Concord City Council
January 7, 2025

1 COUNCILMEMBERS
Carlyn S. Obringer, Mayor
Laura M. Nakamura, Vice Mayor
Dominic D. Aliano
Pablo Benavente
Laura M. Hoffmeister

PLANNING COMMISSION
Aeysha Corio, Chair
Ray Barbour, Vice Chair
Ajit Kaushal
Jason Laub
Craig Mizutani
Joint Meeting of the
Concord City Council and
the City of Concord
Planning Commission
Tuesday,
January 7, 2025
6:00 p.m. - Open Session Centre Concord
5298 Clayton Road and/or
various
telephonic/electronic
locations
*IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEETING PARTICIPATION* Members of the public are invited to attend and participate at: Centre Concord, 5298 Clayton Road.

Please note the following change to the City’s public comment procedures: Unless a Councilmember is participating in the meeting remotely pursuant to AB 2449, remote public comment will not be accepted. Public comment may be provided in-person or via email, as set forth below. 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.

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.

Meeting will be held
at the
Centre Concord
5298 Clayton Road
Concord, CA at
6 p.m.
2 2. REMOTE: Remote public comment will not be accepted, except when a Councilmember participates remotely pursuant to AB 2449. At the time of the posting of this agenda, none of the Councilmembers have notified the City Clerk’s Office that they intend to participate remotely pursuant to AB 2449, and therefore no remote public comment will be accepted at the meeting. If, after publication of this agenda and before the meeting begins, any councilmember determines that they will need to participate remotely due to just cause or emergency circumstances under AB 2449, their remote participation will be announced at the outset of the meeting in connection with the Roll Call item. If a Councilmember participates in the meeting remotely pursuant to AB 2449, the public may participate and provide public comment remotely, as follows:
a. Zoom:
https://cityofconcord.zoom.us/j/84888139027?pwd=ZuFbsEaeGxsPg1QnLWgkAxSwvX9 w6g.tSGrKb0tCJ3Uuyia or Zoom Webinar ID: 848 8813 9027 and Passcode: 547353 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 Channels 29 and 1026, and AT&T U-verse Channel 99
b.Watch the TV broadcast through the City’s website by following THIS LINK c.Watch Live Streaming of the meeting by following THIS LINK d.Join the Zoom webinar by following THIS LINK
3 5. INTERPRETATION OR WRITTEN TRANSLATION:

OPEN SESSION

1. OPENING
Roll Call – Announcements/Consideration and Approval of Requests by Councilmembers to Participate Remote Pursuant to AB 2449 Pledge of Allegiance – Councilmember Benavente

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 Submit Public Comments” above.

3. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING CONSIDERATION ITEM
The public is entitled to address the City Council/Planning Commission on items appearing on the agenda before or during the City Council’s/Planning Commission’s consideration of that item. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above.
a. Considering – the following:

1. Results of the second and third phases of community engagement for the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project that implements Program 8.6 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element; and

2. Providing feedback and direction on sites to evaluate for possible inclusion in an AFFH overlay zoning district that would allow residential development at a density of 60-units to the acre, while maintaining the current zoning for each site – which will require General Plan and Development Code amendments

1. To access interpretation or written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or click this link:

Para accesar a la traducción durante la reunion, por favor escanee el Código QR o haga clic en el enlace:
https://attend.wordly.ai/join/SYMQ-8840

2. Choose Language and Click Attend
Seleccione su lenguaje y haga clic en asistir

3. Use a headset on your phone for audio or read the transcript on your device.

Use sus auriculares para escuchar el audio o leer la transcipción en el dispositivo.
4 and the sites would be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report prior to future Planning Commission review and recommendation to Council and future Council decisions. Report by Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager.

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

4. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence received at the City Council meeting will be listed here on the Annotated Agenda.

5. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Closed Session Announcements
City Manager or Staff Reports
Council Reports

6. ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Regular Meeting
Date: 1/14/2025 6:30 PM

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.

Staff Report
Date: January 7, 2025
To: City Council & Planning Commission
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
Mindy Gentry, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Ben Ulrey, Assistant Planner
[email protected]
(925) 671-3152
Subject: Considering the following:

1. Results of the second and third phases of community
engagement for the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project that implements Program 8.6 of
the 2023-2031 Housing Element; and

2. Providing feedback and direction to staff on sites to evaluate for possible inclusion in an AFFH overlay zoning district that would allow residential development at a
density of 60-units to the acre, while maintaining the
current zoning for each site—which will require General Plan and Development Code Amendments and the same
sites would be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report prior to future Planning Commission review and
recommendation to Council and future Council decisions.

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

Report in Brief
In January 2023, the City Council (Council) authorized staff to engage Raimi + Associates, Inc. (Consultant) to work on the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rezoning Project (Rezoning Project). The scope of work includes developing General

3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a3.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
Plan and Development Code Amendments, preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and facilitating community engagement to implement Objective 8.6 of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element. The goal of Objective 8.6 is to rezone a minimum of 20 acres of land at a density of least 60 units per acre in moderate- and high-resource areas of the City to increase multifamily housing options by accommodating 1,000 housing units.

The City’s approach to this rezoning is to maintain existing zoning on all sites selected and to use overlay zoning to create the additional housing development potential intended by this program. This means all existing zoning stays in place and the overlay creates additional possibilities for future land uses on the sites.

The Rezoning Project kicked-off in March 2024, and the Consultant and City staff (Project Team) have since conducted various community engagement activities, including community workshops (virtually and in person), stakeholder interviews, and feedback surveys. Phase 1 community engagement involved defining guiding principles for rezoning, assessing opportunities and constraints, formulating site selection criteria, and identifying potential housing sites within the project study area. Phase 2 included the refinement of potential sites and the preparation of five potential rezoning alternatives that contemplated different patterns of development. This current phase, Phase 3, synthesizes the results of the earlier phases and identified six specific sites for rezoning consideration.

The objective of this study session on January 7, 2025, is for the Council and Planning Commission to receive an update on the project and provide staff with direction on which sites to include in the analysis that must be performed to support the ultimate decision making by the Planning Commission and Council on what sites are included in the AFFH overlay zone and included in the EIR for this project. The overlay zone is scheduled for consideration and ultimate approval through amendments to the City’s General Plan and Development Code next summer.

Recommended Action

1. Receive results on the second and third phase of community engagement for the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project that implements Program 8.6 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element;

2. Provide feedback and direction to staff on sites to evaluate for possible inclusion in an AFFH overlay zoning district that would allow residential development at a density of 60-units to the acre, while maintaining the current zoning for each site—which will require General Plan and Development Code Amendments and the same sites would be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report prior to future Planning Commission review and recommendation to Council and future Council decisions; and

3. Make the CEQA determination as provided in this staff report.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
Background
Every eight years, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) undergoes the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process to assess and distribute housing needs, which is delineated by income category, across the state.

HCD projects statewide household growth and allocates these projections to regions.

Regional Councils of Governments, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in the Bay Area, then develop a methodology to assign housing needs within their regions. This process considers various factors to ensure housing needs are distributed in a manner that furthers the five statutory objectives of RHNA. The five statutory objectives are to: 1) Increase housing supply and mix of housing types; 2) Promote infill development and socioeconomic equity; 3) Improve the jobs and housing balance; 4) Balance disproportionate household income distributions; and 5) Affirmatively further fair housing.

As part of the RHNA process, state law mandates that jurisdictions update their Housing Elements to address existing and projected housing needs. The Housing Element, one of seven required components of a General Plan, serves as a key planning tool for California's local jurisdictions to address housing needs at all income levels. Enacted in 1969, State Housing Element law requires each local government to develop a Housing Element that plans for the housing needs of all segments of the community.

The City began the state-mandated process to update its 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing Element) in June 2021 with a presentation to the City Council, introducing the update process and launching an extensive community engagement initiative.

The community engagement initiative utilized a multipronged, layered approach to connect with a wide range of community members. Through these efforts, the Housing Element project team engaged nearly 1,500 individual community members and partnered with over 25 community organizations. Engagement activities included 14 events – both virtual and in-person – and an online survey, fostering broad participation and input.

On August 22, 2023, the Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element and on October 23, 2023, HCD certified the Housing Element, confirming its compliance with state law. Completion of this milestone ensured the City is well-positioned to address its housing needs over the next eight years.

Housing Element Policies and Programs
California’s Housing Element law requires local jurisdictions to include a comprehensive set of policies and programs in their Housing Elements to address housing needs and comply with state mandates. While there is no fixed number of required programs, jurisdictions must address key areas such as identifying adequate housing sites to accommodate their RHNA, promoting affordable housing development, removing governmental constraints, conserving existing housing, affirmatively furthering fair

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
housing, preserving at-risk affordable units, and meeting the needs of special populations. Each program must have clear objectives, timelines, and responsible entities to ensure accountability and effectiveness, with the number and scope of programs tailored to the jurisdiction’s unique housing challenges and priorities.

Concord’s Housing Element includes 26 distinct programs, each designed to address specific housing needs and goals. Within these programs are detailed "objectives," which outline the individual actions and strategies to be implemented to achieve the goals of each program.

Housing Element Program 8 – Fair Housing
The Fair Housing program focuses on expanding housing opportunities and ensuring equitable access to housing for all segments of the community, including low-income residents, older adults, people with disabilities, and others facing housing challenges.

Key objectives include ongoing participation in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice; contracting with service providers for fair housing counseling, education, and outreach services; and conducting place-based programs aimed at increasing upward mobility for low-income residents. The City will also coordinate with Contra Costa County and the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority to explore funding opportunities for affordable housing projects, support regional housing initiatives, and advocate for additional resources. Additionally, the City will focus on rezoning sites to increase multifamily residential options in moderate- and high-resource areas and work towards creating community land trusts. Regular training and testing will also be conducted to ensure compliance with fair housing laws.

Housing Element Objective 8.6
Objective 8.6 is the primary strategy through which the City is complying with Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686), a California law passed in 2018 intended to strengthen the State’s commitment to fair housing. The law requires jurisdictions to actively promote fair housing practices and address patterns of segregation. It mandates that local governments incorporate policies to "Affirmatively Further Fair Housing" (AFFH) in their housing plans, ensuring that all communities have equal access to affordable housing opportunities.

The concept of AFFH is based on a 2015 rule by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement the 1968 Fair Housing Act. More specifically, AB 686 modified state housing element law to include the following requirements for housing element updates:
“…an assessment of fair housing practices, an analysis of the relationship between available sites and areas of high or low resources, and concrete actions in the form of programs to affirmatively further fair housing. The purpose of this assessment and analysis is to replace segregated living patterns with truly

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
integrated and balanced living patterns and to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) into areas of opportunity.” As part of the Housing Element and to demonstrate compliance with AB 686, the City was required to prepare an analysis on AFFH1 . The analysis identified disparities in access to opportunities between the central/western portion of the City. Particularly, disparities in income and disproportionate housing needs, correlated with areas populated predominantly by Hispanic/Latinx residents, were identified. Pursuant to AB 686 the City is required to address these disparities. Furthermore, the Housing Element analyzed available housing sites throughout the City and found that sites meeting the state’s criteria for lower-income housing sites2 are located entirely in low-resource3 areas of Concord, a condition at odds with the state’s AFFH goals.

To fulfill the City's obligations under state law to AFFH and ensure compliance with AB 686 due to the identified disparities in access and the concentration of lower-income housing sites in low resource areas, Housing Element Objective 8.6 was included in the Housing Element, as follows:

“Rezone sites to increase multifamily residential options in moderate- and high-resource areas (as shown in the most recent
CTCAC [California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee]/HCD Opportunity Maps) with a majority white population. Rezoned sites must meet the following criteria:
a) located in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence or other moderate- or high-resource areas (as shown in the most recent CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps) with a majority white population;
b) combined area of at least 20 acres;
c) maximum density of at least 60 dwelling units per acre; d) accommodate at least 1,000 total dwelling units;
e) adequate access to infrastructure;
f) strong development potential; and
g) low potential for displacement of lower-income households. 1 cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/11386/HEU-D-Affirmatively-Furthering-Fair-Housing 2 State housing element law includes minimum criteria for sites designated to satisfy the lower-income component of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, including a minimum size of 0.5 acres and a minimum density of at least 30 units per acre.
3 In housing element law, low-resource areas are locations with limited access to opportunities such as quality schools, jobs, transportation, and essential services, often marked by higher poverty and reduced economic mobility. These areas are identified using tools like the TCAC Opportunity Maps, guiding jurisdictions to address inequities by improving conditions and increasing housing opportunities.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
Begin the rezone process by December 2023 by conducting outreach, analyzing opportunities, and completing a CEQA analysis to finalize the rezone by December 2024. Within 6 months of completion of the rezone, work with property owners to proactively identify prime sites, notify affordable housing developers, and provide technical assistance and priority processing for affordable projects without assessing an additional charge, and include the information in the Affordable Housing Toolkit.” Why Objective 8.6 Focuses on Rezoning in “High Resource Areas” As previously stated, Assembly Bill 686 expanded jurisdictional requirements by mandating that communities conduct a comprehensive assessment of fair housing issues, identify contributing factors, and develop specific policies and actions to actively promote housing integration, address disparities in access to opportunity, and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. These assessments guide jurisdictions in determining necessary actions AFFH, such as addressing fair housing barriers, promoting integration, and reducing disparities in access to opportunities. Key strategies for achieving AFFH goals include enhancing mobility, increasing affordable housing in high-resource areas, investing in lower- resource areas to revitalize communities, and preventing displacement. Mobility, in this context, refers to enabling disadvantaged individuals to access housing in areas with greater opportunities, such as quality schools and jobs (“High Resource Areas”).

The City of Concord’s AFFH Analysis revealed key findings about the City’s evolving demographics and disparities. Over time, Concord has become increasingly diverse, with noticeable integration and rising racial and ethnic diversity, particularly in the central and western areas (i.e., Monument and North Concord). These areas, however, face higher poverty rates. In contrast, the south and eastern portions of the city (i.e., Treat/Oak Grove to Concord Pavilion) demonstrate stronger economic, educational, and environmental outcomes and have a higher concentration of White, higher-income residents. Despite the western area’s access to jobs and public transportation, recent home prices have become unaffordable for many lower-income households, effectively excluding them from higher-resource neighborhoods. Furthermore, most lower-income housing sites identified in the City’s Sites Inventory are located in the central and western areas, with none in the southeastern, higher-resource neighborhoods.

To meet the revitalization and anti-displacement requirements of AB 686, the City implemented increased tenant protections and place-based programs in lower-resource areas. These include public infrastructure investments, economic development initiatives, workforce support, grant-funded urban greening projects, and community events to support local businesses4.
4 City of Concord 2023-31 Housing Element Programs Document

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
To address mobility5 challenges and the disparities highlighted in the AFFH analysis, the City identified a need to create greater opportunities for affordable housing in higher-resource neighborhoods. Community feedback further shaped this direction, particularly the call to remove certain sites from the Sites Inventory due to their concentration in lower-resource areas. This feedback aligns with the City’s 2022 Community Survey, where the majority of respondents (58.3%) supported prioritizing redevelopment of vacant or underutilized commercial properties for new housing.

Additionally, 43.4% of respondents favored locating new housing throughout the City rather than concentrating it in lower-income areas.

These considerations culminated in the proposed rezoning of sites in moderate- and high-resource areas with predominantly White populations. This action, outlined in Objective 8.6, will address the identified challenges and promote more equitable housing opportunities citywide. Staff evaluated alternative programs but ultimately recommended rezoning 20 acres at 60 dwelling units per acre, creating 1,000 the potential for new housing units in higher-resource neighborhoods. These other programs were considered but not further explored due to constraints or potentially greater impacts compared to the selected approach:

Subsidizing Housing Units for Lower-Income Households: While mobility could have been pursued through funding to purchase and make homes affordable to lower-income households, this approach was deemed financially infeasible. Concord’s lack of financial resources would have limited the number of homes that could be made affordable, and only through a special tax would the City have been able to meet AFFH goals through a program of this nature.

Church Sites: Churches often hold significant cultural, historical, and/or emotional value.

Rezoning church sites for housing would have likely faced strong opposition from congregants and the surrounding community. Churches often provide ancillary community services (e.g. childcare) that could be disrupted or lost if the sites are redeveloped. This concept was also captured in a different program in the Housing Element, which ended up becoming a new state law; therefore, would not have been meaningful in addressing the identified disparities.

Rezoning Open Spaces/Parks: Parks and open spaces are critical for a higher quality of life and ecological balance, including air quality, stormwater management, and habitat preservation. Losing green spaces can negatively impact public health, mental well- being, and recreational opportunities for residents. Residents would have likely strongly opposed the loss of parks, viewing it as a reduction in their quality of life and amenities.

Public Lands (e.g., Concord Pavilion): Public lands like the Concord Pavilion and Centre Concord are used for community events and economic development activities. 5 Enabling disadvantaged individuals to access housing in high resource areas.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
Rezoning them for housing would limit these public benefits. Residents may view this as a short-term solution that sacrifices long-term community value, which has been demonstrated by the community largely rejecting the inclusion of the Centre Concord site into the Rezoning Program. Additionally, some public lands, such as the Concord Pavilion, are deed restricted and cannot be used for activities other than the use identified in the deeds (i.e. the current use and park and recreational purposes).

School Sites: Repurposing school sites would lead to a reduction in educational resources or space for future population growth. Schools are part of our essential infrastructure and rezoning them may provoke strong opposition from parents and local stakeholders. This concept was also captured in a different program in the Housing Element, which ended up becoming a new state law; therefore, would not have been meaningful in addressing the identified disparities.

Concord Naval Weapons Station: The redevelopment of the Naval Weapons Station property, which includes plans for 12,000 new housing units, is a long-term project with an approximate buildout timeline of 40 years and is still years away from breaking ground. The property is currently owned by the federal government, and the transfer of ownership to the City is expected to take a couple more years. Because the City is mandated by the State of California to update its Housing Element every eight years, with the current cycle covering 2023 through 2031, the units planned for the Naval Weapons Station fall outside this timeframe. These units will not be included in the current Housing Element or the AFFH project and will instead be likely be addressed in the City’s next Housing Element update, at the earliest.

Cal State University East Bay Campus: The Cal State University East Bay (CSUEB) campus has potential as a site for the AFFH program and could help achieve the program's goals if it were ready for development. However, the State is not currently prepared to move forward with the site. Spanning nearly 400 acres, the property requires extensive study and planning before any development can begin, and there are no active plans or projects to initiate this work.

Similar to the Naval Weapons Station property, development of the CSUEB campus is likely years away from being viable. To comply with AFFH requirements, the City must demonstrate that housing can realistically be developed within the next eight years.

Since the CSUEB property does not meet this timeframe, it cannot be included in the program.

Study Area
The geographic study scope of this Rezoning Project has been defined in Housing Element Program 8.6, which states that these sites should be ‘located in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence or other moderate- or high-resource areas (as shown in the most recent CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps) with a majority white population.’ Based on staff and community input, the study area boundary includes both the

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC)6 and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA)7 data and has been expanded to include additional neighboring parcels that offer similar advantages as those in high-opportunity areas.

Combined, these two geographic areas cover portions of the City that include the southern leg of Clayton Road, neighborhoods along Treat Boulevard, and areas around Ygnacio Valley Road. Generally, these cover the Clayton Valley, Lime Ridge, and Ygnacio Valley neighborhoods within Concord (see Attachment 1 – Map of Study Area).

Housing Overlay Approach
Based on input from the property owners, the Ad Hoc Committee, and analysis completed for this Rezoning Project, the Project Team recommends using a housing overlay approach. The housing overlay district will allow higher density residential uses in addition to the uses that are already allowed on these parcels. This means that the existing zoning district remains unchanged with the exception of the density increase.

Therefore, a parcel and its uses would be allowed to continue as it does today. Parcel ownership could transfer to a new owner, and the new owner could continue operating the same existing / allowed uses with existing commercial uses not becoming non- conforming. The overlay would encourage sites to produce housing, but property owners would be under no obligation to build housing on the site.

Residential Feasibility Study (Attachment 2)
The City retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to evaluate the physical and financial feasibility of different housing product types with varying densities. To accomplish this task, EPS developed proformas for different residential prototypes incorporating City requirements for development standards (e.g. parking, open space), and then applied them to sites to assess development feasibility.

Key findings from the study include:
 Multifamily development feasibility is currently impacted by high construction and financing costs, making it difficult to achieve competitive financial returns and get projects started. Improvements to market conditions – including cost reductions and/or rent escalation – will enhance project feasibility, but it is not certain when such conditions will prevail.
 The type and quantity of parking plays a key role in overall development costs due to the high cost of structured parking. Structured parking, whether in a wrap- 6 In 2024, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) updated this CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map to guide policies enhancing access to opportunity-rich areas for affordable housing residents funded by Low Income Housing Tax Credits and state programs, addressing residential segregation, unequal opportunity access, and historical housing concentrations in resource-limited, high-poverty, racially concentrated areas. 7 In 2022, HCD developed this updated version of the RCAA map to more accurately represent California's diversity and regional conditions, assisting local jurisdictions in analyzing racially concentrated areas of poverty and affluence in accordance with AB 686 and AB 1304.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
or podium-style, costs $40,000 to $50,000 per space compared to surface parking at $5,000 per space.
 The financial feasibility of developing at the maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre, as outlined in Housing Element Objective 8.6, is currently very low. At present, townhomes and garden-style apartments represent the most financially viable residential development options.
 The value of existing commercial uses exceeds the estimated value of residential redevelopment options. For a property to be viable for residential redevelopment, a residential developer would need to be willing to invest more to both acquire the site and demolish existing uses to allow for new construction than an investor would be willing to pay to retain the existing buildings and lease them to tenants.  Below-market-rate multifamily housing presently is more feasible than market rate multifamily housing. The average land value that affordable projects have paid in Concord and neighboring jurisdictions has been higher than what market- rate multifamily projects would be able to feasibly achieve under current market conditions. These projects have relied on subsidies such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits8 to achieve feasibility and have been able to support higher land acquisition costs despite having lower rents than market-rate projects and comparable construction costs.

Phase 2 Site Alternatives
Based on the site selection criteria, City staff input, public input, and City Council feedback on parcels within the study area, the Project Team narrowed down the list of sites from 152 individual parcels to 84 individual parcels that were group together to form 25 candidate “sites.” In some cases, the “sites” are a single parcel, while others are comprised of multiple adjoining parcels. Each of these sites currently allow housing, with densities ranging from 10 units per acre to 40 units per acre.

The 25 sites were organized into five distinct alternatives. Each alternative reflected different ideas or concepts based on site location, geographic distribution of sites, site size, and total housing capacity. Each alternative covered more than 20 acres, allowing for a flexible process of community feedback and adjustments.

The
Phase 2 site alternatives (Attachment 3) were as follows:
 Alternative 1: Concentrated Development on Clayton Road. This alternative was comprised of large commercial sites along Clayton Road. It included four sites totaling 40 acres with a capacity of 2,100 dwelling units. 8 The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit is the largest source of affordable housing financing and offers developers nonrefundable and transferable tax credits to subsidize the construction and rehabilitation of housing developments that have strict income limits for eligible tenants and their cost of housing.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
 Alternative 2: Distributed Development on Clayton Road and Treat Boulevard. This alternative was comprised of large and small commercial sites along Clayton Road and Treat Boulevard. It included 10 sites totaling 60 acres with a realistic capacity of 2,700 dwelling units.
 Alternative 3: Distributed Development on Small Sites. This alternative was comprised of smaller sites distributed across the study area. It included 17 sites totaling 60 acres with a realistic capacity of 2,400 dwelling units.  Alternative 4: High/Highest TCAC Areas + RCAA. This alternative was comprised of sites located in the TCAC high and highest resource areas and/or racially concentrated areas of affluence. It included 13 sites totaling 70 acres with a realistic capacity of 3,000 dwelling units.
 Alternative 5: High/Highest TCAC Areas + RCAA (Expanded). This alternative was comprised of sites located in the TCAC high and highest resource areas and/or racially concentrated areas of affluence, as well as additional sites added by City staff. It included 18 sites totaling 90 acres with a realistic capacity of 4,200 dwelling units.

Community Engagement Summary (Attachment 4)
During Phase 2 engagement, the Project Team heard from approximately 410 participants including residents, property owners, businesses, members of community- based organizations, and other agencies involved in the city including CSUEB.

The following section provides a brief overview of the engagement activities, while the Project Team presentation will highlight key takeaways and outline next steps:

Property Owner Meetings: The Project Team facilitated meetings with property owners on August 13, 2024 and August 16, 2024. These meetings gauged interest and gathered feedback from property owners about whether the degree of interest in including their site included in the study. The meetings provided background on the Rezoning Project, discussed rezoning sites, and discussed potential residential densities and development standards. Property owners were notified via mail, email, and phone calls and noted their interest via a feedback form or email. Of the 38 property owners that participated in the meetings, 14 completed a survey that assessed their interest in rezoning. Three properties (Dentist at Treat and Oak Grove, 99 cent store at TJ Maxx site, and the Hospice building at Clayton Faire) said no to rezoning, one site (the warehouses at Treat and Oak Grove)9 were unsure, and 10 others said yes, including Kmart (Site 1), Clayton Faire properties (Site 2), CVS/Staples/Smog Shop (Site 3), Palm Lakes (Site 8), and Kirker Pass at Myrtle (Site 16).
9 The property owner on October 29, 2024 indicated it was not interested in rezoning the property to allow for higher density housing.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
Community Meetings: On Monday, September 16, 2024, Thursday, September 19, 2024, and Wednesday, October 2, 2024, the City of Concord hosted the second of three community workshops for the Rezoning Project.10 The purpose of the workshop was to provide project background, gather community input, and solicit feedback on twenty-five different sites, organized into five rezoning alternatives. As highlighted above, each alternative comprised a different pattern of development and included various iterations of different sites. The in-person workshop had approximately 180 attendees, and its Zoom counterpart had about 156 participants. The Spanish-language meeting at Monument Impact on October 2, 2024, had 19 attendees, excluding the Project Team. The English- language meetings included Spanish interpretation, and all included a presentation, question and answer period, and a period during which participants could provide feedback on the five rezoning alternatives, either through a written feedback form or the online survey. Poster boards with information on the rezoning alternatives in both English and Spanish were available at the in-person workshops and online at the project website.

Stakeholder Meetings: In September 2024, the Project Team held stakeholder meetings with the following groups: community-based organizations; market-rate housing developers; affordable housing developers; business associations; and civic associations. The purpose of these meetings was to share information about the project and gather input to help inform the framework of the Rezoning Project. Feedback was provided on the twenty-five different sites, the rezoning alternatives, the rezoning approach, proposed densities and development standards, market conditions for developing multifamily housing, vertical or horizontal mixed-use, typical concessions requested for developing housing, and examples of similar developments in neighboring cities.

Community Survey: Questions posed at the three workshops were also provided in an online survey format, which was posted on the City’s website, to provide residents who could not participate in the workshops with an opportunity to provide feedback. The survey was available in both English and Spanish for three weeks from September 19 to October 11. The survey received 427 responses, from both English- and Spanish-language participants.

Meeting participants were asked to rate each of the potential rezoning alternatives, select their preferred alternative, and then describe why they selected their preferred alternative. A summary of the Phase 2 site alternative feedback is included in Attachment 4. Highlights included:
 Views on the alternatives differ significantly between homeowners and renters. 10 The September 16, 2024, was conducted as an in-person meeting at Centre Concord, the September 19, 2024 workshop was conducted virtually via Zoom, and the October 2, 2024 Spanish-language meeting was conducted as an in-person meeting at Monument Impact’s Concord office.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
 Homeowners tended to prefer Alternatives 1 and 2. These alternatives included a smaller number of sites concentrated on Clayton Road and Treat Boulevard.  Renters tended to prefer Alternatives 4 and 5. These alternatives included a larger number of sites in areas identified by the State of California as high and highest resource areas by the TCAC and RCAAs.

Phase 3 Sites (Attachment 5)
The project team thoroughly reviewed the feedback gathered through the workshops, the online survey, and stakeholder and property owner meetings. Staff used this input to craft a set of sites to consider for rezoning. The Phase 3 sites included four sites totaling 20 acres and a capacity up to 1,200 units, meeting the intent of the program.

The
Phase 3 sites are as follows and are shown in Attachment 5:
 Site 1: Kmart. The Kmart site is located in a high resource area. The Kmart portion is approximately 8 acres and would have a maximum capacity of 470 units with rezoning. If the entire 13-acre site, which includes the inline shops and three standalone buldings but not Lucky’s, were rezoned it could house up to 780 units.
 Site 2: Clayton Faire. The Clayton Faire site is located in a high resource area.

It is approximately 4 acres – not all of the area was included for rezoning. Centre Concord, the gym, bowling alley, and parking areas are being excluded. With rezoning, it would have a maximum capacity of 250 units.  Site 7: Warehouses behind Trader Joe’s on Treat. This property is located in a high resource area and an RCAA. It is approximately 5 acres and would have a maximum capacity of 290 units with rezoning.
 Site 8: Palm Lake Apartment Homes Infill. This property is located in a highest resource area and an RCAA. It has a total area of almost 13 acres and the owner has already been exploring the addition of units to the site. The site currently houses 300 units and staff identified the vacant front lawn areas as potential sites for additional development. Rezoning the two vacant lawn areas could provide up to 173 additional units; however, if the entire site were rezoned, it would accommodate an additional 480 dwelling units.

These sites were considered to have realistic potential for development because of minimal site constraints, a majority of property owner interest, and because they are underutilized or vacant. The sites are located near amenities and schools, and all are located within a TCAC high- or highest-resource area. Without any rezoning, all the sites have a maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre. The sites are spread out, distributing housing opportunities across the study area.

Staff also proposed three alternative sites for potential rezoning. These sites are as follows:

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
 Site 3: Staples/CVS, Auto Repair, Burger King. These parcels are not located in a high resource area or an RCAA. The site has an area of approximately 10 acres and would have a maximum capacity of 620 units with rezoning.  Site 16: Vacant Site at Kirker Pass and Myrtle. This vacant parcel is located within a high resource area. It has an area of about 2 acres and with rezoning would have a maximum capacity of 140 units.
 Site 18: 1539 Kirker Pass. This site is located within a high resource area. It has an area of about an acre and with rezoning would accommodate a maximum of 60 dwelling units.

Community Feedback on the Phase 3 Sites (Attachment 6)
Staff presented the Phase 3 sites to the community during a third round of community meetings held on October 28, 2024, at Centre Concord and October 30, 2024, online via Zoom. Feedback was gathered simultaneously through an online survey and community responses were mixed. However, the warehouses behind Trader Joe’s on Treat Boulevard received significant opposition, including a follow-up letter from the property owner expressing their disinterest in rezoning. The remaining sites faced less than majority opposition to rezoning. Staff will provide a detailed review of the Phase 3 Site feedback and survey results during the presentation (Attachment 6).

Frequently Asked Questions
Throughout the Rezoning Project, the Project Team continues to answer questions from the community and add responses to a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document.

The FAQ, last updated on December 9, is included as Attachment 7.

Past Council Actions
On June 11, 2024, the Council held a study session to review and provide direction to the Project Team on the site selection criteria and to identify potential housing sites within the project study area. The Council also formed a separate City Council Ad Hoc Committee (Ad Hoc Committee), which convened on June 17, July 8, October 7, November 4, November 22, and December 20. The Ad Hoc Committee, which consists of Councilmember Hoffmeister and current Vice Mayor Nakamura, provided general guidance and feedback to staff on community engagement and the process of site selection. The Ad Hoc Committee was created to exist until final recommendations are made to the full Council, or until September 1, 2025, whichever comes sooner.

Analysis
Sites Being Presented for Consideration
Through the presentation, staff will present the three remaining sites – Kmart, Clayton Faire, and Palm Lakes – to Council and the Planning Commission for consideration for overlay zoning, along with alternative sites on Kirker Pass. Additionally, the Staples/CVS site will be presented as an option, though it is not deemed highly

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
beneficial to achieving the overall goal. The Staples/CVS site is located in a low- resource area and outside the RCAA, which diminishes its alignment with program objectives. However, it offers good potential for adding housing units to the community and is situated directly adjacent to a moderate-resource area.

These six sites are the culminating selections, representing those that have faced less than majority opposition to including in an AFFH Overlay Zone from the community throughout the past ten months. The sites were revised based on the latest community feedback to exclude the warehouses behind Trader Joe’s on Treat Boulevard. This decision was driven not only by the substantial community opposition but, importantly, by direct feedback from the property owner requesting that his property not be included in the Overlay Zone. This lack of interest indicated to the Project Team that the site has no realistic development potential within the next eight years, a critical factor in meeting the Housing Element timeframe.

The six remaining sites will be presented to the Council and Planning Commission for consideration in several configurations, as outlined in Attachment 8.

City Council and Planning Commission Input Needed
No final decisions regarding the sites to be included in the Overlay Zone, which would allow for increased residential densities, will be made at the January 7 meeting.

Instead, the Planning Commission and Council will provide direction to guide the selection of sites for further study and future consideration for inclusion in the overlay zone.

Specifically, the Project Team is seeking feedback and direction on the sites being presented for consideration in the overlay zone so that staff may initiate the preparation of draft General Plan and Development Code Amendments and the required environmental analysis including an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Consequences of not Completing the AFFH Program
The process of working with HCD, which has responsibility at a state level to ensure local jurisdictions comply with their certified housing elements, often involves multiple rounds of communication and is not always straightforward. Consequently, while staff cannot predict the exact outcomes if the City fails to fulfill the programs in its Housing Element, several potential consequences could arise and are described below. Further, if this program were removed from the Housing Element or altered significantly, HCD might consider it a substantial amendment to the City’s certified Housing Element and trigger the need for additional HCD approvals. Through that process, the City would still be required to address the disparities identified in the AFFH analysis performed as part of the Housing Element and require the City to provide an alternative program that creates housing opportunities in higher resource areas.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
Some possible risks are:

Housing Element Decertification and "Builder's Remedy"
If HCD decertifies the Housing Element for non-compliance, developers would be able to bypass the City’s land use regulations, including zoning, and submit residential projects above and beyond current development standards (e.g.. density, height, etc.) or in locations where residential uses are not allowed and the City would be required to process those applications under the "builder's remedy" provision. Portola Valley and Norwalk have had their Housing Elements decertified by HCD.

Legal and Financial Risks
The City could face the loss of and access to essential local, state, and federal funding for affordable housing, transportation, and infrastructure. In 2019, HCD sued Huntington Beach for failing to comply with Housing Element law, putting millions in state funding for Huntington Beach at risk. The Attorney General for the State of California has stated that Assembly Bill 1893 will ensure that jurisdictions are held accountable as a means of ensuring communities are zoning for enough housing, reducing barriers to development, and promoting fair housing practices. For more information on HCD enforcement, please review their website, here.

Senate Bill (SB) 1037
Signed into law on September 19, 2024, SB 1037, authorizes the Attorney General or HCD to fine jurisdictions up to $50,000 per month for not having a certified housing element. The law stipulates that these penalties apply when a local agency's actions or omissions are deemed arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, contrary to established public policy, unlawful, or procedurally unfair. In cases where a jurisdiction fails to pay the imposed penalties, the court may direct the Controller to intercept available state and local funds, redirecting them to the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund to address the noncompliance. This law went into effect on January 1, 2025.

Recent Legal Precedents
In September 2024, HCD filed a lawsuit against Elk Grove for rejecting an affordable housing project. Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized the State's stance on enforcement, stating, “California’s housing laws are not optional. Local governments that violate our laws to deny affordable housing opportunities to Californians will be held accountable.” This case highlights how the State may respond to non-compliance with housing element requirements. Not only is the State of California holding jurisdictions accountable, third parties have sued and will likely continue to file suit against jurisdictions that have missed deadlines and failed to implement the programs of their Housing Elements. The Contra Costa County jurisdictions of Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, Pinole, and 8 others

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
within the Bay Area have all been the subject of lawsuits over their lack of compliance with Housing Element law.

Loss of Authority to Issue Permits
The City could lose its ability to issue any new building permits for construction, not just housing permits. A Los Angeles County Superior Court found the City of Beverly Hills lacked compliance with Housing Element law and prohibited Beverly Hills from issuing permits for any new residential renovations, commercial development, or any other construction projects. The ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed against Beverly Hills accusing that city of skirting state housing laws.

In summary, non-compliance with the approved Housing Element could expose the City to significant risks, including legal actions, loss of state funding, fines, and reduced control over local development. The State has shown a commitment to holding jurisdictions accountable for meeting housing obligations.

Next Steps
Following guidance from the City Council and Planning Commission, the Project Team will prepare all necessary documents to create an overlay zone incorporating the identified parcels, complete an environmental analysis of each identified site’s inclusion in the overlay zone, and shepherd the project through a formal public hearing process for consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission and a decision by the City Council. Legally, this will be done through General Plan and Development Code Amendments with an EIR. The tentative schedule would have the EIR and project going through the formal public review process in the Spring, followed by consideration by the Planning Commission and then by the City Council in Summer 2025. The City Council will be the decision-making body for the overlay zone.

Financial Impact
Council fully funded this project on January 23, 2024, with $591,951 from the General Fund, and no additional funding is being requested. The work is occurring over two Fiscal Years (2023-24 and 2024-25).

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and the implementing CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code or Regulations (CEQA), the recommended actions do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and/or 15378, because there is no potential that the action will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect or direct physical change in the environment.

Moreover, even if the recommended action did comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it would fall within the “common sense” exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025
15061(b)(3), which excludes 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.” No unusual circumstances exist. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Should Council direct staff to include sites in a possible AFFH overlay zoning district, creation thereof (including any associated the General Plan and Development Code Amendments) would be fully evaluated in an appropriate environmental document which will be considered at the time that future action is considered.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted. The City has made significant additional efforts to inform the community about this process. Notices were previously mailed to more than 10,000 property owners, businesses, and residents near the proposed sites, including those within 1,000 feet of the properties under consideration.

All Concord residents and businesses recently received the winter edition of the City News and Activity Guide, which highlights the January 7 meeting on page 7.

Information has been shared via the City’s social media channels and e-news publication.

Email notifications were sent to more than 950 email addresses on the interested parties list. Homeowner associations included on this email list were encouraged to share meeting information with their members.

An additional direct mailing was sent on December 20 to more than 3,000 residential and business properties that are within 1,000 feet of the six sites being presented for consideration.

All mailed notifications were sent to both the property address and the property owner's address, if they were different, including all businesses that are operating on the properties being considered for rezoning.

Any correspondence that was received as of the staff report publication date is included as Attachment 9.

Attachments

1. Map of Study Area

2. Residential Feasibility Study

3. Phase 2 Site Alternatives

4. Phase 2 Site Alternative Feedback Summary

5. Phase 3 Sites

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.a
January 7, 2025

6. Phase 3 Sites Feedback Summary

7. Frequently Asked Questions

8. Configurations of Sites Being Presented for Consideration

9. Correspondence received as of December 23, 2024

Detroit
Monument
Ygnacio
Valley
Diamond
Galindo
TreatOak Grove
Market
Clayton
Kirker
Pass
Port Chicago
Sunvalley
Meadow
Concord
Willow Pass
Cowell
City of
Pleasant Hill
City of
W
alnut Creek
City of
Clayton
City of
Pittsburg
Mallard
Reservoir
0 1 20.5
Miles
Data Sources: City of Concord (2024), Esri (2024).

City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
County Islands
BART Yellow Line
Freeways
Project Boundary
City Parks
Context Parks and Open Space
Surrounding Cities
Water
North Concord/
Martinez Station
Concord Station
Pleasant Hill/Contra
Costa Centre Station
Attachment 1

D RAFT M EMORANDUM
To: Eric Yurkovich and Antara Tandon
From: Megan Gregory and Darin Smith
Subject: Concord Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rezoning Project – Financial Feasibility Analysis; EPS #231077
Date: November 7, 2024
The City of Concord’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
includes Program 8.6 Fair Housing, which is focused on
increasing housing opportunities by allowing multifamily housing in higher-resource neighborhoods. These higher-resource neighborhoods are identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and are characterized by quality schools, safety, community amenities, and economic
opportunities. The City of Concord established the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project as a public planning process to rezone properties in higher-resource neighborhoods to allow for multifamily development.

The City engaged Raimi & Associates and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to evaluate the physical and financial feasibility of rezoning options. To accomplish this task, EPS developed proformas for different residential prototypes incorporating City requirements for affordability, and then applied them to sites serving as case studies to assess development feasibility.

This memorandum describes the current state of development feasibility for multifamily residential projects in Concord. The costs and market assumptions used in this analysis reflect a snapshot in time, and changes in the housing market would impact the feasibility of development.

Attachment 2

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 2
Key Findings
 Multifamily development feasibility is currently impacted by high construction and financing costs, making it difficult to achieve competitive financial returns and get projects started. Costs for labor and materials have escalated quickly in recent years, as have interest rates on construction loans. At the same time, achievable rents have escalated less quickly, and projects that may have been feasible a few years ago are not under current market conditions. Improvements to market conditions – including cost reductions and/or rent escalation – will enhance project feasibility, but it is not certain when such conditions will prevail.
 City goals for this effort involve rezoning at least 20 acres of land in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence and higher resource areas to have a maximum density of at least 60 dwelling units per acre to accommodate at least 1,000 total dwelling units. In addition to establishing new maximum densities, the City is interested in requiring a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre for the properties which will be upzoned through this program. These densities were reached through discussions with City staff and the Ad Hoc Committee.
 The type and quantity of parking plays a key role in overall development costs due to the high cost of structured parking. This analysis finds that constructing structured parking, whether in a wrap- or podium-style, costs $40,000 to $50,000 per space. In contrast, surface parking only costs $5,000 per space, resulting in significantly lower development costs for lower density, garden style apartments. However, surface parking takes up a large amount of space, and therefore it can be difficult to meet the density guidelines set out for this effort and also meet the City’s minimum parking requirements and development standards.
 At the densities identified in the Housing Element and by the Council Ad Hoc Committee, garden style apartments are the only financially feasible residential development prototype at this time. The City intends for this rezoning to achieve densities of no less than 30 dwelling units per acre. The multifamily development prototypes explored in this analysis are assumed to be able to achieve similar rents but will have different construction costs, largely but not wholly attributed to the cost of providing parking.  The value of existing commercial uses exceeds the estimated value of residential redevelopment options in most case study scenarios. For a property to be viable for residential redevelopment, a residential developer would need to be willing to pay more to acquire the site and demolish existing uses to allow for new construction than an investor would be willing to pay to retain the existing buildings and lease them to tenants. At this time, most residential redevelopment scenarios do not meet this threshold.
 Due to the availability of external subsidies and reduced parking requirements, below-market-rate multifamily housing presently is more feasible than market rate multifamily housing. The average land value that affordable projects have paid in Concord and neighboring jurisdictions has been

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 3
higher than what market rate multifamily projects would be able to feasibly achieve under current market conditions. These projects have relied on subsidies such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits to achieve feasibility, and have been able to support higher land acquisition costs despite having lower rents than market-rate projects and comparable construction costs.

Market Context
In recent years the San Francisco Bay Area housing market has experienced significant shifts, including significant increases to construction costs and interest rates. These increases in costs have made development feasibility more difficult. Figure 1 shows a price index of construction costs in California, multifamily rents in Concord, home sales values in Concord and the national mortgage rate. As shown, values are represented relative to a 2014 baseline. In the past decade, and especially the last four years, the costs of construction and mortgage rate increases have outpaced multifamily rents, although for-sale home prices have escalated more than construction costs over the 10- year period. These indicators represent the challenge faced by many developers currently, but also suggest that current circumstances do not reflect longer-term trends and feasibility may improve over the long term.

Figure 1 Housing Market Indicators (2014-2024)

Methodology and Assumptions
This study uses development cost assumptions and residential revenue estimates to find the “residual land value” for each development prototype. The residual land value is the estimated price that a developer may be willing to pay to acquire a site for the

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 4
development they have in mind and is calculated as the difference between what it costs to construct the project and what that project can be sold for once it has been constructed and is occupied. By comparing the calculated residual land value for the residential development prototypes to current commercial land values, this analysis determines whether developers and property owners are likely to convert existing commercial properties to residential developments.

It is important to note that the feasibility analyses contained in this memorandum are based on simplified, generic prototypes meant to represent a typical or average development project. A developer’s choice to ultimately pursue a residential development project in Concord will depend on many factors that are impacted by regional market forces as well as site-specific conditions. While our analysis accounts for some of these factors, the cost and revenue expectations for a particular project will vary based on the size, location, layout, condition, and history of a specific project site, as well as the capabilities, business goals, and proposed project design characteristics of a specific developer.

Prototypes
The prototype residential products used in the feasibility analysis were informed by review of recent developments within the City and surrounding jurisdictions as well as discussions with Raimi & Associates and City staff. City staff has indicated that the project’s advisory group identified 30 dwelling units per acre as the minimum for the properties that will be upzoned for the purposes of this program. This density can be achieved and exceeded with a mix of building types, ranging from for-sale townhomes to multifamily apartment buildings up to seven stories tall. The characteristics for the protype development products are summarized in Table 1. They include three different types of multifamily apartments (garden, wrap, and podium) and townhomes. While townhome projects alone do not achieve the density desired for this effort, there are sites large enough where a mix of townhomes and high density residential is achievable.

The critical differentiator between the multifamily apartment prototypes is the density at which they are built and how parking is provided. Garden apartments are assumed to be built at 40 units per acre, and are assumed to have surface parking, while the wrap project is built at 60 units per acre with wrap-around style parking and the podium apartments are built at 90 units per acre with podium style parking. Townhome units are assumed to be developed at the lowest density, 25 units per acre, with attached parking.

The parking ratios reflect the City’s current minimum parking standards. The feasibility analysis does not assume developers, investors, and tenants would accept less than the existing City-standard minimum parking ratios, due to the suburban environment and limited transit service in the area.

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 5

Table 1 Residential Development Prototypes
Item Townhomes Garden Apartments Wrap Apartments Podium Apartments Tenure Ownership Rental Rental Rental
Building Type Attached Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily Density (units/acre) 25 units/acre 40 units/acre 60 units/acre 90 units/acre Gross Square Feet / Unit 1,275 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft.

Rentable Square Feet / Unit 1,275 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft.

Unit Bedrooms (1) 1.5 per unit 1.5 per unit 1.5 per unit 1.5 per unit Amount of Parking 1.75 per unit 1.75 per unit 1.75 per unit 1.75 per unit Parking Type Attached Garage Surface Wrap Podium
(1) Reflects 50-50 split between 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units.

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 6
Case Study Sites
Raimi & Associates identified three sites to serve as case studies (see Table 2), and modeled building and parking configurations to assess how to achieve the desired density levels. EPS collaborated with Raimi to ensure that the development prototypes used were consistent across modelling efforts. Raimi tested several densities and unit configurations at each site. EPS utilized the results of Raimi’s modelling to test the feasibility of residential redevelopment relative to the property owners’ option of retaining existing commercial use at the site level.

Table 2 Case Study Sites

Development Cost Assumptions
Housing development cost categories include site preparation, hard costs (e.g., construction labor and materials), and indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture, entitlement, marketing, etc.). EPS also includes the developer’s expected return on investment, expressed as a profit margin for townhomes and yield on cost for multifamily rental.

To estimate hard costs for the development prototypes, the analysis relied on a range of sources including real estate industry cost estimating reports 1 and prior EPS experience in
evaluating project feasibility. Table 3 below details the cost assumptions and estimated costs per unit for each prototype.

1 Marshall & Swift Cost Estimates. 2024
K-Mart Dental Offices Motel
Address 5100 Clayton Rd 2975 Treat Blvd 3510 Willow Pass Rd Land Area (acres) 6.89 2.06 0.89
Existing Building Sq. Ft. 90,274 26,344 19,820

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 7
Table 3 Development Costs per Unit
Cost Assumptions Townhomes Garden
Apartments
Wrap
Apartments
Podium
Apartments
Gross Sq. Ft. per Unit 1,275 1,000 1,000 1,000
Density Per Acre 25 40 60 75
Number of Bedrooms per Unit 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Number of Parking Spaces per Unit 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75
Direct Costs
Direct Construction Costs (per sq. ft.) $200 $200 $215 $220 Direct Construction Costs/Unit $255,000 $200,000 $215,000 $220,000 Parking Construction/Space (1) $0 $5,000 $40,000 $50,000 Parking Construction Cost/Unit $0 $8,750 $70,000 $87,500 Site Improvement Cost $30 per land sq. ft. $52,272 $32,670 $21,780 $17,424 Subtotal, Direct Costs $307,272 $241,420 $306,780 $324,924 Indirect and Other Costs 30% of direct costs $92,182 $72,426 $92,034 $97,477 Subtotal Direct and Indirect Costs $399,454 $313,846 $398,814 $422,401 Contingency 10% of direct and indirect costs $39,945 $31,385 $39,881 $42,240 Required Return on Investment
Ownership 15% of direct and indirect costs $59,918
Total Costs per Unit $499,317 $345,231 $438,695 $464,641 Sources: Marshall & Swift; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) Parking for townhomes is included in the construction costs for the unit.

Assumptions

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 8
Revenues
The following section details revenue assumptions related to the residential units across project types. These assumptions were based on EPS market research in Concord and data provided by City staff.

Market-Rate Residential Revenues
For the market-rate rental units in each scenario, the analysis considers data from CoStar Group on rental multifamily apartments built in Concord and neighboring jurisdictions in the past ten years. The average effective rent per square foot among recently constructed multifamily rental buildings is approximately $4.00. For the townhomes, EPS reviewed recent sales of townhomes constructed since 2010 in Contra Costa County via Redfin. EPS found an average price per square foot of approximately $500.

Affordable Residential Revenues
This analysis assumes all development projects will adhere to Concord’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by providing affordable housing on site. The City’s ordinance requires 15 percent of for-sale units to be offered at prices affordable to households earning low and moderate incomes, and 6 percent of rental units to be offered at prices affordable to households earning very low-, low-, and moderate incomes. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) publishes the maximum income for households occupying affordable housing units.

Appendix Table A-1 shows the values for the low- and moderate-income rates for affordable townhomes in Contra Costa County. Affordable values for BMR units assume that low-income households spend no more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on total housing costs, inclusive of property taxes, insurance, etc., while moderate income households are assumed to spend no more than 35 percent.

Appendix Table A-2 shows the calculation of rent per square foot for one- and two- bedroom inclusionary units. Affordable rents for BMR units assume that households should spend no more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on total housing costs, including utilities.

Table 4 synthesizes the calculation of market and affordable revenues, to find the net townhome revenue and net value per rental unit. For townhomes, the net revenue is based on the price at which the units could be sold, minus the cost of marketing and commissions on unit sales. For apartments, the value is determined based on the “yield on cost” calculation, which divides the annual net operating income (NOI) produced by the project once built and fully operational and occupied by a proportion reflecting what a developer would be willing to spend to construct a unit that produces that NOI. EPS

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 9
assumes the current “yield on cost” requirement is 6.25 percent, meaning the annual NOI would equal 6.25 percent of the supportable value of the unit.2

2 The “yield on cost” assumption (6.25 percent) used in these calculations differ from the

5.00 percent assumption EPS used in the 2023 inclusionary housing feasibility study for the City of Concord. The inclusionary housing study was published in 2023 but conducted based on 2022 market data and assumed lower interest rates for project financing as well. The housing market has changed in the subsequent years, with significant increases in interest rates for mortgages and construction loans as well as increases to capitalization rates for apartment buildings, suggesting developers would need to achieve a higher yield on cost. Bankrate.com shows the annual average mortgage rate increased from 5.53% in 2022 to 7.00% in 2023 and 6.98% through October 2024 (see Mortgage Rate History: 1970s To 2024 | Bankrate). CoStar indicates the average capitalization rate for apartment buildings in Contra Costa County has increased from 4.92% in 2022 to

6.19% through October 2024.

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 10
Table 4 Residential Revenues per Unit

Feasibility Results
Market-Rate Housing Developments
Table 5 shows the calculated residual land value per acre for all four development prototypes.

Total
Townhome Revenues
Average Unit Size 1,275
Gross Market Sale Revenue $500 per sq. ft. $637,500
Gross Affordable Sale Revenue $511,140
Average Gross Revenue Per Unit (1) $618,546
(Less) Cost of Marketing 3% of gross revenue -$18,556
Net Townhome Revenue $599,990
Multifamily Rental Revenues
Average Rentable Square Feet 800
Gross Market Rate Rental Revenue $4.00 per net sq. ft. per month $38,400 Gross Affordable Rental Revenue (2) $3.34 per net sq. ft. per month $32,029 Average Gross Revenue Per Unit (1) $38,018
(less) Operating Expenses -$10,000
(less) Vacancy 6% -$2,281
Residential NOI $25,737
Value per Unit 6.25% yield on cost $411,787
(2) See Table A-2 for detailed calculation of Affordable Rental Revenue.

Sources: Redfin; CoStar Group; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

See Table A-1
Assumption
(1) Assumes all development projects will adhere to Concord's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by providing affordable housing on site. The inclusionary requirement is 15% for ownership and 6% for rental projects.

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 11
Table 5 Residual Land Values

The most feasible multifamily development type appears to be garden style apartments at 40 dwelling units per acre. This outcome can primarily be attributed to costs related to parking. Structured parking, such as wrap and podium style projects, costs significantly more to construct per space than surface and/or covered parking. Townhome development results in a higher residual land value per unit than garden style apartments, however on their own townhomes will not achieve the minimum densities, and result in a lower residual land value per acre than garden style apartments. The wrap and podium apartments show a negative residual land value, meaning that their value as rental properties once completed falls short of their construction costs. Under near-term market conditions, EPS concludes that development at these higher densities is infeasible, though longer-term conditions with more favorable rent escalation relative to construction costs may enable such densities to be financed and constructed.

EPS applied these results to case study sites modeled by Raimi & Associates. These site plans can be found in Appendix B. Table 6 illustrates the distribution of unit types within each case study site, and the resulting land value calculations. As shown, the only scenario with a positive residual site value is the 40 du/ac scenario for the dental office site, which is also the only scenario entirely made up of garden apartments with surface parking. While a 40 du/ac scenario with only garden apartments would result in positive land values at the other two sites, Raimi indicates that it would be a struggle to achieve the City’s existing parking and open space requirements at a consistent 40 du/ac on those sites.

For market-rate developers to acquire land for a new project, they must be able to compete financially and offer the highest price to the landowner. The proformas described above suggest prices that market-rate developers would be able to pay for land for garden apartments, while still yielding adequate returns on their investment. These figures thus must be compared to the prices that other potential buyers may be willing to pay for the sites, whether they intend to use them for new construction or retain the existing uses.

Townhomes Garden Wrap Podium
Estimated Anticipated
Revenues/Values $599,990 $411,787 $411,787 $411,787
Development Costs $499,317 $345,231 $438,695 $464,641
Residual Land Value per Unit $100,673 $66,556 -$26,908 -$52,854 (Less) Return on Residual Land Value -$15,101
Net Residual Land Value Per Unit $85,572 $66,556 -$26,908 -$52,854 Density (Du/ac) 25 40 60 75
Residual Land Value per Acre $2,139,293 $2,662,258 -$1,614,501 -$3,964,070

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 12

Table 6 Case Study Value Estimates

Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2
Overall Density / Acre 60 du/ac 40 du/ac 60 du/ac 40 du/ac 60 du/ac 40 du/ac Number of Units
Townhomes 0 42 0 0 0 6
Garden 0 0 0 84 0 0
Wrap 416 255 0 0 0 0
Podium 0 0 127 0 56 32
Total Units 416 297 127 84 56 38
Residual Land Values
Townhomes $85,572 per unit $0 $3,594,012 $0 $0 $0 $513,430 Garden $66,556 per unit $0 $0 $0 $5,590,742 $0 $0
Wrap -$26,908 per unit -$11,193,872 -$6,861,628 $0 $0 $0 $0 Podium -$52,854 per unit $0 $0 -$6,712,492 $0 -$2,959,839 -$1,691,337 Total Site Value -$11,193,872 -$3,267,617 -$6,712,492 $5,590,742 -$2,959,839 -$1,177,906 Assumption K-Mart MotelDental Offices

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 13
100% Affordable Housing Developments
Affordable housing developers tend to have a different financing structure than market rate developers and can utilize tax credit programs and relaxed development requirements, like parking minimums, to achieve project feasibility.

One of the most common sources of funding is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program, administered in California by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). In 2023, 152 projects submitted applications to TCAC for the more competitive and lucrative federal “9 percent” tax credit allocation, and only 57 of those projects received the credit. For the less lucrative “4 percent” tax credits, 224 projects submitted applications, with 127 projects receiving an award. As indicated by these award rates, LIHTCs are competitive, and there are a number of hurdles affordable housing developers have to go through before they can achieve a feasible project.

When applying for tax credit funding from TCAC, developers report the costs associated with their projects, including land acquisition costs. A review of recent projects receiving tax credit funding in Concord and Walnut Creek indicates the average land and acquisition cost per acre is approximately $6.9 million (see Appendix Table A-3). This figure greatly exceeds the supportable residual land values that EPS has estimated for even the most feasible market-rate prototype – garden-style apartments at 40 units per acre – suggesting that affordable housing developers are able to out-compete market- rate developers for developable properties due to the subsidies that affordable housing builders receive. Thus, it is possible that the most feasible development on the three subject sites may actually be or include buildings that are 100% affordable housing, rather than the market-rate projects with inclusionary units that EPS and Raimi have modeled.

Commercial Land Values
Table 7 shows the average recent sale prices in Concord and nearby jurisdictions for existing properties under three commercial land uses: retail, office, and motel/hotel.

These uses reflect the typical zoning for commercial land in the project area. The values are based on property sales in the last 5 years sourced from CoStar Group. The sample of retail property sales is from Concord and includes sales to owner users as well as investments. It is unclear whether all the new owners of the investment properties intend to redevelop or retain the existing commercial. Notably one of the retail properties (2400 Willow Pass Rd) included in the sample was purchased by Meta Housing Corporation, an affordable housing developer, suggesting that this particular site may be redeveloped into affordable housing. The sample of office properties include recent medical office building sales in Concord which appear to have been retained as commercial uses. While there haven’t been recent motel or hotel sales in Concord, EPS reviewed recent sales in Martinez and Walnut Creek, both of which appear to have been retained as hospitality uses. As shown, hospitality uses have the highest average price per building square foot and price per acre, while retail uses have the lowest.

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 14
Table 7 Commercial Property Values based on Comparable Sales

Table 8 applies these values to the existing commercial property at each subject site and then compares those values to the calculated residential land values for both market rate and below market rate projects.

Table 8 Value Comparisons

Item Price Per
Building Sq. Ft.

Price Per
Acre
Retail $371.88 $4,269,495
Office $428.60 $5,576,653
Motel / Hotel $471.77 $9,009,302
Sources: CoStar Group; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

K-Mart Dental Offices Motel
Land Area (AC) 6.89 2.06 0.89
Building Size (SF) 90,274 26,344 19,820
Existing Value Estimate
Using Price per Acre $29,416,820 $11,487,904 $8,018,279 Using Price per Building SF $33,570,767 $11,291,062 $9,350,464 Market Rate Residential Land Value Estimates
Option 1 - 60 du/ac -$11,193,872 -$6,712,492 -$2,959,839 Option 2 - 40 du/ac -$3,267,617 $5,590,742 -$1,177,906
Below Market Rate Residential Land Value $47,365,471 $14,161,520 $6,118,326 Sources: Costar Group; California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; Raimi & Associates; Economic & Planing Sy stems, Inc.

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 15
Under these parameters, the estimated property values would be maximized by retaining the existing buildings for commercial uses (assuming the buildings could retain or attract viable tenants as necessary) rather than demolishing the buildings and developing a market rate residential project. This suggests that it is unlikely that property owners or prospective buyers would consider redeveloping these properties for market-rate residential development until market conditions improve through restrained construction costs and/or greater escalation of market residential rents and home values. The land purchase prices for 100% affordable residential development have been higher than the estimated residual land value for market rate development, suggesting that an affordable multifamily housing project is currently more feasible than a market rate one. This finding is consistent with observable trends; Table 9 indicates Concord currently has more affordable multifamily housing in the pipeline than market rate multifamily development, both in terms of numbers of projects and total units.

Table 9 Concord Development Pipeline

Projects Total Units
Market Rate Multifamily 2 262
Below Market Rate Multifamily 4 501
Townhomes 4 98
Single Family Subdivision 11 120
Rehabilitation 1 286
Assisted Living Facility 1
150
Total 23 1,417
Source: City of Concord

Appendix Tables

Appendix A:

Below Market Housing Values and
Costs

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 18
Table A-1 Below Market Value – Ownership

1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom
Income Limits
Low (< 80% AMI) $96,650 $108,750
Moderate (< 120% AMI) $149,500 $168,150
Maximum Supported Home Price
Income Available for Housing Costs/Year (1)
Low Income $28,995 $32,625
Moderate Income $52,325 $58,853
Weighted Average (2) $40,660 $45,739
Less Utilities $4,068 $4,068
Income Availably for Mortgage Payments $36,592 $41,671
Interest Rate 7.0% 7.0%
Total Supportable Mortgage Amount $454,072 $517,094
Down Payment % 5% 5%
Total Supportable Unit Value $477,970 $544,310
Average Affordable Sale Revenue
(2) The weighted average income is determined using the distribution of income levels detailed in Concord's Inclusionary Housing Policy. Out of the total number of units in a project,

7.5 percent must fall into the low income category, and 7.5 percent must fall into the moderate income category, for a total of 15 percent inclusionary units.

Sources: Contra Costa County HCD Income Limits, 2024; Contra Costa County Utility Allowance Schedule; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(1) Assumes low Income households spend up to 30% of their annual income on housing costs, and moderate income households spend 35 percent of their annual income on housing costs.
$511,140

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 19
Table A-2 Below Market Value- Rental
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom
Rentable Sq. Ft. per Unit 700 900
Income Limits
Very Low (< 50% AMI) $62,300 $70,100
Low (< 80% AMI) $96,650 $108,750
Moderate (< 100% AMI) $124,550 $140,150
Weighted Average (1) $109,525 $123,242
% of Income Spent on Rent 30% 30%
Annual Housing Costs Limit $32,858 $36,973
(Less) Annual Utilities -$2,856 -$3,480
Monthly Rent $2,500 $2,791
Rent per Sq. Ft. $3.57 $3.10
Average Affordable Rent per Sq. Ft.

Sources: Contra Costa County HCD Income Limits, 2024; Contra Costa County Utility Allowance Schedule; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) The weighted average income is determined using the distribution of income levels detailed in Concord's Inclusionary Housing Policy. Out of the total number of units in a project, 1 percent must fall into the v ery low income category, 1 percent must fall into the low income category, and 4 percent must fall into the moderate income category, for a total of 6 percent inclusionary units.
$3.34

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 20

Appendix Table A-3 – TCAC Project Land Costs

Application
Number Project Address Application
Year
Land & Acquisition
Cost
Number
of Units
Number of
Acres
Land Cost
Per Unit
Land Cost
Per Acre
CA-2017-111 1860 Trinity Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 2017 $1,788,312 45 0.80 $39,740 $2,235,390 CA-2015-908 3073 North Main Street, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 2015 $5,278,369 34 1.02 $155,246 $5,174,872 CA-2016-812 1485 Montego, Walnut Creek, CA 94560 2016 $18,258,000 80 2.65 $228,225 $6,889,811 CA-2016-854 1515 Riviera Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 2016 $4,424,200 88 0.43 $50,275 $10,288,837 CA-2017-747 1265 Monument Blvd, Concord, CA 94520 2017 $33,746,123 198 5.79 $170,435 $5,828,346 CA-2018-025 4450 Melody Drive, Concord, CA 94521 2018 $28,500,000 80 2.63 $356,250 $10,836,502 CA-2022-451 2400 Willow Pass Concord CA, 94519 2022 $10,366,660 181 1.57 $57,274 $6,602,968 CA-2023-623 1650 Ashbury Drive, Concord, CA 94520 2023 $7,491,486 183 1.81 $40,937 $4,138,943 Weighted Average $144,988 $6,874,524
Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Appendix B:

Case Study Site Plans

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 1
Case Study / Site Tests
2024

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 2
Tenure Ownership Rental Rental Rental
Building Type Attached Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily Typical Density 25 du/ac 40 du/ac 60 du/ac 90 du/ac
Unit Sq Feet 1,800 1,000 1,000 1,000
Parking Type Attached garage Surface Wrap Podium
Site Test Building Prototypes
Townhomes WrapGarden Style Podium

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 3
Site Test Assumptions
Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed
Gross Area (sf) 625 875 1125 1375
Percentage of units 0% 50% 50% 0%
Parking Spaces 1 1.5 2 2
Open Space (sf) 200 200 200 200
Based on existing Concord zoning and trends Feasibility analysis assumes • 50% 1-bedroom & 50% 2-
bedroom units
• 1000 sf average gross area
per unit
• 1.75 average parking space
per unit
• 200 sf open space per unit

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 4
Site 1 | K-mart Site
K-mart Site
Clayton Rd. / Ayers Rd.

Area: ~7 acres (of ~17 acres)
Current Zoning: Neighborhood
Commercial
Current General Plan:

Neighborhood Commercial

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 5
Site Test 1 | K-mart Site (60 du/ac)
Site Test 1: Multifamily
Density 60.5 du/ac
Number of units 416
Height/Floors 40’/ 4
Parking spaces per unit 1.61
Open Space per unit 104 sf (+ 50
balcony)

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 6
Site Test 2 | K-mart Site (40 du/ac)
Site Test 2: Multifamily + Rowhomes
Density 43 du/ac
Number of units 255 + 42
Height/Floors 40’/ 4
Parking spaces per unit 1.7
Open Space per unit 120 sf (+ 50
balcony)

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 7
Site 2 | Medical/Dental Office
Medical/Dental Office Site
Treat Blvd.

Area: 2.05 acres
Current Zoning: Community Office
Current General Plan: Community
Office

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 8
Site Test 1: Subgrade Parking
Density 61.75 du/ac
Number of units 127
Height/Floors 35’/ 3
Parking spaces per unit 1.5
Open Space per unit 150 sf (+ 50
balcony)
Site Test 1 | Medical/Dental Office (60 du/ac)

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 9
Site Test 2: Surface Parking
Density 40.7 du/ac
Number of units 84
Height/Floors 45’/ 4
Parking spaces per unit 1.4
Open Space per unit 185 sf (+ 50
balcony)
Site Test 2 | Medical/Dental Office (40 du/ac)

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 10
Site 3 | Motel
Motel
Willow Pass Road
Area: 0.88 acres
Current Zoning: Commercial Mixed
Use
Current General Plan: Commercial
Mixed Use

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 11
Site Test 1: Subgrade Parking
Density 62.5 du/ac
Number of units 56
Height/Floors 35’/ 3
Parking spaces per unit 1.4
Open Space per unit 201 sf
Site Test 1 | Motel (60 du/ac)

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 12
Site Test 2: Subgrade Parking + Townhome
Density 42 du/ac
Number of units 32 + 6
Height/Floors 35’/ 3
Parking spaces per unit 1.6
Open Space per unit 210 sf
Site Test 2 | Motel (40 du/ac)

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Phase 2 Site Alternatives
Alternativas de rezonificación
1: Concentrated Development
on Clayton Road
2: Distributed Development on
Clayton Road and Treat Blvd
3: Distributed Development on
Small Sites
4: High/Highest TCAC Areas +
RCAA
5: High/Highest TCAC Areas +
RCAA (Expanded)
Attachment 3

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Large commercial sites
along Clayton Road
desarrollos residenciales
multifamiliares en grandes
terrenos comerciales a lo largo de
Clayton Road
#1: Concentrated Development on Clayton Road
Desarrollo concentrado en Clayton Road
4 # of sites
Número de sitios
40 area in acres
Área total
2,100
up to dwelling units
viviendas
Alternative 1
1 2
3 4

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Large and small
commercial sites along
Clayton Road and Treat
Boulevard
desarrollos residenciales
multifamiliares en sitios
comerciales grandes y pequeños a
lo largo de Clayton Road y Treat
Boulevard
#2: Distributed Development on Clayton Road and Treat Boulevard Desarrollo Distribuido en Clayton Road y Treat Boulevard 10 # of sites
Número de sitios
60 area in acres
Área total
2,700
up to dwelling units
viviendas
Alternative 2
23 22
1 2
3 7
8 4
5 6

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Smaller sites distributed
across the project area
and excludes most major
commercial sites
desarrollos residenciales
multifamiliares en
emplazamientos más pequeños
distribuidos por la zona del
proyecto
#3: Distributed Development on Small Sites
Desarrollo distribuido en sitios pequeños
17 # of sites
Número de sitios
60 area in acres
Área total
2,400
up to dwelling units
viviendas
Alternative 3
24 25
14 15
1621
1 10
8 9
17 18
19 11
12 13
5

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Sites in the High and
Highest TCAC Resource
areas and sites in the
RCAA
el desarrollo residencial
multifamiliar en todos los sitios en
las áreas de Alto y Mayor Recurso
TCAC y sitios en el RCAA
#4: High/Highest TCAC Areas + RCAA
Zonas de TCAC alto/más alto y zonas en RCAA
13 # of sites
Número de sitios
70 area in acres
Área total
3,000
up to dwelling units
viviendas
Alternative 4
25 16
1 2
3 7
8 9
11 12
13 4
6

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
All sites in the High and
Highest TCAC Resource
areas, sites in the RCAA,
and additional sites
identified by City Staff
desarrollos residenciales
multifamiliares en todos los sitios en
las áreas de Alto y Mayor Recurso
TCAC y sitios en el RCAA y sitios
adicionales identificados por el
Personal de la Ciudad
#5: High/Highest TCAC Areas + RCAA (Expanded)
Zonas de TCAC alto/más alto y RCAA (ampliado)
18 # of sites
Número de sitios
90 area in acres
Área total
4,200
up to dwelling units
viviendas
Alternative 5
23 24
25 16
20 2122
1 2
3 7
8 9
11 12
13 4
6

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
#1: Concentrated
Development on
Clayton Road
#2: Distributed
Development on
Clayton Road and
Treat Boulevard
#3: Distributed
Development on
Small Sites
#4: High/Highest
TCAC + RCAA
#5: High/Highest
TCAC + RCAA
(Expanded)
# of Sites
Número de
sitios
4 10 17 13 18
Area
Área total
40 60 60 70 90
Dwelling
Units
viviendas
2,100 2,700 2,400 3,000 4,200
Phase 2 Site Alternatives
Alternativas de rezonificación

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 24
Previous Rezoning Alternatives
Alternativas de rezonificación
1: Concentrated Development
on Clayton Road
2: Distributed Development on
Clayton Road and Treat Blvd
3: Distributed Development on
Small Sites
4: High/Highest TCAC Areas +
RCAA
5: High/Highest TCAC Areas +
RCAA (Expanded)
Attachment 4

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 25

1. Kmart

2. Clayton Faire

3. Staples, CVS, Auto repair,
Burger King

4. TJ Maxx and other sites /
TJ Maxx y otros sitios

5. Carwash at Matheson and
Clayton / Lavado de coches
en Matheson y Clayton

6. Dental Offices at Treat &
Oak Grove / Consultorios
dentales en Treat y Oak
Grove

7. Warehouses behind
Trader Joe’s / Almacenes
detrás de Trader Joe's

8. Palm Lake Apartment
Homes Infill / Añadir
viviendas al sitio Palm Lake
Apartment

9. Fair Oaks Church / Iglesia
de Fair Oaks

10. Vacant Site at Landana &
Mulberry / Sitio vacío en
Landana y Mulberry

11. Office at Cowell and Treat
/ Oficina en Cowell y Treat

12. Office at Cowell and
Larwin / Oficina en Cowell
y Larwin

13. School at Cowell / Escuela
en Cowell

14. Motel at Willow Pass /
Motel en Willow Pass

15. Garage at Wharton Way /
Garaje en Wharton Way

16. Vacant Site at Kirker Pass
& Myrtle / Sitio vacío en
Kirker Pass y Myrtle

17. Residential Sites at 1454 &
1456 Bel Air Drive / Sitios
residenciales en 1454 y
1456 Bel Air Drive

18. Residential Site at 1539
Kirker Pass / Sitio
residencial en 1539 Kirker
Pass

19. Preschool at Clayton and
Heather / Centro pre
escolar en Clayton y
Heather

20. Gas station and Mini mart
/ Gasolinera y Mini mart

21. Hunan Restaurant /
Restaurante Hunan

22. Strictly to Go Pizza and
Strip Mall / Pizzeria Strictly
To Go y centro comercial
en Clayton

23. Strip Mall at Clayton and
Bailey / Centro commercial
en Clayton y Bailey

24. First Lutheran Church /
Iglesia Luterana en
Concord Blvd

25. Holy Cross Lutheran
Church / Iglesia Luterana
Santa Cruz
All Sites Previously Under Consideration
Todos los sitios anterioremente bajo estudio
23 24
25 14
15 16
20 21
22 1
2 3
10 7
8 9
17 18
19 11
12 13
4 5
6

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 26
Views Differ Significantly Between Owners and Renters
Las opiniones difieren significativamente entre propietarios e inquilinos #1: Concentrated Development on
Clayton Road
% of each group who like or strongly like each alternative #2: Distributed Development on
Clayton Road and Treat Boulevard
#3: Distributed Development on
Small Sites
#4: High/Highest TCAC + RCAA
#5: High/Highest TCAC + RCAA
(Expanded)
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
All HomeownersRenters
All HomeownersRenters
All
Homeowners Renters
Renters
Renters
All
All
Homeowners
Homeowners

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 27
Preferred Alternative: Overall
Alternativa preferida: En general
#1 Concentrated
Development on
Clayton Road
30%
#2 Distributed
Development on
Clayton Road and
Treat Boulevard
15%
#3 Distributed Development
on Small Sites
10%
#4 High/Highest
TCAC Areas and
RCAA
9%
#5 High/highest
Areas and RCAA
(Expanded)
7%
No Response
29%

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 28
#1 Concentrated
Development on
Clayton Road
47%
#2 Distributed
Development on
Clayton Road and
Treat Boulevard
21%
#3 Distributed
Development on
Small Sites
15%
#4 High/Highest
TCAC Areas and
RCAA
9%
#5 High/Highest TCAC
Areas and RCAA
(Expanded)
8%
#1 Concentrated
Development on
Clayton Road
12%
#2 Distributed
Development on
Clayton Road and
Treat Boulevard
12%
#3 Distributed
Development on
Small Sites
9%
#4 High/Highest
TCAC Areas and
RCAA
38%
#5 High/Highest
TCAC Areas and
RCAA (Expanded)
29%
Preferred Alternative: Owner vs. Renter
Alternativa preferida: propietarios e inquilinos
Homeowner Renter

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 29
Why Alternatives 1 and 2?
"Should help with traffic by
dispersing some
[development] to outlying
areas"
"Clayton Road...has public
transit; this can't be done
without transit"
"It makes sense to have
fewer concentrated areas
sites than more spread
out"
"Clayton Rd has access to
several shops, stores, and
public transportation.

Some of the smaller sites
do not have access to such
things"
"Minimum impact with
minimum sites"

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 30
Why Alternative 3?
"Homes should be spread
out...so we do not
overwhelm the resources/
infrastructure in our city"
"To foster an inclusive community in higher
resource neighborhoods...invest in several
smaller buildings, encouraging the growth
of a community rather than introducing
large commercial-like housing."

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 31
Why Alternatives 4 and 5?
"[These] locations
maximize space and are
close to other amenities"
"I want to see this process
actually impact segregation
and affordability in
Concord"
"Many parcels [should be
made] available since not
all of them will be
developed"
"I want the City to prioritize sites for
rezoning that are actually in segregated or
exclusionary neighborhoods with access to
opportunities and resources as
demonstrated by their designation as
RCAAs or High Resource TCAC Areas"

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 32
Top Sites Added to Alternatives
Los mejores sitios añadidos a las alternativas
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

21. Hunan Restaurant

8. Palm Lake Apartment Homes Infill

23. Strip Mall at Clayton and Bailey

10. Vacant Site at Landana & Mulberry

4. TJ Maxx and other sites

3. Staples, CVS, Auto repair, Burger King

7. Warehouses behind Trader Joe’s

16. Vacant Site at Kirker Pass & Myrtle

14. Motel at Willow Pass

1. Kmart

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 33
Top Sites Removed from Alternatives
Los principales sitios eliminados de las alternativas
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

8. Palm Lake Apartment Homes Infill

20. Gas station and Mini mart

16. Vacant Site at Kirker Pass & Myrtle

24. First Lutheran Church

19. Preschool at Clayton and Heather

25. Holy Cross Lutheran Church

10. Vacant Site at Landana & Mulberry

11. Office at Cowell and Treat

13. School at Cowell

12. Office at Cowell and Larwin

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Phase 3 Sites

1. Kmart

2. Clayton Faire

7. Warehouses behind
Trader Joe’s /
Almacenes detrás de
Trader Joe’s

8. Palm Lake
Apartment Homes Infill
/ Añadir viviendas al
sitio Palm Lake
Apartment
Alternative Sites

3. Staples, CVS, Auto
repair, Burger King

16. Vacant Site at Kirker
Pass & Myrtle / Sitio
vacío en Kirker Pass y
Myrtle

18. Residential Site at
1539 Kirker Pass / Sitio
residencial en 1539
Kirker Pass
All Phase 3 Sites
Todos los sitios en estudio
16 1
2 3
7 8
18 Attachment 5

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Phase 3 Sites: 1. Kmart
Sitio recomendado 1: Kmart
Kmart Site
Clayton Rd. / Ayers Rd.

TCAC: High / Alto RCAA: No / No
Area: ~7.5 acres (of ~17 acres)
Área: ~7.5 acres (de ~17 acres)
Capacity: 310 (existing); 470 (with rezoning @60 du/ac) Capacidad Estimada: 310 (existente), 470 (@60 du/ac)

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Phase 3 Sites: 2. Clayton Faire
Sitio recomendado 2: Clayton Faire
Clayton Faire
Clayton Rd. / Balhan Dr.

TCAC: High / Alto RCAA: No / No
Area: 4 acres (of ~10 acres)
Área: 4 acres (de ~10 acres)
Capacity: 170 (existing); 250 (with rezoning @60 du/ac) Capacidad Estimada: 170 (existente), 250 (@60 du/ac)

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Phase 3 Sites: 7. Warehouses behind Trader Joe’s
Sitio recomendado 7: Almacénes detrás Trader Joe's
Warehouses behind Trader Joe’s
Treat Blvd. / Oak Grove Rd.

TCAC: High / Alto RCAA: Yes / Si
Area: 5 acres
Área: 5 acres
Capacity: 190 (existing); 290 (with rezoning @60 du/ac) Capacidad Estimada: 190 (existente), 290 (@60 du/ac)

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Phase 3 Sites: 8. Palm Lake Apartment Homes Infill
Sitio recomendado 8: Añadir viviendas al sitio Palm Lake Apartment Palm Lake Apartment Homes Infill
Treat Blvd. / Oak Grove Rd.

TCAC: High / Alto RCAA: Yes / Si
Area: 3 acres (of ~13 acres)
Área: 3 acres (de ~13 acres)
Capacity: 300 existing units, 110 additional allowed (existing); 180 (with rezoning @60 du/ac)
Capacidad Estimada: 300 viviendas existentes, 110 adiciones permitas, 180 nuevas (@60 du/ac)

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Phase 3 Alternative Sites

3. Staples, CVS, Auto repair, Burger King

16. Vacant Site at Kirker Pass & Myrtle / Sitio
vacío en Kirker Pass y Myrtle

18. Residential Site at 1539 Kirker Pass / Sitio
residencial en 1539 Kirker Pass
Phase 3 Alternative Sites
Sitios alternativos
16 3
18

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
• 10/28: In Person Workshop (190 attendees)
• 10/30: Virtual Workshop (150 attendees)
• Community Survey – Open 10/ 16 to 11/8
• 1,620 survey responses
Community Feedback on Phase 3 Sites
Actividades de Participación Comunitaria
Attachment 6

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Phase 3 Sites
Fase 3: Sitios bajo consideración
1 2
7 8
Sites for Consideration

1. Kmart

2. Clayton Faire

7. Warehouses behind Trader Joe’s / Almacenes
detrás de Trader Joe’s

8. Palm Lake Apartment Homes Infill / Añadir
viviendas al sitio Palm Lake Apartment
4 # of sites
Número de sitios
20 area in acres
Área total
1,200
up to dwelling units
viviendas

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
All Survey Responses
Todas las respuestas de la encuesta
Responses = 1,620
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kmart Clayton Faire Warehouses behind Trader
Joe's
Palm Lake Apartment
Homes Infill
Dissatisfied / Very DissatisfiedNeutralSatisfied / Very Satisfied Satisfecho / Muy satisfecho Insatisfecho / Muy insatisfecho

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Resident vs. Non-Resident
Residente v. a no residente
All Responses / Todas las respuestas
Responses = 1,620 (all); 1,400 (Concord residents); 220 (non-Concord residents) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kmart Clayton
Faire
Warehouses
behind
Trader Joe's
Palm Lake
Apartment
Homes Infill
Dissatisfied / Very DissatisfiedNeutralSatisfied / Very Satisfied 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kmart Clayton
Faire
Warehouses
behind
Trader Joe's
Palm Lake
Apartment
Homes Infill
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kmart Clayton
Faire
Warehouses
behind
Trader Joe's
Palm Lake
Apartment
Homes Infill
Concord Residents Only / Residente de
Concord
Non-Concord Residents / No son
residentes de Concord
Satisfecho / Muy satisfecho Insatisfecho / Muy insatisfecho

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
• 151 IP addresses responded more than
onc
e (531 total responses)
• Most responses came from IP addresses
wi
th <3 or fewer responses (average
household / family size in Concord)
• 151 direcciones I P respondieron más de una vez (531
respuestas en total)
• La mayoría de las respuestas proceden de direcciones IP con 3 o menos respuestas (tamaño medio del hogar /
familia en Concord)
Duplicate Responses
Respuestas duplicadas
Dissatisfied / Very Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied / Very Satisfied 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kmart Clayton Faire Warehouses
behind
Trader Joe's
Palm Lake
Apartment
Homes Infill
Responses = 146
4 IP addresses responded >=17 times
(146 total responses) / 4 direcciones IP
respondieron mas de 17 veces (146 respuestas en
total)
Satisfecho / Muy satisfechoInsatisfecho / Muy insatisfecho

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kmart Clayton Faire Warehouses
behind Trader
Joe's
Palm Lake
Apartment
Homes Infill
All Responses vs. Limiting to 3 per IP Address
Todas las respuestas comparadas con la limitación a 3 por dirección IP All Responses / Todas las respuestas
Responses = 1,400 (all); 1,214 (limited to 3)
Dissatisfied / Very Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied / Very Satisfied 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kmart Clayton Faire Warehouses
behind Trader
Joe's
Palm Lake
Apartment
Homes Infill
Limited to 3 Responses per IP Address /
Limitado a 3 por dirección IP
Satisfecho / Muy satisfechoInsatisfecho / Muy insatisfecho Page 82 of 586 City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Alternative Sites

3. Staples, CVS, Auto repair, Burger King

16. Vacant Site at Kirker Pass & Myrtle / Sitio
vacío en Kirker Pass y Myrtle

18. Residential Site at 1539 Kirker Pass / Sitio
residencial en 1539 Kirker Pass
Phase 3 Alternative Sites
Sitios alternativos
16 3
18

City of Concord Rezoning Project |
Phase 3 Alternative Site Ranking
Sitios alternativos
All Responses Concord Residents / Todas las
respuestas de residentes en Concord
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
Vacant Site at
Kirker Pass &
Myrtle
Staples, CVS,
Auto repair,
Burger King
Residential Site
at 1539 Kirker
Pass
.

Responses = 1,400 (all Concord residents)
• Respondents ranked the alternative sites,
1-3, wi
th 1 being the priority
• Results are the average score for the site
• Lower scores are a higher priority
• Los encuestados cl asificaron los sitios alternativos de 1 a 3, siendo 1 la prioridad.
• Los resultados s on la puntuación media del
emplazamiento
• A menor pun tuación, mayor prioridad

1.5 2.1

2.4

Frequently Asked Questions

Updated December 9, 2024
Why must Concord rezone land in high resource areas to meet AFFH goals? When a community prepares its Housing Element, state law requires jurisdictions to analyze the community’s housing needs for all incomes and provide strategies or programs to respond to those housing needs. Assembly Bill 686 expanded these requirements by mandating communities to conduct a comprehensive assessment of fair housing issues, identify contributing factors, and then develop specific policies and actions to actively promote housing integration, address disparities in access to opportunity, and transform racially and ethnically concentrate areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. The results of each community’s assessment will determine the type of actions a jurisdiction may need to take to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), such as addressing fair housing barriers, promoting integration, and reducing disparities in access to opportunities. Key strategies to address AFFH include enhancing mobility, increasing affordable housing in high-resource areas, directing funding towards lower resource areas to revitalize communities, and preventing displacement. Mobility refers to enabling disadvantaged individuals to access housing in areas with better opportunities, such as quality schools and jobs.

The City of Concord’s AFFH analysis highlights key findings and conclusions about the city’s evolving demographics and disparities. Over time, Concord has become increasingly diverse, with noticeable integration and rising racial and ethnic diversity, particularly in the central and western areas, which also face higher poverty rates. In contrast, the southeastern portion of the city demonstrates stronger economic, educational, and environmental outcomes, along with a higher concentration of White, higher- income residents. Although the western area offers access to jobs and public transportation, recent home sale prices are unaffordable for many lower-income households, effectively excluding them from higher- resource neighborhoods. Furthermore, the majority of lower-income housing sites identified in the City’s required inventory are located in the central and western areas, while none are situated in the southeastern, higher-resource portion of Concord.

The City addressed revitalization and anti-displacement requirements through increased tenant protections and placed-based programs targeted to the lower resource areas that include public and infrastructure investments, economic development initiatives, workforce support, grant-funded urban greening projects, and community events to support local businesses.

To address the mobility issues and disparities identified in the City’s AFFH analysis, the City must provide greater opportunities for affordable housing in higher resource neighborhoods. When preparing the City’s Housing Element the following programs were considered, but were ultimately not recommended due to possible constraints or larger impacts than the selected program of rezoning 20 acres at 60 dwelling units per acre to create 1,000 new housing units in higher resource neighborhoods:

Subsidizing Housing Units for Lower-Income Households: While mobility could have been pursued through funding to purchase and make homes affordable to lower-income households, this approach was deemed financially infeasible. Concord’s lack of financial resources would have limited the number of homes that could be made affordable, and only through a special tax would the City have been able to meet AFFH goals through a program of this nature.

Church Sites: Churches often hold significant cultural, historical, and/or emotional value. Rezoning them for housing would have likely faced strong opposition from congregants and the surrounding community.

Churches often provide ancillary community services (e.g. childcare) that could be disrupted or lost if the sites are redeveloped. This concept was also captured in a different program in the Housing Element, which ended up becoming a new state law; therefore, would not have been meaningful in addressing the Attachment 7

Frequently Asked Questions

identified disparities.

Rezoning Open Spaces/Parks: Parks and open spaces are critical for a higher quality of life and ecological balance, including air quality, stormwater management, and habitat preservation. Losing green spaces can negatively impact public health, mental well-being, and recreational opportunities for residents. Residents would have likely strongly opposed the loss of parks, viewing it as a reduction in their quality of life and amenities.

Public Lands (e.g., Concord Pavilion): Public lands like the Concord Pavilion and Center Concord are used for community events and economic development activities. Rezoning them for housing would limit these public benefits. Residents may view this as a short-term solution that sacrifices long-term community value, which has been demonstrated by the community largely rejecting the inclusion of the Centre Concord site into the City’s AFFH rezoning program. Additionally, some public lands, such as the Concord Pavilion, are deed restricted and cannot be used for activities other than their current use.

School Sites: Repurposing school sites would lead to a reduction in educational resources or space for future population growth. Schools are part of our essential infrastructure and rezoning them may provoke strong opposition from parents and local stakeholders. This concept was also captured in a different program in the Housing Element, which ended up becoming a new state law; therefore, would not have been meaningful in addressing the identified disparities.

Do students within the original school boundary of Clayton Valley Charter High School have to compete with applicants from across the County for admission?
No, this is not accurate. Clayton Valley Charter High School (CVCHS) is legally required to prioritize students residing within its original attendance boundary established at the time of its conversion to a charter school. These students are considered "unassigned" by the Mt. Diablo Unified School District, meaning they have the choice to attend CVCHS or another high school (see the school site locator here). With a capacity of 2,400 students, CVCHS admits students within this original boundary as the first priority.

Siblings of current students and children of CVCHS employees are considered next. Remaining spaces are then opened to applicants from Contra Costa County, followed by the entire state. Once maximum capacity is reached, remaining applicants are entered into a public random drawing and placed on a waitlist in the order drawn. Students are taken from the waitlist as space becomes available. Additionally, existing students are guaranteed re-admission each following school year.

Why isn’t the Cal State University East Bay campus being considered for the AFFH program? The CSU East Bay campus does seem like a promising option for the AFFH program, and if it were ready for development, it could potentially help achieve the program's goals. However, the State is not currently prepared to move forward with the site. Although there is some interest, the property spans nearly 400 acres, which requires extensive study and planning before any development can begin. At this time, there are no active plans or projects to initiate this work.

This situation is similar to the Naval Weapons Station property, where development may take several years to become viable. To comply with AFFH requirements, we need to demonstrate that housing can realistically be developed within the next eight years. Since the CSU property does not meet this timeframe, it cannot be included in the program.

What are the consequences of not completing the AFFH program? While we cannot predict the exact outcomes if the City fails to fulfill the programs in our Housing Element, several potential consequences could arise. The process of working with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) often involves multiple rounds of communication and is not

Frequently Asked Questions

always straightforward. However, here are some possible risks:
 Decertification and "Builder's Remedy"
If the Housing Element is decertified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD) for non-compliance, developers will be able to bypass the City’s land use regulations, including zoning, and submit residential projects above and beyond current development standards (i.e. density, height, etc.) or in locations where residential uses are not allowed and the City is required to process those applications under the "builder's remedy" provision. Portola Valley and Norwalk have had their Housing Elements decertified by HCD.  Legal and Financial Risks
The City could face serious legal and financial consequences, including the loss of and access to essential local, state, and federal funding for affordable housing, transportation, and infrastructure. In 2019, HCD sued Huntington Beach for failing to comply with Housing Element law, putting millions in state funding at risk. The Attorney General for the State of California has stated that Assembly Bill 1893 will ensure that jurisdictions are held accountable to ensure communities are zoning for enough housing, reducing barriers to development and promoting fair housing practices. For more information on HCD enforcement, please review their website, here.  Recent Legal Precedents
In September 2024, HCD filed a lawsuit against Elk Grove for rejecting an affordable housing project. Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized the State's stance on enforcement, stating, “California’s housing laws are not optional. Local governments that violate our laws to deny affordable housing opportunities to Californians will be held accountable.” This case highlights how the State may respond to non-compliance with Housing Element requirements. Not only is the State of California holding jurisdictions accountable, third parties have sued and will likely continue to file suit against jurisdictions that have missed deadlines and failed to implement the programs of their Housing Elements. The Contra Costa County jurisdictions of Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, Pinole, and 8 others within the Bay Area have all been the subject of lawsuits over their lack of compliance with Housing Element law.
 Loss of Authority to Issue Permits
The City could lose its ability to issue any new building permits for construction. A Los Angeles County Superior Court found the City of Beverly Hills lacked compliance with Housing Element law and prohibited Beverly Hills from issuing permits for any new residential renovations, commercial development, or any other construction projects. The ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed against the city accusing the city of skirting state housing laws.

In summary, non-compliance could expose the City to significant risks, including legal actions, loss of state funding, and reduced control over local development. The State has shown a commitment to holding cities accountable for meeting housing obligations, especially during a time when many Californians struggle with housing affordability and stability.

Will businesses be torn down because of this program?
No, the rumors about businesses being torn down are not accurate. The properties being considered for rezoning already allow residential development. For example, the Clayton Faire properties can currently support development at a density of 24 units per acre, but no such projects have taken place. Increasing the zoning to 60 units per acre does not mean buildings will be demolished or businesses will be displaced.

Frequently Asked Questions

Any decision to develop housing is entirely up to the property owner. The City will not require development, demolition of existing buildings, or relocation of businesses. Rezoning simply changes what is allowed but does not dictate how properties are used. Existing businesses can continue to operate indefinitely unless the property owner decides to pursue redevelopment.

Is the City building Section 8 housing?
Firstly, no. The City is not building any housing through this program. Private properties are developed by the property owner/developer, not the City. The Is not forcing any development to occur through this program. The decision to build housing is completely up to the property owner if or when the market conditions are right. Secondly, Section 8 is not a specific type of housing but a program designed to help individuals and families afford housing costs. You can think of it as a rental assistance program that works like a coupon or discount applicable to various housing types throughout Concord.

Here’s a clearer breakdown:

What is Section 8?
Officially known as the Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 8 is a federal program that assists low-income families, the elderly, and people with disabilities in paying their rent.

How does it provide assistance?
The program issues vouchers to participants, which cover a portion of their monthly rent.

Can participants choose their housing?
Yes, individuals with Section 8 vouchers can select from a range of housing options—such as single-family homes, townhouses, and apartments—as long as the landlord agrees to participate in the program and the housing meets specific quality standards.

Where can Section 8 vouchers be used?
Section 8 vouchers can be used today anywhere in Concord and are not tied to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) program.

In summary, Section 8 is a flexible rental assistance program that can be applied to various housing situations, rather than being linked to any particular type of building or development.

Is the City building emergency shelters?
No, the online claim that the City is building emergency shelters is inaccurate. Emergency shelters are permitted only in specific zoning districts: Office Business Park, Industrial Business Park, and Industrial Mixed-Use. These zones are not part of the AFFH study area; the closest is around the Detroit Avenue area.

Therefore, the information circulating online is misleading.

Additionally, state law passed in 2019 requires cities to allow "Low Barrier Navigation Centers" in mixed- use and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily housing. Since much of the AFFH study area already allows multifamily housing, this use is permitted independently of the AFFH program. Again, the claim linking the program to emergency shelters is misleading.

For a Low Barrier Navigation Center to be allowed under state law, it must meet these criteria:
 Connects individuals to permanent housing by providing supportive services.  Utilizes a coordinated entry system for intake, assessment, and referrals.

Frequently Asked Questions

 Complies with Housing First requirements as outlined in the Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8255 et seq.
 Participates in the local Homeless Management Information System by tracking client stays, demographics, income, and exit destinations.

In short, the zoning and state regulations governing emergency shelters and Low Barrier Navigation Centers are not directly related to the AFFH program.

How did the City notify the community about this project? We initiated communication about this program through various channels last spring. Information was mailed twice to every household in the City via our City News and Activity Guide. The latest issue, delivered to all Concord mailboxes in early August, can be viewed here. On page 8, you will find a half-page article about the program, including references to upcoming public meetings and a link to the webpage where more details can be found. In addition to mailers, we used several digital platforms to reach the community. These included NextDoor to broadcast information citywide, Facebook posts that reached thousands of viewers, and our e-newsletter, which is sent to 9,500 subscribers. The program details were also posted on City webpages. We sent 7,000 notices to property owners within 500 feet of the sites being considered for rezoning and about 3,000 more to properties within 1,000 feet of the sites recommended for redevelopment. Moreover, the Concord Pioneer published an article in late August with details about the community meetings; the article can be found here. Local online publications such as Claycord and Contra Costa News also featured stories on our program.

Will higher density housing affect the value of my property? At this time, we do not have strong, comparable examples regarding the impact of Concord-specific projects with densities up to 60 dwelling units per acre on adjacent home prices. For example, the Park Central Apartments, developed at 60 dwelling units per acre in downtown, were completed in 2002. While there are adjacent single-family homes, I have not yet been able to locate reliable home price data from over 20 years ago for comparison. More recently, the Renaissance Apartments, built at 65 units per acre downtown, have no adjacent homes, making a comparison in this case unavailable as well.

Lastly, the Grant Street Apartments, constructed at 116 dwelling units per acre (nearly double what is being considered under this program), opened in late 2022/early 2023. There is one single-family home located at 2247 Concord Blvd., directly across the street from The Grant. The value of that property has increased by 63% over the last five years, compared to a 34% increase in typical home values across Concord during the same period. While this level of appreciation is likely an outlier and difficult to explain, it is clear that the construction of The Grant at 116 units per acre did not negatively impact the property’s value.

Here are some online resources related to how the construction of affordable housing affects property values.

Amark Foundation, citing 13 studies
 "Research studies into the impact of low-income housing on neighborhood property values have, in general, concluded that there was either no impact or positive impacts on property values. Even in studies where results were mixed, some positive impacts on property values were found."  The National Association of Realtors also advertised this meta-analysis, which shows that even national organizations whose goal is higher home values supports affordable housing.  Source

Frequently Asked Questions

The Center for Housing Policy and National Housing Conference, citing 12 studies  "To 'summarize the summaries' — the vast majority of studies have found that affordable housing does not depress neighboring property values, and may even raise them in some cases. Overall, the research suggests that neighbors should have little to fear from the type of attractive and modestly sized developments that constitute the bulk of newly produced affordable housing today."
 Source

The Urban Institute
 "...empirical research provides little evidence that subsidized housing depresses neighborhood property values (Ellen et al, 2007; Galster 2002; Center for Housing Policy 2009)."  "Projects financed through...the largest affordable housing financing program in the United States, have been associated with an immediate positive increase of 3.8 percentage points in nearby property values (Ellen et al. 2007).
 "LIHTC properties, on average, revitalize low-income neighborhoods, increasing house prices by

6.5 percent, lowering crime rates, and attracting racially and income-diverse populations (Diamond and McQuade 2016)."
 "We find that...in Alexandria, affordable housing in higher-income neighborhoods has a positive and highly significant effect on surrounding home values, as does affordable housing in lower- income neighborhoods."

Journal of Housing Economics
 "We find some evidence that both stand-alone and clustered LIHTC developments generate positive price spillover effects on the surrounding neighborhoods; subsequent LIHTC projects do not affect prices negatively. The benefits are strongest within one quarter mile of the development, but smaller impacts prevail for up to a half mile from the LIHTC property. The positive impacts remain strong for at least 10 years after the initial development. The cumulative price effect is positive in both lower and higher-income areas and more significant in lower-income areas."
 Source
Trulia
 "In the nation’s 20 least affordable markets, our analysis of 3,083 low-income housing projects from 1996 to 2006 found no significant effect on home values located near a low-income housing project."
 Again, this is a real estate company advocating for affordable housing.  Source
Did the State dictate the study area, number of acres, and units for the AFFH program? How were these determined?
No, the State did not specify the figures of 1,000 units over 20 acres for Concord's AFFH program. These metrics were developed through a combination of factors:
 Community engagement during the Housing Element process.  Review of Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) guidelines, which provide general guidance rather than specific targets.
 Discussions with State officials to ensure alignment with the requirements for Housing Element

Frequently Asked Questions

certification.

The AB 686 guidance does not prescribe exact numbers but outlines principles for fair housing, which include utilizing the State’s RCAA and TCAC opportunity maps to identify areas for potential rezoning.

These maps were key in selecting the study area. You can explore the guidance and maps further here.

How do neighboring cities approach AFFH?
Each community has unique circumstances, including differing demographics, resources, and housing goals, which shape their approaches to AFFH compliance. Here's a brief overview:

Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Martinez have their own strategies for AFFH. While Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill have finalized their plans, Martinez's AFFH documentation is still in draft form, awaiting State certification.

It’s important to recognize that no two communities will have identical AFFH plans, as each city's approach is tailored to local conditions and priorities.

From Pleasant Hill’s Housing Element, beginning on page 311 of the PDF here. The document has a long list of AFFH related programs, the highlighted one here is most comparable to the rezoning Concord is undertaking.

Walnut Creek’s Housing Element, Appendix B here provides a long list of AFFH programs. The highlighted area is most comparable to the rezoning Concord is undertaking.

Frequently Asked Questions

City of Martinez does not have a certified/finalized Housing Element. The draft policy document is here.

There are several programs in draft form, below are some examples.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is AFFH?
AFFH stands for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. It is a provision of the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and a piece of federal legislation that prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and ensures equal opportunity in housing for all. While federal law prohibited overt forms of housing discrimination, residential segregation has remained and persists in California today.

California Assembly Bill 686 created new requirements for cities to affirmatively further fair housing as a part of a jurisdiction’s planning process, and to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.

What are higher-resource neighborhoods?
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) identifies neighborhoods of the state that have been shown to have positive educational, economic, and health outcomes for low-income families. These neighborhoods are characterized by quality schools, safety, plentiful community amenities, and economic opportunity.

Why is this project happening now?
The City’s recently adopted Housing Element is a State-mandated plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. It maps out how the City of Concord facilitates a variety of housing types for all income groups, assists in the development of lower and moderate-income housing, removes constraints to housing, improves existing housing, and promotes fair housing. California law requires that each county and city in the state develop and adopt a revised Housing Element every eight years and report progress on program accomplishment each year. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update in October 2023. The housing element contains many programs, including Program 8.6 Fair Housing, which aims to increase housing supply, choices, and affordability in higher-resource neighborhoods of the city.

What is Housing Element Program 8.6?
Housing Element Program 8 aims to expand the range of housing opportunities for residents with low and moderate incomes, older adults, people with disabilities, large families, and more. The program continues to analyze impediments to fair housing, to contract with service providers for fair housing education and outreach, to seek new funding for housing programs, and to increase housing opportunity in higher- resource neighborhoods to serve the housing needs of all segments of the community.

Program 8.6 of the Housing Element aims to expand the range of housing opportunities for residents with low and moderate incomes, older adults, people with disabilities, large families, and more. The program continues to analyze impediments to fair housing, to contract with service providers for fair housing education and outreach, to seek new funding for housing programs, and to increase housing opportunity in higher-resource neighborhoods to serve the housing needs of all segments of the community.

What is rezoning and what parts of the City will be impacted by it? Zoning regulates what type of development is allowed on a parcel of land and the process to realize the project. Rezoning refers to when the zone of a parcel is changed, thus allowing different activities, uses, or densities of development. In this case, a parcel may be rezoned to allow residential uses, or to allow a different residential type with a higher density to accommodate multi-family developments on specific sites. The areas being considered are higher-resource neighborhoods within the city, in addition to Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), which are neighborhoods with high non-Hispanic White populations and an above-average median income.

Frequently Asked Questions

How will community feedback influence the project?
The City Council wants a robust community engagement process used so that meeting state requirements is reflective of community desires. Community members and stakeholders will be provided with easy-to- understand information to facilitate informed decisions and input regarding the AFFH rezoning process.

Key input from the community will influence the various phases of the project, starting with site identification.

Can the City provide a breakdown of renters and owners by house type? According to the US census, within Concord, owner-occupied units make up 64% of the total units, and single-family homes make up 67% of the total number of units. The City collects its own rental data and shares information annually in a rent registry report. This report provides an overview of unit sizes/types and rent amounts.

With the redevelopment of the Naval Weapons Station property underway, which will have 12,000 new housing units, why is this AFFH project necessary, and why are the units planned for the Naval Weapons Station property not being included in the Housing Element or this project? The City is mandated by the State of California to update its Housing Element every eight years – the current version covers the period of 2023 through 2031. The planned buildout of the Naval Weapons Station project is approximately 40 years, and we are still years away from breaking ground. In other words, the housing units planned for this site are beyond the timeframe of our current Housing Element and will not be captured until the City performs its mandated 2031 Housing Element update, at the earliest.

Is there a renter-owner split for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation? No, the allocation is not distributed by owner-occupied or rental housing units. The total housing need for each jurisdiction is distributed among income categories, requiring each jurisdiction to plan to meet the need for housing for households at all income levels.

Each jurisdiction’s projected housing need during the Housing Element planning period is determined through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, which is based on projected statewide growth in households as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Through the RHNA process, HCD distributes the statewide projected housing need among the regions in the State, where each regional council of government allocates the projected regional growth to local jurisdictions within the region.

How was the Study Area defined? There are sites such as the Four Corners area that were not included in the study area that perhaps should be.

In order to remain in compliance with State regulations, the City must identify and rezone areas appropriate for medium and high residential densities, specifically in “moderate” and “high” resource areas of the City, as identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC)/California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Opportunity Areas Map. Members of the public may view the map to see the various resource areas, including the Four Corners area which is identified as a “low resource” and outside of the study area.

Will the City be assessing the need for new infrastructure or capacity as a part of this project, and if any additional infrastructure or capacity is needed for construction to occur on the rezoned properties, who pays for those improvements?
Yes, through the site identification and selection process the availability of infrastructure and capacity will be assessed. Where new infrastructure and or capacity is necessary, developers must cover the cost to serve their projects. In some cases, owners of the newly constructed properties pay for the new

Frequently Asked Questions

infrastructure over time through property assessments. Existing residents and property owners will not be subject to additional fees or charges associated with infrastructure improvements needed for new development.

How are the AFFH project goals being met if the City cannot mandate that affordable homes be developed to meet the AFFH goals?
The goal of this program is to create opportunities for higher density, more affordable homes to be built.

This is being accomplished by rezoning parcels in higher resource neighborhoods that do not currently allow high density housing. Generally, the State has indicated that higher density housing provides more opportunities for affordable housing based on economies of scale and scoring criteria for available funding sources. The City does not construct housing units and is barred from mandating affordability levels on these rezoned parcels. Individual development projects will be private market-driven; however, the City does have an inclusionary housing ordinance that requires the inclusion of a minimum percentage of affordable housing units in all projects of five or more units.

How is a lower resource vs higher resource opportunity defined? The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Map identifies the higher resource areas of the City. The characteristics of these areas have been shown by research to be associated with positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families—particularly long-term outcomes for children. The map was developed to inform efforts to advance the AFFH objective of increasing access to opportunity.

How long do you expect the Environmental Impact Report to take? Will there be an appeal period? The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR)” is expected to begin this fall and last through the spring. There will be a 60-day public comment period on the adequacy of the environmental analysis and the City will issue a response to any comments received during this public comment period. The rezoning, including the EIR, will be considered at a public hearing by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Since the City Council is the final decision-making body, there is no ability to appeal the decision.

Why is the City not more focused on building higher density housing near transit-oriented locations? The City has been and continues to be focused on the development of transit-oriented development (TOD). While TOD development remains a priority, the City must also create opportunities for high-density housing in the higher resource areas of the City, to remain in compliance with State mandates, which is the purpose of this project. The higher resource areas of the City are not located near the Downtown Concord BART station or North Concord BART station. The AFFH project does have the opportunity to build higher- density housing near the Clayton Road bus corridor.

The project is targeting a total of 20 acres to be rezoned within the study area, but do all 20 acres need to be in one location, is there a minimum parcel size that can be rezoned, and how many housing units are targeted for these 20 acres?
The project will rezone approximately 20 total acres at various locations within or near the study area, not all in one location. Parcels that will be rezoned will be at least 0.5 acres or smaller if the lots can be reasonably consolidated to at least 0.5 acres, with a stronger preference for sites no larger than 10 acres.

The project will rezone these parcels to have a density of at least 60 units per acre, with the total number of units targeted for the 20 rezoned acres at 1,000.

What is the dollar range of “affordable” housing?
HCD annually publishes tables of federal and State income limits. State statutory income limits are based on federal limits set and periodically updated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. HCD’s State Income Limits reflect changes in median family income levels for different-sized households and income limits for extremely low, very low,

Frequently Asked Questions

and low-income households. The May 9, 2024 State income limits can be found here.

Are there any studies on before/after crime rates for these types of projects, or have there been studies of similar rezoning and its effects on the median home prices over 5, 7 & 10 years? The City of Concord has not performed studies related to AFFH projects; however, various scholarly articles are available online, including the following:

UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Policies for Action
Does the City get credit for the multifamily units that were just built in Downtown toward the 1,000 units that are planned in this project? What is the occupancy rate of the newly constructed projects downtown?
No, the newly constructed units in Downtown do not count toward the 1,000 units identified in this project. Newly constructed units in all portions of the City will count toward the total number of units planned in the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); however, the AFFH project must facilitate a total of 1,000 units specifically through the rezoning of 20 acres within the Study Area.

The most recently completed housing projects in the downtown area are the Renaissance Square Phase II and The Grant. The Renaissance Phase II is a 180-unit apartment complex completed in 2020 that is 100% occupied. The Grant is a 228-unit apartment complex completed in 2023 that is 94% occupied.

Is the rezoning going to happen no matter what, or do the residents of Concord have the ability to vote on the project?
The City must complete this project to comply with State regulations. That said, it is a public process, with many opportunities for the public to provide input in the process as well as to voice support or opposition to the actions being taken. The project webpage will be regularly updated to reflect upcoming meeting dates and opportunities for the public to participate. For additional information regarding the State’s AFFH mandate, please see this study by the Terner Centre for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley.

Has there been a study on how many people utilize the option for building ADUs on their properties in Concord?
No, the City has not performed any formal studies; however, in the past five years, the City has issued 191 building permits for ADUs, and 56 of those were issued in the past 12 months. Last year, the City unveiled its free, standardized ADU construction plans. These plans are pre-approved to facilitate a faster, lower- cost permitting process. Given that the plans are already approved, the only plan review required is a parcel-specific site plan. When a complete submittal is made, the review process takes only 5 days, with plan review fees assessed on an hourly basis for the amount of time to review the site plan.

Site Configurations
Configuration A – Meets Goal of 1,000 Units
Sites within
Configuration
Current Zoning
(units per acre)
Number of Acres
in Overlay
Zoning
Total Units with
Current Zoning
Total Units with
Overlay Zoning

1. Kmart 24 7.85 188 471

2. Clayton Faire 24 4.13 99 248

8. Palm Lakes
Frontages
33 2.90 96 174

16. Kirker Pass
& Myrtle
10 2.35 24 141

18. 1539 Kirker
Pass
33 0.94 31 56
Totals 18.17 438 1,090
Configuration B – Meets Goal of 1,000 Units
Sites within
Configuration
Current Zoning
(units per acre)
Number of Acres
in Overlay
Zoning
Total Units with
Current Zoning
Total Units with
Overlay Zoning

1. Kmart 24 7.85 188 471

2. Clayton Faire 24 4.13 99 248

8. Palm Lakes
Frontages
33 2.90 96 174

18. 1539 Kirker
Pass
33 0.94 31 56

3. Staples / CVS 24 10.28 247 617
Totals 26.1 661 1,566
Configuration C – Meets Goal of 1,000 Units
Sites within
Configuration
Current Zoning
(units per acre)
Number of Acres
in Overlay
Zoning
Total Units with
Current Zoning
Total Units with
Overlay Zoning

1. Kmart 24 7.85 188 471

2. Clayton Faire 24 4.13 99 248

8. Palm Lakes
Expanded
33 5 165 300
Totals 16.98 452 1,019
Configuration D – Meets Goal of 1,000 Units
Sites within
Configuration
Current Zoning
(units per acre)
Number of Acres
in Overlay
Zoning
Total Units with
Current Zoning
Total Units with
Overlay Zoning

1. Kmart 24 7.85 188 471
Attachment 8

8. Palm Lakes
Entire Site
33 12.87 425 772
Totals 20.72 452 1,243
Configuration E – Does Not Fully Achieve Goal
Sites within
Configuration
Current Zoning
(units per acre)
Number of Acres
in Overlay
Zoning
Total Units with
Current Zoning
Total Units with
Overlay Zoning

1. Kmart 24 7.85 188 471

2. Clayton Faire 24 4.13 99 248

8. Palm Lakes 33 2.90 96 174

18. 1539 Kirker
Pass
33 0.94 31 56
Totals 15.82 414 949
Configuration F – Does Not Fully Achieve Goal
Sites within
Configuration
Current Zoning
(units per acre)
Number of Acres
in Overlay
Zoning
Total Units with
Current Zoning
Total Units with
Overlay Zoning

1. Kmart 24 7.85 188 471

2. Clayton Faire 24 4.13 99 248

8. Palm Lakes 33 2.90 96 174

16. Kirker Pass
& Myrtle
10 1.17 12 71
Totals 16.05 395 964
Notes:

1. The Kmart site only includes the area covering the vacant building and parking lot.

2. The Clayton Fair site only includes buildings fronting Clayton Road; it excludes In- Shape, Clayton Bowl, Centre Concord, and the dentist office at Balhan Drive.

3. For Palm Lakes, only the vacant grass frontage areas are included in Configurations A and B. In Configuration C, the area increases to 5 acres, while Configuration D encompasses the entire 13-acre site.

4. The Kirker Pass and Myrtle site is 2.35 acres; however, only 1.17 acres are considered due to overhead transmission lines that limit the site's development potential.

5. 1539 Kirker Pass is a single-family residential site.

6. The CVS/Staples site includes Burger King, New Lims Garden, and the strip mall to the rear. This site is situated in a low-resource area and lies outside the Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA). it is not prioritized in the site configurations as it does not align with program objectives.

From: Tahirah Dean <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2024 1:23 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]ѳϢϙFĺƯıôĖŜťôŘϠϙ[ÍŪŘÍϙ <[ÍŪŘÍϟFĺƯıôĖŜťôŘЬèĖťƅĺċèĺIJèĺŘîϟĺŘČ>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]> Cc: Latrel Powell <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment Letter Re: Rezoning & AFFH Obligations Dear Concord City Council,
IϙÍıϙſŘĖťĖIJČϙĺIJϙæôēÍīċϙĺċϙ„ŪæīĖèϙ
îŽĺèÍťôŜϟϙ
ťťÍèēôîϠϙƅĺŪϙſĖīīϙƱIJîϙĺŪŘϙèĺııôIJťϙīôťťôŘϙĖIJϙÍîŽÍIJèôϙĺċϙ the January 7, 2025 City Council meeting. We look forward to engaging with you at that meeting.

Sincerely,
Tahirah Dean
Tahirah Dean
‹ťÍƯϙ
ťťĺŘIJôƅϙÍťϙ„ŪæīĖèϙ
îŽĺèÍťôŜ
‹>ϙĺƯĖèô
857-225-4656
| [email protected]
www.publicadvocates.org

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This email message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may contain
ĖIJċĺŘıÍťĖĺIJϙťēÍťϙĖŜϙŕŘĖŽĖīôČôîϙÍIJîϙèĺIJƱîôIJťĖÍīϟϙIċϙƅĺŪϙÍŘôϙIJĺťϙťēôϙ intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email message or by telephone. Thank you.

$WWDFKPHQW

Carlyn Obringer, Vice-Mayor
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Pablo Benavente, Councilmember
Re: Concord Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rezoning Process Dear Concord City Council Members,
Public Advocates is a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing, transportation equity, and climate justice. We have worked closely with Concord residents, advocates, and City staff on important fair housing efforts to ensure the stability of currently underserved populations and future generations by advancing the development of critical programs adopted in Concord’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

We are writing in support of the City’s ongoing efforts to fulfill its rezoning commitments in Program 8.61 and legal duty to affirmatively further fair housing for communities of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, and members of other protected classes with meaningful actions.2 State law requires that housing element programs provide meaningful actions that are responsive to the fair housing challenges identified in the assessment of fair housing, and “designed and reasonably expected to achieve material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing.”3 Therefore, the City has a legal obligation to meaningfully implement Program 8.6 to address the needs of protected classes in Concord.

If a jurisdiction fails to implement a housing element program, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has the authority to revoke its certification of the jurisdiction’s housing element until the Department makes a determination of compliance.4 The Department may consult with the public and consider any written comments from any public agency, group, or person, regarding the action or failure to act by the jurisdiction in determining whether the implementation substantially complies with legal obligations.5 In Appendix D of the Housing Element assessment of “Impediments to Fair Housing,” the City identified how the impact of historical patterns of racial segregation and economic exclusion 1 City of Concord 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, Program 8.6, page 27. 2 Gov. Code 65584(e)
3 Gov. Code 8899.50, subd. (a)(1)
4 Gov. Code 65585(i)(1)(B)
5 Gov. Code 65585(i)(2)

have disproportionately limited opportunity for communities of color.6 As a result, “there is a clear wealth gap in the City and a greater population of White persons with higher income.”7 In particular, Concord’s zoning map demonstrates this trend as there are “seven census tracts in the City are classified as [Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence] primarily in the southern and eastern regions…the majority of the RCAA census tracts are located in single-family residential zones.”8 The City’s commitment to rezoning is articulated in Housing Element Program 8.6, which is designed to allow for the development of multifamily residential uses to promote opportunity and housing choice for future and existing residents in high resource, historically segregated, majority White neighborhoods in order promote geographic equity.9 In order to meet the housing needs for all Concord families and integrate high resource neighborhoods, the City should commit to rezoning as many sites as possible in order to facilitate the feasible development of affordable housing in Concord. Throughout the rezone process, Public Advocates has uplifted the community’s demands to City staff to prioritize site selection that provides ample opportunities to encourage the feasible development of affordable multifamily housing in high-resource neighborhoods throughout Concord. The council members and staff should continue to engage with community members, developers, and stakeholders in order to ensure that the values of integration, housing stability for residents of all income levels, and the preservation of opportunities for future generations will allow families in Concord to thrive.

As the final steps are taken to select and rezone the sites, we hope to be in continued conversation with City staff and officials to ensure that affordability and lowering housing costs remain at the core of this AFFH process. In the meantime, please know that the City has the support of the affordable housing community as you move forward with your work to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

Sincerely,
Tahirah Dean
Staff Attorney, Public Advocates
CC: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
6 City of Concord 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, Appendix D, page 4. 7 Id. at page 40-41.
8 Id.
9 City of Concord 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, Appendix D, page 25.

From: Courtney Pal <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2024 11:20 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; HĺƯıôĖŜťôŘϠϙ[ÍŪŘÍϙ Ѵ[ÍŪŘÍϟFĺƯıôĖŜťôŘЬèĖťƅĺċèĺIJèĺŘîϟĺŘČѳϢϙ„īÍIJIJĖIJČϙ
ĺııĖŜŜĖĺIJϙ„ŪæīĖèϙ
ĺııôIJťŜϙ
<[email protected]>
Subject: RCD Support for AFFH Rezoning Process

Good morning Concord City Council and Planning Commissioners:

Please see attached for a letter from Resources for Community Development (RCD) supporting the
ƯĖŘıÍťĖŽôīƅϙ>ŪŘťēôŘĖIJČϙ>ÍĖŘϙFĺŪŜĖIJČϙ‡ôƏĺIJĖIJČϙ„ŘĺĤôèťϟϙ®ôϙēĺŕôϙťēÍťϙťēôϙ Ėťƅϙ
ĺŪIJèĖīϙÍIJîϙ„īÍIJIJĖIJČϙ

ĺııĖŜŜĖĺIJϙſĖīīϙıĺŽôϙċĺŘſÍŘîϙſĖťēϙťēĖŜϙĖıŕĺŘťÍIJťϙŕŘĺèôŜŜϙæƅϙƱnalizing a list of sites for rezoning at the January 7th meeting.

Take care and happy holidays!
Courtney

Courtney Pal | she/her/hers | Policy Manager
Resources for Community Development
2220 Oxford Street | Berkeley, CA 94704
RCDHOUSING.ORG | 510 841 4410 x334#

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 3:19 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; HĺƯıôĖŜťôŘϠϙ[ÍŪŘÍϙ Ѵ[ÍŪŘÍϟFĺƯıôĖŜťôŘЬèĖťƅĺċèĺIJèĺŘîϟĺŘČѳϢϙ„īÍIJIJĖIJČϙ
ĺııĖŜŜĖĺIJϙ„ŪæīĖèϙ
ĺııôIJťŜϙ
<[email protected]>
Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Megan Nguyen <[email protected]> Subject: EBHO Comments on AFFH Rezoning
Hello,

ťťÍèēôîϠϙŕīôÍŜôϙƱIJîϙèĺııôIJťŜϙċŘĺıϙ(ÍŜťϙÍƅϙFĺŪŜĖIJČϙiŘČÍIJĖƏÍťĖĺIJŜϙϼ(FiϽϙŘôČÍŘîĖIJČϙťēôϙ ĖťƅДŜϙ
ongoing AFFH rezoning process, which will be addressed at the upcoming joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on January 7.
®ôϙÍŘôϙôÍČôŘϙťĺϙŜôôϙťēôϙŕŘĺČŘÍıϙıĺŽôϙċĺŘſÍŘîϙÍIJîϙĺƯôŘϙĺŪŘŜôīŽôŜϙÍŜϙŕÍŘťIJôŘŜϙĖIJϙťēôϙ ĖťƅДŜϙſĺŘħϙťĺϙ
ÍIJèēĺŘϙťēôϙŕŘĺèôŜŜϙÍŘĺŪIJîϙŽÍīŪôŜϙĺċϙÍƯĺŘîÍæĖīĖťƅϠϙĖIJèīŪŜĖŽĖťƅϠϙÍIJîϙôŗŪĖťƅϟϙ„īôÍŜôϙîĺϙIJĺťϙēôŜĖťÍťôϙťĺϙ ŘôÍèēϙĺŪťϙſĖťēϙÍIJƅϙċĺīīĺſϙŪŕϙŗŪôŜťĖĺIJŜϙĺŘϙîĖŜèŪŜŜĖĺIJϟ
Thank you,
Joey Flegel-Mishlove
--
Joey Flegel-Mishlove ϼēôϯēĖıϽ
Policy Associate

EAST BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS (EBHO)
[email protected] | ϼ͓͓͐Ͻϙ͗͘͘-4452
͔͒͗ϙ͘ťēϙ‹ťŘôôťϠϙ‹ŪĖťôϙ͑͏͏ϠϙiÍħīÍIJîϠϙ

ϙ͓͕͐͑͘
Join us or renew your membership to continue EBHO's 40 years of working towards an East ÍƅϟſēôŘôϟôŽôŘƅĺIJôϟēÍŜϟÍϟŜÍċôϦϟŜťÍæīôϦϟÍèèôŜŜĖæīôϦϟÍIJîϟÍƯĺŘîÍæīôϟēĺıôϪ

ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϵ͕ϮϬϮϰ
ĂƌůLJŶKďƌŝŶŐĞƌ͕DĂLJŽƌ
>ĂƵƌĂEĂŬĂŵƵƌĂ͕sŝĐĞͲDĂLJŽƌ
ŽŵŝŶŝĐůŝĂŶŽ͕ŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌ
>ĂƵƌĂ,ŽĨĨŵĞŝƐƚĞƌ͕ŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌ
WĂďůŽĞŶĂǀĞŶƚĞ͕ŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌ
ĞLJƐŚĂŽƌŝŽ͕WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŚĂŝƌ
ZĂLJŵŽŶĚĂƌďŽƵƌ͕WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶsŝĐĞͲŚĂŝƌ
ũŝƚ<ĂƵƐŚĂů͕ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌ
ƌĂŝŐDŝnjƵƚĂŶŝ͕ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌ
:ĂLJƐŽŶ>ĂƵď͕ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌ
ZĞ͗^ƵƉƉŽƌƚĨŽƌŽŶĐŽƌĚ͛Ɛ ĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞůLJ&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŝŶŐ&Ăŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐZĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ ĞĂƌŽŶĐŽƌĚŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌƐĂŶĚWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐ͕ KŶ ďĞŚĂůĨ ŽĨ
ĂƐƚ ĂLJ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ KƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƐ ;
,KͿ͕ ǁĞ ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJ  ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŽĨ
ŽŶĐŽƌĚ͛Ɛ ŽŶŐŽŝŶŐĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞůLJ&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŝŶŐ&Ăŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ;&&,ͿƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ĂŶĚĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƚŚĞ ŝƚLJŶŽƚƚŽĚĞůĂLJŝŶŵŽǀŝŶŐĨŽƌǁĂƌĚǁŝƚŚŝƚƐĨŝŶĂůƐŝƚĞƐĞůĞĐƚŝ ŽŶĂƚLJŽƵƌ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϳ͕ϮϬϮϱ͕ŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘/ŶŵĂŬŝŶŐĂĨŝŶĂůƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƐŝƚĞƐƚŽŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĨ Žƌ ƚŚĞ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚZĞǀŝĞǁ
ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌŶĞdžƚƐƚĞƉƐŝŶƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕ǁĞƵƌŐĞƚŚĞŝƚLJƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƐŵĂŶLJƐŝƚĞƐĂƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͕ ĂŶĐŚŽƌ ƚŚĞ ƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƐŝƚĞƐ  ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ŵŽƐƚ ƐƵŝƚĂďůĞ ĨŽƌ ƌĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ďLJ ŶŽŶͲƉƌŽĨŝƚ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ͕ ĂŶĚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĞƐŝƚĞϭϴ ;ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚĞƐŝƚĞůŝƐƚͿĂƐǁĞůůĂƐ ƐŝƚĞƐϲ͕ϭϭ͕ĂŶĚϮϱ ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůŝƐƚŽĨϮϱƐŝƚĞƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďLJŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨŝŶƵŐƵƐƚ͘ ϭ

,KŝƐĂŶŽŶͲƉƌŽĨŝƚ͕ŵĞŵďĞƌͲĚƌŝǀĞŶŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚŽǀĞƌϰϬϬŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů ŵ Ğ ŵ ď Ğ ƌ Ɛ ͘ & Ž ƌ ϰ Ϭ LJ Ğ Ă ƌ Ɛ ͕ ǁ Ğ Ś Ă ǀ Ğ ǁ Ž ƌ Ŭ Ğ Ě ƚ Ž Ɖ ƌ Ğ Ɛ Ğ ƌ ǀ Ğ ͕ Ɖ ƌ Ž ƚ Ğ Đ ƚ ͕ Ă Ŷ Ě ĐƌĞĂƚĞ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ ĨŽƌ ůŽǁͲŝŶĐŽŵĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ ŝŶ ŽŶƚƌĂ ŽƐƚĂ ĂŶĚ ůĂŵĞĚĂ ŽƵŶƚŝĞƐ ďLJ ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŶŐ͕ ĂĚǀŽĐĂƚŝŶŐ͕ ŽƌŐĂŶŝnjŝŶŐ͕ ĂŶĚ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĐŽĂůŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘
,K ǁĂƐ ƉůĞĂƐĞĚ ƚŽ ĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚĞ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŽĨ ŽŶĐŽƌĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĚƌĂĨƚŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐϲƚŚ LJĐůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶŽĨWƌŽŐƌĂŵ
ϴ͘ϲ͕ ŝŶ ǁŚŝĐŚ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ĐŽŵŵŝƚƐ ƚŽ ͞ƌĞnjŽŶ΀ŝŶŐ΁ ƐŝƚĞƐ ƚŽ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůLJ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ ŝŶ ŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞͲ ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚͲƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĂƌĞĂƐ͙ǁŝƚŚĂŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJǁŚŝƚĞƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͘͟ KƵƌ ŬĞLJ ŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŽĨ ŽŶĐŽƌĚ ƐŝŶĐĞ ƚŚĞ ƐƚĂƌƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ &&, ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ŚĂƐ ƌĞŵĂŝŶĞĚƚŽĐĞŶƚĞƌƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐƚŚĞŵĂŶĚĂƚĞĚ&&,Ő ŽĂůƐ͕ĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ ĂŶĚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJ ŝŶ ĞdžĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘ hůƚŝŵĂƚĞůLJ͕ ŝƚ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ Ɛ ŝ ŵ Ɖ ů LJ ƚ Ś Ğ Ɖ ƌ Ž Ě Ƶ Đ ƚ ŝ Ž Ŷ Ž Ĩ ŵŽƌĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ ďƵƚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ĚĞĞƉůLJĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ƚŚĂƚ ŝƐ ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽĚŝƐƌƵƉƚŽŶŐŽŝŶŐĂŶĚŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐŽĨƐĞŐƌĞŐĂƚŝŽŶŝŶŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĐŽƐƚ ŽĨůŝǀŝŶŐĨŽƌĂůů͘^ŝŶĐĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŝƚƐĞůĨǁŝůůŶŽƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉƚŚĞƌ ĞnjŽŶĞĚƉĂƌĐĞůƐ͕ĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƐŽŵĂŶLJǀĂƌŝĂďůĞƐ ŝŵƉĂĐƚŝŶŐ ǁŚĂƚ ƚLJƉĞ ŽĨ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ ŝĨ ĂŶLJ͕ ǁŝůů ƚĂŬĞ ƉůĂĐĞ ĂƚƚŚĞƐĞ ƐŝƚĞƐ͕ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ŵƵƐƚ ǁŽƌŬ ƉƌŽĂĐƚŝǀĞůLJ ƚŽ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ƚŚĞ ůŝŬĞůŝŚŽŽĚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ƌĞnjŽŶĞĚ ƐŝƚĞƐ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ ŝŶƚŽ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘dŚĞďĞƐƚǁĂLJƚŽĚŽƚŚŝƐŝƐƚŽƐĞůĞĐƚƐŝƚĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝǀĞĂŶĚĨĞĂƐŝďůĞĨŽƌŶŽŶͲƉƌŽĨŝƚ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ͘ 'ŝǀĞŶ ƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƐŝƚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐ ĂŶĚŵƵůƚŝƉůĞ ĨŝŶĂŶĐŝŶŐůĂLJĞƌƐ  ϭ dŚĞƐĞƐŝƚĞƐĂƌĞ͗
ηϭϴʹ ϭϱϯϵ<ŝƌŬĞƌWĂƐƐ͖ηϲʹ DĞĚŝĐĂůKĨĨŝĐĞƐ͖ηϭϭʹ KĨĨŝĐĞĂƚŽ ǁĞůůĂŶĚdƌĞĂƚ͖ηϮϱʹ ,ŽůLJ ƌŽƐƐ>ƵƚŚĞƌĂŶŚƵƌĐŚ

ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJĨŽƌĂƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵů ĂĨĨŽƌĚ ĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ĂƐƚƌĂƚĞŐLJŽĨƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŵƵůƚŝƉůĞ ƐŵĂůůĞƌ ƐŝƚĞƐ͕ ĞĂĐŚ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ Ϭ͘ϳϱͲϮ ĂĐƌĞƐ͕ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ,ŝŐŚͬ,ŝŐŚĞƐƚ ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ĂƌĞĂƐ ŝƐ ŵŽƐƚ ůŝŬĞůLJ ƚŽ ƌĞƐƵůƚ ŝŶ ŶŽŶͲƉƌŽĨŝƚ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ ĂƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŵĂdžŝŵŝnjĞƐ ƚŚĞ ĐŚĂŶĐĞ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ĨŝŶĂŶĐŝŶŐĐŽŵĞƐƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌŽŶĂĨĞĂƐŝďůĞƐŝƚĞ͘
ZĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ Ă ŚŝŐŚĞƌ ŶƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ ƐŵĂůůĞƌ ƐŝƚĞƐ ;ĂƐ ŽƉƉŽƐĞĚ ƚŽ ĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚĞĚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŽŶ ĨĞǁĞƌƐŝƚĞƐͿŚĂƐƚǁŽĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ͗&ŝƌƐƚ͕ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞƌĞŝƐ ŶŽŐƵĂƌĂŶƚĞĞƚŚĂƚŶĞǁŚŽƵƐŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ Ăƚ ĂŶLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƐŝƚĞƐ͕ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ ŽĨŵŽƌĞ ƐŝƚĞ ŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ ŐŝǀĞƐ ŽƵƌ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ƚŚĞ ďĞƐƚ ĐŚĂŶĐĞ ŽĨ ƐĞĞŝŶŐ ŶĞǁ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ ƚŚĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘ ^ĞĐŽŶĚ͕ ƐŵĂůůĞƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚĂĐƌŽƐƐĂŐƌĞĂƚĞƌŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐŝƚ ĞƐŝƐůŝŬĞůLJƚŽŚĂǀĞĂůĞƐƐĚƌĂŵĂƚŝĐ ŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞ͞ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͟ ƚŚĂŶĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚĞĚďƵƚŵĂũŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͕ ĂŐŽĂů
,KƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƐƚŽďĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŚĞƌĞƚŚŝƐƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ ŝƐƚĂŬŝŶŐƉůĂĐĞ͘
dŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞŐŽĂůƐŽĨƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŵƵůƚŝƉůĞƐŝƚĞƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞƚŚĞĐŚĂƌ ĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕

,KƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjŝŶŐ^ŝƚĞϭϴ ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůŝƐƚŽĨ͞ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƐŝƚĞƐ͟ ĂŶĚ ^ŝƚĞƐ ϲ͕ϭϭ͕ĂŶĚϮϱ ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůŝƐƚŽĨϮϱƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞƐ͘tĞĚŽŶŽƚďĞůŝĞǀĞƚŚĞŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƐŝƚĞƐ ƐŚŽƵůĚĚĞůĂLJƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƉƌŽĐ ĞƐƐĂƚĂůů͕ƐŝŶĐĞŝƚLJƐƚĂĨĨŚĂƐ ĂůƌĞĂĚLJƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚĂůůŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƐŝƚĞƐĨŽƌ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ Ăƚ ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ ŝŶ ƵŐƵƐƚ ĂŶĚ ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͕ ǁŝƚŚ ^ŝ ƚĞ ϭϴ ƌĞĐĞŝǀŝŶŐ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĚƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐŝŶKĐƚŽďĞƌ͘
dŚŝƐ&&,ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐǁĂƐďŽƌŶ ďŽƚŚŽƵƚŽĨůĞŐĂůŶĞĐĞƐƐŝƚLJĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ŶĞĞĚƐŽĨŽƵƌ ŽǁŶĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘ /Ŷ ϮϬϭϱ͕ ƚŚĞh^ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ hƌďĂŶĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝnjĞĚ ƚŚĞ ĨĞĚĞƌĂůŶĞĞĚƚŽĨĨŝƌŵĂƚŝǀĞůLJ&ƵƌƚŚĞƌ&Ăŝƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ƚŚĂƚŝƐ͕ƉƌŽͲĂĐƚŝǀĞůLJĚŝƐƌƵƉƚŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĞƐŽĨƐĞŐƌĞŐĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ĞdžĐůƵƐŝŽŶ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ŵĂƌŬĞƚ͖ŝŶ ϮϬϭϴ͕ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ƐƐĞŵďůLJ ŝůů ϲϴϲ ŵĂĚĞ &&, Ă ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚŽĨĂůůůŽĐĂůũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͛ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĨĂƌĨƌŽŵƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐũƵƐƚƚŽĞdžƚĞƌŶĂů ůĞŐĂů ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ ŽŶĐŽƌĚ͛Ɛ &&, ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ ǁĂƐ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞƐƉŽŶĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŶĞĞĚƐ ŽĨ ŽƵƌ ŽǁŶ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘
/ŶƚŚĞϮϬƚŚ ĐĞŶƚƵƌLJ͕ŽŶĐŽƌĚ͕ĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚŵĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌĐŝƚŝĞƐ͕ĐŚŽƐĞƚŽnjŽŶĞĐ ĞƌƚĂŝŶƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐŽĨ ƚŚĞĐŝƚLJƐƵĐŚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞLJǁŽƵůĚŽŶůLJĂůůŽǁĨŽƌƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚŝƐ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ǁĂƐ ĂĨĂĐŝĂůůLJŶĞƵƚƌĂůďƵƚƵůƚŝŵĂƚĞůLJĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞǁĂLJŽĨƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŶŐƉ ĞŽƉůĞŽĨĐŽůŽƌĨƌŽŵŵŽǀŝŶŐŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƐĞ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘ /ŶĚĞĞĚ͕ǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƐŽĨŽŶĐŽƌĚnjŽŶĞĚƚŽƉĞƌŵ ŝƚŽŶůLJƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ǁĞ ƐĞĞ ƚŽĚĂLJ ƐĞǀĞƌĂů ĂƌĞĂƐ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ ďLJ ƚŚĞ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ  ŽĨ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƐ͞ZĂĐŝĂůůLJŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚĞĚƌĞĂƐŽĨĨĨůƵĞŶĐĞ͕͟;Z^Ϳ͕ĂƌĞĂƐǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŝƐ ĚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƌƚŝŽŶĂƚĞůLJǁŚŝƚĞĂŶĚǁĞĂůƚŚLJǁŚĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƌĞƐƚŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘/ƚǁĂƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶ ƚŚŝƐ ŚŝƐƚŽƌLJ ĂŶĚ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ĐŽŶƚĞdžƚ ƚŚĂƚ ŽŶĐŽƌĚ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚ WƌŽŐƌĂŵϴ ͘ ϲ Ž Ĩ ŝ ƚ Ɛ , Ž Ƶ Ɛ ŝ Ŷ Ő  ů Ğ ŵ Ğ Ŷ ƚ ͕ ƚ Ž 
ƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽƚŚĞƌĞĂůŶĞĞĚƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞŵŽƌĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚLJŝŶƚŚĞƐĞ ZƐ͘tĞŵƵƐƚƌĞĐŽŐŶŝnjĞĂƚŽŶĐĞ ďŽƚŚ ƚŚĂƚ WƌŽŐƌĂŵϴ͘ϲŝƐĂĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂŶĚĨŽƌŽƵƌŽǁŶĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĨĂŝůƵƌĞƚŽĨŽůůŽǁƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ

ŽŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŝŶĂƚŝŵĞůLJŵĂŶŶĞƌǁŽƵůĚŵĂŬĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŶŽŶͲĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚŝƚƐ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ͕
ϲϴϲ͕ ĂŶĚƐƚĂƚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚůĂǁ͘
ŽŶĐŽƌĚ͕ůŝŬĞƚŚĞĂLJƌĞĂĂŶĚĂůůŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ͕ĨĂĐĞƐĂĐƌŝƐŝ ƐŽĨŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĐŽƐƚƐĂŶĚ ƌŝƐŝŶŐƌĂƚĞƐŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐŝŶŐŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐŶĞƐƐ͘/ƚŝƐĂůƐŽǁĞ ůůƵŶĚĞƌƐƚŽŽĚƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐĐƌŝƐŝƐĚŽĞƐŶŽƚ ŝŵƉĂĐƚĂůůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŵĞŵďĞƌƐĞƋƵĂůůLJ͕ďƵƚŝƐĨĂĐĞĚŵŽƐƚƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJďLJƚŚĞƐĂŵĞŵĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨŽƵƌ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ǁŚŽ ŚĂǀĞ ƚƌĂĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůLJ ďĞĞŶ ŬĞƉƚ ŽƵƚ ŽĨ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ  ǁŝƚŚ ĞdžĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌLJ njŽŶŝŶŐ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐͶƚŚĂƚŝƐ͕ůŽǁͲŝŶĐŽŵĞĂŶĚǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƉĞŽƉůĞŽĨĐŽůŽƌ͘ EĞǀĞƌƚ ŚĞůĞƐƐ͕ǁŚŝůĞƚŚĞƐĞƉƌŽďůĞŵƐŵĂLJ ďĞĨĞůƚƵŶĞǀĞŶůLJ͕ƚŚĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐƉƌŽŵŝƐĞƚŽďĞďĞŶĞĨŝĐŝĂůĨŽƌĂůů͗ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŵŽƌĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĐĂŶ ďƌŝŶŐĚŽǁŶŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĐŽƐƚƐĂĐƌŽƐƐŽŶĐŽƌĚĂŶĚŚĞůƉƵƐďƵŝůĚĂŵŽƌĞĚŝǀĞƌƐĞ͕ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚƌŝǀŝŶŐ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘&ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ ϴ͘ϲ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁŽƵůĚĞdžƉĂŶĚĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶ ŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ŝƐďŽƚŚƚŝŵĞůLJĂŶĚũƵƐƚ͘
tĞƵƌŐĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůƚŽŵŽǀĞƚŚŝƐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĨŽƌǁĂƌĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĚĞůĂLJĂŶĚƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƐŵĂŶLJ ƐŝƚĞƐĂƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ^ŝƚĞƐϭϴ͕ϲ͕ ϭϭ͕ĂŶĚϮϱ͕ŝŶƚŚĞŶĞdž ƚƐƚĞƉƐŽĨƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘tĞ ĂƌĞ ĞdžĐŝƚĞĚƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞŽĨĨĞƌŝŶŐ ŽƵƌƐĞůǀĞƐĂƐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐĂŶĚĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌƐĂƐƚŚĞŝƚLJƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĞƐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚLJ ĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƚLJŝŶƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ&&,ZĞnjŽŶŝŶŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
:ŽĞLJ&ůĞŐĞůͲDŝƐŚůŽǀĞ DĞŐĂŶEŐƵLJĞŶ
WŽůŝĐLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞ WŽůŝĐLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌ

From: Multi-Faith Action Coalition <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 11:13 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; ôIJÍŽôIJťôϠϙ„ÍæīĺϙѴ„ÍæīĺϟôIJÍŽôIJťôЬèĖťƅĺċèĺIJèĺŘîϟĺŘČѳϢϙFĺƯıôĖŜťôŘϠϙ[ ÍŪŘÍϙ Ѵ[ÍŪŘÍϟFĺƯıôĖŜťôŘЬèĖťƅĺfconcord.org>; Planning Commission Public Comments <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: The Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition supports the AFFH work in Concord

As the Steering Committee of the Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition, we are writing to express our profound appreciation for the City of Concord's work in the AFFH rezoning process.

Please see our full letter attached. We support rezoning for higher density in high-resource neighborhoods and urge you to select the sites most likely to result in development. We are also urging Concord faith leaders to join us.

We have been active in Concord and county-wide for over ten years, advocating for policy changes that reduce poverty, increase equity, and improve the quality of life for vulnerable Concord and county residents. Concord's AFFH rezoning is precisely the kind of policy change for which we advocate.

Sincerely,

The Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition
--
(925) 948-1300 — multifaithactioncoalition.org

/1/2/3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /5 /4/9/10/11 /12 /13/14/15 /11/16 /8 /3 /5 /4 /5 /16 /17 /i255 /18 /16 /5 /19 /20/21/16/17/22/16 /23 /20 /24 /4 /25 /i255 /26/27/28/20/19/29/30 /29 /31
/i255 /12 /16/32/11/8 /24 /3/25/17/14/33/24 /5 /17 /34 /20 /24 /35/1/8/25 /16 /24 /i255 /36 /8 /2 /24/8/15/8 /37 /8/38/2/24 /8 /35 /18 /5 /19 /20 /6/1/8/25 /16 /24 /i255 /28 /16/38/5/17 /5/19/10/3 /5 /8 /17 /16 /35 /11 /16 /2 /17 /19 /5 /3/38/20/38/33/20 /24 /i255 /22 /8 /33 /3/16/39/20 /17 /8 /23 /20 /17 /4 /20 /35 /11 /16 /2 /17 /19 /5 /3/38/20 /38/33/20 /24 /i255 /36/8 /2 /24/8/40/16 /41 /41/38/20/5 /21 /4 /20 /24 /35 /11 /16 /2 /17 /19 /5 /3/38/20 /38/33/20 /24 /i255 /10 /20 /25 /21 /9/8/11/16 /24 /5 /16 /35 /22 /3 /8 /17 /17 /5 /17/34/11/16/38/38/5/21 /21 /5 /16/17/11/9 /8 /5 /24 /i255 /42 /8/25/39/8 /24 /33 /16 /2 /24 /35 /22 /3 /8 /17 /17 /5 /17/34/11/16/38/38/5/21 /21 /5 /16/17/18/5 /19 /20 /6 /11 /9 /8 /5 /24 /i255 /10 /43 /5 /4 /44 /8 /2 /21 /9/8 /3 /35 /22 /3 /8 /17 /17 /5 /17/34/11/16/38/38/5/21 /21 /5 /16 /17 /20 /24 /i255 /45 /8 /21 /16/17/36/8 /2 /33 /35 /22 /3 /8 /17 /17 /5 /17/34/11/16/38/38/5/21 /21 /5 /16 /17 /20 /24 /i255 /11 /24 /8 /5/34/1/5/46 /2 /4 /8 /17 /5 /35 /22 /3 /8 /17 /17 /5 /17/34/11/16/38/38/5/21 /21 /5 /16 /17 /20 /24 /i255 /48 /49 /50 /51 /52 /53 /54 /52 /55/56/57/58 /58 /59 /55/60/61/62 /59 /63 /49 /64/65/66/67 /55/62 /68 /49 /55 /59 /53/69/66/61 /59 /55 /70 /52 /67 /71 /59 /53/69/48/49 /72 /52 /53 /59 /53/69/73/55 /52 /54 /49 /71 /71 /i255 /28 /20 /8 /24/38/20/38/33/20 /24/21/16/41 /4 /9/20/11/16 /17 /19 /16 /24/74/11/5 /4/25/11/16 /2 /17 /19 /5 /3 /8 /17/74/22/3 /8 /17 /17 /5 /17/34/11/16/38/38/5/21 /21 /5 /16 /17 /35 /i255 /12 /9/20/1/2/3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /5 /4/9/10/11 /12 /13/14/15 /11/16 /8 /3 /5 /4 /5 /16/17/5/21/75/24 /5 /4 /5 /17/34/4 /16/20/76 /77 /24 /20 /21/21/16/2 /24 /77 /24 /16 /41 /16 /2 /17/74/21/2 /77 /77 /16 /24 /4 /41 /16 /24 /4 /9/20/75/16 /24/37/33/20 /5 /17 /34 /i255 /74 /16 /17/20/33/25/4/9/20/11/5 /4/25/16/41 /11 /16 /17 /19 /16 /24/74/5 /17/4/9/20/10/7 /7 /40/24 /20 /46 /16 /17 /5 /17/34/77/24 /16 /19 /20 /21 /21 /78/79/20 /9/8 /23/20/33/20 /20/17/8/19 /4 /5 /23/20/5 /17/11/16 /17 /19 /16 /24/74/8/17 /74 /i255 /19 /16 /2 /17 /4 /25 /6 /75 /5/74/20/41/16 /24 /16 /23 /20 /24 /26/30/25/20 /8 /24 /21 /35 /8 /74 /23 /16 /19 /8 /4 /5 /17/34/41/16 /24 /77 /16 /3 /5 /19/25/19/9 /8 /17 /34 /20/21/4/9 /8 /4 /24 /20 /74 /2 /19/20/77/16 /23 /20 /24 /4 /25 /35 /5 /17 /19 /24 /20 /8 /21/20/20/80 /2 /5 /4 /25 /35 /i255 /8 /17/74/5/38/77/24 /16/23/20/4/9/20/80/2 /8 /3 /5 /4/25/16/41 /3/5 /41/20/41/16 /24 /23 /2 /3 /17 /20 /24 /8 /33 /3/20/11/16 /17 /19 /16 /24/74/8/17/74/19/16 /2 /17 /4/25/24/20 /21 /5 /74 /20 /17 /4 /21 /78 /14/2/24 /19 /16 /17 /21 /4 /5 /4 /2 /20 /17 /4 /41 /8 /5 /4/9/19/16/38/38/2/17 /5 /4 /5 /20/21/77/24 /5 /16 /24 /5 /4 /5 /46/20/43/2 /21 /4 /5 /19 /20 /35 /20 /80 /2 /5 /4 /25 /35 /8 /17/74/19/16/38/77/8 /21 /21 /5 /16/17/8/21/21/9 /8 /24 /20/74/23/8 /3 /2 /20 /21 /i255 /24 /16 /16 /4 /20/74/5/17/16 /2 /24 /23 /8 /24 /5 /16 /2/21/4/24 /8 /74 /5 /4 /5 /16 /17 /21 /78/79/20 /8/3 /21/16/77/24 /5 /16 /24 /5 /4 /5 /46/20/21/4 /8 /33 /3/20/8/17/74/8/41 /41 /16 /24 /74 /8 /33 /3/20/9/16 /2 /21 /5 /17/34/8/21/8/9/2/38/8/17/24/5 /34 /9 /4 /78 /i255 /10 /17/74/75/20/19/16 /3 /3 /20 /19 /4 /5 /23 /20 /3/25/24/20 /19 /16 /34 /17 /5/46/20/4/9 /8 /4 /16 /2 /24 /41 /8 /5 /4/9/4/24 /8 /74 /5 /4 /5 /16 /17/21/21/9 /8 /24/20/8/19/24 /5 /4 /5 /19 /8 /3/38/16/24 /8 /3 /77 /24 /5 /17 /19 /5 /77 /3 /20 /32 /4/16/21/20 /20/37/41/16 /24 /16 /2 /24 /i255 /17 /20 /5 /34 /9 /33 /16 /24 /21/75 /9 /8 /4 /75/20/75/16 /2 /3/74/75/8 /17 /4 /41 /16 /24 /16 /2 /24 /21 /20 /3 /23 /20/21/8/17/74/16/2 /24 /16 /75/17/41/8/38/5/3 /5 /20 /21 /78 /14/2/24 /8 /74 /23 /16 /19 /8 /19/25/75/16 /24/37/5/21 /35 /4 /9 /20 /24 /20 /41 /16 /24 /20 /35 /24 /16 /16 /4 /20/74/5 /17/16/2 /24 /41 /8 /5 /4 /9/21/8/17/74/41/8 /5 /4/9/19/16/38/38/2/17 /5 /4 /5 /20 /21 /78/79/20 /8/24/20/8/19 /4 /5 /23 /20 /3 /25
/i255 /20 /17 /19 /16 /2 /24 /8 /34/5 /17/34/4/9/20/3/20 /8 /74 /20 /24/21/16/41 /3 /16 /19 /8 /3 /41 /8 /5 /4/9/19/16/38/38/2/17 /5 /4 /5 /20/21/4/16/21/77 /20 /8/37/4/16/4/9 /20 /5 /24/38/20 /38/33/20 /24/21/8/33 /16 /2 /4 /10 /7 /7 /40 /i255 /24 /20 /46 /16 /17 /5 /17 /34 /35 /9 /5 /34 /9 /20 /24 /74 /20 /17 /21 /5 /4/25/8/17/74/8/41 /41 /16 /24 /74 /8 /33 /3/20/9/16 /2 /21 /5 /17 /34 /35 /8 /17/74/4/9/20/17/20 /20/74/4/16/38/8/37/20/21/77 /8 /19/20/41/16 /24 /24 /20 /21 /5 /74 /20 /17 /4/21/5/17 /i255 /17 /20 /5 /34 /9 /33 /16 /24 /9/16 /16 /74/21/4/9 /8 /4 /9 /8 /23/20/9/5 /21 /4 /16 /24 /5 /19 /8 /3 /3/25/33/20 /20/17/20/19 /16 /17 /16/38/5/19 /8 /3 /3/25/20/76 /19 /3 /2 /21 /5 /23/20/74/2/20/4 /16/4/9 /20 /5 /24 /9 /5 /34/9/77/24 /16 /77 /16 /24 /4 /5 /16/17/16/41 /i255 /21 /5 /17 /34 /3 /20 /6 /41 /8 /38/5 /3/25/9/16/38/20/21 /78/79/20 /20/17 /19 /16 /2 /24 /8 /34/20/41/8 /5/4/9/3/20 /8 /74 /20 /24/21/4/16/20/17 /34 /8 /34/20/75/5 /4/9/4/9 /20 /5 /24/38/20 /38/33/20 /24/21/16/17/4/9 /5/21/20/76 /19 /3 /2 /21 /5 /23 /5 /4 /25 /32 /i255 /5 /4 /9 /8/21/9/5 /21 /4/16 /24 /5 /19 /8 /3 /3/25/75/20 /5 /34 /9 /20/74/16 /17/21/16/38/20/77/20 /16 /77 /3/20/38/16/24/20/4/9 /8/17/16/4 /9 /20 /24 /21 /35 /8 /17/74/4/9 /5/21/9/8/21/16/41 /4 /20/17/33/20 /20/17/5/17 /4 /20/17 /4 /5 /16 /17 /8 /3 /78 /i255 /12 /9 /20 /21/20/8/24 /20/4 /24 /2 /4 /9/21/4/9 /8 /4 /19 /8 /3 /3 /41 /16 /24/8/41/8 /5 /4 /9 /6 /24 /16 /16 /4 /20/74/24/20 /21 /77 /16 /17 /21 /20 /78 /i255 /81 /20 /21 /35 /4 /9 /20 /24/20/8/24/20/74/5 /41 /41 /20 /24 /5 /17/34/16/77 /5 /17 /5 /16 /17/21/8/33 /16 /2 /4 /8 /2 /4 /9 /16 /24 /5 /46 /5 /17/34/38/16/24/20/9/5 /34 /9 /6 /74 /20 /17 /21 /5 /4/25/9/16 /2 /21 /5 /17/34/5 /17/77/8 /24 /4 /5 /19 /2 /3 /8 /24 /11 /16 /17 /19 /16 /24 /74 /i255 /17 /20 /5 /34 /9 /33 /16 /24 /9/16 /16 /74 /21 /78 /81 /20 /4 /9 /5 /34 /9 /20 /24 /74 /20 /17 /21 /5 /4 /25 /35/38/2/3 /4 /5 /6 /41 /8/38/5/3/25/9/16 /2 /21 /5 /17/34/5/21/16/17/20/16/41 /4 /9/20/33/20 /21 /4 /75 /8 /25/21/4/16/19/24 /20 /8 /4/20/9/16 /2 /21 /5/17 /34 /i255 /4 /9 /8 /4 /5/21/38
/16/24/20/8/41 /41 /16 /24 /74 /8 /33 /3 /20 /78/1/20 /38/33/20 /24/21/16/41 /41 /8 /5 /4/9/19/16/38/38/2/17 /5 /4 /5 /20/21/8/24/20/19/16 /17 /19 /20 /24 /17 /20/74/8/33 /16 /2 /4 /4 /9 /20 /5 /24 /17 /20 /5 /34 /9 /33 /16 /24/21/8/17/74/4/9 /20 /i255 /5 /17 /8 /33 /5 /3 /5 /4/25/16/41 /25 /16 /2 /17 /34 /20 /24 /11 /16 /17 /19 /16 /24/74/41/8/38/5/3/25/38/20/38/33/20 /24/21/4/16/8/41 /41 /16 /24/74/4 /16/3/5 /23/20/9/20 /24/20/16 /17/4/9 /20 /5 /24 /16 /75 /17/78/12/9 /20/25/24/20 /8 /3 /5 /46/20/4/9 /8 /4 /i255 /4 /9 /20 /24/20/5/21/8/9 /16 /2 /21 /5 /17/34/19/24 /5 /21 /5 /21 /82 /75/20/37/17 /16 /75/4 /9 /8 /4 /77 /2 /33 /3 /5/19/77/16 /3 /5 /19/25/5/21/8/17/5/38/77/16 /24 /4 /8 /17 /4 /4 /16 /16 /3 /41 /16 /24 /8 /74 /74 /24 /20 /21 /21 /5/17/34/4/9 /5/21/19/24 /5 /21 /5 /21 /78 /i255 /42 /20 /46 /16 /17 /5 /17 /34/41 /16 /24 /9 /5 /34 /9 /20 /24 /74 /20 /17 /21 /5 /4/25/5 /21/16/17/20/16/41 /4 /9/20/41/20 /75/4 /16 /16 /3/21/8/23 /8 /5 /3 /8 /33 /3/20/21/5 /17 /19/20/3/16 /19 /8 /3 /34 /16 /23 /20 /24 /17/38/20/17 /4/21/4/25 /77 /5 /19 /8 /3 /3/25/74/16 /i255 /17 /16 /4 /33 /2 /5 /3/74/8/41 /41 /16 /24 /74 /8 /33 /3/20/9/16 /2 /21 /5 /17 /34 /78 /i255 /12 /9 /2 /21 /35 /i255 /84/85/86/87 /88 /88 /89 /90 /91 /91 /92/85/93/94 /94 /95/90 /85 /96 /89 /97 /98 /97/99/84/89 /90/100/101/97/102/87/90 /99/85/103/89/87/91 /89/86/85 /104 /85 /105 /91 /91 /92/85/86/98 /91 /85/86/106 /89/86 /91 /104 /98 /100 /85 /104/103/91/89/90/85 /86 /87 /104 /91 /98 /97 /i255 /102 /85 /107 /85 /104 /89 /88/106/85/97 /91 /i255 /i255 /78/79/20/8/24/20/2/24 /34 /5 /17/34/11/16 /17 /19 /16 /24/74/41/8/5 /4/9/3/20 /8 /74 /20 /24/21/4/16/43/16 /5/17/2/21 /78 /i255 /108 /5 /17 /19 /20 /24 /20 /3 /25 /35/109/85 /106/110/85 /90/86/89/111 /91 /92/85/112/91 /85 /85 /90 /98 /97/99/113/89/106/106/98/91 /91 /85 /85 /114/109/87/104 /91 /98 /115 /94 /101 /98 /91/92/93/113 /116 /117/118/119 /113/89 /101 /104 /98 /91 /98 /89 /97
/i255 /28 /16 /2/34/40/16 /3/38/20/21 /35 /28 /5 /8 /17/8/40/16 /17 /5 /34 /35/1/20/3 /16 /74/25/40/16 /75/20/79/20/5 /17 /4 /24 /8 /2 /33 /35 /28 /16 /2/34/36/20 /5 /19 /9 /35 /7 /24 /22 /8 /2 /3 /21 /16/17/1/2/17 /74 /8 /17/38/8/17 /5 /35 /22 /8 /4 /i255 /42 /20 /25 /20 /21 /35 /45 /8 /21/38/5/17/20/12/8 /24 /37 /16 /41 /41 /35 /8 /17/74/45/8/17/79 /8/24 /24 /20 /17

Carlyn Obringer, Vice-Mayor
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Pablo Benavente, Councilmember
Re: Concord Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rezoning Process Dear Concord City Council Members,
Public Advocates is a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing, transportation equity, and climate justice. We have worked closely with Concord residents, advocates, and City staff on important fair housing efforts to ensure the stability of currently underserved populations and future generations by advancing the development of critical programs adopted in Concord’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

We are writing in support of the City’s ongoing efforts to fulfill its rezoning commitments in Program 8.61 and legal duty to affirmatively further fair housing for communities of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, and members of other protected classes with meaningful actions.2 State law requires that housing element programs provide meaningful actions that are responsive to the fair housing challenges identified in the assessment of fair housing, and “designed and reasonably expected to achieve material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing.”3 Therefore, the City has a legal obligation to meaningfully implement Program 8.6 to address the needs of protected classes in Concord.

If a jurisdiction fails to implement a housing element program, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has the authority to revoke its certification of the jurisdiction’s housing element until the Department makes a determination of compliance.4 The Department may consult with the public and consider any written comments from any public agency, group, or person, regarding the action or failure to act by the jurisdiction in determining whether the implementation substantially complies with legal obligations.5 In Appendix D of the Housing Element assessment of “Impediments to Fair Housing,” the City identified how the impact of historical patterns of racial segregation and economic exclusion 1 City of Concord 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, Program 8.6, page 27. 2 Gov. Code 65584(e)
3 Gov. Code 8899.50, subd. (a)(1)
4 Gov. Code 65585(i)(1)(B)
5 Gov. Code 65585(i)(2)

have disproportionately limited opportunity for communities of color.6 As a result, “there is a clear wealth gap in the City and a greater population of White persons with higher income.”7 In particular, Concord’s zoning map demonstrates this trend as there are “seven census tracts in the City are classified as [Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence] primarily in the southern and eastern regions…the majority of the RCAA census tracts are located in single-family residential zones.”8 The City’s commitment to rezoning is articulated in Housing Element Program 8.6, which is designed to allow for the development of multifamily residential uses to promote opportunity and housing choice for future and existing residents in high resource, historically segregated, majority White neighborhoods in order promote geographic equity.9 In order to meet the housing needs for all Concord families and integrate high resource neighborhoods, the City should commit to rezoning as many sites as possible in order to facilitate the feasible development of affordable housing in Concord. Throughout the rezone process, Public Advocates has uplifted the community’s demands to City staff to prioritize site selection that provides ample opportunities to encourage the feasible development of affordable multifamily housing in high-resource neighborhoods throughout Concord. The council members and staff should continue to engage with community members, developers, and stakeholders in order to ensure that the values of integration, housing stability for residents of all income levels, and the preservation of opportunities for future generations will allow families in Concord to thrive.

As the final steps are taken to select and rezone the sites, we hope to be in continued conversation with City staff and officials to ensure that affordability and lowering housing costs remain at the core of this AFFH process. In the meantime, please know that the City has the support of the affordable housing community as you move forward with your work to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

Sincerely,
Tahirah Dean
Staff Attorney, Public Advocates
CC: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
6 City of Concord 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, Appendix D, page 4. 7 Id. at page 40-41.
8 Id.
9 City of Concord 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, Appendix D, page 25.

1835 Alcatraz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94703
P
P 510.647.0700
F 510.647.0820
TTYY 711
WWW.SAHAHOMES.ORG
December 12, 2024
Re: Concord Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rezoning Process Dear Concord City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, My name is Eve Stewart and I am writing on behalf of Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA), a non-profit housing developer, owner, manager, and services provider active in the East Bay for over 50 years. We write today to express our support for the City’s ongoing efforts to rezone certain sites in Concord in higher-resource neighborhoods for multifamily development as part of the City’s goal and mandate to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

As with every other city in the Bay Area, Concord faces dramatically increasing housing costs which places pressure on Concord families and community members. One critical tool for lowering housing costs and alleviating the burden on Concord residents is the development of new housing that is affordable to low-income community members such as teachers, home health care workers, grocery store clerks, and others. It is also vital that we build this housing throughout Concord, and not only in certain neighborhoods, since residents of every neighborhood in Concord are impacted by the ongoing housing crisis. Concord’s current zoning does not allow for multi-family housing to be built in certain parts of the city. As you know this type of exclusionary zoning is based on a racist history of allowing only single-family homes in some neighborhoods, pushing more affordable types of housing to other neighborhoods.

For these reasons, we are very excited to see Concord working to rezone certain sites to allow for more housing to be built throughout the city. Please know that the City has SAHA’s support as you move forward in this process to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, a meaningful step to realize a vision of a diverse, affordable, and inclusive Concord with housing for everyone.

Sincerely,
Eve Stewart
SVP Real Estate Development

From: Ezell, Justin
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: AFFH meeting
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2024 9:00:00 AM
Attachments: 2247 Concord Blvd.pdf
Hi Carol, thank you for contacting me about this program. Please let me know if you have any additional questions after you review this email.

I attended the 9/16 meeting regarding re-zoning for high density housing in my area. That meeting was the first I had heard of all of these projects. Since then, I have been talking to my neighbors and I’ve found that none of them had heard about it either.

We initiated communication about this program through various channels last spring. Information was mailed twice to every household in the City via our City News and Activity Guide. The latest issue, delivered to all Concord mailboxes in early August, can be viewed here . On page 8, you will find
a half-page article about the program, including references to upcoming public meetings and a link to the webpage where more details can be found. In addition to mailers, we used several digital platforms to reach the community. These included NextDoor to broadcast information citywide, Facebook posts that reached thousands of viewers, and our e-newsletter, which is sent to 9,500 subscribers. The program details were also posted on City webpages. We sent 7,000 notices to property owners within 500 feet of the sites being considered for rezoning. Moreover, the Concord Pioneer published an article in late August with details about the September 16 and 19 community meetings; the article can be found here
. Local online publications such as Claycord and Contra Costa News also featured stories on our program.

Are there any more public meetings scheduled for us to get more information, specific to the Clayton Road area?
We are currently working on a plan for additional public outreach. We have tentatively scheduled a City Council meeting on this subject that will take place on November 12. We will be sending out information to the interested parties list as soon as possible.

I am also greatly concerned about the ecosystem of Newhall Park. Will there be an environmental impact study on the effects of construction noise and disruption ? Also, a study on thousands of people coming into the area and the potential damage to the ecosystem of Newhall Park? We live very close to Newhall. It is home to many varieties of wildlife. We see ducks and geese as well as migratory birds. We also see egrets, woodpeckers, owls, hawks, and turkey vultures. Many birdwatchers walk this park with binoculars and cameras. The wild animals living there include coyotes and, occasionally, river otters in the lake. It would be a shame to cause all of that wildlife to be forced out by unthinking humans.

Yes, there will be an environmental impact study on this project that will take many months to complete. We expect that it will be available to the public for review and comment in summer 2025.

Has anyone considered the impact on police, fire and schools? From what I’ve heard, local schools are already filled to capacity.

Yes, after we narrow down the sites to the ones most preferred for rezoning we will further study those impacts in coordination with public safety, utility providers, and Mt. Diablo Unified School District.

Neighbors in my area have many more concerns about these projects affecting property values and the general quality of life in Concord. We would like more information.

At this time, we do not have strong, comparable examples regarding the impact of Concord-specific projects with densities up to 60 dwelling units per acre on adjacent home prices. For example, the Park Central Apartments, developed at 60 dwelling units per acre in downtown, were completed in 2002. While there are adjacent single-family homes, I have not yet been able to locate reliable home price data from over 20 years ago for comparison. More recently, the Renaissance Apartments, built at 65 units per acre downtown, have no adjacent homes, making a comparison in this case unavailable as well.

Lastly, the Grant Street Apartments, constructed at 116 dwelling units per acre (nearly double what is being considered under this program), opened in late 2022/early 2023. There is one single-family home located at 2247 Concord Blvd., directly across the street from The Grant. The value of that property has increased by 63% over the last five years, compared to a 34% increase in typical home values across Concord during the same period. While this level of appreciation is likely an outlier and difficult to explain, it is clear that the construction of The Grant did not negatively impact the property’s value. Please see the attached details for further information.

Here are additional resources related to how the construction of affordable housing affects property values.

Amark Foundation, citing 13 studies
"Research studies into the impact of low-income housing on neighborhood property values have, in general, concluded that there was either no impact or positive impacts on property values. Even in studies where results were mixed, some positive impacts on property values were found."
The National Association of Realtors also advertised this meta-analysis, which shows that even national organizations whose goal is higher home values supports affordable housing.

Source

The Center for Housing Policy and National Housing Conference, citing 12 studies "To 'summarize the summaries' — the vast majority of studies have found that affordable housing does not depress neighboring property values, and may

even raise them in some cases. Overall, the research suggests that neighbors should have little to fear from the type of attractive and modestly sized developments that constitute the bulk of newly produced affordable housing today." Source

The Urban Institute
"...empirical research provides little evidence that subsidized housing depresses neighborhood property values (Ellen et al, 2007; Galster 2002; Center for Housing Policy 2009)."
"Projects financed through...the largest affordable housing financing program in the United States, have been associated with an immediate positive increase of

3.8 percentage points in nearby property values (Ellen et al. 2007). "LIHTC properties, on average, revitalize low-income neighborhoods, increasing house prices by 6.5 percent, lowering crime rates, and attracting racially and income-diverse populations (Diamond and McQuade 2016)." "We find that...in Alexandria, affordable housing in higher-income neighborhoods has a positive and highly significant effect on surrounding home values, as does affordable housing in lower-income neighborhoods."

Journal of Housing Economics
"We find some evidence that both stand-alone and clustered LIHTC developments generate positive price spillover effects on the surrounding neighborhoods; subsequent LIHTC projects
do not affect prices negatively. The benefits are
strongest within one quarter mile of the development, but smaller impacts prevail for up to a half mile from the LIHTC property. The positive impacts remain strong for at least 10 years after the initial development. The cumulative price effect is positive in both lower and higher-income areas and more significant in lower- income areas."
Source

Trulia
"In the nation’s 20 least affordable markets, our analysis of 3,083 low-income housing projects from 1996 to 2006 found no significant effect on home values located near a low-income housing project."
Again, this is a real estate company advocating for affordable housing.

Source

Kind regards,

-Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
City of Concord
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 2:07 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: AFFH meeting
“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Good afternoon, I apologize in advance if the formatting of this email is odd - I’m doing it on a phone. Anyway, I attended the 9/16 meeting regarding re-zoning for high density housing in my area. That meeting was the first I had heard of all of these projects. Since then, I have been talking to my neighbors and I’ve found that none of them had heard about it either. I have a few additional questions that I’m hoping you can answer: 1) Are there any more public meetings scheduled for us to get more information, specific to the Clayton Road area? 2) Will there be any studies done on the impact to traffic congestion? As it is, it takes at least 30 minutes to get to a freeway from Clayton Road. It’s not the distance - it’s the traffic. In my neighborhood (off Clayton Road) — Bassett Dr, Indian Lane and Boxer Blvd. are always filled with parked cars belonging to people in apartments on the other side of Clayton Rd. They have nowhere else to park. How will thousands more residents drive and park in this small area? 3) I am also greatly concerned about the ecosystem of Newhall Park. Will there be an environmental impact study on the effects of construction noise and disruption ? Also, a study on thousands of people coming in to the area and the potential damage to the ecosystem of Newhall Park? We live very close to Newhall. It is home to many varieties of wildlife. We see ducks and geese as well as migratory birds. We also see egrets, woodpeckers, owls, hawks, and turkey vultures. Many birdwatchers walk this park with binoculars and cameras. The wild animals living there include coyotes and, occasionally, river otters in the lake. It would be a shame to cause all of that wildlife to be forced out by unthinking humans. 4) Has anyone considered the impact on police, fire and schools? From what I’ve

heard, local schools are already filled to capacity. I appreciate you taking the time to read my email. Neighbors in my area have many more concerns about these projects affecting property values and the general quality of life in Concord. We would like more information. Thank you, Carol Lee

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: FW: Concord AFFH re-zoning project2
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 10:05:47 AM
From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 8:56 AM
To: Joan Reyes <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concord AFFH re-zoning project
Hi Joan, thank you for your email. It will be added to the record.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Joan Reyes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 8:47 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord AFFH re-zoning project
“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
we do not agree with re-zoning the warehouse spaces behind Trader Joe's . My daughter loves her classes there and its q very good location. The businesses operating there are strong and thriving, other options are currently vacant or easier to relocate. The intersection is already overcrowded due to multiple high schools surrounding it. Please.

Knocking on the kindness of your hearts.

Sincerely,

The Reyeses

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: FW: Concord AFFH re-zoning project3
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 10:06:14 AM

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 8:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

Hi Judie, thank you for your email. It will be added to the record.

Kind regards,

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 10:03 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

The 4 voting members of my family do not agree with re-zoning the Warehouse spaces behind Trader Joe's.

The businesses operating there are strong and thriving. There are MANY other options which are currently vacant and/or easier to relocate. The streets are already overcrowded due to multiple surrounding high schools, an active fire department and considerable traffic at the four nearby intersections.

The Wilson Family
Neighbors

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: FW: Concord AFFH re-zoning project4
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 10:07:46 AM

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 1:01 PM
To: Lesley Newman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

Hi Lesley, thank you for your email. It will be added to the record.

Regards,

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Lesley Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 12:59 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Good afternoon.

As a local neighbor, we do not agree with re-zoning the "wearhouse spaces behind Trader Joe's" . The businesses operating there are strong and thriving My daughter has attended dance connection for over 15 years and we belong to CrossFit. There areother options that are currently vacant or easier to relocate. The intersection is already overcrowded due to multiple high schools surrounding it. This is a safety issue for pedestrian children. There have already been accidents/deaths because of the traffic. I strongly urge you to reconsider and think about what it would be like to be a neighbor here. We already do not alow our children to walk

to this very busy shopping center because of the petty crime/ school age physical fighting/ violence. Please imagine what it would be like to be a neighbor and have your children have to worry about their safety. We have loved our community for years and it has only gone downhill with the lack of family values. If you want your strong neighborhood with strong family values to cease to exist continue on the path and everyone will move out and you will have a Pittsburgh type community on your hands. You will have to worry about more than rezoning.

Thank you for your time. We appreciate your service in government! Lesley Vella
Sent from my iPhone

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: FW: Concord AFFH re-zoning project6
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 10:07:46 AM

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 12:07 PM
To: Sydnie Ray <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

Hi Sydnie, thank you for contacting me about the AFFH program. Your email will be included in the record.

There is some misinformation about businesses being torn down as a result of AFFH program rezoning, but that is not accurate. The properties being considered for rezoning already allow residential development. For example, the properties behind Trader Joe's/Peets can already support development at a density of 24 units per acre, but no such projects have taken place. Increasing the zoning to 60 units per acre does not mean buildings will be demolished or businesses will be displaced. Any decision to develop housing is entirely up to the property owner. The City will not require development, demolition of existing buildings, or relocation of businesses. Rezoning simply changes what is allowed but does not dictate how properties are used. Existing businesses can continue to operate indefinitely unless the property owner decides to pursue redevelopment.

Additionally, traffic studies will be completed as a part of this project prior to any final decisions being made.

The above information is from the project FAQs here.

Project website is www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH

Kind regards,

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive

Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Sydnie Ray <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Good Afternoon,

We do not agree with rezoning the warehouse spaces behind Trader Joe's. The businesses operating there are strong, thriving and providing services to locals. Other options are currently vacant or easier to relocate. The intersection is already overcrowded due to multiple high schools surrounding the location.

Please do not displace small businesses and reconsider.

Thank you,

Sydnie M
Concord Resident

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: FW: Concord AFFH re-zoning projecta
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 10:11:13 AM

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 5:22 AM
To: Nancy Espino <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

Hi Nancy, thank you for contacting me about the AFFH program. Your email will be included in the record.

There is some misinformation about businesses being torn down as a result of AFFH program rezoning, but that is not accurate. The properties being considered for rezoning already allow residential development. For example, the properties behind Trader Joe's/Peets can already support development at a density of 24 units per acre, but no such projects have taken place. Increasing the zoning to 60 units per acre does not mean buildings will be demolished or businesses will be displaced. Any decision to develop housing is entirely up to the property owner. The City will not require development, demolition of existing buildings, or relocation of businesses. Rezoning simply changes what is allowed but does not dictate how properties are used. Existing businesses can continue to operate indefinitely unless the property owner decides to pursue redevelopment.

Additionally, traffic studies will be completed as a part of this project prior to any final decisions being made.

The above information is from the project FAQs here.

Project website is www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH

Kind regards,

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Nancy Espino <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 4:45 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Good afternoon,

I do not agree with re-zoning the "wearhouse spaces behind Trader Joe's" . The businesses operating there are strong and thriving, other options are currently vacant or easier to relocate. The intersection is already overcrowded due to multiple high schools surrounding.

There should be better options instead of displacing great businesses, especially considering the traffic nightmare that already exists.

Please do not re-zone this area.

Thank you for your time,
Nancy

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: FW: Concord AFFH re-zoning projectb
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 10:11:43 AM

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 5:19 AM
To: Z JN <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

Hi Zara, thank you for contacting me about the AFFH program. Your email will be included in the record.

There is some misinformation about businesses being torn down as a result of AFFH program rezoning, but that is not accurate. The properties being considered for rezoning already allow residential development. For example, the properties behind Trader Joe's/Peets can already support development at a density of 24 units per acre, but no such projects have taken place. Increasing the zoning to 60 units per acre does not mean buildings will be demolished or businesses will be displaced. Any decision to develop housing is entirely up to the property owner. The City will not require development, demolition of existing buildings, or relocation of businesses. Rezoning simply changes what is allowed but does not dictate how properties are used. Existing businesses can continue to operate indefinitely unless the property owner decides to pursue redevelopment.

Additionally, traffic studies will be completed as a part of this project prior to any final decisions being made.

The above information is from the project FAQs here.

Project website is www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH

Kind regards,

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Z JN <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 6:27 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing as a Concord resident to provide input regarding the Concord AFFH re- zoning project. I live in an apartment complex on Ryan Rd, very close to the proposed site located at the warehouses behind Trader Joe's at the Oak Grove Plaza.

I believe that the proposed site further north on Treat Blvd (Staples, CVS) would be a better selection than the warehouses behind Trader Joe's. The area around the Oak Grove Plaza is surrounded by three high schools, and traffic congestion can be very bad in the morning and at school pickup times. I'm on the email mailing list for mayor Edi Birsan to receive news of events and developments in Concord, and a recent email mentioned that many residents of this area have discussed this issue with him, proposing the addition of another lane of traffic to help ease the congestion, a proposal which unfortunately was not possible. I believe that adding an apartment complex in the middle of an already congested area would make traffic much worse, and decrease the quality of living for all residents in the area.

In addition, for the past year, I have had the pleasure of enrolling my child in a karate class at Delta Martial Arts and Athletics, located at the proposed site behind Trader Joe's. This small, locally owned business has provided a lovely community for myself and my children. This winter, I intended to enroll my autistic twins in the aerial silks class offered at Delta in an effort to meet their unique sensory needs. I am fortunate, as a single mother who until recently could not afford a car, that such a resource is available to me within walking distance of my home. I would much rather see locations of large corporate businesses such as Staples and CVS bear the brunt of moving rather than displace locally owned, small businesses such as Delta.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider this input.

Sincerely,
Zara Chastain

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: FW: Concord AFFH Re-zoning Projectc
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 10:12:43 AM
From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2024 10:01 AM
To: Christine Chase <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concord AFFH Re-zoning Project

Hi Christine, thank you for contacting me about the AFFH program. Your email will be included in the record.

There is some misinformation about businesses being torn down as a result of AFFH program rezoning, but that is not accurate. The properties being considered for rezoning already allow residential development. For example, the properties behind Trader Joe's/Peets can already support development at a density of 24 units per acre, but no such projects have taken place. Increasing the zoning to 60 units per acre does not mean buildings will be demolished or businesses will be displaced. Any decision to develop housing is entirely up to the property owner. The City will not require development, demolition of existing buildings, or relocation of businesses. Rezoning simply changes what is allowed but does not dictate how properties are used. Existing businesses can continue to operate indefinitely unless the property owner decides to pursue redevelopment.

The above information is from the project FAQs here
.

Project website is www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH

Kind regards,

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Christine Chase <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2024 5:51 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: FW: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation2 Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 10:05:48 AM

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 10:34 AM
To: Steve Johnson <[email protected]>
Cc: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation

Steve, I enjoyed finally meeting you in person. Thank you for coming last night and for providing your feedback below. Your email will be added to the record for this project. I will be following up with you and the other attendees to clarify information around Clayton Valley Charter Highschool enrollment.

Regards,

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]

From: Steve Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 10:14 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Thank you for facilitating another informative update for this effort. It was nice to finally meet you in person and Laura sorry I did not make it over to the other side of the room to say hi.

My take aways from the meeting were the sense that even though engagement has been happening through out the year, many feel that not enough residents have been able to weigh in (vote) for the individual site recommendations and they want more time before the final recommendation to council. I’m sure this may not help with the city demonstrating progress in the timeline the state wants.

Secondly having each site located next to another site would create too much of a burden on already maxed out road capacity in the vicinity of the sites. > The exit at YV High School / Palm Lake and the already traffic mitigated turns outs of the shopping center that also services the warehouses. > The exits at the Kmart / Vineyard on Ayers / Alberta when commute or high school traffic surges.

I think just what we already know about existing traffic concerns at these areas along with the fact that current traffic mitigation has not been able to solve safety issues would point to not being able to recommend more than one site for each of those areas.

Thirdly the concern of the displacement of existing business / services as the property value rises with the potential new use. Could the staff recommendation consider if currently located business have a possible alternate location at similar rent that is within the same vicinity. Maybe add into the site recommendation a list of current business and potential alternate sites. If this is done right you might even have an option that recommends moving business to an currently underutilized shopping center that is in better shape that the recommended site.

Finally adding what we already know about school district considerations. This should already be a flashing red flag for sites 1 and 2. Clayton Valley charter the traditional high school boundaries for those sites is maxed out and existing residents only get slightly a better chance if they want their children to go to the neighborhood high school Adding that many potential additional units would impact this further and any possible shift in the boundaries / current process has potential to lower the resale value (not assessed values) of properties for sure. I would again think this would point to site 1 or 2 being moved into the alternate category.

Best Regards,
Steve

On Oct 28, 2024, at 5:23 PM, Ezell, Justin <[email protected] > wrote:

Steve, see attached photo
Sent from my iPhone
<image0.jpeg>
On Oct 28, 2024, at 5:16ௗPM, Steve Johnson <[email protected] > wrote:
“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

I don’t know why I was thinking people, it’s probably units. So 20 acres at 1,200 units, what would be the estimated people per unit? Thanks

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 28, 2024, at 1:28ௗPM, Steve Johnson <[email protected] > wrote:

Justin,
Thank you for the recap. What would be the acreage / maximum density calculation for the Vineyard & Clayton Fair centers be if they were fully built out. I was trying to get an idea of how may people could potentially be added. I was getting around 1000 in my rough estimation between the two.

Seems like a major density burden on Clayton & Kirker/Alberta/Ayers and Treat & Oak Grove.

Best,
Steve

On Oct 28, 2024, at 12:00 PM, Ezell, Justin <[email protected] > wrote:

Hi Steve,

We need to identify the most suitable locations within the study area, which you can review here .

We started with the entire study area, about 7,000 acres of property. That was narrowed down to 150 parcels through a quantitative analysis and community feedback, narrowed further to 25 "sites" after more community feedback, and now down to four sites plus the alternatives. Based on the data reviewed, including access to amenities and community feedback, Clayton Faire and the Kmart site are the top recommendations from staff for rezoning.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions.

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Steve Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Justin,
Sorry just re-read your reply and that answers my question. As long as they have the affordable component the parcels could use the SDBL today.

So my concern is that by selecting these two parcels we are making them more attractive to a developer to tear down everything that is currently there to take advantage that they can build up to R60 in the rezoned portion and R24-30 in the other portion and the city may have little control over that massive of a development if they use the SDBL rule. If we left them at R24-30 they may not be as attractive to be purchased for full parcel redevelopment.

Best,
Steve

On Oct 28, 2024, at 11:11 AM, Steve Johnson <[email protected] > wrote:

Justin,
So for example if a developer purchases the whole Vineyard Shopping Center or Clayton Fair and redevelops it all into housing, since it will have the number of affordable units in at lease the ares that is being rezoned up to R60, then the whole parcel’s project would benefit from this rule? Am I understanding that part correctly?

Thank you,
Steve

On Oct 28, 2024, at 10:51 AM, Ezell, Justin <[email protected] > wrote:

Hi Steve,

Yes, State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) allows a developer to request unlimited waivers of development standards (i.e. setbacks, height, parking, etc.). However, to be able to utilize SDBL, the developer must provide a certain number of units affordable to lower-income households.

The City cannot deny a developer from using this state law and is in fact available to all

residential properties now.

Regards,

-Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
City of Concord
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]

From: Steve Johnson <[email protected]
>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 10:37 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

I thought for a project with an affordable housing component the developer can waive three of our requirements, for example the number of parking spaces, design….. I just wanted to make sure we don’t loose control of the whole parcel just because a portion was rezoned and has an affordable housing component If there is no way for them to waive our requirements then we should be ok if they chose to redevelop the whole parcel.

On Oct 28, 2024, at 10:31 AM, Ezell, Justin <[email protected] >
wrote:

Steve, our Planning Team reviewed your email and we are not familiar with the “Exemption 3 rule” that you are referencing; perhaps you can provide more information.

FYI that we do not zone land specifically for any affordability level. One could argue that the lower the density, the greater the income level, and the higher the density, the lower the income level, but density is our only focus with the AFFH program.

Please help me to better understand your question so that I can answer it for you.

Regards,

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Steve Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 1:27 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Laura,
I was so impressed how you handled the the meeting at the Kremery, thank you for all your efforts.

It seems the potential rezoning has gained interest of Decron for Clayton Fair and Matsui / Greystone for The Vineyard / Kmart. The person that works in the multi family management arena said that Decron has been in discussion with the Clayton Fair owner and would plan to remove all buildings (Bowling Alley ….) and they indicated the same for the Vineyard shopping center with Matsui.

Both had requested the property owners try and get the whole properties designated.

So I have one of my original concerns that I would like our city attorney to weigh in on. If we designate a portion of these properties at R60 with a low income component would it allow the developers to use the three exemption rule for

the whole property if they chose to redevelop all of it.

I hope the city attorney can weigh in on this and if it truly will lessen any control over the builds on the whole property I think finding smaller more controllable sized properties to designate would be a safer move.

One exception would be to designate the whole Sun Valley property R60 to meet the requirement as it is surrounded on two sides buy areas the meet the AFFH qualifications and existing infrastructure would support the added traffic burden. Also it would help the overall mall property with sorely needed redevelopment.

The rezoning looks to be a boon for the property owner, the potential developer and not so much for residents and city.

Best Regards,
Steve Johnson

On Oct 8, 2024, at 9:55 AM, Nakamura, Laura
<[email protected]
> wrote:

Good morning to all of you who shared your contact information with me at The Kreamery.

I hope that I was able to input all the names correctly and that none of the email addresses bounce. Please share my email with those who you know are interested in the City’s rezoning of commercial property for the purposes of meeting our Housing Element obligations for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

What I want you to hear first: Your feedback has registered, and I have heard you. While I may not have been fully prepared for a “packed house” at The Kreamery, I was happy to be doing my job as your councilmember - listening so that I could relay feedback to staff to inform our process.

What you will find in this email are the City’s plans for next steps, much of which I, personally, have had the opportunity to weigh in on. I will also provide links to content on the City’s website for how to learn more about AFFH and frequently asked questions (FAQs). I will also answer some of the questions that came up on October 2nd at The Kreamery and those that were written down (see attached photo).

Next steps: The City will be holding engagement sessions at the end of the month - Likely dates: October 28th and 30th.

To be added to the interested parties list to be reached by email:

https://www.cityofconcord.org/1237/Interested-Parties-List

Information Links:
• Please note that this is a state law (AB 686) and was supported by our Assemblymember, Tim Grayson.
https://www.nhlp.org/wp-content/uploads/AB-686-Fact-
Sheet-Feb.-2019.pdf
For the City website information, please visit:
www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH
.

FAQs:
https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/1173
6/FAQs?bidId=
For information from HCD, please visit: HCD - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Provide feedback to the city using this survey:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FX9FC3K
(survey closes
Friday, October 11th).

In Brief: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

Since 1969, California has required that local governments plan to meet the housing needs of all residents, on an 8-year

cycle. This "Housing Element" is a part of cities' "General Plan."
To foster a "Fair Housing" approach to meeting these needs, in 2018 an addition was mandated to this planning
responsibility. This addition promotes fairer access to "good outcomes" with some zoning changes. This means that
AFFH is an equity measure in state law related to local governments' legal responsibility to actively plan for how the housing needs of ALL are met.

It promotes higher density zoning with a mix of housing affordability in areas which have "high resources" and
therefore better outcomes in health, education, and
employment. It is based on the premise that there should be greater affordable access to high resource neighborhoods in our cities. AFFH is state mandated but is a local action by city councils and counties. It is a purely local issue, and a relatively technical process at that.

Your Questions:

What can we do to stop it? This is a state law, and the better course of action is to provide constructive input so that the AFFH program decisions are resident-informed and done by us here at the local level.

What will this housing element offer as a benefit to the Crossings Community? I think this question is better answered when we think about the City as a whole and the ramifications of what happens if we don’t comply with the state law. The following information come from City staff:

We cannot predict with certainty what will happen if we fail to complete the programs in our Housing Element, as the process often involves multiple rounds of communication with HCD and is not always straightforward. However, here are some potential outcomes:

• Decertification and Builder's Remedy: If our Housing Element is decertified for non-compliance, developers
may be able to bypass our regulations and fast-track
housing projects under the "builder's remedy" provision. • Legal and Financial Risks: We could face serious legal and financial consequences, including the loss of access to essential state funding for affordable housing,
transportation, and infrastructure. In 2019, HCD sued
Huntington Beach for failing to comply with Housing
Element law, putting millions in state funding at risk. • Recent Legal Action: This September 2024
example involves a lawsuit HCD filed against Elk
Grove for failing to approve an affordable housing
development. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s statements
provide insight into how the State may respond to non-
compliance with Housing Element requirements.

“This settlement reflects what I’ve said all along: California’s housing laws are not optional. Local governments that
violate our laws to deny affordable housing opportunities to Californians will be held accountable,” said Attorney
General Rob Bonta. “While I am pleased that this is now behind us, and that Elk Grove ultimately approved even
more homes for those most in need, the city’s refusal to do the right thing over and over again cannot be swept under the rug. These are not ordinary times. Millions of Californians are struggling to keep a roof over their heads or lack housing altogether. Every local government therefore has both a legal and moral responsibility to help us meet the moment. If other cities believe they are exempt from that task, Governor Newsom, HCD Director Velasquez, and I will continue
reminding those cities that they are in the wrong.”

One participant asked about affordable housing income limits.

Here is a link to that
information:https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grant s-and-funding/income-limits-2024.pdf

Why were the Cowell Road sites chosen? It was rightly pointed out that the Cowell Road sites are not near to schools or groceries.

However, one of the amenities that is considered a resource when we talk in terms of “high or low resource areas” is access to open space. The Cowell Road sites are close to Lime Ridge. From the FAQ: “The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) identifies neighborhoods of the state that have been shown to have positive educational, economic, and health outcomes for low- income families. These neighborhoods are characterized by quality schools, safety, plentiful community amenities, and economic opportunity.”

Why weren’t Montecito and Crystyl Ranch selected as sites? There are no commercial sites near Montecito or Crystyl Ranch; this is about rezoning commercial sites for housing.

Why not use the CSUEB site? The Cal State University East Bay site belongs to the state and due to its size, the state would need to plan it out and there are very low chances of this happening in the time frame of our Housing Element.

Who can I email or contact to get my questions answered? • You can always reach out to me at [email protected]. If I don’t know the
answer, I will certainly involve Staff to assist.

To be sure you are reaching the councilmember who
represents you: Find Your District
here.https://concordca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/InformationL ookup/index.html?
appid=466f6a87b22e460b92f6492ad285450c
Assistant City Manager, Justin Ezell:

[email protected]

I thank you all for your patience with my response and welcome you to reach out with any additional questions.

Best,

Laura

<image003.png> Laura Nakamura (She/her/hers)
City Councilmember, District 5

Mobile 925-338-1259
Web https://www.lauranakamura.net/
Sign up for my
newsletter: https://www.lauranakamura.net/newsletter

<20241008_060442.jpg>

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: Fw: Please DO NOT REZONE the Treat and Oak Grove Road area Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 8:30:10 PM
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 8:27 PM
To: Gloria Bertolozzi <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please DO NOT REZONE the Treat and Oak Grove Road area

Hi Gloria, thank you for your email. It will be added to the record.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Gloria Bertolozzi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 8:25 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Please DO NOT REZONE the Treat and Oak Grove Road area

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Dear Mr. Ezell,

I have been using the Dance Connection/Jazzercize location for 20 years. I support it because I can stay healthy within a short 1 mile distance from my home, and I love that both businesses are thriving women-owned businesses. I am very upset at the possibility of the city of Concord rezoning that land. I also had the pleasure of bringing my children to dance classes at Dance Connection over the years. It is really important for children to have opportunities to do many activities within their community. There would be no other choice for dance for many miles otherwise.

I appreciate your time.

Gloria Bertolozzi
--
Thanks,
Gloria

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: Fw: Rezoning for affordable housing - additional feedback Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 5:54:59 AM
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 5:54 AM
To: Rikkelman and Rikkelman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Rezoning for affordable housing - additional feedback

Thank you for your email and for expressing your concerns. We appreciate your feedback and continued engagement in this process. Your email and my response will be included in the record and shared with the full City Council.

First, I want to clarify the admission process for Clayton Valley Charter High School (CVCHS). CVCHS is legally required to prioritize students residing within its original attendance boundary established at the time of its conversion to a charter school.

Students within the original boundary are considered "unassigned" by the Mt. Diablo Unified School District, meaning they have the choice to attend CVCHS or another high school (see the school site locator here). With a capacity of 2,400 students, CVCHS admits students within this original boundary as the first priority. Siblings of current students and children of CVCHS employees are considered for admission next. Remaining spaces are then opened to applicants from Contra Costa County, followed by the entire state. Once maximum capacity is reached, remaining applicants are entered into a public random drawing and placed on a waitlist in the order drawn. Students are taken from the waitlist as space becomes available.

During the 2024-25 school year, CVCHS reached maximum capacity only after accepting nearly all students on the 9th-grade waitlist. Accepting nearly all students on the 9th-grade waitlist is a positive indicator of available capacity, particularly since existing students are guaranteed re- admission each subsequent school year.

I do understand your frustration about the perception that decisions are being driven solely by state mandates. We have a duty to comply with State law; however, I want to assure you that we value resident input just as highly. We are working to balance both priorities.

Your comments about the feedback process are duly noted. We strive to engage residents in meaningful ways and recognize that not everyone may feel comfortable voicing their opinions in public forums. The perspectives of residents is crucial to our understanding of the impacts these proposals may have, and we are doing our best to include as many voices as possible.

Regarding the specific sites mentioned, I appreciate your suggestions for distributing units between the Clayton Valley/Kirker Pass Rd corridor and the Oak Grove/Treat Blvd area. Your points about the CVS shopping center and the importance of local businesses are well taken. We will carefully consider the feedback from the meeting and the concerns you've raised about traffic and neighborhood dynamics.

Thank you again for your continued dialogue.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Rikkelman and Rikkelman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 7:47 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning for affordable housing - additional feedback

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
First let me say that I am really tired of hearing the excuse that all of this is being shoved down the city’s throats by the state of California.

The city clearly cares about what the STATE thinks. It’s about time that city starts caring about what WE neighborhoods think.

But such that it is, you want our feedback on the sites that you have chosen based on what is way too limited community feedback in my

opinion – and feedback that is NOT reflecting the majority of the neighborhoods that it needs to reflect.
***Clearly after tonight's meeting , the small business owners behind Trader Joe's say no way to their area. So, they showed up and you are what - going to consider taking the site off the list?! More than 2/3 of tonight's room consisted of Clayton Valley residents. They just didn't speak up. Not everyone feels ok doing that. Are you going to discount what those of us in Clayton Valley are just not saying?! If this program is about fairness, then let's start here.

If you are closed to re-opening the study area. If you are closed to reconsidering additional sites. Then look at the total number of units and have 50 percent allocated along the Clayton Valley/Kirker Pass Rd corridor and the other half located in the Oak Grove/Treat Blvd. area.

Think in number of units divided by 2. The CVS shopping center needs to be left alone - that pharmacy is a vital local go-to and is walkable for seniors who live in one of several nearby housing communities.

It is also unfair for Clayton Valley residents to have the KMart, Clayton Faire, and Staples etc properties as where the city proposes a large chunk of units be located. Sure, it makes it easier for the city to just check the box with the state of California. BUT City of Concord you have a choice in this matter. Please listen to us.

It is unfair for traffic impacts to our part of Concord - we are choking out our way. And multi story housing does not fit in.

In addition to traffic and aesthetics, there is NO neighborhood high school within walking or biking distance. Clayton Valley charter high school is NOT a neighborhood school and is NOT part of the mount Diablo unified school district. Read about admission info on their website. It is a high school with admission by application only.

The state of California may not care about all of this, but YOU should.

I am wondering whether your revised list is adequately reflective of feedback from the impacted community or is it just another box you can check for the state of California.

I am wondering how many people only recently learned about the rezoning for affordable housing from talking to neighbors. Or maybe they found out about this through all the discussions that we neighbors have had to start on Next door. Hardly anyone received letters in the mail – but all of us should have.

I am wondering how many like me attended the zoom community meeting held at the beginning of October – thinking that it was going to be the same as the in person meeting - only to learn later that the in- person meeting had an interactive session of which the city used some of that information for revising its site list. The other meeting was nothing but a one-way chat box. But the meetings were promoted as being identical.

I am wondering how many of us tried to offer site feedback by completing the survey monkey that you mentioned during the early October meeting, which did NOT have a deadline posted on your slides.

I’m wondering how many of us, me included, were unable to complete it because we didn’t realize there was a cutoff date.

I am wondering how much of this part of Concord feels slighted. I urge you to listen to the community, reopen the study area, and consider more options. And if you won’t, then put half the units out by Treat Blvd./Oak Grove, and the remaining half the number of units along the Kirker Pass Rd./Clayton valley Road corridor. Right now, sadly you are pitting one side of Concord against the other side. Terrible! But no one side of Concord needs to suffer.

Anna Rikkelman

From: Ezell, Justin
To: E. Meghan Kraus
Subject: Re: AFFH Rezoning Project - In Support of Retaining Treat Warehouses Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 8:54:07 AM
Hi Meghan, thank you for your email. It will be added to the record.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: E. Meghan Kraus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 8:49 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: AFFH Rezoning Project - In Support of Retaining Treat Warehouses

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Dear Mr. Ezell,
Thank you for holding the community meetings regarding the AFFH rezoning project. I was unable to attend last night's in-person meeting, but wanted to share my concerns over one of the four sites under consideration.

My husband and I are Concord residents and live with our elementary-aged son in the Clayton Valley area. We both work in Concord and I am also a small-business owner. After attending Cal, we decided to settle here because of housing and job opportunities, and the myriad of services and recreational activities it had to offer.

A very crucial service a city should offer is health and wellness for all ages. Therefore, I would implore the City to consider an alternate rezoning site for the Treat Warehouses behind Trader Joe's.

There are at least six small women-owned businesses occupying those spaces (WildKat Fitness, Dance Connection, Delta Athletics, Jazzercise, Four Corners Vet, and Elsie Green). I attend WildKat fitness several times a week, which offers cardio and strength-training to people of all ages -- many of which are elderly folks -- and provides a vibrant community for us as well. This exercise space is uniquely tailored to dance and fitness classes, with its

sprung wood dance floors (better on joints), studio size, wall-to-wall mirrors, and open plan.

It is a convenient location and the off-street parking makes it more accessible than other fitness studios. Every Saturday morning at 9am, the parking lot there is nearly full and the area is alive with music and voices, as my peers are attending cardio classes, children are going to dance class, and martial artists are already practicing.

While I am supportive of affordable housing, I ask that the City reconsider alternate sites that will not potentially displace active, long-standing, local businesses such as the ones at the Treat Warehouses. The Kmart site is ideal, for example, as it has been vacant for years and it can bring patrons to the adjacent businesses there. The alternate sites at the #16 & #18 vacant lots on Kirker Pass would make sense as well, as they are already in residential areas and would utilize unoccupied areas.

Thank you again for considering the views and needs of your Concord residents.

Best,
E. Meghan Kraus

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Peter Nixon
Subject: Re: AFFH: Feedback on Sites 1-4, etc.

Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 6:00:46 PM
Peter, thank you for coming to the meeting last night, for your words of support, and for following up with your written comments. Your email will be added to the record for the project.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Peter Nixon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 1:19 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: AFFH: Feedback on Sites 1-4, etc.

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Justin:

Greetings. I hope you are well.

I attended last night's meeting at Centre Concord. I give you credit for absorbing a lot of hostile feedback. Hope you are taking some time for self-care.

I'm cc'ing my own councilmember Carlyn Obringer as well as the two councilmembers who attended last night's meeting. I want them all to be aware how much I appreciated your patience and forbearance last night. You were the model of a public servant.

I'm a 25 year homeowner in Concord who lives in Sun Terrace, which is outside the focus area of AFFH. I also serve as a Deacon at St. Bonaventure Catholic Church, which is inside the focus area. My views are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my fellow parishioners.

General Feedback

I completely support the aim of the AFFH work. I am among those who think we need more than 1,000 units of new housing in the city, but recognize that the first goal here is for the city to comply with the law. The situation you encountered last night is precisely why the state is taking an increasingly aggressive line on these questions. We will not prevail in any litigation
and not a dime of taxpayer money should be wasted on the fantasy that we will.

Speaking as someone who lives outside the focus area, I will say that I think any burdens related to the construction of multi-family housing should be spread equitably across the city, taking into account the realities of traffic flow, etc. But I will add that I think those burdens are often exaggerated and reflect stereotypes that should be challenged.

Feedback on Recommended Sites.

KMart: This is a no brainer for me. The era of big-box retail is over. I would be thrilled to see a project like Renaissance on this site. Being at Ayers and Clayton Road gives residents commute options (e.g. drive vs using downtown BART).

Clayton Faire: I'm fine with this one. It's on a bus line and residents can drive to Concord BART.

TJ Warehouses: This is a tougher one. The traffic issue is real. De La Salle and Carondelet really lock up Treat during the school year and I understand why no one wants to add cars to that. If you had an alternative site that was close to Treat but after that bottleneck, it might
work better.

Palm Lake: Has the same challenge of potentially putting more cars on Treat before the DLS/Carondelet bottleneck, unless folks want to head down to Concord BART via Oak Grove and Monument. But I think these folks would have an easier time gaming out their commute than the TJ Warehouse folks.

Feedback on Other Sites
Staples/CVS: Was a little mystified that this one was dropped unless you are worried about overburdening Clayton Road. But the space is underutilized and IMHO a bit of an eyesore.

It's also an easy shot to the downtown BART. Could certainly build retail space into this.

Kirker Pass & Myrtle: Could work as a small site. Folks who don't want to brave Kirker Pass can take a right at Concord Boulevard and take that to the Concord BART.

Kirker Pass and Allegro: Could work as a small site. But we'd need to give these folks more options than just trying to turn right on Kirker Pass without a light.

Other Thoughts
Willow Pass: Not sure why this area got passed up. You can get up to Highway 4 quickly or down to Concord BART.

That's probably enough for you to read right now.

God bless,
Peter Nixon
cc:

Carlyn Obringer
Laura Nakamura
Laura Hoffmeister

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Claudia Jose
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: Reconsider rezone site
Date: Monday, October 28, 2024 5:37:14 AM
Hi Claudia, thank you for your email. It will be added to the record.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Claudia Jose <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 1:04 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: ATTENTION: Reconsider rezone site

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Dear Justin,
My name is Claudia, and I’m urging you to reconsider rezoning the warehouses behind Trader Joe’s on Treat. Each week, I attend the Zumba classes hosted by WildKat Fitness in Suite G. I value these classes because they’ve provided me a sense of community. Concord is large and spread out, and while there’s a noticeable effort to bring the community together through various events, having close and personal connections are hard to create. Not only do I feel a greater sense of community, my health and well being has significantly improved.

What I love about the location specifically is that it’s only 10 minutes from home, there’s ample parking, and I can head to Trader Joe’s for a last minute grocery run. Please rezone a different area that doesn’t jeopardize small businesses and communities. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,
Claudia

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Connie
Subject: Re: City of Concord Re-zoning-WildKat Fitness, 2956 Treat Blvd Suite G, Concord, CA 94518 Date: Monday, October 28, 2024 5:26:43 AM
Hi Connie, thank you for contacting me about the AFFH program. Your email will be included in the record.

There is some misinformation about businesses being torn down as a result of AFFH program rezoning, but that is not accurate. The properties being considered for rezoning already allow residential development. For example, the properties behind Trader Joe's/Peets can already support development at a density of 24 units per acre, but no such projects have taken place.

Increasing the zoning to 60 units per acre does not mean buildings will be demolished or businesses will be displaced. Any decision to develop housing is entirely up to the property owner. The City will not require development, demolition of existing buildings, or relocation of businesses. Rezoning simply changes what is allowed but does not dictate how properties are used. Existing businesses can continue to operate indefinitely unless the property owner decides to pursue redevelopment.

Additionally, traffic studies will be completed as a part of this project prior to any final decisions being made.

The above information is from the project FAQs here
.

Project website is www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Connie <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 2:17 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Concord Re-zoning-WildKat Fitness, 2956 Treat Blvd Suite G, Concord, CA 94518

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Dear Mr. Ezell,
I have been a Zumba participant of WildKat Fitness (and previous business partnership name of Glow Fitness) since 2017. The 2956 Treat Blvd. location is ideal for me because it is 5 miles from my residence. Additionally, since class is held in The Dance Connection dance studio, which has sprung wooden floors, it is the ideal place to hold this class to prevent injuries to its participants.

We weathered all the ramifications of Covid-19. We started class, then stopped then started again and have now flourished to a 6 day per week schedule. This class offers us a place to Zumba/dance, do our shopping and socializing thus adding to Concord’s tax revenue. The owner, Kathryn Durham-
Hammer is a WMBE (women-owned/minority-owned business owner) who is very dedicated to her students and is active in the community.

Please do not put our site in the re-zone area and force us to move.

Sincerely,

Connie Lum

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Katelyn Masseth
Subject: Re: Concerns about rezoning
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 5:32:30 AM
Hi Katelyn, thank you for your email. It has been added to the record.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Katelyn Masseth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 9:08 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns about rezoning

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Hi Justin,
I heard you are the go-to person for the concerns regarding the rezoning of the warehouses behind Trader Joes. I strongly object to this. The Jazzercise community conveniently located there (at the Dance Connection) has been an important part of my life for quite some time.

Each and every week, I look forward to the Friday and Saturday classes, where I can "shake it" with some of the strongest women I've ever met. These classes have really changed my life for the better, and it would be a shame to see it go away. We love the location of our studio and the community we've built over the many years. I really hope this vote doesn't pass so we can dance there for many many more years to come!
Thank you for considering our point of view!
Kindly,
Katelyn Masseth

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Caitlin Correnti
Subject: Re: Concord AAFH Re-zoning Project
Date: Monday, October 28, 2024 5:37:51 AM
Hi Caitlin, than you for your email. It will be added to the record.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Caitlin Correnti <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 1:01 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord AAFH Re-zoning Project

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Hello,
I’m writing today to express my disagreement with the prospective re-zoning the warehouse spaces behind Trader Joe’s. The businesses operating there are thriving, while other options are vacant or could be easily relocated. My son takes piano lessons above one of the dance studios, while my daughter takes aerial silks multiple times a week at the Cross-Fit Studio. Not only that, but I see scores of adults and children coming in and out of the two dance studios and the martial arts classroom as well. Additionally, the intersection is already overcrowded due to the multiple high schools in the area. I urge you to take this site out of consideration and use another option for the project.

Thank you,
Caitlin Correnti

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Tara Nemeth
Subject: Re: Concord AFFH re-zoning project
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 5:49:30 PM
Hi Tara,
Thank you for your email; it will be added to the record.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Tara Nemeth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 12:26 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Good morning!
My name is Tara Nemeth and my family and I live in Pleasant Hill, CA. I am a Bay Area native. My daughter and a number of her friends currently take an aerial silks class at Delta Martial Arts in Concord. I 100% do NOT agree with the re-zoning of warehouse spaces behind the Trader Joes on Treat Blvd in Concord, CA. There are multiple businesses operating there that are thriving and strong. These businesses are almost all small, local businesses and a number are run by female entrepreneurs.

Other options are available that include properties that are already vacant or, if not vacant, have businesses that are significantly easier to relocate. As well, adding residential properties in that area would increase traffic problems in a portion of town that is already highly congested owing largely to the surrounding high schools.

Please show your support for small, local (female owned and run) businesses by prohibiting Concord from rezoning this area of land.

Thank you,

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Valerie Crowell
Subject: Re: Concord AFFH re-zoning project
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 7:40:00 PM
Hi Valerie, thank you for your email. It will be added to the record.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Valerie Crowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 2:33 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord AFFH re-zoning project

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Hi Justin,
This is the let you know that I do not support the re-zoning of the warehouse spaces behind Trader Joe's.

There are multiple thriving businesses back there, four corners veterinary hospital, a small pet animal hospital of which there are shortages in the area, Dean's shoes which has been in that center one way or another as long as I've lived here, Delta Martial Arts, Crossfit and Aerial Arts, which is the only place where children can train for aerial arts east of the Caldecott. The dance connection which also has a zumba business and a third business attached to it and a pre-school. Small business owners have been through enough over the last five years. Let them alone.

It makes no sense. The sites that make sense are the forever Spirit Halloween store in the old K-Mart site and the Staples site. To be transparent, the K-Mart site is in my neighborhood and directly affects my traffic and it's still a better site than the Trader Joe's site. That site has one way in and out, down Treat. K-Mart offers Clayton Road, YVR and

Treat as routes to the highway. Staples has Treat and Clayton Road to the highway. Trader Joe's just makes the commute past three high schools even more unbearable.

Drop that site, it makes no senses.
***FRAUD WARNING: Cyber-crime and wire fraud crimes are on the rise. We recommend that buyers do not utilize wire transfers during their transaction, but deliver a cashiers check to escrow directly. We recommend sellers to receive proceeds via escrow check as well. This is for your protection***
Valerie Crowell
Broker Associate | Keller Williams Realty
925-381-2998 cell
Cal BRE 01842750
Women's Council of Realtors 2017 President, Contra Costa Network CCRIM 2015 President
CCRIM 2013 Realtor of the Year
Smart solutions - Extraordinary results

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Beth Ringhofer
Subject: Re: Concord Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rezoning Project Date: Monday, October 28, 2024 5:38:29 AM
Hi Beth, thank you for your email. It will be added to the record.

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Beth Ringhofer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 12:28 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rezoning Project “EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Dear Mr. Ezell,
I am writing to voice my concerns about the rezoning project which expressly affects Site #7 Warehouses behind Trader's Joe's on Treat.

This includes the Dance Connection as well as other business which are really not "Warehouses". The Dance Connection has been an important part of my life (as well as many of my colleagues) for the past 26 years. It has not only supported a healthy lifestyle for me but has also been a source of community for many of the students.

Should the Dance Connection and many of the other businesses need to move to another location, it would be difficult to find an equal facility in Concord. I doubt the other businesses impacted would be able to find space as well. The loss of tax revenue to the City of Concord should be considered heavily.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Beth

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Anita Mills
Subject: Re: Dance Connection
Date: Monday, October 28, 2024 5:04:42 AM
Hi Anita, thank you for contacting me about the AFFH program. Your email will be included in the record.

There is some misinformation about businesses being torn down as a result of AFFH program rezoning, but that is not accurate. The properties being considered for rezoning already allow residential development. For example, the properties behind Trader Joe's/Peets can already support development at a density of 24 units per acre, but no such projects have taken place.

Increasing the zoning to 60 units per acre does not mean buildings will be demolished or businesses will be displaced. Any decision to develop housing is entirely up to the property owner. The City will not require development, demolition of existing buildings, or relocation of businesses. Rezoning simply changes what is allowed but does not dictate how properties are used. Existing businesses can continue to operate indefinitely unless the property owner decides to pursue redevelopment.

Additionally, traffic studies will be completed as a part of this project prior to any final decisions being made.

The above information is from the project FAQs here
.

Project website is www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Anita Mills <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 8:16 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Dance Connection

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Hi Justin,
My name is Anita Mills and I have been dancing at the Dance Connection for over 20 years with my Jazzercise group.

We do not want this location to be rezoned.

Please do not let this happen!
Anita

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Erin Matushenko
Subject: Re: Delta Martial Arts & Athletics Concord
Date: Monday, October 28, 2024 12:03:02 PM
Hi Erin, thank you for contacting me about the AFFH program. Your email will be included in the record.

There is some misinformation about businesses being torn down as a result of AFFH program rezoning, but that is not accurate. The properties being considered for rezoning already allow residential development. For example, the properties behind Trader Joe's/Peets can already support development at a density of 24 units per acre, but no such projects have taken place.

Increasing the zoning to 60 units per acre does not mean buildings will be demolished or businesses will be displaced. Any decision to develop housing is entirely up to the property owner. The City will not require development, demolition of existing buildings, or relocation of businesses. Rezoning simply changes what is allowed but does not dictate how properties are used. Existing businesses can continue to operate indefinitely unless the property owner decides to pursue redevelopment.

Additionally, traffic studies will be completed as a part of this project prior to any final decisions being made.

The above information is from the project FAQs here
.

Project website is www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH

Kind regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Erin Matushenko <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 11:59 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Delta Martial Arts & Athletics Concord

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Dear Whom It may Concern,
Please reconsider the rezoning of the warehouses behind Trader Joes in Concord, especially Delta Martial. This, as well as the businesses you are considering displacing affects WAY more people than you realize.

Kids love it here and thrive when they enter the doors. Their confidence is boosted and they feel more at ease with their peers in their element. Even before then they come in they are ready to work hard, participate and win in whatever they are trying to accomplish that day.

Also considering the vacant lots that seem better suited are more available for the heavy traffic flow these businesses obtain.

The children that will be affected have been a part of these organizations for decades. Mothers bringing their daughters and sons to the same after school dance classes and martial arts classes that they attended years ago. These businesses are thriving and have been so for years.

Decades even!!
The loss of these classes for the kids in our community would be devastated and harmful. The kids today have too many other things to worry that when they walk in these establishments they feel safe, welcomed and loved. These programs instill hard work, dedication and accountability while making life long friends.

This is a V E R Y special place.

PLEASE RECONSIDER!
Please PLEASE please reconsider uprooting our communities safe place!!! THE KIDS WILL THANK YOU!!!!
Kind Regards,
Erin Matushenko

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Ezell, Justin
Subject: RE: Feedback on Concord AFFH Rezoning Alternatives Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 6:47:03 PM
Megan, thank you for providing the feedback and for participating in this process.

-Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
City of Concord
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]

From: Megan Nguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 3:05 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Feedback on Concord AFFH Rezoning Alternatives

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Dear City of Concord & Raimi + Associates Staff,

On behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition, I'm writing to submit our coalition's feedback on the AFFH Rezoning Project and the proposed site alternatives.

We appreciate the City and Consultant team for your continued efforts to engage the community on this project. We look forward to working with you to ensure that the rezoning process earnestly achieves not just the mandated goals of the AFFH process, but also facilitates redevelopment towards affordable housing and increases opportunity for all residents -- particularly those who have been systematically excluded in Concord.

From: Ezell, Justin
To: Steve Johnson
Cc: Nakamura, Laura
Subject: Re: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 10:33:46 AM
Steve, I enjoyed finally meeting you in person. Thank you for coming last night and for providing your feedback below. Your email will be added to the record for this project. I will be following up with you and the other attendees to clarify information around Clayton Valley Charter Highschool enrollment.

Regards,
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Steve Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 10:14 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Thank you for facilitating another informative update for this effort. It was nice to finally meet you in person and Laura sorry I did not make it over to the other side of the room to say hi.

My take aways from the meeting were the sense that even though engagement has been happening through out the year, many feel that not enough residents have been able to weigh in (vote) for the individual site recommendations and they want more time before the final recommendation to council. I’m sure this may not help with the city demonstrating progress in the timeline the state wants.

Secondly having each site located next to another site would create too much of a burden on already maxed out road capacity in the vicinity of the sites. > The exit at YV High School / Palm Lake and the already traffic mitigated turns outs of the shopping center that also services the warehouses. > The exits at the Kmart / Vineyard on Ayers / Alberta when commute or high school traffic surges.

I think just what we already know about existing traffic concerns at these areas along with the fact that current traffic mitigation has not been able to solve safety issues would point to not being able to recommend more than one site for each of those areas.

Thirdly the concern of the displacement of existing business / services as the property value rises with the potential new use. Could the staff recommendation consider if currently located business have a possible alternate location at similar rent that is within the same vicinity. Maybe add into the site recommendation a list of current business and potential alternate sites. If this is done right you might even have an option that recommends moving business to an currently underutilized shopping center that is in better shape that the recommended site.

Finally adding what we already know about school district considerations. This should already be a flashing red flag for sites 1 and 2. Clayton Valley charter the traditional high school boundaries for those sites is maxed out and existing residents only get slightly a better chance if they want their children to go to the neighborhood high school Adding that many potential additional units would impact this further and any possible shift in the boundaries / current process has potential to lower the resale value (not assessed values) of properties for sure. I would again think this would point to site 1 or 2 being moved into the alternate category.

Best Regards,
Steve
On Oct 28, 2024, at 5:23 PM, Ezell, Justin <[email protected]> wrote:

Steve, see attached photo
Sent from my iPhone
<image0.jpeg>
On Oct 28, 2024, at 5:16ௗPM, Steve Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.” I don’t know why I was thinking people, it’s probably units. So 20 acres at 1,200 units, what would be the estimated people per unit? Thanks Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 28, 2024, at 1:28ௗPM, Steve Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Justin,
Thank you for the recap. What would be the acreage / maximum density calculation for the Vineyard & Clayton Fair centers be if they were fully built out. I was trying to get an idea of how may people could potentially be added. I was getting around 1000 in my rough estimation between the two.

Seems like a major density burden on Clayton & Kirker/Alberta/Ayers and Treat & Oak Grove.

Best,
Steve

On Oct 28, 2024, at 12:00 PM, Ezell, Justin <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Steve,
We need to identify the most suitable locations within the study area, which you can review here.

We started with the entire study area, about 7,000 acres of property. That was narrowed down to 150 parcels through a quantitative analysis and community feedback, narrowed further to 25 "sites" after more community feedback, and now down to four sites plus the alternatives. Based on the data reviewed, including access to amenities and community feedback, Clayton Faire and the Kmart site are the top recommendations from staff for rezoning.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions.
- Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Steve Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Justin,
Sorry just re-read your reply and that answers my question. As long as they have the affordable component the parcels could use the SDBL today.

So my concern is that by selecting these two parcels we are making them more attractive to a developer to tear down everything that is currently there to take advantage that they can build up to R60 in the rezoned portion and R24-30 in the other portion and the city may have little control over that massive of a development if they use the SDBL rule. If we left them at R24-30 they may not be as attractive to be purchased for full parcel redevelopment.

Best,
Steve
On Oct 28, 2024, at 11:11 AM, Steve Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Justin,
So for example if a developer purchases the whole Vineyard Shopping Center or Clayton Fair and redevelops it all into housing, since it will have the number of affordable units in at lease the ares that is being rezoned up to R60, then the whole parcel’s project would benefit from this rule? Am I understanding that part correctly? Thank you,
Steve
On Oct 28, 2024, at 10:51 AM, Ezell, Justin <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Steve,

Yes, State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) allows a developer to request unlimited waivers of development standards (i.e. setbacks, height, parking, etc.). However, to be able to utilize SDBL, the developer must provide a certain number of units affordable to lower-income households.

The City cannot deny a developer from using this state law and is in fact available to all residential properties now.

Regards,

-Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
City of Concord
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]

From: Steve Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 10:37 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

I thought for a project with an affordable housing component the developer can waive three of our requirements, for example the number of parking spaces, design….. I just wanted to make sure we don’t loose control of the whole parcel just because a portion was rezoned and has an affordable housing component If there is no way for them to waive our requirements then we should be ok if they chose to redevelop the whole parcel.

On Oct 28, 2024, at 10:31 AM, Ezell, Justin <[email protected] >
wrote:

Steve, our Planning Team reviewed your email and we are not familiar with the “Exemption 3 rule” that you are referencing; perhaps you can provide more information.

FYI that we do not zone land specifically for any affordability level. One could argue that the lower the density, the greater the income level, and the higher the density, the lower the income level, but density is our only focus with the AFFH program.

Please help me to better understand your question so that I can answer it for you.

Regards,

- Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
From: Steve Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 1:27 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Follow up from October 2nd AFFH/rezoning conversation

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Laura,
I was so impressed how you handled the the meeting at the Kremery, thank you for all your efforts.

It seems the potential rezoning has gained interest of Decron for Clayton Fair and Matsui / Greystone for The Vineyard / Kmart. The person that works in the multi family management arena said that Decron has been in discussion with the Clayton Fair owner and would plan to remove all buildings (Bowling Alley ….) and they indicated the same for the Vineyard shopping center with Matsui.

Both had requested the property owners try and get the whole properties designated.

So I have one of my original concerns that I would like our city attorney to weigh in on. If we designate a portion of these properties at R60 with a low income component would it allow the developers to use the three exemption rule for the whole property if they chose to redevelop all of it.

I hope the city attorney can weigh in on this and if it truly will lessen any control over the builds on the whole property I think finding smaller more controllable sized properties to designate would be a safer move.

One exception would be to designate the whole Sun Valley property R60 to meet the requirement as it is surrounded on two sides buy areas the meet the AFFH qualifications and existing infrastructure would support the added traffic burden. Also it would help the overall mall property with sorely needed redevelopment.

The rezoning looks to be a boon for the property owner, the potential developer and not so much for residents and city.

Best Regards,
Steve Johnson