6 1 1 4 95 5.70 0.95 0.95 3.80 6 1 1 4 96 5.76 0.96 0.96 3.84 6 1 1 4 97 5.82 0.97 0.97 3.88 6 1 1 4 98 5.88 0.98 0.98 3.92 6 1 1 4 99 5.94 0.99 0.99 3.96 6 1 1 4 100 6.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 6 1 1 4 101 6.06 1.01 1.01 4.04 6 1 1 4 0.06 $10,382 102 6.12 1.02 1.02 4.08 6 1 1 4 0.12 $20,764 103 6.18 1.03 1.03 4.12 6 1 1 4 0.18 $31,146 104 6.24 1.04 1.04 4.16 6 1 1 4 0.24 $41,528 105 6.30 1.05 1.05 4.20 6 1 1 4 0.30 $51,910 106 6.36 1.06 1.06 4.24 6 1 1 4 0.36 $62,292 107 6.42 1.07 1.07 4.28 6 1 1 4 0.42 $72,674 108 6.48 1.08 1.08 4.32 6 1 1 4 0.48 $83,056 109 6.54 1.09 1.09 4.36 7 1 1 5

Section 6932. 2023 Income Limits
Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Income Category
Acutely Low 15550 17750 20000 22200 24000 25750 27550 29300 Extremely Low 31050 35500 39950 44350 47900 51450 55000 58550 Very Low Income 51800 59200 66600 73950 79900 85800 91700 97650 Low Income 78550 89750 100950 112150 121150 130100 139100 148050 Median Income 103550 118300 133100 147900 159750 171550 183400 195250 Moderate Income 124250 142000 159750 177500 191700 205900 220100 234300 Acutely Low 12050 13750 15500 17200 18600 19950 21350 22700 Extremely Low 20200 23100 26000 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 33650 38450 43250 48050 51900 55750 59600 63450 Low Income 53850 61550 69250 76900 83100 89250 95400 101550 Median Income 80200 91700 103150 114600 123750 132950 142100 151250 Moderate Income 96250 110000 123750 137500 148500 159500 170500 181500 Acutely Low 10650 12150 13700 15200 16400 17650 18850 20050 Extremely Low 19250 22000 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Ve
ry Low Income 32100 36700 41300 45850 49550 53200 56900 60550 Low Income 51350 58700 66050 73350 79250 85100 91000 96850 Median Income 70850 80950 91100 101200 109300 117400 125500 133600 Moderate Income 85000 97150 109300 121450 131150 140900 150600 160300 Acutely Low 9650 11000 12400 13750 14850 15950 17050 18150 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 64100 73300 82450 91600 98950 106250 113600 120900 Moderate Income 76950 87900 98900 109900 118700 127500 136300 145050 Acutely Low 10100 11550 13000 14450 15600 16750 17900 19050 Extremely Low 20050 22900 25750 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 33400 38150 42900 47650 51500 55300 59100 62900 Low Income 53400 61000 68650 76250 82350 88450 94550 100650 Median Income 67350 76950 86600 96200 103900 111600 119300 127000 Moderate Income 80800 92350 103900 115450 124700 133900 143150 152400 Acutely Low 8800 10050 11300 12550 13550 14550 15550 16550 Extremely Low 17350 19800 24860 30000 35140 40280 45420 50560 Very Low Income 28900 33000 37150 41250 44550 47850 51150 54450 Low Income 46200 52800 59400 65950 71250 76550 81800 87100 Median Income 58650 67050 75400 83800 90500 97200 103900 110600 Moderate Income 70400 80450 90500 100550 108600 116650 124700 132750 Acutely Low 15550 17750 20000 22200 24000 25750 27550 29300 Extremely Low 31050 35500 39950 44350 47900 51450 55000 58550 Very Low Income 51800 59200 66600 73950 79900 85800 91700 97650 Low Income 78550 89750 100950 112150 121150 130100 139100 148050 Median Income 103550 118300 133100 147900 159750 171550 183400 195250 Moderate Income 124250 142000 159750 177500 191700 205900 220100 234300 Last page instructs how to use income limits to determine applicant eligibility and calculate affordable housing cost and rent Alameda County
Area Median Income:
$147,900
Alpine County
Area Median Income:
$114,600
Amador County
Area Median Income:
$101,200
Butte County
Area Median Income:
$91,600
Calaveras County
Area Median Income:
$96,200
Colusa County
Area Median Income:
$83,800
Contra Costa County
Area Median Income:
$147,900
Attachment 12

From: Aaron Tiedemann <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 11:34 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Gentry, Mindy <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>
Subject: EBHO Comments on Proposed Updates to Affordable Housing Ordinance Good morning Council and Staff,
Please find attached my comment on behalf of East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) in response to item 7A on your agenda tomorrow evening.

I will not be able to attend to comment in person, but I hope you can address our concerns.
--
Aaron Tiedemann
Policy Manager

EAST BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS (EBHO)
[email protected]
538 Ninth Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
pronouns: he/him
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item no. 7.a
January 23, 2024

January 22, 2024

To:

Mayor Edi Birsan
Vice-Mayor Carlyn Obringer
Councilmember Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Councilmember Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Councilmember Laura Hoffmeister
Valarie Barone, City Manager

RE: Item 7A Update to Concord’s Affordable Housing Ordinance

Dear Concord City Council and City Staff

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

While we are happy to see this effort moving forward, particularly the revisions that will ensure the previously unenforced inclusionary housing requirements for rental housing come into effect, we are disappointed with the suggested reduction in required inclusionary units for rental properties. As stated in our letters on November 29, 2022 to the Housing & Economic Development Committee and to Concord’s Planning Commission on July 19, 2023, the proposed reduction of rental inclusionary units required to only 6%, 4% of which would be moderate income units, is an unacceptable compromise. The use of moderate income units to fulfill a majority of the required units is especially egregious, as it means that there will be essentially no units affordable to low, very-low, or extremely low income tenants created by this program.

Based on EBHO’s research, every jurisdiction in the East Bay with an inclusionary housing program in place requires more deeply affordable units and all but one (Hayward) have a higher overall percentage of units required. The vast majority of cities require between 10% and 15% of units to be affordable. When we noted this previously during the HED Committee and the Planning Commission meetings, staff and Council members responded by saying that other jurisdictions’ levels were impractical or restrictive, and justified the decrease as necessary to make development possible. However, many of the Cities’ with much higher and more deeply affordable inclusionary requirements have experienced the highest construction rates in the East Bay. To date, I have seen no satisfactory explanation for why this policy has continued to move forward when other

jurisdictions with higher inclusionary requirements have been much more successful in encouraging construction. Undercutting other cities in the area by drastically reducing the inclusionary units required will not ensure Concord attracts more construction, but it will sacrifice housing for those who can least afford it.

Inclusionary requirements are not making construction infeasible; if the City is determined to lower costs there are a variety of other more impactful policies it can and should pursue that do not compromise on affordable housing. One such policy that the City has already begun to impliment is objective design standards, which will do much more to encourage construction than the reductions proposed to inclusionary requirements.

In previous discussions at the HED Committee meeting and Planning Commission, it has been repeatedly stated that inclusionary housing is not a realistic way to achieve the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This is a disappointing and, frankly, unfounded sentiment, which should not be used as an excuse to water the program down. While it is true that the City cannot solely rely on inclusionary units to meet their RHNA requirements, if set correctly, inclusionary requirements can produce a significant number of units of affordable housing. Furthermore, setting an aggressive percentage of units and in-lieu fees enables the city to build 100% affordable projects using their Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). Decreasing the requirement for rental projects to the extent proposed ensures there will be little to no new funding for the AHTF, making it more difficult for the City to meet its RHNA goal.

Please do not accept the proposed reduction to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Requirements for rental housing. The percentage and depth of affordability should be, at minimum, kept at current levels.

Sincerely,

Aaron Tiedemann
Policy Manager
East Bay Housing Organizations.

Housing Element Implementation

C I T Y CO UNCI L
P R ESE NT E D BY: M I NDY G E NT RY & S COT T WAT K I NS, M BA M P P J A NUARY 2 3 , 2 0 2 4

2 Presentation Overview
Package #1 (Ashleigh Kanat, EPS)

1. Ordinance
a) Density Bonus Program
b) Inclusionary Housing Program

2. Resolution amending Master Fee Schedule

3. Questions of staff

3 Presentation Overview
Package #2 (Scott Watkins, Associate Planner)

1. Ordinance
a) By-Right Development Program
b) Lot Consolidation Incentive Program

2. Resolution amending Master Fee Schedule

3. Questions of staff

4. Open public comment for both package #1 and
#2

1. Purpose and history of Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO)

2. Density Bonus Program

3. Inclusionary Housing Program

4. Consideration of proposed AHO amendments and fee
updates

5. Questions of staff from Council
4 AHO Overview

Two primary components of AHO to be updated
◦ Density Bonus Program (DBP)
◦ Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP)
5 Affordable Housing Ordinance

◦ 2004 – City adopted Inclusionary Housing Program
◦ 2016 – Increased future in-lieu fees for ownership units within the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program
◦ 2018 – Adopted Affordable Housing Impact Fees for development of rental units
◦ Postponed until the issuance of at least 600 building permits for rental units between January 1, 2017 and April 1, 2018. This threshold has not been met. 6 History of AHO

Housing and Economic Development Committee - initial briefing and policy direction to staff June 15, 2022
Housing and Economic Development Committee – final policy direction on DBP and IHP November 29, 2022
Planning Commission – reviewed amendments to the Development Code and recommended that the City Council approve the Affordable Housing Ordinance update
July 19, 2023
Stakeholder Outreach – shared proposed AHO amendments, provided status update, and received feedback November 1, 2023
City Council – Consideration of proposed AHO amendments and Adoption of updated Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees January 23, 2024 7 Timeframe for Ordinance Update

BACKGROUND AND

RECOMMENDATION

DENSITY BONUS

PROGRAM

◦DBP allows increased density if the developer
meets certain criteria.
◦The criteria include developer commitments to
construct a certain percent of units that would be
affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income
households in new developments.
9 Density Bonus Program (DBP)

◦Amend the City’s Density Bonus regulation to
conform to state law.
◦ Cross reference the California Government Code 65915 et seq. ◦Ensure the DBP ordinance language is simple for
housing developers to implement and clear for staff
to administer.
10 HED and PC Feedback and Policy Direction

BACKGROUND AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

INCLUSIONARY

HOUSING PROGRAM

1. Applicability
◦ Ownership and/or rental projects?
◦ Project size? Current requirement is applicable at 5+ units. ◦ Exemptions?

2. Inclusionary Requirement
◦ Percent inclusionary (typically 5% to 15%)
◦ Affordability targets (e.g., Very Low, Low, Moderate)

3. Alternative Means of Complying
◦ In-lieu fee, off-site development, land dedication, acquisition and conversion to deed-restricted units
12 IHP Objectives and Typical Parameters

◦Development pro-formas used to test feasibility of
market rate development, using industry-standards
return metrics
◦ Feasibility threshold for ownership = 20% profit
◦ Feasibility threshold for rental = 5% yield-on-cost
◦Alignment between on-site requirements and in-lieu
fees
◦Comparison with other jurisdictions
13 Development Feasibility

1.The in-lieu fees should be the economic equivalent of providing units onsite.

2.Retain the current threshold for projects of five or more units.

3.Propose an alternative that would provide the same value of providing the units onsite or payment of the in-lieu fee to provide flexibility to the development community.
14 HED and PC Policy Direction

4.Ownership: total inclusionary requirement of 15% with

7.5% low- and 7.5% moderate-income units resulting in a proposed in-lieu fee of $20 per square foot.

5.Rental: total inclusionary requirement of 6% with 1% very low-, 1% low, and 4% moderate-income units resulting in a proposed in-lieu fee of $15 per square foot.
◦ Support for removing the 600-unit threshold precluding the application of the inclusionary housing requirements for rental projects.
15 HED and PC Policy Direction, cont.

$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
RENTAL
Very Low
Income
(50% AMI)
RENTAL
Low
Income
(80% AMI)
RENTAL
Moderate
Income
(100% AMI)

FOR SALE
Very Low
Income
(50% AMI)

FOR SALE
Low
Income
(80% AMI)

FOR SALE
Moderate
Income
(110% AMI)
Gap Analysis for Affordable Units
Reflects
onsite
construction
of ownership
units
Estimated
development
cost for 3-
bedroom
single family
unit: ~$1.1
million
Estimated
development
cost for 2-
bedroom
rental
apartment:
~$720,000
Reflects
onsite
construction
of rental units
Darker shading is supportable unit value. Lighter shading is affordability gap. 16

ANALYSIS AND

OPTIONS

OWNERSHIP

INCLUSIONARY

PROGRAM

◦ 20% profit margin
threshold
◦ Propose $20/sq. ft. fee
based on feasibility
analysis and survey of
other jurisdictions’ fees
◦ In other jurisdictions,
ownership in-lieu fees
range from $12 to $20
18 Testing Feasibility Scenarios

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%
Current
Inclusionary
(10%
Moderate)
Current
Inclusionary
(6% Low)
Current
Fee
($9/sq.ft.)
No
Inclusionary or
Fee
Maximum
Feasible Fee
($116/sq.ft.)
Recommended
Target Fee
($20/sq. ft.)
Profit Margin
20% profit margin
required for feasibility

Total
Inclusionary
Very Low Low Moderate Fee per Sq. Ft.
15% 0% 7.5% 7.5% $20.00
Considerations
◦ Target in-lieu fee per square foot of market-rate units; approximately $20
◦ Include two or more income levels in each program (blended incomes)
◦ Challenging to qualify very low-income households for ownership housing
◦ Blend low- and moderate-income levels only
19 19
Recommended Ownership Inclusionary Program
19

ANALYSIS AND

OPTIONS
RENTAL

INCLUSIONARY

PROGRAM

◦Current rental housing development construction costs in Bay Area are very high (approx. $720,000)
◦Balance need for affordable units and development
feasibility
◦ 546 building permits issued since 2018
◦Provide developers flexibility in requirements (law
requires alternative means of compliance)
21 Context for Rental Inclusionary Program

◦ 5% yield-on-cost
threshold
◦ Note: current inclusionary
program does not meet
the feasibility threshold.
◦ Propose $15 fee based
on feasibility analysis
and survey of other
jurisdictions’ fees
◦ In other jurisdictions,
rental in-lieu fees range
from $0 to $18
22 Testing Feasibility Scenarios

4.80%

4.85%

4.90%

4.95%

5.00%

5.05%

5.10%

5.15%

5.20%
Current
Inclusionary
(10% Low)
Current
Inclusionary
(6% Very Low)
Current
Fee
($4/sq.ft.)
No
Inclusionary/
No Fee
Maximum
Feasible Fee
($20/sq.ft.)
Recommended
Target Fee
($15/sq. ft.)
Yield-on-Cost
5% yield-on-cost
required for feasibility

Total Inclusionary Very Low Low Moderate Fee per Sq. Ft. 6% 1% 1% 4% $15.00
23 Considerations
◦ Propose in-lieu fee per square foot of $15
◦ Include two or more income levels in each program (blended incomes)
◦ Preference to incorporate Very Low, if feasible
◦ Increasing the Very Low-income percentage reduces overall inclusionary unit requirement and/or would require a higher in-lieu fee
23 Recommended Rental Inclusionary Program

IMPLEMENTATION

AND NEXT STEPS

Project Subject to
Inclusionary
Requirement
Build Units Onsite
If inclusionary requirement results in a fractional unit, round up if fraction is 0.5 or higher and provide units onsite.

If inclusionary requirement results in a fractional unit of less than 0.5, round up and provide unit onsite OR round down and pay fee on fraction of unit.

Alternative
Means of
Compliance
Pay in-lieu fee
Build affordable units offsite
In ownership projects, provide onsite units as rentals
Developers may choose how to
comply.
25 Implementation Process

26 Interaction with State Density Bonus
◦ State law clarifies that affordable units provided onsite to meet a local inclusionary requirement count towards the State Density Bonus
◦ Rental
◦ Inclusionary rental requirement will not qualify for the state density bonus ◦ Ownership
◦ Inclusionary ownership requirement will qualify for a 10% state density bonus

1. Density Bonus Program - Adopt state provisions

2. Inclusionary Housing Program
◦ Remove 600-unit threshold and apply to rental housing projects ◦ Maintain applicability for projects with 5+ units
◦ Exempt office building conversions from inclusionary
requirements
◦ Ownership projects = 15% (7.5% low-income and 7.5%
moderate-income)
◦ Rental projects = 6% (1% very low-income, 1% low-income, and 4% moderate-income)
27 Recommended Changes to AHO

2. Inclusionary Housing Program (cont.)
◦ Provide alternative means of compliance as required by state law
◦ Payment of an in-lieu fee,
◦ Providing onsite rental units instead of ownership units in an ownership project, and
◦ Providing units offsite.
2828
Recommended Changes to AHO, cont.

2. Inclusionary Housing Program (cont.)
◦ Affordable unit and/or lot may be up to 15% smaller
◦ Modify fee schedule to increase in-lieu fees to $20 per square foot for ownership projects and $15 per square foot for rental projects
2929
Recommended Changes to AHO, cont.

1. Introduce an Ordinance amending the Concord Development Code by reading of the title only and waive further reading.

2. Adopt a Resolution amending the Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fees.
3030
Recommended Actions

Questions of Staff?
31

By-Right Development &
Lot Consolidation Incentive
Programs

CITY COUNCIL
PRESENTED BY: SCOTT WATKINS, MBA MPP
JANUARY 23, 2024

◦November 29, and December 6, 2023 – The City of
Concord Housing and Economic Development Committee
(“HED Committee”) met and provided feedback on policy
questions
◦December 20, 2023 – The Planning Commission
recommended (3-0) City Council approval of the ordinance 33 Background

34 Housing Element Programs
Program 6.1
◦ By-Right Development is a program that is required by Government Code Section 65583.2
Program 13.2
◦ Lot Consolidation Incentives is a program to help projects meet the minimum lot size of 0.5 acres, which is a threshold established by Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(2)(A)

OVERVIEW SITE INVENTORY MAP

Total Parcels
Identified:
250
36

DISCUSSION AND

ANALYSIS
PROGRAM 6.1 BY-

RIGHT DEVELOPMENT
CDC CHAPTER 18.115

◦Program 6.1 states the following:
◦ Amend the Development Code by January 2024 to permit by- right development on sites previously identified in past Housing Elements in which at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households in accordance with the specifications of Government Code Section 65583.2(c). ◦Mandated state law in effect January 31, 2024
38 Program 6.1 – By-Right Development

Eligibility Criteria:
◦ Previously identified sites within the HE Sites Inventory that are;
◦ Vacant sites in two or more consecutive housing elements, or ◦ Non-vacant sites in one prior housing element
◦ Base zoning allows 30 dwelling units per acre
◦ 20% or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households
39 Program 6.1 – By-Right Development

40All Eligible Parcels (Overlay District) – Program 6.1 By-Right Development * This map will be adopted as an overlay district
All Eligible
Parcels: 23

Ordinance Requirements:
◦ Must be entirely located on By-Right Site(s)
◦ Map is adopted as the Overlay District
◦ Deed Restriction required to ensure affordability
◦ Major or Minor Subdivision;
◦ Require consideration by the review authority
◦Neighborhood meeting required for all projects with five or more dwelling units
◦ Sunsets on December 31, 2028, unless modified by the State 41 Program 6.1 – By-Right Development

DISCUSSION AND

ANALYSIS
PROGRAM 13.2 LOT

CONSOLIDATION

INCENTIVE PROGRAM
CDC CHAPTER 18.200.230

Program 13.2 states the following:
◦ Amend the Development Code to provide financial or
regulatory incentives and a density bonus in exchange for lot consolidation by December 2023.
◦ State law requires sites included in a jurisdiction’s Sites Inventory to be at least 0.5 acres in size to accommodate the lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
targets.
43 Program 13.2 – Lot Consolidation

Sites identified for lot consolidation:
◦ Contiguous parcels that are vacant or underutilized
◦ Two or more parcels
◦ Common ownership
◦ Zoning designation accommodates at least 30 units per acre 44 Program 13.2 – Lot Consolidation

45 All Eligible Parcels – Program 13.2 Lot Consolidation Total Parcels
Identified:
177

Ordinance Requirements:
◦ Available to all affordable and market-rate residential and mixed-use (2/3 residential) projects as long as the project includes Lots Identified for Consolidation.
46 Program 13.2 – Lot Consolidation

Incentives:

1. Priority or expedited review once an application has been deemed complete:
a. 150 units or fewer – 90 days
b. More than 150 units – 180 days

2. Priority placement on meeting agenda.

3. City assistance on marketing affordable units.
47 Program 13.2 – Lot Consolidation

Incentives:

4. A 3 percent density bonus increase, with the minimum of one additional unit, which would be in addition to density bonus granted under State Density Bonus Law.
48 Program 13.2 – Lot Consolidation
continued’
Base Density 100 du/acre
DBL – 50% max 100 * 0.5 = 50
Lot Incentive – 3% max 100 * 0.03 = 3
Total Units 100 + 50 + 3 = 153
Density Bonus Incentive Scenario for a 1 acre site in DMX (100 du/acre)

Incentives:

5. A 10 percent reduction in required residential parking for mixed-use and residential projects.

6. Increase of compact parking spaces
◦ Lots where 100% of lots identified for consolidation will be allowed to increase their compact parking to 50% of required parking spaces. 49 Program 13.2 – Lot Consolidation
continued’

50 Recommended Action

1. Introduce the Ordinance amending the Concord
Municipal Code by title only and waive further reading.

2. Adopt the Resolution adding a By-Right Review fee to the Master Fee schedule

Questions of Staff?
51

1. Introduce an Ordinance amending the Concord Development Code by reading title only and waive further reading.

2. Adopt a Resolution amending the Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fees.
5252
Affordable Housing Ordinance Recommended Actions

53 By-Right & Lot Consolidation Recommended Action

1. Introduce the Ordinance amending the Concord
Municipal Code by title only and waive further reading.

2. Adopt the Resolution adding a By-Right Review fee to the Master Fee schedule.

54

Resource
Slides Affordable Housing
Ordinance

Fractional Units (Build Onsite, Rental)
• Calculate overall inclusionary requirement and evaluate distribution of incomes. If the fraction is 0.5 or more, round up, and build onsite.

Onsite Examples: Rental = 6% inclusionary (4% Moderate-income, 1% Low-income, 1% Very Low-income) 5-Unit Project 9-Unit Project 40-Unit Project 50-Unit Project 80-Unit Project 5 x .06 = 0.3
• 0.2 Moderate
• 0.05 Low
• 0.05 Very Low
9 x .06 = 0.54
• 0.36 Moderate
• 0.09 Low
• 0.09 Very Low
40 x .06 = 2.4
• 1.6 Moderate
• 0.4 Low
• 0.4 Very Low
50 x .06 = 3.0
• 2.0 Moderate
• 0.5 Low
• 0.5 Very Low
80 x .06 = 4.8
• 3.2 Moderate
• 0.8 Low
• 0.8 Very Low
Overall inclusionary
requirement is below 0.5,
so pay fee on 0.3
Overall inclusionary
requirement is above 0.5,
so round up to 1
2 onsite; fraction is below

0.5, so pay fee on 0.4
3 onsite; no fraction 4 onsite; fraction is above

0.5, so round up to 5
No onsite option 1 onsite unit = Moderate 1st onsite unit = Moderate 2nd onsite unit = Low
1st onsite unit = Moderate
2nd onsite unit = Low
3rd onsite unit = Moderate
1st onsite unit = Moderate
2nd onsite unit = Low
3rd onsite unit = Moderate
4th onsite unit = Very Low
5th onsite unit = Moderate
56

Fractional Units (Pay Subsidy, Rental)
• Applicant may pay a fee to satisfy fractional requirements < 0.5 • The subsidy per affordable unit is $173,034, reflecting the blend of Moderate, Low, and Very Low-income units
Onsite Examples: Rental = 6% inclusionary (4% Moderate-income, 1% Low-income, 1% Very Low-income) 5-Unit Project 9-Unit Project 40-Unit Project 50-Unit Project 80-Unit Project 5 x .06 = 0.3
• 0.2 Moderate
• 0.05 Low
• 0.05 Very Low
9 x .06 = 0.54
• 0.36 Moderate
• 0.09 Low
• 0.09 Very Low
40 x .06 = 2.4
• 1.6 Moderate
• 0.4 Low
• 0.4 Very Low
50 x .06 = 3.0
• 2.0 Moderate
• 0.5 Low
• 0.5 Very Low
80 x .06 = 4.8
• 3.2 Moderate
• 0.8 Low
• 0.8 Very Low
Overall inclusionary
requirement is below 0.5,
so pay fee on 0.3
Overall inclusionary
requirement is above 0.5,
so round up to 1.0
2 onsite; pay fee on 0.4 3 onsite; no fraction 4 onsite; fraction is above

0.5, so round up to 5
$173,034 x 0.3 = $51,910 $173,034 x 0.4 = $69,214 n/a
57

58 Credit: Meyers Nave
State of California Density Bonus Chart

Inclusionary and SDB Example
59 Base Number of Units
% and # Inclusionary 15.0% 7.5 6.0% 3
% and # Very Low 0.0% 0 1.0% 0.5
% and # Low 7.5% 3.75 1.0% 0.5
% and # Moderate 7.5% 3.75 4.0% 2
10% Bonus (Market Rate)
Total Units
Market Rate
Affordable
Ownership Rental
Qualifies for 10% SDB with
provision of 15% Moderate units
(Low-income units required by
Inclusionary can be considered
Moderate for SDB qualification.)
50 Does not qualify for SDB.
5 55

47.5 7.5
50

Maps By-Right Development
Process
by Neighborhood
60

61 All Eligible Parcels – Program 6.1 By-Right Development

62 Downtown expanded – Program 6.1 By-Right Development

63Downtown – Program 6.1 By-Right Development

64Clayton Valley West – Program 6.1 By-Right Development

65Clayton Valley East – Program 6.1 By-Right Development

66Monument Corridor – Program 6.1 By-Right Development

Maps Lot Consolidation
Incentive Program
by Neighborhood
67

68 All Eligible Parcels – Program 13.2 Lot Consolidation

69Downtown expanded – Program 13.2 Lot Consolidation

70Downtown – Program 13.2 Lot Consolidation

71Clayton Valley West – Program 13.2 Lot Consolidation

72Clayton Valley East – Program 13.2 Lot Consolidation

73Lime Ridge – Program 13.2 Lot Consolidation

74Monument Corridor – Program 13.2 Lot Consolidation

ANALYSIS INCENTIVE SCENARIOS

76 Incentive Scenario

1. 1772 EAST ST (Concord Tire Center) 0.33 acre site

2. 1750 EAST ST (Empty Lot) 0.32 acre site

3. 1700 EAST ST (Pride and Pedigree) 0.22 acre site
Cumulative site 0.87 acres
◦ All three sites zoned DMX
◦ Maximum 125 du/acre

77 Parking Space Reduction Scenario 1
Unit size Parking spaces required Total units Total spaces Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 56 84
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit 56 84
2 bedroom 2 space per unit 56 112
Total units 168
Guest Parking 1 space per 3 units - 94
Sub Total 168 374
◦ 10% Parking Reduction Incentive
◦ 37 spaces reduced
◦ 337 spaces required

78 Parking Space Reduction Scenario 2
Unit size Parking spaces required Total units Total spaces Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 56 84
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit 56 84
2 bedroom 2 space per unit 56 112
Total units 168
Guest Parking 1 space per 3 units - 94
Sub Total 168 374
◦ 10% Parking Reduction Incentive
◦ 0.32 + 0.22 / 0.87 = 62%
◦ 374 * 62% = 232 eligible spaces
◦ 232 * 10% = 23 spaces reduced
◦ 374 – 23 = 351 spaces required

79 Parking Space Reduction Scenario 3
Unit size Parking spaces required Total units Total spaces Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 56 84
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit 56 84
2 bedroom 2 space per unit 56 112
Total units 168
Guest Parking 1 space per 3 units - 94
Sub Total 168 374
◦ 10% Parking Reduction Incentive
◦ 0.22 / 0.87 = 25%
◦ 374 * 25% = 94 eligible spaces
◦ 94 * 10% = 9 spaces reduced
◦ 374 – 9 = 365 spaces required

80 Unit size Parking spaces required Total units Total spaces Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 56 84
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit 56 84
2 bedroom 2 space per unit 56 112
Total units 168
Guest Parking 1 space per 3 units - 94
Sub Total 168 374
◦ 374 spaces required
◦ 25% current standard = 94 spaces
◦ 50% compact incentive = 187 spaces
50% Compact Parking Spaces Scenario 1

81 35% Compact Parking Spaces Scenario 2
Unit size Parking spaces required Total units Total spaces Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 56 84
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit 56 84
2 bedroom 2 space per unit 56 112
Total units 168
Guest Parking 1 space per 3 units - 94
Sub Total 168 374
◦ 374 spaces required
◦ 25% current standard = 94 spaces
◦ 35% compact incentive = 131 spaces

Staff Report
Date: January 23, 2024
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3155
Subject: Considering the formation of a Council Ad Hoc Committee to advise the City Manager on Federal grant efforts for the remainder of calendar year 2024.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c),
15061(b)(3), 15262, and/or 15378.

Report in Brief
In November 2021, President Biden signed a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill into law. The Infrastructure Bill is a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure; it includes funding for roads, bridges and rails, access to clean drinking water, high-speed internet, climate, environmental justice, and investment in disadvantaged communities.

The Infrastructure Bill is one example of events occurring at the Federal level that can affect our community. In addition to the Infrastructure Bill, both Congress and the Senate are conducting separate appropriations processes that will allow local governments to submit federal funding requests for the construction or repair of infrastructure, and other important projects within their communities.

The City needs to move expeditiously when funding opportunities such as the Infrastructure Bill and Congressional and Senatorial appropriations processes present themselves. A Council Ad Hoc Committee will discuss the federal legislative agenda with the City Manager or her designee, for purposes of supporting the City’s efforts to obtain federal grant funding for Concord’s priority projects. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet as necessary until December 31, 2024.

10.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 10.a
January 23, 2024
Recommended Action
That the Mayor appoint two Councilmembers to serve on a Council Ad Hoc Committee until December 31, 2024, to advise the City Manager regarding Federal grant efforts for the remainder of calendar year 2024.

Background
Ad Hoc Committees
Pursuant to City of Concord – City Council Meeting Procedures Section 4.53.d, the Mayor may, from time to time, announce appointments to ad hoc advisory committees composed solely of less than a majority of the members of the City Council; the announcement of such appointments shall appear on the posted agenda, but shall not require approval from a majority of the City Council.

The use of Ad Hoc committees is permitted under the Brown Act so long as they:
 Serve a limited or single purpose that is not perpetual;  Are comprised solely of less than a quorum of the City Council (for a five member Council as in Concord, that means two Councilmembers.);  Have a defined purpose and timeframe to accomplish that purpose;  Dissolve once the specific task is complete or the time has expired; and  Are advisory and have no decision-making ability.

An Ad Hoc committee is not subject to notice and posting requirements, nor to holding public meetings, if the above requirements are followed.

Analysis
The proposed Ad Hoc committee meets all the requirements of City Council meeting procedures Section 4.53.d.

A Council Ad Hoc Committee will discuss opportunities for federal grants with the City Manager, or her designee, for purposes of supporting the City’s efforts to obtain federal grant funding for Concord’s priority projects. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet as necessary until December 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
Creation of the Ad Hoc Committee has no financial impact; however, matters discussed may result in City Manager actions or recommendations to the City Council that have a monetary effect.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15262), and/or 15378, City Council action on this item is not

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 10.a
January 23, 2024
subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, because 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.”
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.