Concord City Council
February 25, 2025

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Michael Melin [email protected]
11-Feb-24 9:30 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Michael Melin
5706 Pepperridge Way
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Michael Fry [email protected]
21-Feb-25 10:03 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Michael Fry
746 Navaronne Way
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: M Hopkins [email protected]
21-Feb-25 9:52 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
M Hopkins
2055 Rockne Drive
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Logan Baldini [email protected]
22-Feb-25 5:28 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Logan Baldini
3630 Granzotto Drive
Concord, CA 94519

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Brian Fiddes [email protected]
22-Feb-25 2:57 AM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Brian Fiddes
3673 Wren Avenue
Concord, CA 94519

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Jorge Salas [email protected]
21-Feb-25 9:19 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jorge Salas
1425 Whitman Road
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Javier Valencia [email protected]
22-Feb-25 2:29 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Javier Valencia
3572 Dormer Avenue
Concord, CA 94519

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Deirdre OHara [email protected]
22-Feb-25 6:33 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Deirdre OHara
3743 Barrington Drive
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Farhad Aflatooni [email protected]
22-Feb-25 12:35 AM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Farhad Aflatooni
40 diablo view court
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Oscar Porter [email protected]
22-Feb-25 6:13 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Oscar Porter
2725 Edward Avenue
Concord, CA 94520

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: C Hess [email protected]
21-Feb-25 10:27 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
C Hess
1016 Lila del Court
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Josiah Ramirez [email protected]
21-Feb-25 10:00 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Josiah Ramirez
3670 Hillsborough Drive
Concord, CA 94520

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Zhina Naddaf [email protected]
23-Feb-25 12:09 AM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Zhina Naddaf
5509 Sepulveda Court
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Shahi Sadat [email protected]
22-Feb-25 10:25 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Shahi Sadat
1040 Mohr Lane
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Karen Candito [email protected]
9-Feb-24 6:31 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Karen Candito
1722 Berrywood Court
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Kimberly Madsen [email protected]
21-Feb-25 11:06 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Kimberly Madsen
1696 Sargent Road
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Marissa Olivar [email protected]
22-Feb-25 5:28 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Marissa Olivar
2261 Hickory Drive
Concord, CA 94520

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Eslam Rezeik [email protected]
21-Feb-25 7:15 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Eslam Rezeik
1699 Laguna Street
Concord, CA 94520

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Larry Baltazor [email protected]
23-Feb-25 11:11 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Larry Baltazor
4136 Lillian Drive
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: David Gwynn [email protected]
21-Feb-25 10:06 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
David Gwynn
1151 Redfern Court
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Kathleen Schmidt [email protected]
8-Feb-24 9:06 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Kathleen Schmidt
2245 Fox Way
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Donnie Rath [email protected]
21-Feb-25 9:10 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Donnie Rath
3949 Newcastle Road
Concord, CA 94519

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Marina Petrosov [email protected]
21-Feb-25 10:15 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Marina Petrosov
3685 Northridge Drive
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Natiman Afifi [email protected]
21-Feb-25 7:29 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Natiman Afifi
1699 Laguna Street
Concord, CA 94520

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Kathy Wright [email protected]
9-Feb-24 12:33 AM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Kathy Wright
1889 David Avenue
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Rick Connett [email protected]
21-Feb-25 9:26 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Rick Connett
4125 Huckleberry Drive
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Jose Guerrero [email protected]
22-Feb-25 7:46 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jose Guerrero
1790 Ellis Street
Concord, CA 94520

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Michael Wang [email protected]
21-Feb-25 8:22 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Michael Wang
2378 Geraldine Drive
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: John Schaeffer [email protected]
17-Apr-23 8:26 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
John Schaeffer
500 Race Street
San Jose, CA 95126

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Raul Roberto [email protected]
21-Feb-25 9:43 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Raul Roberto
944 San Miguel Road
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Pamela Fiddes [email protected]
22-Feb-25 1:46 AM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Pamela Fiddes
3673 Wren Avenue
Concord, CA 94519

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Robert Anderson [email protected]
22-Feb-25 6:59 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Robert Anderson
3550 Torino Way
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Sharon Anderson [email protected]
21-Feb-25 10:12 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Sharon Anderson
3550 Torino Way
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Gurdarshan Singh Virk [email protected]
21-Feb-25 7:41 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Gurdarshan Singh Virk
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Deborah Brabant [email protected]
21-Feb-25 9:45 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Deborah Brabant
1115 Saint Francis Drive
Concord, CA 94518

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Paula Siddens [email protected]
22-Feb-25 4:55 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Paula Siddens
5462 Louisiana Drive
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: John Templeton [email protected]
21-Feb-25 10:25 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
John Templeton
1037 Pinehurst Court
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Brenda Ferguson [email protected]
12-Feb-24 7:17 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Brenda Ferguson
5158 Lodato Court
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Angela OShea [email protected]
22-Feb-25 4:25 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Angela OShea
1575 West Street
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Vinh Nguyen [email protected]
21-Feb-25 9:23 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Vinh Nguyen
1722 Greentree Drive
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Sandra Steward [email protected]
23-Feb-25 9:35 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Sandra Steward
1625 Franrose Lane
Concord, CA 94519

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Karen Ford [email protected]
12-Feb-24 7:50 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Karen Ford
5202 Valmar Drive
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Joan Wang [email protected]
12-Feb-24 9:22 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Joan Wang
4404 Winterberry Ct
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Alex Montano [email protected]
22-Feb-25 5:32 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Alex Montano
5482 Roundtree Drive, a
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Fatemah Nikchehi [email protected]
21-Feb-25 7:24 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Fatemah Nikchehi
1279 Stephanie Court
Concord, CA 94521

Subject: Fix the Rental Housing Ordinance
to: [email protected]
From: Kambiz Karimi [email protected]
12-Feb-24 8:58 PM

Dear Mayor & City Council,
I am a Concord resident and oppose a punitive law that jeopardizes housing in our community.

Concord’s rent control law needs to align with state law so that homeowners are protected, and housing providers can sustain to operate quality housing and prevent neighborhood blight.

Concord voters voted against punitive housing polices at the November election, and we rejected them again through Propositions 10 and 21 in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

I urge that you uphold the will of the voters and don’t expand local housing regulations beyond state law.

Thank you for your consideration,
Kambiz Karimi
5509 Sepulveda Court
Concord, CA 94521

From: Kelly Zhao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 5:30 PM
To: Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Meeting Follow Up: Information Packet on Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance

Dear Councilmember Benavente,

It was a great meeting with you last week! We appreciate you taking the time to hear the stories of tenants impacted by the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinance. These stories just represent the tip of the iceberg. As you are new to Council and still getting immersed in this issue, we wanted to follow up and give you a more comprehensive snapshot of the last several years of testimony and news coverage documenting the extent of the housing crisis in Concord.

So, I am attaching an informational packet (3 files) that contains 34 news articles, statistics, a local report on the crisis in Concord, and a sampling of tenant stories from the last 8 years. This should help give you a sense of the depth and the breadth of this problem, and insights as to why renters and community allies have advocated long and hard for tenant protections. The current ordinance reflects critical provisions aimed at stabilizing housing for working families, seniors, and young people who have experienced predatory rent increases, mistreatment and unjust evictions by bad-faith landlords for the last 8 years.

2008 - 2025 News Articles - Concord, CA.pdf

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me, and I hope this packet can also give a stronger understanding to why this is so crucial to Concord families.

Sincerely,
Kelly Zhao

Kelly Zhao (she/her)
Contra Costa Campaign Coordinator
East Bay Action
Concord office: Theresa Plaza,1812 Galindo Street, Concord CA 94520 Phone: (415) 606-1369
Schedule a 30-minute meeting here

The housing Crisis
hiTs home in ConCord
eviCTion
noTiCe

Published in 2018 by the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, Central County Regional Group, and First 5 Contra Costa, in collaboration with the Raise the Roof Coalition.

About The Authors
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE) advances economic, racial, and social justice by building a just economy in the East Bay based on good jobs and healthy communities. EBASE addresses the root causes of economic injustice by developing strategic alliances among community, labor, and people of faith to build power and create change with low-income workers and communities of color.

Central County Regional Group (CCRG) of First 5 Contra Costa is a multi-cultural advocacy group of volunteer parent and resident leaders creating healthy, safe, and equitable communities for young children and families.

CCRG is sponsored by First 5 Contra Costa. First 5 Contra Costa’s vision is that all children grow up healthy, ready for school, and supported in safe, nurturing families and communities.

Raise the Roof (RTR) is a coalition representing thousands of Contra Costa residents, workers, and people of faith. Coalition members include the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE); the California Nurses Association (CNA); Concord Communities Alliance; the Contra Costa Labor Council; Central County Regional Group (CCRG), First 5 Contra Costa; the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE); Ensuring Opportunity, the Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa County; The Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy (FAME); Monument Impact; and Tenants Together .

Acknowledgements
This report was primarily written by Asha DuMonthier, Campaign Associate at EBASE, with support from EBASE staff. Rhea Elina Laughlin, Community Engagement Program Officer at First 5 Contra Costa, managed the Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment and made major contributions to the report.

The creators of this report would like to thank the research and housing experts who reviewed the report and provided helpful insights: Aimee Inglis, Associate Director of Tenants Together; Ben Beach, Legal Director at The Partnership for Working Families; Eduardo Torres, East Bay Organizer at Tenants Together; and Jennifer Lin.

This report was made possible by generous funding from the San Francisco Foundation and the Y&H Soda Foundation.

Edited and Designed by Beth Trimarco.

Photos by Shira Bezalel, Marcia Norori, and various members of the Raise the Roof Coalition.

1 Table of Contents
Methodology............................................................................2 Foreword..................................................................................3 Executive Summary...................................................................4 Concord Renter Demographics..................................................6 Analysis of Increasing Rents......................................................8 Analysis of Hazardous Living Conditions...................................10 Analysis of Unjust Evictions.......................................................12 Impact of Housing Insecurity on Seniors...................................14 Impact of Housing Insecurity on Children..................................16 Impact of Housing Insecurity on People of Color.......................18 Findings of Concord Community Survey....................................20 Policy Solutions........................................................................22 Conclusion................................................................................24 References................................................................................24 About this Report
While it has been well documented that there is a housing crisis in the Bay Area, studies of the localized impacts of the crisis have tended to focus on larger cities such as San Francisco and Oakland. This report is one of the few studies that focuses on the housing crisis in the City of Concord. This report synthesizes data from a community survey of nearly 1,000 Concord residents conducted in winter, 2018; public databases; and in-depth interviews with current Concord residents to offer a clear depiction of the human impacts of the housing crisis in Concord. Evidence-based policy recommendations are presented to provide policymakers with robust tools to enable all Concord residents to thrive, prevent displacement, and preserve the distinctive character of the City.

Methodology
This report presents data from the Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment (also referred to as the Concord Community Survey), a survey of 968 residents. The survey captured the scope and impacts of the housing crisis. The Central County Regional Group (CCRG), and First 5 Contra Costa, along with partners from the Raise the Roof (RTR) coalition, conducted the survey between January and March of 2018 at child care centers, clinics, service organizations, parks, stores, flea markets, schools, businesses, and places of worship in Concord. The survey data were entered into a database and analyzed for themes by First 5 staff. Quantitative and qualitative conclusions were shared with CCRG parent advocates, who corroborated the results. As a result of using convenience sampling, the demographics of the surveyed population differ in some limited ways from an exact replica of the population of the city overall. For demographics of participants, see Tables 3 and 5.

Another major data source presented in this report is the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012-2016 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is conducted annually of a representative sample of the resident population of the United States. Data by race/ethnicity from the ACS are determined by the head of household. Racial/ ethnic groups may include Hispanics/Latinx unless specified otherwise. All data are five-year data unless cited otherwise. In this report, the terms “renters” and “residents” are used to refer to households rather than individuals when referring to ACS data.

This report also highlights lived experiences based on in-depth interviews with Concord tenants. Eleven interviews were conducted by EBASE and Tenants Together staff between March and June of 2018.

Respondents, recruited primarily through referrals by Tenants Together and ACCE, have experienced an eviction, rent increase, or habitability problems. The names of tenants in this report were changed to honor tenants’ concerns of retaliation from landlords. With real threats of evictions and homelessness, tenants fear the consequences of speaking openly about their lived experiences. 2 CCRG members survey tenants for the Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment.

Foreword
The Housing Crisis Hits Home: A Profile of Concord
The Bay Area economy is booming, but the ever-deepening housing crisis hinders inclusive prosperity in our region – straining family budgets, stifling opportunity, and ultimately undermining the foundations of our economic success.

Our recent report, Solving the Housing Crisis Is Key to Inclusive Prosperity in the Bay Area (produced with the USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity and The San Francisco Foundation), found that renters are growing in number and share. Yet renters are increasingly burdened by rising rents and stagnant wages, with rent burdens highest and rising the fastest for Black, Latino, and Native American renters. This unaffordability has severe consequences: nearly half a million Bay Area households that are economically insecure and cannot make ends meet pay on average $9,000 more than they can afford on rent annually. This adds up to $4.4 billion that they could be spending on their family needs and in their communities.

The housing crisis extends into suburbs like Concord, as this profile so vividly illustrates. Renting is on the rise in Concord, and the city’s renters are disproportionately people of color. But as this new research shows, rents are increasingly unaffordable, many tenants live in substandard homes with mold or pests, and even more – a shocking 75 percent of the respondents to a community housing survey – live in fear of eviction.

This level of housing insecurity is not a recipe for a sustainable city. Increasing access to stable, affordable, quality housing is critical for the health, well-being, and economic success of Concord’s renters, their families, and the city as a whole.

Fortunately, the report not only describes the problem but outlines several steps that leaders in Concord (and throughout the region and state) can take right now to increase housing security for renters. By passing commonsense policies like just cause eviction, rent control, and free legal counsel for tenants facing eviction, as well as strengthening its code enforcement, Concord can protect its renters who are most vulnerable to the crisis and build a stronger, more inclusive city for all.

The data is clear, and now is the time to take bold and creative action commensurate with the scale of the crisis.

I hope this report compels stronger leadership and bolsters community advocacy for renter protections. Our region’s future prosperity is at stake.

Michael McAfee

President
PolicyLink
To read PolicyLink’s recent report on the Bay Area’s Housing Crisis, go to www.policylink.org/resources-tools/solving-housing-crisis-bay-area 3

Skyrocketing Rents: Housing costs consume an overwhelming portion of most residents’ incomes, forcing them to make impossible choices between paying for rent, healthcare, childcare and groceries. Between 2011 and 2018, the median monthly rent for a two-bedroom in Concord increased by 61% (Zillow Research 2018). In contrast, Concord residents’ earnings stagnated, decreasing by 1% (U.S. Census Bureau 2011, 2016e). These findings complement research by Concord city staff, who reported in 2016 that “many Concord renters face extreme housing cost burdens” and that without countermeasures, rents will continue to rise rapidly across the city (Barone 2016).

Hazardous Living Conditions: Pests, mold, plumbing failures, and overcrowding are common hazards of rental units in Concord. These conditions can increase susceptibility to disease and harm mental health (National Center for Healthy Housing 2012). Of the 968 renters surveyed, about half (48%) reported struggling with household pests and 40% reported having mold or mildew. California landlords have the legal responsibility to promptly repair habitability problems (California Courts 2018), but data indicate that many landlords break the law as a tactic to encourage tenants to vacate, thereby allowing landlords to raise rents.

Unjust Evictions:

In Concord, landlords are not required to provide
tenants with a reason for an eviction. It is common for residents to receive “no cause” evictions in retaliation for requesting necessary repairs, pest control, or expressing concerns about rent increases (Marcus and Zuk 2017). According to the Concord Community Survey, 75% of tenants fear evictions. Many families and seniors quietly tolerate unbearable living conditions and unfair rent hikes, fearing that fighting these problems will spur an eviction.

The Impacts on Families: The mismatch between rising cost of living and stagnant earnings is an intolerable situation for many Concord families.

As rent becomes an increasingly burdensome expense, a child’s doctor appointment or a trip to the grocery store may be sacrificed. Housing Executive Summary
Amid the Bay Area’s housing crisis, Concord is at a crossroads. For decades, the city has attracted diverse residents by offering a high quality of life and relative affordability compared with nearby cities. In 2017, the City Council reaffirmed the city’s commitment to “providing a safe, inclusive and supportive environment to all...” (Barone 2017). However, skyrocketing rents, inhumane living conditions, and unjust evictions are displacing residents and threatening Concord’s values of diversity and inclusion. The housing crisis is also harming public health, community stability, and early childhood development, tearing the fabric of the Concord community apart. Many long-time residents – particularly families, seniors, and people of color – face the prospect of being forced to move out of the city they call home. 4Page 307 of 369
insecurity poses a serious risk to children’s development and health (Cunningham and MacDonald 2012). Many families feel powerless to address unfair rent increases and habitability concerns. Community cohesion suffers when families are constantly struggling to stay afloat.

The Impacts on Seniors: Seniors who have lived in Concord for decades are being pushed out of their homes as a result of increasing rents and evictions. While struggling to survive on fixed incomes and battling end-of-life illnesses, they face astronomical rent increases and inhabitable conditions. Many seniors are forced to move away from the only homes they have known at a frail and vulnerable time of their lives.

The Impacts on People of Color: Concord’s racial diversity and inclusion are at risk. Black, Latinx, and immigrant households are disproportionately represented among Concord renters and those experiencing increased threat of displacement in the housing crisis. Displacement is occurring most rapidly in Concord’s Monument neighborhood, the most racially diverse area of Concord (Urban Displacement Project 2016).

Homelessness: Ultimately, some are left with no choice but to leave Concord altogether and seek more affordable housing elsewhere. Others end up homeless. According to the annual Point-in-Time Count Report, the number of people sleeping outside in Concord in 2018 increased by 121% in three years (Contra Costa Council on Homelessness 2016, 2018). In 2017, 629 individuals who had lost their homes accessed County services in Concord (Contra Costa Couny Homeless Continuum of Care 2017). As more residents are priced out of housing, homelessness is a significant challenge to Concord’s motto of “Famililes First”.

Policy Solutions: The results of the Concord Community Survey reveal that the steps that Concord elected leaders have taken to address housing, including its Rent Review Program, have fallen short of protecting residents from sharp rent increases and unjust evictions. This report presents evidence-based policy solutions that can truly address the housing crisis: just cause for evictions and right to counsel for tenants facing eviction are recommended to protect renters from unjust evictions; rent control can prevent extreme rent increases while still allowing landlords to collect on their investments; and stricter code enforcement is proposed to reduce hazardous living conditions and ensure landlords are accountable to their legal responsibilities to renters. 5 Key Findings
Tenants are struggling to afford rents that have grown by 61% since 2011 (Zillow Research 2018). No • neighborhood is affordable to families with incomes of $50,000 or less (Ross 2018).

Substandard living conditions are widespread; nearly half of renter households report unhealthy • living conditions such as mold or pests (40% and 48%, respectively). 75% of Concord residents surveyed fear eviction.•
Evictions are a leading cause of homelessness and accelerate the displacement of long-time • residents.

Housing insecurity has serious impacts on children, harming their health, development, and • academic achievement (Brennan and Lubell 2007).

About 70% of renters age 65 and over in Concord pay 30% or more of household income on rent • (U.S. Census Bureau 2016c).

The Monument community is the most ethnically diverse neighborhood in Concord. Three quarters • of Monument renters spend 30% or more of household income on rent (U.S. Census Bureau 2016a).

6 Concord Renter Demographics
Concord is the largest city in Contra Costa County, California, with a population of nearly 127,000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2016b). Once a bedroom community for San Francisco and other larger Bay Area cities, Concord has grown into its own economic hub. Many residents who once came to Concord after being displaced from other communities now face a second wave of displacement.

Following regional trends, renters comprise a growing proportion of Concord residents. In the last decade, the number of renter households has increased by 23%. Renters now represent 44% of the city’s population, totaling nearly 20,000 households (U.S. Census Bureau 2007, 2016e).

Renters are at the forefront of the housing crisis, disproportionately represented by people of color, immigrants, and low-income residents. 44% of Concord
households are
renters.

7 People of color and immigrants are more likely to be Concord renters.

Hispanic/Latinx households compose 23% of the Concord population, yet account for 32% of renters (Table 1).• Black/African American households compose about 4% of Concord households, yet 8% of renters. • Immigrants compose 27% of residents and 38% of renters.• Notes: Values by race/ethnicity may not sum to 100 percent because Hispanic/Latino(a) respondents may be of any race. Race/ ethnicity and foreign born status of renters is defined by the reported race/ethnicity and status of the head of household.

Source: American Community Survey, 2012-2016.

Renters have lower incomes than homeowners.

Renters tend to have lower household incomes than other Concord residents. • Median annual household income for Concord renters is about $50,900 compared with $92,000 for homeowners (Figure 1; U.S. Census Bureau 2016h).

Nearly 1 in 5 renters in Concord lives below the federal poverty level of $24,300 • for a family of four (18%; U.S. Census Bureau 2016d; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 2016).
1 in 5 renters
lives below
the federal
poverty line
Source: American Community Survey, 2012-2016.

Table 1: Demographics of Concord Renters, 2016
Figure 1: Median Household Income of Concord Residents, 2016 All Concord Households Homeowners Renters
Non-Hispanic White 58% 68% 44%
Hispanic/Latinx 23% 16% 32%
Asian and Native Hawaiian
and other Pacific Islander 12% 12% 11%
Other race 7% 3% 11%
Two or more races 5% 3% 7%
Black or African American 4% 2% 8%
American Indian and Alaska
Native 1% 1% 1%
Foreign Born 27% 23% 38%

8 Analysis of Increasing Rents
Rents are skyrocketing and consuming too much of families’ incomes.

According to Zillow Research (2018), median monthly rent for a two- bedroom in Concord increased by 61% between January 2011 and March 2018.1 Families with increasing rents are left in an unbearable situation, with over half of Concord renters paying 30% or more of their income on rent (Figure 2).

The majority of Concord renters have annual household incomes below $50,000, yet no Concord neighborhood has a median market rent that is affordable to a family with this income (Ross 2018). The vast majority of neighborhoods in Concord are affordable only to families with an income greater than $75,000, which accounts for one in four renter households in Concord (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Percent of Income Concord Renters Spend on Rent, 2016 Affordable Housing:
30% of Income or Less
Housing affordability is
commonly measured using the
federal government’s standard
that households are “housing
burdened” when families spend
more than 30% of their income
on housing.
1 There is substantial variation in estimates of rent prices in Concord across different data sources due to differences in methodology. Zillow’s estimate of median rent ($1,928 for a two-bedroom in March 2018) is based on rental listings of homes and does not include apartment buildings. In an email to the author of this report in May 2018, a staff person from the City of Concord Housing Department reported that, according to their data, average rent for apartment complexes with 200+ units in December 2017 was $2,200 per month, and average rent for all apartment types in Concord was $1,800 per month in May 2018.

Source: American Community Survey, 2012-2016.

Concord residents at a vigil for victims of housing displacement in 2016.

9 John’s Story: Unfair Rent Increase for 30-Year Resident John is one of the many long-term residents who is being forced out of Concord because of exorbitant rent increases. For 30 years, he has called Concord his home. He has lived in his current apartment for the past eight years. In 2017, John received a 20% rent increase to $1,525 which he cannot afford alone. He filed a complaint with the City of Concord’s Residential Rent Review Program, which offers non-binding mediation services to tenants who have received rent increases exceeding 10% in a 12-month period.

John diligently pursued the arbitration process. While the Rent Review Panel voted in his favor, the arbitration is nonbinding, allowing the property manager to demand the 20% rent increase. John has been unable to find any affordable housing in Concord or anywhere in Contra Costa County.

After living in Concord for 30 years, John is now leaving his home and looking for housing elsewhere in California.

Median market
rent 2011-2015
Income needed
to be affordable
% renters in
income bracket
Less than $1,250 Under $50,000 54%
$1,250-$1,875 $50,000-$74,999 20%
$1,875-$2,500 $75,000-$99,000 11%
$2,500-$3,750 Over $100,000 15%
Figure 3: 54% of Concord’s renters
cannot afford median rent in any
Concord neighborhood.

Source: PolicyLink/PERE analysis
of the Zillow Rent Index (ZRI) Time
Series and 2015 5-year American
Community summary data.

The City of
Concord

10 Source: Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment, 2018. 48% of renters surveyed
report they have
household pests,
and 40% have
mold or mildew.

Analysis of Hazardous Living Conditions
Many families without affordable housing are forced to live in hazardous conditions, facing increased susceptibility to disease and mental health challenges (National Center for Healthy Housing 2012). Results from the Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment that included surveys of 968 renters, demonstrate the alarming prevalence of health and habitability hazards in residents’ homes (Table 2).

For example, nearly half (48%) of respondents reported household pests, and 40% reported having mold or mildew in their homes; both of which can exacerbate or cause asthma and respiratory infections (Lutzker and Tobacman 2013). Almost one third of families (31%) reported experiencing plumbing issues, including lack of water, issues with sewage, and leaks, which can put renters’ health, well-being, and quality of life at risk. Over a quarter of participants reported living in overcrowded conditions, which are associated with long-term adverse health and academic achievement impacts, especially among children (Cunningham and MacDonald 2012).

Unfortunately, it is often difficult for renters to receive support with substandard living conditions. In interviews with Concord tenants, multiple individuals reported that their landlords ignored them when they raised habitability concerns, and a few reported being threatened with eviction. For landlords who want to encourage tenants to vacate a property in order to raise rents, refusing to resolve habitability concerns can be a key tactic.

California landlords have the legal responsibility to promptly repair habitability problems such as issues with heating and plumbing (California Courts 2018). Nonetheless, data indicates that many landlords break the law.

Table 2: Widespread Hazardous Conditions in Concord, 2018

11 Mariana’s Story: Unfair Eviction After Reporting Pests and Broken Appliances Mariana is one of many Concord residents who have been evicted after reporting inhumane living conditions.

She lived in Concord for 14 years and was evicted in 2018 after reporting bed bugs and broken appliances to her landlord. “Ever since the bed bug infestation, I could not fall asleep normally again,” she said. Mariana collected the bugs in Ziploc bags as evidence of the issue, but there was no response. Subsequently, she was forced to spend her own money to fumigate her apartment. At the time, she was spending $1,100 per month for her apartment and only earning $12.50 per hour as a home care worker .

To compound the pest issue, Mariana’s refrigerator broke, causing a loud buzzing sound that prevented her from sleeping in her makeshift bedroom.

After trying to ignore the problem for months, Mariana reported the broken appliance to the landlord. Less than a week later, Mariana found an eviction notice on her door demanding that she vacate in 60 days.

After being evicted, Mariana could not find affordable housing in Concord, and was forced to move to Bay Point. She now
has a much longer commute and finds it difficult to pay for her rent and the extra gas on her meager wages.

Mariana’s experience of being evicted from her home
caused immense stress, and she continues to
worry about her ability to find housing in
the future. “I hope that one day I can
return to Concord,” Mariana said.

12 Analysis of Unjust Evictions
In the Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment three quarters of survey participants reported that they fear eviction. Eight percent of participants reported that they had experienced a “no cause” eviction. Given that many renters who experience an eviction are forced to leave Concord, however, this figure does not fully capture the prevalence of evictions in the city.

In Concord, landlords do not have to provide tenants with any reason or justification for evictions. It is common for families to receive these no-cause evictions when
landlords choose to sell their property.

Although illegal, it is also common for renters to receive no-cause evictions in retaliation for requesting necessary repairs, pest control, or expressing concerns about rent increases with landlords (Marcus and Zuk 2017).

Between 2014 and 2016, there was an average of
3,928 formal eviction filings in Contra Costa County per year (Inglis and Preston 2018). Since most evictions
do not go through the court process, these numbers
underrepresent the prevalence of evictions in the county.

According to Tenants Together, “The data represents
the tip of the iceberg when it comes to involuntary
displacement” (Inglis and Preston 2018).

Evictions often result in families leaving their homes and moving to neighborhoods with fewer job opportunities, services, transportation options, and greater health risks (Rose and Kỳ-Nam Miller 2016). Eviction is also a leading cause of homelessness, especially among households with children (Desmond and Kimbro 2015; The United States Conference of Mayors 2014). More broadly, housing insecurity causes extreme stress, often resulting in adverse health outcomes (Cunningham and MacDonald 2012).

What is a “No Cause” eviction?
According to California law, a landlord
may evict a tenant for failing to pay rent
on time, breaking a rental agreement,
damaging property, disturbing other
tenants, or engaging in illegal behavior on
a rental property (California Courts 2018).

However, in cities like Concord that do
not have Just Cause policies, landlords
can enact “no cause” evictions, where the
landlord gives no reason for an eviction
and the tenant is not necessarily at fault.

13 Sofia’s Story: No Cause Eviction Leaves Family Homeless Sofia is one of the many Concord residents who has experienced a “no cause” eviction. She struggles to raise her six-year-old son and fourteen-year-old daughter, earning $13 per hour at Taco Bell. In 2016, Sofia’s landlord asked her to write a complaint about her upstairs neighbors. After refusing to write the complaint, she was given a three-day notice to vacate her unit.

Since she now has an eviction on her record,
Sofia has been unable to get another
apartment, and her family has been
homeless. They move from motel
to motel, paying between $1,500 and
$3,200 per month. Every 28 days,
Sofia’s family is forced to check
out and find another place to live.

Sofia’s children often express their
despair at not having a stable home
and having to pack up all of their
belongings every month. Their
outlook is bleak as their eviction
record follows them everywhere
they go.

Concord tenant comforts a woman struggling to find shelter at the Concord Housing Forum in 2016.

14 The Impact of Housing Insecurity on Seniors
Seniors aged 65 and older compose 13% of all Concord renters (U.S. Census Bureau 2016c). These older adults carry the burden of high housing costs, resulting in economic insecurity. About 70% of renters age 65 and over in Concord pay 30% or more of their household income on rent (Figure 4). Many seniors live on fixed incomes and devote a substantial portion of their incomes to rent, often resulting in less money to spend on food and healthcare, and increasing their vulnerability to disability and disease.

Many older tenants have less expensive rents
compared with other populations as a result of
longer housing tenure. Consequently, the buildings
in which they live can have higher potential profit
margins for real estate investors during housing
shortages—creating an incentive for building
owners to evict older tenants (Levin 2017;
Wadsworth 2017).

Being evicted can be devastating for older adults
struggling with disabilities that make moving
challenging, create financial barriers to finding
housing, and sever deep-rooted social connections
in neighborhoods where they have lived for many
years (Tenants Together and The Anti-Eviction
Mapping Project 2014).

Figure 4: Rent as a Percentage of Concord
Seniors’ Income, 2016
“Many older adults have limited income,
and substantial rent increases can be very
disruptive to their lives, forcing them from
their homes due to financial necessity or
eviction. Sadly, we see a growing number
of them become homeless or have to move
away from friends and community to find
affordable housing.”
-Nhang Luong, Program Manager,
Information & Assistance of the
Contra Costa County Area Agency on Aging
Source: American Community Survey, 2012-2016.

Concord senior at a vigil for the victims of housing displacement in 2016.

15 Pamela’s Story: Senior Struggles to Find Housing while Battling Cancer Pamela is one of many seniors on a fixed income struggling to find an affordable place to live. She is 73 years old and battling breast cancer . Pamela found a place that offered room and board for $1,300 per month.

Unfortunately, the landlord was abusive to the elderly tenants, feeding them moldy food and constantly threatening to raise rents.

Because she was so ill, Pamela did not have the strength to leave.

She explains, “I was going through surgery while the house manager was verbally and physically abusive. It put an even greater strain on my health.”
Once Pamela felt well enough to look for other housing options, it took her six months to find a room that she could afford. At $750 per month, she signed a 1-year lease. The room was smaller than what she was used to, but she could make it work. Two months later, however, her new landlord informed her of his plans to sell the building. In the absence of Just Cause for Evictions protections, Pamela has no recourse.

Pamela says, “The housing situation for senior citizens out here is really impossible. I’ve registered on all of the low-income housing sites to get an apartment. I’ve been on waiting lists for shelters and Section 8 housing for almost four years now, and there’s nothing available. It’s very discouraging, and it certainly doesn’t help, health-wise, to be at the point of being homeless.”
Concord tenants at the 2018 May Day Rally for Housing.

16 Impact of Housing Insecurity on Children
Concord children bear the brunt of the housing crisis, placing them at risk of poor health, developmental, and educational outcomes. For young children who experience 90% of brain development by age five, having a stable, safe place to sleep, play, and form trusting bonds is critical. Housing insecurity jeopardizes these elements of early childhood development.

Children facing housing instability are more likely to experience poor health, low weight, and developmental challenges, compared with other children (Cutts et al. 2011). They have a harder time staying focused in school and forming peer and teacher relationships, resulting in lower educational achievement (Brennan and Lubell 2007; Joydeep et al. 2008). Finally, unstable living environments can impact children’s mental health and well-being, causing anxiety, sleeplessness, stress, and behavioral problems (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 2010).

Exposure to hazardous living conditions can jeopordize
children’s health. Living with mold, rodents, cockroaches, and lead put children at a heightened risk of asthma,
respiratory infections, and chronic illness (Brennan and Lubell 2007; Phillips et al. 2010). Children experiencing homelessness are more likely to experience high stress, lead levels in their blood, and asthma compared with other children (Enterprise Community Partners 2014).

Given that 41% of Concord renter households have children under 18 years old, housing security and high quality housing are critical to achieve optimal childhood development, health, and academic success among Concord children (U.S. Census Bureau 2016f).
“The stress that comes with housing
insecurity has a profound impact on
children, placing them at a higher risk for
educational delays, mental health issues,
low birth weight, and health conditions
such as asthma.”
–Dr. Diane Dooley, Pediatrician
Contra Costa Regional Medical Center

17 Teresa’s Story: Child Suffers with Bed Bugs and Fumes Teresa is one of many single parents struggling to provide her son with a safe, stable place to live. Teresa, her son, and her parents have lived in the same two-bedroom Concord apartment for 20 years. Recently, their landlord forced them to move to a different unit. After spending two nights in the new unit, Teresa noticed that her son had red marks all over his body. She took him to the doctor and discovered they were bed bug bites.

Since February of 2017, Teresa has reported bedbug
issues at least half a dozen times. Her unit has been
fumigated so much that it smells like chemicals.

Teresa’s son cannot sleep, resulting in difficulty
concentratingand staying awake at school. Sometimes,
he has fallen asleep in class. The bed bug problem
in Teresa’s unit is so severe that her son now has
scars on his legs from all the bites. Her son is
significantly traumatized, and Teresa is considering
taking him to a therapist.

18 Impact of Housing Insecurity on People of Color
The Monument community is the most populous and racially diverse area of Concord and the most impacted by the housing crisis. The rate of foreclosures in the Monument was four times greater than that of Concord overall during the 2011 national crisis. Since then, the Monument community has become a desirable location for real estate investment and home flipping. Rents in the Monument are higher than the rest of the city (Chan et al. 2015).

Renters compose 82% of Monument residents (U.S. Census
Bureau 2016g).2 In 2016, 74% of renter households in
the Monument spent 30% or more of household income
on rent (U.S. Census Bureau 2016a). Forty-four percent of Monument renters are Hispanic/Latinx, and 10% are Black/ African American (U.S. Census Bureau 2016g).

Community members report that overcrowding, habitability issues, and evictions have increased as a result of rent hikes.

Tenants also report that landlords’ actions have resulted in pushing out current residents and attracting younger,
higher-income, and white tenants.

The Monument community has played a crucial role in making Concord a welcoming, equitable, and family-friendly city. Over recent decades, Monument residents have advocated for improvements in public transportation, public health, parks and safe streets, and sanctuary protections for immigrants (City of Concord 2006; White 2017). The very resident advocates who have helped make Concord a vibrant community are now struggling to remain in the city.
“Ensuring the rights of low-income
tenants, through policies like Rent
Control and Just Cause, helps cities
protect people from displacement
and hold onto thriving, inclusive
communities.”
– Eli Moore, Program Manager
Haas Institute,
University of California Berkeley
2This report follows the lead of Chan et al. (2015) and defines the Monument neighborhood as including the following five census tracts: 3361.01, 226.02, 3362.01, 3362.02, and 3280.

19 Marta’s Story: A Refugee Battles Housing Racism and an Unfair Eviction Marta is one of many immigrants struggling with housing racism, landlord abuse, and an unfair eviction. She originally fled from Guatemala in January, 2018 after receiving repeated demands for money by gang members.

The gang threatened harm to her five-year-old daughter if she did not comply. Marta was forced to leave behind her eight-month-old daughter, her ailing mother, and her small business to seek safety in the U.S.

Pursuing asylum, Marta was detained while crossing the border with her young daughter . They were transferred to San Francisco during court proceedings, and Marta eventually rented an unfurnished garage in Concord.

In the garage, Marta and her daughter lived in uninhabitable conditions: exposed gas pipes, no insulation, and no proper ventilation or windows. Marta also faced intimidation from abusive landlords who told Marta’s daughter she would be separated from her mom by immigration officials. They placed rotten fruit and vegetables inside of their meals. At one point, the landlords tossed away clothing and toys that had been donated to Marta. When Marta finally confronted them, the landlords called the police, threatening to have Marta deported and evicted from her home.

Although the police notified the landlords they must give a 30-day notice for a tenant to vacate, the owners refused to adhere to the law. Instead, they threatened to change the locks, leaving Marta in a state of fear and forcing her to find housing elsewhere.

With the generous help of the faith community, Marta and her daughter landed temporarily in another home. However, it was too far from her place of work, and she lost access to her childcare provider . Due to the constant anxiety that
comes with unstable housing, Marta has decided
to voluntarily deport herself and return to
Guatemala, in spite of the threat of the gangs.
“No one should have to live
in these conditions. No one
should live in fear of being
evicted. They think because
you are an immigrant that
they can exploit you. I don’t
want anyone to suffer the
way I suffered.”
–Marta, pictured right with
her daughter

20 Findings of Concord Community Survey

The Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment involved participants from four Concord zipcodes (Table 3). Findings demonstrate that housing insecurity is a serious threat to Concord residents’ health and well-being. Evictions, unaffordable rents, and hazardous living conditions jeopordize health and economic security, harm families, and rip apart the fabric of the Concord community.

Inhumane living conditions are rampant.

A large portion of participants reported struggling with pests and/or mold in their homes (48% and 40%, respectively). Almost one third reported plumbing issues (31%) and over one quarter reported living in overcrowded conditions (Table 2). These substandard housing conditions are harmful to residents’ health outcomes—especially those of children.

Rents are unaffordable.

Sixty-four percent of participants have monthly household incomes of $2,500 or less. Using the federal government’s standard for housing affordability, families with household incomes of $2,500 can afford to pay no more $750 for rent (30% of their income). Nonetheless, 55% reported paying much more, between $1,250 and $2,500 per month in rent (Figure 5).

City services are not meeting residents’ needs.

Less than 10% of participants had used Concord’s Multi-Family Inspection Program, used the Rent Review Program, or had reported their living conditions to the city (Table 4). Many reported that they were not aware of any city programming to enforce habitability standards and had not heard of the Multi-Family Housing Inspection Program. Some participants fear that the city services would not be accessible or safe, articulating concerns with language barriers or retaliation related to immigration status. In interviews with a small number of individuals who had accessed city services, participants expressed frustration with the lack of enforcement of existing policies to protect tenants’ rights.

Tenant protections have strong support. Over 90% of participants would support Concord policies that prevent unjust evictions and limit rent increases each year .

Figure 5: Survey Participants’ Monthly Rent vs. Household Income, 2018 Source: Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment, 2018.

Table 3: Survey Participants’
Zip Codes, 2018
Source: Concord Community-Based
Participatory Housing Assessment, 2018.

21 Table 4: Usage of Concord’s Current Renter Programs
Table 5: Survey Demographics
Table 6: Select Survey Responses
Source: Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment, 2018.

Source: Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment, 2018.

Source: Concord Community-Based Participatory Housing Assessment, 2018. 10 to 19 years 3%
20 to 29 years 18%
30 to 39 years 39%
40 to 49 years 26%
50 years or over 15%
Black or African American 2%
Hispanic/Latinx 80%
White 11%
American Indian/Alaska Native 1%
Middle Eastern/North African 1%
Asian 3%
Pacific Islander 0%
Other or Prefer not to say 3%
Male 31%
Female 60%
Other or Prefer not to say 9%
English 33%
Spanish 67%
Age
Race/Ethnicity
Gender
Language

22 PoLICY SoLUTIoNS To PRoTECT CoNC oRD CoMMUNITIES
This report’s findings highlight the need for fair interventions to keep the Concord community strong. The city’s leaders take pride in having a strong sense of community, where people take care of each other . They have long upheld and affirmed Concord’s values of diversity and inclusiveness (Barone 2017). To remain true to Concord’s values, city leadership must protect residents from unfair evictions, untenable rent hikes, and inhumane living conditions. Policy solutions proven to be successful in stemming displacement are presented here. Housing policy experts agree that multiple long-term strategies are needed to protect, preserve, and produce housing (Gordon 2018; Treuhaft et al. 2018). Passing tested policies to the current housing crisis will create a healthier, more economically vibrant and inclusive community, and ensure that all Concord residents have a quality home.

PRoBlEM: UNJUST Ev ICTI oNS
Renters in Concord can be evicted at any time without reason, leading to housing insecurity, homelessness, and widespread anxiety.

Solution: Just Cause for Evictions Evidence
Just cause for evictions policies require
that landlords can only evict tenants for
specific reasons, such as nonpayment of
rent and/or violation of lease terms after
receiving notice. The purpose of just
cause is to provide a fair justification for
evictions and protect tenants from “no
cause” evictions. In some jurisdictions,
just cause policies also require landlords
to provide relocation payments for
certain “no fault” evictions, such as
demolition of a rental unit.

Twelve Bay Area cities have just cause policies: Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Foster City, Hayward, Mountain View, Oakland, Richmond, San Carlos, San Francisco, San Jose, and Union City.

Research on just cause policies in California has found that these measures reduce the prevalence of unfair evictions and help preserve racial and economic diversity (Gordon 2018). Furthermore, just vause policies impose minimal costs on landlords and cities, making such policies a cost-effective mechanism for preventing displacement (Gordon 2018). Most Bay Area cities with just cause policies also have complimentary rent control policies to ensure that landlords do not avoid compliance with just cause by raising rents excessively (Crispell 2016).

PRoBlEM: No TENANT R EPRESENTATI oN
Evicted tenants have very little recourse and few options for legal assistance.

Solution: Right to Counsel Evidence
Guaranteeing all renters the
right to an attorney when
facing an eviction lawsuit
in housing court can help
ensure that renters have fair
representation and reduce
unjust evictions. With legal
assistance, renters are
informed of their rights and
have greater protection.

There is a substantial power imbalance between tenants and landlords in housing court: 90% of landlords go into eviction proceedings with legal representation, while only 10% of tenants have a lawyer on their side (Desmund 2012). Tenants who lack representation tend to lose their cases, even if they shouldn’t. Providing representation to tenants has been proven to reduce the number of people evicted (Greiner et al. 2013). For this reason, San Francisco and New York City guarantee legal representation to tenants facing eviction, and Alameda County, Emeryville, Berkeley, Richmond, and Oakland contribute funding toward legal representation for tenants. Establishing a right to counsel in Concord will protect thousands of tenants from being unfairly evicted from their homes, particularly immigrants, seniors, disabled persons, and other vulnerable tenants.

23 PRoBlEM: UNFAIR RENT INCREASES
Rent increases are unaffordable for most Concord renters.

Solution: Rent Control Evidence
Rent control policies limit the amount of
rent that private landlords may increase
for existing tenants, while also protecting
landlords’ interests for fair returns on their
investments. These policies allow rent to
increase by a specific percentage, such
as the rate of inflation, each year .3 Rent
control policies also create a rent board
tasked with setting allowable rent increases
each year (Crispell 2016). Such a rent
board would differ from Concord’s existing
Rent Mediation Board, because it would
be tasked specifically with ensuring the
enforcement of a rent control policy, rather
than engaging in nonbinding arbitration
between landlords and tenants.

Nine Bay Area cities have rent control policies: Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Oakland, Richmond, San Francisco, and San Jose. Jurisdictions with rent control can maintain resident diversity and provide more stability for renters and reduced loss of affordable housing over time, compared with other jurisdictions (Bissell and Moore 2018; Crispell 2016; Freeman and Braconi 2004; Gordon 2018). There is also evidence from California cities that rent control policies do not prevent landlords from generating high returns on their properties, and do not impact construction of new housing (Gordon 2018).

Given that rent mediation programs such as Concord’s Rent Review Program have proven to be ineffectual in preventing unreasonable rent increases due to their non-binding nature (Inglis and Preston 2017), Concord must consider adopting Rent Control to address skyrocketing rents.

PRoBlEM: INHUMANE lIvING CoNDITI oNS
Renters are living in hazardous, unsafe, and/or unhealthy living conditions.

Solution: Strengthen Code
Enforcement
Evidence
Strengthening code enforcement
encourages landlords to maintain
healthy building conditions. Concord
can do so by improving promotion of
city services with particular attention
to reaching low-income families and
those with limited English proficiency;
instituting serious penalties for
landlords who violate tenants’ rights;
and ensuring that all complaints
made to the city are kept confidential.

These programmatic improvements
must be made in coordination with
strong tenant protections to reduce
hazardous living conditions.

Concord made important improvements to the Multi-Family Rental Inspection Program tasked with the city’s code enforcement in 2016 by increasing the frequency of inspections and capacity of Spanish- speaking staff. Nonetheless, low rates of usage and awareness of the program point to the need for increased program access and efficacy.

Tenant rights experts agree that the success of code enforcement depends in large part on code enforcement being paired with tenant protection policies that safeguard tenents from landlord retaliation for reporting complaints. Therefore, passing just cause and rent control are important components of strengthening code enforcement. “Some cities have robust complaint based code enforcement programs, but tenants don’t use them because they are afraid of getting evicted if they make a complaint. Without Just Cause eviction protections, complaint code enforcement programs will not be effective.” –Leah Simon-Weisberg, Managing Attorney of the Tenant Rights Program, Centro Legal De La Raza
3The 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act mandates that all rent control ordinances in California allow landlords to increase rent to any amount when tenants vacate a unit. The Costa-Hawkins Act also prohibits cities from establishing rent control over single-family dwellings, condominiums, and apartment units constructed after February of1995. In Concord, the majority of housing units were built prior to 1995, and would not be restricted by the Costa-Hawkins’ time limitation (Barone 2016).

Conclusion
Concord leaders’ response to the housing crisis will determine the city’s future. Evictions, rent hikes, and inhumane living conditions are placing a severe strain on children and families, harming the most vulnerable members of the city, and threatening health and economic security of residents.

Concord leaders have the opportunity to define the city as an inclusive community that promotes health, safety, economic vitality, and equity for all its residents. Ensuring safe, secure housing for all families is essential to this vision. Creating strong tenant protections that prevent unfair evictions and unbearable rent increases can ensure that those most at risk of displacement—particularly low-income residents, immigrants, and families of color—are able to stay in Concord.

Improving habitability conditions for renters can foster optimal childhood development, family health, and community vitality. Housing security for all renters can have an array of positive impacts on community cohesion and the cultural fabric of the city. It is time for Concord leaders to stand together for families and protect the right to housing for all.

References
Barone, Valerie. 2016. “Overview of Concord’s Rental Housing Stock Characteristics and Preliminary Information on Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Approaches in California with a Request for Direction from the Committee.” Staff Report. Housing and Economic Development Council Committee, City of Concord.

Barone, Valerie. 2017. “Considering adoption of Resolution No. 17-73 affirming the City of Concord’s commitment to being a welcoming, inclusive, tolerant, and supportive community for all.” Staff Report. City Council Agenda Report; Agenda Item No. 9.9. City of Concord.

Bissell, Evan, and Eli Moore. 2018. “Housing Policy and Belonging in Richmond.” Haas Institute.

Brennan, Maya, and Jeffrey Lubell. 2007. “The Positive Impacts of Affordable Housing on Education: A Research Summary.” Center for Housing Policy, Enterprise.

California Courts. 2018. “Eviction.” 2018. http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-eviction.htm.

Chan, Celina, Viviana Lopez, Sydney Céspedes, and Nicole Montojo. 2015. “Concord: Signs of Speculation in the Monument Corridor .” Monument Impact, Center for Community Innovation.

City of Concord. 2006. “Monument Corridor Community Based Transportation Plan.” City of Concord, Nelson Nygaard.

Contra Costa Council on Homelessness. 2016. “2016 Point in Time Count.” Contra Costa Council on Homelessness.

Contra Costa Council on Homelessness. 2018. “2018 Point in Time Count.” Contra Costa Council on Homelessness.

Contra Costa County Homeless Continuum of Care. 2017. “2016-2017 Fiscal Year Annual Report.” Contra Costa Council on Homelessness.

Crispell, Mitchell. 2016. “Rent Control Policy Brief.” Urban Displacement Project.

Cunningham, Mary, and Graham MacDonald. 2012. “Housing as a Platform for Improving Education Outcomes among Low-Income Children.” Urban Institute.

Cutts, Diana Becker, Alan F. Meyers, Maureen M. Black, Patrick H. Casey, Mariana Chilton, John T . Cook, Joni Geppert, et al. 2011. “US Housing Insecurity and the Health of Very Young Children.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (8): 1508–14.

Desmond, Matthew. 2012. “Tipping the Scales in Housing Court.” The New York Times, November 29, 2012, sec. Opinion. https://www.nytimes. com/2012/11/30/opinion/tipping-the-scales-in-housing-court.html.

Desmond, Matthew, and Rachel Tolbert Kimbro. 2015. “Eviction’s Fallout: Housing, Hardship, and Health.” Social Forces 94 (1): 295–324.

Enterprise Community Partners. 2014. “Impact of Affordable Housing on Families and Communities: A Review of the Evidence Base.” Columbia, MD:

Enterprise Community Partners.
24Page 327 of 369
Freeman, Lance, and Frank Braconi. 2004. “Gentrification and Displacement New York City in the 1990s.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (1): 39–52.

Gordon, Leslie. 2018. “Strengthening Communities Through Rent Control and Just-Cause Evictions: Case Studies from Berkeley, Santa Monica, and Richmond.” Urban Habitat.

Greiner, Daniel James, Cassandra Wolos Pattanayak, and Jonathan Philip Hennessy. 2013. “The Limits of Unbundled Legal Assistance: A Randomized Study in a Massachusetts District Court and Prospects for the Future.” Harvard Law Review 126 (901).

Inglis, Aimee, and Dean Preston. 2017. “Communities Thrive with Rent Control: A Guide for California Cities.” Tenants Together .

Inglis, Aimee, and Dean Preston. 2018. “California Evictions Are Fast and Frequent.” Tenants Together .

Joydeep, Roy, Melissa Maynard, and Elaine Weiss. 2008. “The Hidden Costs of the Housing Crisis.” Partnership for America’s Economic Success.

Levin, Sam. 2017. “Elderly San Francisco Woman Spends Dying Days Fighting Eviction by Tech CEO.” The Guardian, May 10, 2017, sec. US News.

Lutzker, Liza, and Janet Tobacman. 2013. “The Overlapping Issues of Health and Housing: A Report on California Statewide Data and Healthy Housing Indicators.” California Department of Public Health.

Marcus, Justine, and Miriam Zuk. 2017. “Displacement in San Mateo County, California: Consequences for Housing, Neighborhoods, Quality of Life, and Health.” University of California, Berkeley.

National Center for Healthy Housing. 2012. “Housing and Health: New Opportunities for Dialogue and Action.” National Center for Healthy Housing, Center for Housing Policy, ChangeLab Solutions, and Trust for America’s Health.

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. 2010. “Persistent Fear and Anxiety Can Affect Young Children’s Learning and Development.” Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.

Phillips, Dawn, Robbie Clark, Tammy Lee, and Alexandra Desautels. 2010. “Rebuilding Neighborhoods, Restoring Health: A Report on the Impact of Foreclosures on Public Health.” Causa Justa Just Cause, Alameda County Public Health Department.

Rose, Kalima, and Teddy Kỳ-Nam Miller . 2016. “Healthy Communities of Opportunity: An Equity Blueprint to Address America’s Housing Challenges.” PolicyLink.

Ross, Ángel. 2018. “Is Any Bay Area Neighborhood Affordable to Low-Income Families? A Look at San Jose and Concord (Hint: No).” National Equity Atlas. April 23, 2018. http://nationalequityatlas.org/data-in-action/Affordable-Rent-San-Jose-Concord.

Tenants Together, and The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project. 2014. “The Speculator Loophole: Ellis Act Evictions in San Francisco.” Tenants Together and The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project.

Treuhaft, Sarah, Jessica Pizarek, Ángel Ross, and Justin Scoggins. 2018. “Solving the Housing Crisis Is Key to Inclusive Prosperity in the Bay Area.” PolicyLink, PERE, The San Francisco Foundation.

The United States Conference of Mayors. 2014. “Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities.” The United States Conference of Mayors.

Urban Displacement Project. 2016. “Urban Displacement San Francisco Map.” 2016. http://www.urbandisplacement.org/map/sf.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. “Table S2502, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” American FactFinder . (Accessed June 7, 2018).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Table S2001, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” American FactFinder . (Accessed June 7, 2018).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016a. “Table DP04, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” American FactFinder . (Accessed June 7, 2018).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016b. “Table S0101, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” American FactFinder . (Accessed June 26, 2018).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016c. “Table S0103, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” American FactFinder . (Accessed June 7, 2018).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016d. “Table S1702, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” American FactFinder . (Accessed June 7, 2018).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016e. “Table S2001, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” American FactFinder . (Accessed June 7, 2018).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016f. “Table S2501, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” American FactFinder . (Accessed June 7, 2018).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016g. “Table S2502, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” American FactFinder . (Accessed June 7, 2018).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016h. “Table S2503, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” American FactFinder . (Accessed June 7, 2018).

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 2016. “Computations for the 2016 Poverty Guidelines.” ASPE. April 25, 2016. https://aspe.hhs.gov/ computations-2016-poverty-guidelines.

Wadsworth, Jennifer . 2017. “Eviction of Elderly Couple Shows How Displacement Imperils Seniors, Disabled Tenants.” San Jose Inside. November 14, 2017. http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2017/11/14/eviction-of-elderly-couple-shows-how-displacement-imperils-seniors-disabled-tenants/.

White, Lisa P . 2017. “‘Roof and Refuge’ Activists March for Rent Control, Sanctuary in Concord.” East Bay Times, May 2, 2017. https://www. eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/02/roof-and-refuge-march-for-rent-control-sanctuary-in-concord/.

Zillow Research. 2018. “Zillow Rent Index.” Zillow Research. 2018. https://www.zillow.com/research/data/. 25Page 328 of 369

Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Evictions
Tenant Stories and Testimony

East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 1
Corporate Landlords owning Single Family Homes in Concord

On January 23, 2024, Baywood Property Management issued eviction notices to the tenants of three single-family homes on the 1200 block of Detroit Avenue. The notice did not list a cause for eviction and simply stated that the tenants had 60 days to vacate their homes. According to the County
Recorder, the homes were purchased in 2022 by Discovery Homes Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Discovery Builders Inc.

Discovery Homes is one of nearly 120 businesses or shell companies owned either directly or indirectly by Albert Seeno III (including Baywood Property Management).

Maria has been living in this home for the last 5 years and as a survivor, she struggles with depression and relies upon disability benefits to make ends meet. She has been severely cost burdened in Concord’s skyrocketing rental market. Yet, she had never missed her rent payments when she received the 60-day eviction notice.

Without any relocation assistance from Discovery Homes, Maria was confronted with economic barriers to fair housing that have been well documented in the City of Concord’s Housing Element. When Maria reached out to us, she was being harassed by the property management company on a weekly basis to self-evict before the 60 days were up. Maria was told that the home would be demolished, pressuring her to move out before the April 1 deadline.

Maria was also concerned about having to move out of the region, because she feared it would lead to her former abuser trying to regain custody of her children. As a disabled woman of color with children on a fixed income, Maria’s story illustrates that eviction does not just mean that tenants simply move to another place. For the most vulnerable, eviction is a dangerous and devastating process.

In February, the harassment from Baywood Property Management continued, eventually forcing Maria to self-evict from the property. She eventually found a shared living arrangement with another family because she was unable to afford to rent alone in Concord. Two months after her self-eviction, the single-family home she was forced to leave behind has been recently repainted on the exterior. Maria’s 60-day no-fault eviction notice is one of the many examples of the “renovictions” that have continued for the last 8 years in Concord, which is

Loopholes to Evict During the Pandemic
Ricardo is the father of four children: Brianna (4 months old), Melanie (3 years old), Brando (6 years old), and Edwin (12 years old). He was evicted from his Concord home of ten years on April 30th because of loopholes in the eviction moratorium that the landlord used as a retaliation tactic after Ricardo had asked for repairs to his apartment’s stove.

As a photographer by trade, Ricardo’s main source of income was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now working as a driver for Lyft, he has had to work more to keep up with the high cost of rent.

Ricardo applied to multiple apartments, but was rejected because his family of 6 was considered too large for the 2-bedroom apartments that he would be able to afford.

In Ricardo’s situation, his landlord attempted to use two loopholes to evict his family. Initially the landlord used the fact that he was going to remove the rental property from the market as a loophole but when he was unable to do that, he stated that his son was going to move in. At the end of the day, he did not remove the property from the rental market and his son did not move into the unit. Ricardo’s family was evicted without reason and Just Cause for Evictions is meant to close loopholes when landlords attempt to displace tenants without obligation. Ricardo’s story highlights that it was not just about paying the rent, it was because the landlord was using loopholes to get rid of the tenant.

Renovictions at their height
Eduardo was a tenant in Concord that was unfairly evicted due to something called “renovictions”. When Eduardo first reached out to us, we were informed of a couple who had been illegally locked out of their apartment, causing them to lose belongings and leaving them with no place to go except to sleep on the couch of some relatives.

EBASE reached out to Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA), and they were able to provide a letter showing the various laws that had been violated by the landlord in the eviction process. An EBASE organizer accompanied the tenant, Eduardo, and his wife to the landlord’s office to present this letter. Within 24 hours, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 2
why we need to make sure the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance is implemented properly to keep families housed in the city.

the owner unlocked the apartment to let the tenant in, but only to find out his belongings had been removed and destroyed. What was also shocking was that there were no renovations taking place. The only difference was that there was a new layer of paint on the apartment walls, ready to be rented out again.

In the ensuing days, Eduardo continued to advocate for himself, asking the landlord to reimburse him for his belongings and for relocation expenses. With legal advice and support from BALA, as well as encouragement from organizers, Eduardo was successful in defending his rights. He eventually received a check for $8,000 and had enough money to help him move into a new apartment, and not remain homeless.

Notably, this landlord commented as he gave Eduardo the check that he didn’t expect that he would be one to fight back. In fact, this landlord typically rents to undocumented immigrants in Concord who he knows are less likely to know their rights and more fearful to fight back. For unscrupulous landlords, that is why Just Cause for Evictions with relocation reimbursement was passed in Concord. The policy is meant to protect the most vulnerable populations in our communities from extractive and bad-faith landlords who have been all too common in Concord.

Just Cause is meant to protect vulnerable populations
Mrs. Smith first reached out to EBASE through our Concord tenant clinic in 2021. As a senior that is partially blind, Mrs. Smith asked for reasonable accommodations in her apartment building because of her disability. She requested for a screen door, a substitute for the peephole at her front door, to accommodate vision and had to wait for a long time to receive the
accommodation. She asked several times and wasn’t getting a response before she reached out to us.

Because of her position as a vulnerable senior with a vision disability, Mrs. Smith felt like she had to lay low despite her requests for ADA compliance due to being threatened by building management. In 2023, Mrs. Smith attended our Community Forum on Housing for Seniors and shared with the group that there were issues with her apartment once again. There was a hole outside the wall on the balcony, so she could hear rats moving inside the walls and there were also rats in her kitchen. Mrs. Smith took a picture of a rat that was caught on the rat traps and she sent it to the management but nothing was changed. She continued to let the manager know about the rats and the manager ignored her letter.

When Just Cause for Evictions was finally passed in 2024, Mrs. Smith was finally able to ask for repairs and reasonable accommodations without the fear of retaliation from management.

East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 3

The ordinance includes special protections for people that are the most vulnerable, including seniors and persons with disabilities. Because of Just Cause for Evictions, Mrs. Smith no longer has to be afraid to ask for repairs or ADA compliance.

Harassment and the looming fear of eviction
Ms. Gray has lived at 1115 Virginia Ln apartments for three years. Due to the pandemic, Mrs.

Gray was laid off from her job and applied for government rental assistance when she reached out to EBASE, but her application was still pending.

Each day, her property manager would text her to call the rental assistance program and ask when she would get approved. In addition to calling Ms. Gray every day, the manager at Nora's apartments has ordered all families with children to stop playing outside in the common areas. If they make any noise in their apartments, she immediately calls them to make them stop. The children are frightened and terrified to make any sound because they are worried the police will kick them out.

With a bedbug infestation in her unit, she and her children are unable to sleep at night, and this has forced her to throw away her bed, blankets, and pillows because of the infestation. They frequently have to sleep on the floor because of the bedbugs and Ms. Gray expressed being
afraid to ask for repairs and was scared to even talk to organizers initially.

Management at the apartment complex does not allow
bedbug-infested blankets or pillows in the dumpster, with the manager and the maintenance staff watching the
security cameras closely to threaten tenants with a fine.

Without making proper repairs and maintenance to
exterminate the bedbugs, Ms. Gray expressed that she is afraid to ask for any help from the building manager since it could result in retaliation or even worse, eviction. Ms. Gray’s case demonstrates how management can also retaliate against tenants when asking for reasonable repairs. That is why Just Cause for Eviction is so crucial to making sure that tenants like Ms. Gray are able to ask for reasonable repairs and maintenance without fear of retaliation.

East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 4

Eviction without reason
Guillermina worked as a cashier and lost her job last year due to the COVID19 pandemic and shelter in place orders. She is a mother of three teenage daughters and in November 2020, she filed a restraining order against her husband so that the police could remove her ex-husband from the house. As a result, this contributed to her financial situation becoming very difficult.

Following these events, the owners of the house she resided at tried everything they could to evict her through lies and manipulation even when the county moratorium was in effect.

In May 2021, she applied for the state rental assistance program. She complied by paying 25% of her rent, as was required by California law.

However, Guillermina would continue to hear threats from her landlord that she would be evicted as soon as the county's moratorium ended.

On June 25, 2021, her landlord first notified Guillermina that the single-family home was being sold and she had five days to move out.

Yet, the county moratorium was in effect. Just Cause would have protected Guillermina from being suddenly evicted in a 5 day period. Selling a house is not “just cause” and if the ordinance has been in place during this time, it would have given her a sense of stability and not be displaced so suddenly.

Breaking into tenant’s homes: landlord harassment and renter protections Juan lived in 1751 Diane Ct for about three years. The property was owned by one of Concord’s notorious landlords who is known in the community for harassing and threatening his tenants. At the time, Juan had two jobs but lost both of them because of the pandemic. As a result, he spent all his savings trying to keep up with his bills and rent.

East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 5

On Saturday, February 6, around noon, the landlord entered the apartment without any prior notice. He woke Juan up screaming obscenities, demanding the rent money, and proceeded to ransack Juan’s dresser, looking for the money. When he could not find anything, he left the apartment but returned to give Juan a 3-day notice and threatened to call immigration if he didn’t pay his rent.

Juan tried to report the harassment case with his landlord breaking into his apartment but could not find someone who spoke Spanish. Juan’s case demonstrated why a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction ordinance was so integral to protecting Concord’s working-class communities. A rent cap would have kept rents affordable and protected from unreasonable rent increases. Even though Juan was working two jobs, he had still used up all his savings to pay for his bills and rent. With a rent cap, it is likely that Juan would not have been suddenly displaced during the pandemic.

Habitable Conditions, Repairs, and Just Cause
Erica is a housekeeper, a mother of three, whose husband works as a painter. She and her family are residents of Concord going on 12 years now.

They have experienced all sorts of harassment at the hands of their landlord and manager. In June 2020, Erica’s children had a problem in their home that affected their family’s health; the sewage came out of the laundry room for a month, and the smell was unbearable. Although the owner was made aware of the issue, he
consistently ignored requests to make the
repairs necessary to live in habitable
conditions.

On April 26, 2021, this mistreatment reached its
limit when the manager threatened her with a
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 6

gun; after having the water turned off all day. After being threatened, they called the police, but the police never came.

Erica’s building now has a new owner who refuses to
give her rental receipts and is forcing her to pay the
rent with a single choice. She is now receiving
another rent increase, yet her requests for repairs are still being ignored. If Rent Stabilization and Just
Cause had existed, Erica would have had protections
to request for repairs.

Just Cause from Evictions: Protection from Harassment
Patricia works as a caregiver for the elderly. She and her three young children have lived in Concord for two years, she first reached out to EBASE when the property owner was only accepting cash to pay the rent and would not provide her with a receipt.

For Patricia and her children, the last two years have been traumatizing as the owner and manager of the building constantly harass and terrorize them. Patricia’s nephew had to move out of the home because he was harassed every day for his parking space that he paid for, which the landlord harassed him by calling the tow truck every time. Patricia also cannot receive visitors because her landlord harasses them by yelling at her guests and threatening to evict her.
344 × 900
During December 2020, Patricia’s landlord refused to fix the pipes and tried to bill them for the cost and she did not have hot water for two weeks. Just Cause for Protections would have protected Patricia from retaliation and harassment.

East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 7

Why we need Just Cause: Retaliation for organizing and asking for repairs José has lived in his apartment for about ten years. He is a car alarm and radio installer and in 2020, a county-wide moratorium was placed because of the pandemic, prohibiting rent increases.

The new manager at the apartment complex he lived in and went for a rent increase. The manager tried to get José and his neighbors to sign a document that no one could understand because it was all in English. She was also charging an extra 100 dollars for PG&E. José and his neighbors found out that this increase was illegal and let the manager know about it.

They had requested repairs to the landlord but never made them on time. Then they also asked the manager, and she refused to make them as they had not signed the lease containing the illegal rent increase.

José and his neighbors organized a tenants' union as a result. In September 2021, José and his neighbors met with their landlord and in this meeting, José told the owner he let her know about the things his unit still needed: the wall heater, air conditioner, and if she could change the carpet. As a result, the owner retaliated against José and he received a 60-day eviction notice in November 2021. It is worth noting so far, that he is the ONLY one who has received an eviction notice for organizing his neighbors. José was eventually evicted because there was no just cause for eviction protections at the time.

A case study on retaliation, tenant organizing, and the need for Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Protections
● Berta was experiencing an issue with her plumbing that made the bathrooms unusable while repairs took place. Her landlord suggested that she use a East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 8

bucket to dispose of feces in the backyard. Berta was not comfortable with this and instead offered the idea of a portable bathroom. The landlord refused her suggestion, and gave her an eviction notice in retaliation for asking for repairs.

Just Cause protections would have protected Berta from retaliation. ● Angela has roaches and bedbugs, and every time she asks the landlord to fumigate, he tells her it is her problem. She even had to pay to fumigate her apartment herself. He enters her apartment without warning, intimidating her with threats of eviction, or warning her that he will call the police or ICE if she dares to ask for repairs.
● Maricela’s landlord entered the unit unannounced while her 14-year-old daughter and grandmother were alone in the apartment and proceeded to threaten to call the police. The young girl called her mother crying because the landlord refused to leave. She is now traumatized and doesn’t feel safe at home.
● Paola's landlord continuously shuts off the water for extended periods without warning. This pattern began after the tenants spoke up asking for repairs.

When Paola comes home after work and needs to fix her family dinner, she is unable to do so because of having no water and has often been forced to buy food outside and spend more money by eating
out.

Glenbrook Green Case Study
Glenbrook Green is a 20-unit apartment building
in District 2 in Concord. The majority of residents
are Latino and primarily speak Spanish. The
residents began organizing in December 2020 as
Vecinos de Glenbrook Green in response to
unlivable conditions and hostile treatment from
the landlord and property manager.

In November 2020, a tenant from Glenbrook
Green contacted EBASE because she was
charged a $203 late fee— 10% of her rent— for paying her rent 3 days late. This happened while the eviction moratorium was still in effect, which prohibited late fees.

Regardless, the landlord threatened to evict her if she didn’t pay. What’s more, this tenant, and most tenants in the complex, don’t have a lease, allowing the landlord to make up rules as he pleases. He would only accept payments in cash and would not provide proof of payment.

The tenants of Glenbrook Green also reported severe habitability issues which the landlord refused to fix. They live with mold, unsafe railings, faulty smoke East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 9

detectors, and fleas. The lights in the parking lot were turned off, which made many residents feel unsafe coming home in complete darkness. When appliances broke, such as a clogged sink or toilet, the landlord wouldn’t help resolve the issue. Instead, tenants, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck and lost their jobs during the pandemic, had to pay out of pocket.

Glenbrook Green residents live in fear of angering the landlord or property manager with mundane behaviors. The landlord has forbidden children from playing outside because he is bothered by the noise they make, including a child with autism.

One tenant shared that “my children cannot play outside and they cry from fear of being evicted all the time. They are so traumatized that we try not to make any noise at all in the building.” They are also not allowed to have visitors. A babysitter came to watch a tenant’s children and the landlord yelled at her to get out. The manager also frequently calls or threatens to get residents’ cars towed, even when residents have paid for their parking spots.

The situation escalated shortly after the tenants announced they were organizing. A few days later, their hot water was shut off for two weeks. Then in April 2021, their water was shut off entirely without warning. The manager told residents that the landlord was “sending them a message.” That night, there was a minor misunderstanding about a parking spot, which was calmly resolved between residents, but the manager said “I’ll take care of this” and threatened several tenants with a gun, saying he would shoot anyone who got in his way. The children saw his gun and were very afraid. Patricia, one of the Glenbrook Green residents who was threatened with the gun, had a panic attack and has been seeing a therapist since the incident, which brought back traumatic memories of violence in her home country.

Knowing that the man who threatened her with a gun has keys to her apartment adds to her fear. Patricia tried to call the police, but they told her, in a recording obtained by EBASE, that “no crime occurred” and that she did not have grounds to file a restraining order.

In 2021, Glenbrook Green awaited a hearing to be put under receivership by the City of Concord. The multifamily inspection unit attempted to inspect the building after hearing many reports of code violations, but they were denied access by the property manager. During the receivership, tenants were pressured by the potential buyer into signing documents in English, which most of them did not understand.

Moreover, the interpretation provided was by the same property manager that threatened the tenants with a gun. These are intimidating circumstances for the tenants.

Why Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction: The Glenbrook Green case study shows that residents have stood together against abusive behavior from their landlord and property manager, but they have not always had the law on their East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 10 Page 339 of 369

side. From financially taking advantage of them, to refusing critical maintenance, to violent threats, this treatment adds up to create an unsafe home environment. This case study also revealed that harassment of the tenants persisted by the owner and property manager even while the City was constructively engaged in this case trying to remedy code violations. It is clear that the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinance would have protected the tenants from further harassment and eviction.

East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy 11 Page 340 of 369 From: East Bay for Everyone <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:59 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura
<[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Huckabay, Sophia <[email protected]>; Hart, Michael <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Marstall, Kevin <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on eviction protections and rent control item

Hi,
We supported the rent control and eviction protection ordinance. It would be understandable if Mr.

Benavente campaigned on repealing rent control, won the election on that basis, and then proposed rent control repeal. It is another thing entirely when this issue is nowhere to be found on Mr. Benavente's website or his campaign communication - to propose a change this premature seven weeks after inauguration feels like a bait and switch. Here is what his website said his priorities would be.

The other thing I don't understand is that everyone is making claims that either can be proven or disproven. "These rules are going to raise rent prices. " Have they? "These rules are so onerous that I'm going to just leave my single family home vacant forever. " It's very easy for someone to say this, harder to forgo the rent this entails. Has that actually happened? Landlords are claiming that payment for no-fault eviction is a huge hurdle. How many no-fault evictions are being performed each year? We should be able to determine that by random sampling, or by looking at rent listings.

I don't understand the point of arguing or making any further decision without actually collecting and evaluating the data.

Best,
Kevin Burke

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

Madam Mayor & Council members,
I am part of a small, 'mom and pop' housing provider which has managed both multi-family and single- family homes in Concord for over 50 years. Since September 2023, I have written to you and spoken during the 'public comments' section of Council meetings, to voice my opposition to the adoption of Rent Control/ Tenant Protection Ordinances, as they are excessive in reach and disastrous to our ability to conduct business.

I include text of those early comments, as well as from January 2024. My position has not changed; the sentiments I expressed are still true today, even more so. My most recent two minutes at the podium was February 4, 2025. Today, I write to reiterate my stance, and to ask you to

1. Exclude Single Family Homes and Condos in the current Ordinance

2. Repeal the Ordinance in total, and revert to the CA state law limits, provisions, and protections of AB1482.

The Ordinance is already overreach for multi-family units; to extend it to single-family homes and condominiums is unnecessary. I advocate for the complete repeal of the Rent Control/ Tenant Protection Ordinance. If you are unwilling to do so, I ask you to consider the following modifications:

1. Reversion to CA state law limits of CPI +5% per year.

2. Exempt units which currently rent below market/ HUD/ your own rent registry data rates from the Ordinance. If low-priced units are subject to 60% CPI, there won't be enough capital reserves to maintain, much less improve them. At least let them achieve market rates before limiting increases.

3. Allow rent banking and pass-through of capital expenditures without city mediator review/approval.

We do not increase rent every year, and if we do, it is by a small amount. If we do not have rent banking, we will be forced to increase it every year, to the maximum allowed amount, yet still not cover expenses. If we cannot pass-through capital expenditures, we will not be able to make improvements, and will destroy the property values.

4. Discontinue the Rent Registry program: it is invasive, and burdensome in both time and expense. I am not aware of how the City uses this data, and to whom it grants access. I do not think the City needs to know this information, and do not believe the City can adequately safeguard my personal business data.

In closing, I repeat my final comments from February 4, 2025: For affordable housing, the correct approach is to increase supply, not place price controls. There must be an environment to support existing housing providers & encourage development of new units. Burdensome legislation & restrictive regulation will not work.

I hope you will consider the well-being of all Concord constituents & fully repeal the RC Ordinance.

Thank you for your time.

(JANUARY 2024 COMMENTS)
I am part of a small, family-run property mgmt business that has provided housing in Concord for over 50 years. We manage older 4-plex apts and our rent is ~50% below market, including water and garbage. Most of our tenants have been there for over 10 yrs, the longest over 40 yrs. Our last rent increase was before COVID.

The past several years have been extremely difficult financially. Last year, the garbage fees increased by 15%, and the water will increase by 7%. Our fire and liability insurance tripled.

We pay annual MFIP inspection and rent registry fees. In the last 5 years, we have spent >$70K on capital projects for our tenants' safety and to improve the units. That doesn't even include necessary repairs. All these costs exceeded CPI many times over. We cannot absorb elevated operating expenses indefinitely. If you limit rent increases to 60% of CPI, we cannot adequately maintain or improve our units. The current statewide rent control of 5% over CPI allows us to survive.

Your proposed legislation of relocation fees of 3x HUD fair market plus $3K is excessive for those who are below market. For us, $8500 would be over 6 months of rent.

Stringent restrictions on owner move-in and extending 'just cause' policies to single family homes will bottleneck housing supply, as providers would prefer their units vacant.

Your proposed legislation is one-sided, rewarding tenants without fair balance to housing providers. There is no allowance for rent banking, pass-through of capital projects, or maintaining exemptions listed in AB 1482. There is absolutely zero incentive for anyone to be a housing provider,.or for developers to build more housing.

CoStar data from Jan 2024 show avg 1BR rents of $1700 and 2BR rents of $2100 in Concord. Rents for neighboring PH, WC, and MTZ range from $2k-2200 for 1 BR and $2200- 2900 for 2BR units. While rents are higher, none of these cites has rent control; in fact, they have 200-900 new units either built within the last 2 yr or under construction. For a thriving housing market, less legislation and less city restriction is needed, not more.

Please take a more comprehensive view and think about these other facets first.

If the legislation is enacted, we will go out of business. The bldgs will be bought by flippers or lg companies without a commitment to the community that will make minor changes and raise the rent to market, shutting out existing tenants. Or they may demolish the bldgs altogether, reducing the housing supply even further for even longer.

The net result will be a decrease in quality housing supply, thus driving up rents and displacing tenants. You will make the housing situation worse and hurt exactlly the people you want to help, as well as end the livelihood of many small business owners.

I implore you to forgo this unnecessary and harmful legislation & stay with the existing provisions of AB 1482

(SEPTEMBER 2023 COMMENTS)
We are a multi-generational, small 'mom and pop' housing provider who has managed rental property in Concord for over 50 yrs. Our buildings are older and rent for about one-half of the COSTAR amount, and we pay for utilities like water and garbage service.

Out of sympathy for those suffering during the pandemic, we have not increased the rent for over 3 yrs. Meanwhile, the year over year increase in garbage service fee was over 15% for 2023 alone.

For our liability insurance, which we need to operate, its year over year increase in premium was nearly 300%.

Due to COVID, it has been extremely expensive and difficult to perform simple repairs, much less make major capital improvements. We also have to contend with yearly MFIP inspections, rent registries, and repairs due to the age of the property and tenants' destructiveness and disrespectful behavior. We have barely started to pay for some of these items before they are broken again. We do not have funds for these necessities if you reduce the amount rent can be adjusted to less than that specified in AB1482, which has been a hardship.

As it is, it has been nearly impossible to stay in business, much less make a profit. Penalizing housing providers with ever more burdensome laws discourages and prevents further investment in our properties and communities. It is already quite costly in time and effort to terminate a tenancy, even one that where the tenant is 'at fault'. Increasing the amount to compensate bad tenants for moving out encourages holdouts and lessens the chance of a timely resolution. Limiting our ability to end problem tenancies and then requiring us to offer units back at the same rent will lead us to take properties off the rental market.

I sincerely ask the Council to reconsider its position in adopting these proposals.

I understand it can be challenging for tenants, but the City needs to take more fully into account the plights of housing providers as well. We only ask that the City treats us fairly. Continued restrictive policies will result in our going out of business. Thx for your time.

/0/1/2/3/4/4/5
/6/7/8/8/7/9/i255/9/7/11/i255/12/7/13/8/i255/14/15/16/i255/15/13/17/i255/18/19/13/20/21/7/22/23/15/24/19/21/25/i255/26/27/24/7/28 /23/9/27/24/29/30/31/32/2/31/i255/34/35/1/36/37/3/31/38/i255/39/29/30/31/32/2/31/40/41/4/30/5/31/38/36/42/35/32/2/43/35/44/45/4/30/36/46 /47/15/8/7/48/30/31/i255/49/50/49/51/50/49/52/49/53/i255/51/54/52/53/i255/55/56 /57/27/0 /43/30/31/38/36/42/30/58/i255/59/35/30/3/44/38/i255/39/59/35/30/3/44/38/45/0/43/30/31/38/36/42/30/40/60/31/2/44/4/61/60/4/38/60/4/30/62/45/4/30/36/46/63/i255/64/35/5/35/65/1/30/35/58/i255/34/35/1/30/35 /39/34/35/1/30/35/45/64/35/5/35/65/1/30/35/40/60/31/2/44/4/61/60/4/38/60/4/30/62/45/4/30/36/46/63/i255/66/4/61/61/65/42/31/32/2/42/30/58/i255/34/35/1/30/35/i255/39/34/35/1/30/35/45/66/4/61/61/65/42/31/32/2/42/30/40/60/31/2/44/4/61/60/4/38/60/4/30/62/45/4/30/36/46/63/i255/67/3/31/35/38/4/58 /68/4/65/31/38/31/60/i255/39/68/4/65/31/38/31/60/45/67/3/31/35/38/4/40/60/31/2/44/4/61/60/4/38/60/4/30/62/45/4/30/36/46/63/i255/69/42/38/35/70/42/38/2/42/58/i255/55/35/43/3/4/i255/39/55/35/43/3/4/45/69/42/38/35/70/42/38/2/42/40/60/31/2/44/4/61/60/4/38/60/4/30/62/45/4/30/36/46 /14/71/66/1/60/5/35/43/35/44/58/i255/72/4/73/37/31/35/i255/39/72/4/73/37/31/35/45/66/1/60/5/35/43/35/44/40/60/31/2/44/4/61/60/4/38/60/4/30/62/45/4/30/36/46/63/i255/69/35/30/4/38/42/58/i255/74/35/3/42/30/31/42 /39/74/35/3/42/30/31/42/45/69/35/30/4/38/42/40/60/31/2/44/4/61/60/4/38/60/4/30/62/45/4/30/36/46/63/i255/75/1/32/37/58/i255/29/42/3/3/44/i255/39/5/42/3/3/44/45/30/1/32/37/40/60/31/2/44/4/61/60/4/38/60/4/30/62/45/4/30/36/46 /51/i255/35/2/2/35/60/37/65/42/38/2/i255/76/53/77/51/i255/29/69/78 /34/42/2/2/42/30/i255/2/4/i255/59/4/38/60/4/30/62/i255/59/31/2/44/i255/59/4/1/38/60/31/3/i255/30/42/79/i255/75/42/38/2/i255/59/35/73/i255/35/38/62/i255/72/48/75/32/i255/49/80/51/77/80/49/53/45/73/62/61/63 /81/82/83/84/82/85/86/87/88/i255/82/90/87/91/88/54/i255/92/37/31/32/i255/42/65/35/31/3/i255/4/30/31/36/31/38/35/2/42/62/i255/61/30/4/65/i255/4/1/2/32/31/62/42/i255/4/61/i255/2/37/42/i255/59/31/2/44/i255/4/61/i255/59/4/38/60/4/30/62/45/i255/68/4/i255/38/4/2/i255/61/4/3/3/4/41 /36/1/31/62/35/38/60/42/58/i255/60/3/31/60/5/i255/3/31/38/5/32/58/i255/4/30/i255/4/73/42/38/i255/35/2/2/35/60/37/65/42/38/2/32/i255/1/38/3/42/32/32/i255/44/4/1/i255/30/42/60/4/36/38/31/93/42/i255/2/37/42/i255/32/42/38/62/42/30/i255/35/38/62/i255/5/38/4/41/i255/2/37/42/i255/60/4/38/2/42/38/2/i255/31/32 /32/35/61/42/45/94
/95/96/97/98/i255/100/101/102/103/104/105/106/i255/107/96/108/109/96/98/110/i255/97/103/111/i255/100/105/112/113/i255/114/112/97/115/115/116 /117/110/i255/113/101/102/i255/96/103/118/97/118/96/i255/105/103/i255/104/98/105/112/105/104/97/106/i255/111/105/110/104/102/110/110/105/101/103/110/i255/97/109/101/102/112/i255/112/119/96/i255/100/105/112/113/120/110/i255/98/96/103/112/i255/110/112/97/109/105/106/105/121/97/112/105/101/103/i255/97/103/111/i255/122/102/110/112/i255/104/97/102/110/96/i255/115/101/98/i255/96/123/105/104/112/105/101/103 /101/98/111/105/103/97/103/104/96/116/i255/124/96/i255/119/101/125/96/i255/112/119/97/112/i255/113/101/102/i255/98/96/108/96/108/109/96/98/i255/112/119/97/112/i255/112/119/96/i255/125/102/98/125/101/110/96/i255/101/115/i255/112/119/105/110/i255/101/98/111/105/103/97/103/104/96/i255/105/110/i255/112/101/i255/97/111/111/98/96/110/110/i255/112/119/96/i255/123/96/98/113/i255/98/96/97/106 /104/98/105/110/105/110/i255/101/115/i255/97/115/115/101/98/111/97/109/105/106/105/112/113/i255/97/103/111/i255/96/104/101/103/101/108/105/104/i255/111/105/110/125/106/97/104/96/108/96/103/112/i255/101/115/i255/112/119/101/102/110/97/103/111/110/i255/101/115/i255/98/96/103/112/96/98/110/i255/101/123/96/98/i255/112/119/96/i255/106/97/110/112/i255/111/96/104/97/111/96/126/i255 /127/119/96/i255/104/102/98/98/96/103/112/i255/101/98/111/105/103/97/103/104/96/i255/124/97/110/i255/105/103/115/101/98/108/96/111/i255/109/113/i255/112/119/96/i255/98/96/97/106/i255/96/128/125/96/98/105/96/103/104/96/i255/101/115/i255/100/101/103/104/101/98/111/i255/98/96/110/105/111/96/103/112/110/126/i255/129/123/96/98/i255/112/124/101/i255/112/119/101/102/110/97/103/111 /98/96/110/105/111/96/103/112/110/i255/110/105/118/103/96/111/i255/97/i255/125/96/112/105/112/105/101/103/i255/105/103/i255/130/131/130/132/i255/102/98/118/105/103/118/i255/112/119/96/i255/100/105/112/113/i255/112/101/i255/112/97/133/96/i255/97/104/112/105/101/103/i255/105/103/i255/110/112/97/109/105/106/105/121/105/103/118/i255/98/96/103/112/110/i255/97/103/111/i255/110/112/101/125/125/105/103/118 /102/103/122/102/110/112/i255/96/123/105/104/112/105/101/103/110/126/i255/127/119/96/i255/101/98/111/105/103/97/103/104/96/i255/124/97/110/i255/104/97/98/96/115/102/106/106/113/i255/111/105/110/104/102/110/110/96/111/i255/101/123/96/98/i255/110/96/123/96/103/i255/108/101/103/112/119/110/i255/101/115/i255/115/101/104/102/110/i255/118/98/101/102/125/110/116/i255/124/101/98/133/110/119/101/125/110 /97/103/111/i255/100/101/102/103/104/105/106/i255/108/96/96/112/105/103/118/110/i255/115/98/101/108/i255/134/102/106/113/i255/130/131/130/132/i255/112/119/98/101/102/118/119/i255/135/96/109/98/102/97/98/113/i255/130/131/130/136/126/i255/127/119/96/i255/101/98/111/105/103/97/103/104/96/i255/124/97/110/i255/97/106/110/101/i255/105/103/115/101/98/108/96/111/i255/109/113/i255/112/119/96 /96/108/96/98/118/105/103/118/i255/109/96/110/112/i255/125/98/97/104/112/105/104/96/110/i255/101/115/i255/101/112/119/96/98/i255/137/97/113/i255/117/98/96/97/i255/104/105/112/105/96/110/116/i255/124/119/105/104/119/i255/110/119/101/102/106/111/i255/109/96/i255/101/102/98/i255/98/96/115/96/98/96/103/104/96/i255/125/101/105/103/112/126/i255/138/112/i255/105/110/i255/103/101/112 /98/96/106/96/123/97/103/112/i255/112/101/i255/104/101/103/110/105/111/96/98/i255/112/119/96/i255/98/96/103/112/i255/104/97/125/110/i255/101/115/i255/122/102/98/105/110/111/105/104/112/105/101/103/110/i255/112/119/97/112/i255/97/111/101/125/112/96/111/i255/112/119/96/108/i255/97/i255/106/101/103/118/i255/112/105/108/96/i255/97/118/101/i255/101/98 /105/103/i255/101/112/119/96/98/i255/125/97/98/112/110/i255/101/115/i255/100/97/106/105/115/101/98/103/105/97/116/i255/109/96/104/97/102/110/96/i255/112/119/96/113/i255/111/101/i255/103/101/112/i255/98/96/115/106/96/104/112/i255/112/119/96/i255/110/96/123/96/98/105/112/113/i255/101/115/i255/112/119/96/i255/119/101/102/110/105/103/118 /97/115/115/101/98/111/97/109/105/106/105/112/113/i255/104/98/105/110/105/110/i255/112/119/97/112/i255/105/110/i255/104/102/98/98/96/103/112/106/113/i255/97/115/115/106/105/104/112/105/103/118/i255/137/97/113/i255/117/98/96/97/i255/104/105/112/105/96/110/i255/106/105/133/96/i255/100/101/103/104/101/98/111/126 /114/101/116/i255/124/96/i255/102/98/118/96/i255/113/101/102/i255/112/101/i255/108/97/105/103/112/97/105/103/i255/112/119/96/i255/104/102/98/98/96/103/112/i255/101/98/111/105/103/97/103/104/96/i255/112/119/97/112/i255/124/97/110/i255/104/97/98/96/115/102/106/106/113/i255/111/96/106/105/109/96/98/97/112/96/111/i255/115/101/98/i255/108/101/103/112/119/110/126/i255/100/119/97/103/118/96/110 /112/101/i255/112/119/96/i255/98/96/103/112/i255/104/97/125/i255/115/101/98/108/102/106/97/i255/97/103/111/i255/96/106/105/108/105/103/97/112/105/103/118/i255/109/97/110/105/104/i255/125/98/101/112/96/104/112/105/101/103/110/i255/115/98/101/108/i255/112/119/101/102/110/97/103/111/110/i255/101/115/i255/98/96/103/112/96/98/110/i255/105/103/i255/110/105/103/118/106/96/139/115/97/108/105/106/113 /119/101/108/96/110/i255/124/105/106/106/i255/119/97/123/96/i255/110/96/98/105/101/102/110/i255/98/96/125/96/98/104/102/110/110/105/101/103/110/i255/115/101/98/i255/124/101/98/133/105/103/118/i255/115/97/108/105/106/105/96/110/116/i255/110/96/103/105/101/98/110/i255/97/103/111/i255/112/119/101/110/96/i255/101/103/i255/97/i255/115/105/128/96/111/i255/105/103/104/101/108/96/126/i255/138/112/i255/124/105/106/106 /102/103/111/96/98/108/105/103/96/i255/112/119/96/i255/96/115/115/96/104/112/105/123/96/103/96/110/110/i255/101/115/i255/112/119/105/110/i255/101/98/111/105/103/97/103/104/96/i255/105/103/i255/110/112/97/109/105/106/105/121/105/103/118/i255/119/101/102/110/105/103/118/i255/97/103/111/i255/125/98/96/123/96/103/112/105/103/118/i255/108/101/98/96 /119/101/108/96/106/96/110/110/103/96/110/110/126
/138/i255/102/98/118/96/i255/113/101/102/i255/112/101/i255/98/96/97/111/i255/112/119/105/110/i255/106/96/112/112/96/98/i255/115/98/101/108/i255/140/137/117/114/140/i255/97/103/111/i255/112/119/96/i255/141/97/105/110/96/i255/112/119/96/i255/141/101/101/115/i255/100/101/97/106/105/112/105/101/103/i255/105/103/i255/101/98/111/96/98/i255/112/101/i255/105/103/115/101/98/108/i255/113/101/102/98 /125/101/106/105/104/113/i255/111/96/106/105/109/96/98/97/112/105/101/103/110/i255/101/103/i255/127/102/96/110/111/97/113/126 /114/105/103/104/96/98/96/106/113/116
/142/98/105/110/112/105
/143/144/143/145/144/143/145/146/i255/143/148/149/150/i255/151/152/153 /154/155/155/154/156/i255/156/154/148/i255/157/154/158/155/i255/159/160/161/i255/160/158/162/i255/163/164/158/165/166/154/167/168/160/169/164/166/170/i255/171/172/169/154/173/i255/167/i255/157/174/173/171/146/i255/175/154/166/166/170/i255/167/i255/176/174/155/166/172/172/177 /160/178/172/174/155/148/178/166/160/158/177/179/180/164/158/162/172/180/181/162/182/163/154/183/172/158/162/160/156/170/157/154/160/162/164/158/165/151/160/158/154/184 /184/144/143

/0/0
/1/2/3/4/5/3/i255/7/8/9/10/11/12/3/13
/14/15/16/17/18/19/i255/14/21/22/15/23/18/24/22/i255/24/25/i255/26/24/27/18/22/28/i255/26/24/29/18/28/i255/26/28/30/16/28/21/31/27/29 /32/33/32/34/i255/36/37/38/39/40/41/42/i255/43/44/45/46/46/44/47/i255/43/48/39/44/46/i255/49/49/50/i255/i255/51/42/40/52/42/45/41 /53/54/55/56/57/58/59/56/60/61/62/62
/63/64/65/66/65/64/64/65/67/i255/69/64/70/71/70/72/71/73/74/i255/75/76/65/77/78/65/64 /79/80/79/81/80/79/81/82/i255/79/84/85/86/i255/87/88/89 /90/91/91/90/92/i255/92/90/84/i255/93/90/94/91/i255/95/96/97/i255/96/94/98/i255/99/100/94/101/102/90/103/104/96/105/100/102/106/i255/107/108/105/90/109/i255/103/i255/93/110/109/107/82/i255/111/90/102/102/106/i255/103/i255/112/110/91/102/108/108/113 /96/114/108/110/91/84/114/102/96/94/113/115/116/100/94/98/108/116/117/98/118/99/90/119/108/94/98/96/92/106/93/90/96/98/100/94/101/87/96/94/90/120 /79/80/79

February 21, 2025

Dear Members of the Concord City Council,

On behalf of EBASE and the Raise the Roof Coalition, I urge you to maintain the existing protections in Concord’s rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinance. For one, any changes to the policy–which has only been in effect for ten months, and which is still being rolled out in terms of implementation–would be extremely premature. Beyond that, however, the changes being contemplated are in direct contradiction of regional best practices. At the recent City Council meeting, it was repeatedly asserted–without evidence–that Concord’s ordinance is out of the mainstream. This claim is misleading. In fact, increasing the rent cap and/or exempting single-family homes and condos from just cause would make Concord an outlier among Bay Area jurisdictions.

1. In recent years, Bay Area cities have set rent caps as a percentage of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in recognition of the fact that the rental affordability crisis among low-income renters in their communities is getting worse, not better.

It is not relevant to consider the rent caps of jurisdictions that adopted them a long time ago or in other parts of California, because they do not reflect the severity of the housing affordability crisis that is currently afflicting Bay Area cities like Concord. The following table, which includes all Bay Area cities with rent stabilization and just cause, is thus sorted according to the year that community adopted its current rent cap. As can be seen, six out of the seven cities that have either adopted or amended rent stabilization ordinances since 2019 have implemented rent caps of 60-70% of CPI. In this context, Concord is in keeping with the majority trend. To increase the rent cap, by contrast, would fly in the face of both the demonstrated crisis facing low-income renters and the best practices among East Bay policymakers.

2. Flat-rate rent caps are rare in the Bay Area because they arbitrarily guarantee that landlords can increase the rent at a rapid rate that bears no relationship to inflation.

In Concord, landlord’s written and verbal comments have consistently revolved around the concern that rent stabilization will make it impossible for them to keep up with inflation of costs.

Setting aside the fact that, if these are good-faith worries, landlords can always petition for fair return, these comments point to the fact that the rent cap should be tied to CPI, as is currently the case in Concord. Indeed, that is why nine out of twelve Bay Area cities set their rent cap as a function of CPI.

Further, eight out of those nine cities set their rent cap as a percentage of CPI. That is because, in the context of inflation, a landlord’s increase in costs is more than offset by the corresponding increase in property values. In other words, 100% of CPI actually exceeds a “fair return” for the owner. By contrast, asserting a flat rate for rent increases is totally arbitrary, which is why only two Bay Area cities take this approach. If the CPI only increases by 1.5% in a given year, how is it fair that the landlord could then increase the rent by 5%? Such an approach is not about fair return; it is about profit maximization. And it hurts low-income families.

3. The effects of flat-rate rent caps on low-income families are severely negative.

According to Zillow, the current average rent in Concord is $2,350. The following table shows how the rent would increase using a flat rate versus the current percent of CPI. As we can see, assuming a flat 5% rent cap, a family would see their rent rise by $649 (28%) to nearly $3,000 per month in five years. By contrast, assuming a 60% of CPI rent increase, which ranged from

0.7% to 3.6% over the past five years, a family would see their rent increase by $236 (10%) to

nearly $2,590.1 That amounts to a difference of $413 per month or $4,956 in a single year.

This is a recipe for more displacement of the working families–the restaurant workers, teachers, caretakers, store owners, and more–who make Concord a thriving community for all.

4. While landlords are constitutionally guaranteed a right to petition for fair return, in practice, they almost never need to.

Again, if the current rent cap actually prevents landlords from continuing to turn a profit amidst inflation, then they can apply for a fair return rent increase above the rent cap. But in practice, they virtually never do because Bay Area market rents are so high and fair return is calculated across the property as a whole. That is, even if one unit reduces operating income because of below-market rents, landlords can–and do–adjust the rents of their other units upon turnover as a way to compensate.

This is evidenced in the low number of fair return petitions actually filed in a given year. In Alameda, for one, among the four years for which data are available (2020 to 2023), landlords only filed 15 fair return petitions, and only three were awarded. In San Jose, among the three years for which data are available (2019 to 2021), only one fair return petition was filed. (It is not clear if it was awarded). And in Berkeley, there has not been a single fair return petition filed in at least 20 years. As the general counsel of the Berkeley Rent Board explained over email: “I have worked here since January of 2004. During that 21+ years we have had a grand total of zero fair return petitions. Landlords simply cannot prove that they are not making a fair return since the adoption of Costa-Hawkins.”2

5. Finally, almost all Bay Area jurisdictions with rent stabilization and just cause include single-family homes and condos in their just cause ordinances.

As seen in the table above, ten out of twelve cities include all single-family homes and condos in their eviction protections. And when tenants of single-family homes and condos are covered, they are also entitled to receive full relocation assistance when evicted for no fault of their own 2 This is because, under Costa-Hawkins, those properties that might experience the most difficulty maintaining their operating income–single-family rentals and new construction–are already exempted from rent stabilization. They are likewise exempted in Concord. 1 This analysis assumes the following for each of the five years in question: 0.7% (Year 1), 2.3% (Year 2),

3.6% (Year 3), 1.7% (Year 4), 1.4% (Year 5). See this chart from the City of San Francisco.

(with the partial exception of Hayward).3 In this sense, Concord’s current ordinance, which reduces relocation assistance for tenants of single-family homes and condos, is already an outlier. Fully exempting these units, which house approximately 16,000 of our neighbors, from the ordinance would contradict regional best practices, positioning Concord on the extremes, rather than the mainstream.

Sincerely,

Alex Werth
Policy and Research Advisor
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE)

3 In Hayward, all single-family homes and condos are covered by just cause. For relocation assistance, however, the City adopted the exemptions from AB 1482. In other words, the owner is only required to pay relocation assistance if they are a real estate trust, LLC, or corporation.

Subject: Opposition to Rent Control in Concord
Dear Council members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to any proposed rent control measures in Concord.

While the intention behind rent control may be to provide relief to tenants, extensive research and historical evidence show that such policies ultimately harm landlords, reduce housing quality, and lead to a decline in overall property values. Implementing rent control in our city would discourage investment in rental housing and create long-term negative consequences for both property owners and tenants alike.

Negative Impact on Property Values
One of the most significant downsides of rent control is its impact on property values. Studies have shown that properties in rent-controlled areas often experience lower appreciation rates compared to those in non-regulated markets. A study by Stanford University on rent control in San Francisco found that property values dropped in rent-controlled buildings because landlords had fewer incentives to maintain or upgrade their properties. When rental income is artificially capped, landlords are unable to reinvest in maintenance and improvements, leading to deteriorating housing stock. This not only affects individual landlords but also diminishes the overall attractiveness of the neighborhood, further pushing down property values.

Reduced Incentives for Maintenance and Upgrades
Rent control restricts the income landlords can earn, making it financially unfeasible to maintain or upgrade their properties. In many cities with strict rent control, such as New York and Los Angeles, landlords often delay necessary repairs or opt for only minimal maintenance due to the lack of sufficient rental income. Over time, this leads to the degradation of housing quality, negatively affecting both tenants and property owners. Instead of incentivizing landlords to improve their rental units, rent control discourages long-term investment in rental housing.

Decreased Housing Supply and Market Distortion
Another major consequence of rent control is the reduction in the availability of rental housing.

When landlords cannot adjust rents to reflect market conditions, many opt to convert rental properties into condominiums or owner-occupied housing to escape the constraints of rent regulation. This reduces the supply of rental units, making it harder for tenants to find affordable housing in the long run. The same Stanford study found that rent control policies led to a 15% reduction in available rental housing, exacerbating the very problem they were intended to solve.

Unintended Consequences for Tenants
While rent control aims to protect tenants, it often results in unintended negative consequences.

For example, it discourages mobility, as long-term tenants hold onto units at below-market rates,

reducing the number of available rentals for new residents. This creates an inefficient housing market where people who no longer need large apartments continue occupying them, while those in need of affordable housing struggle to find suitable accommodations. Furthermore, landlords may become more selective in choosing tenants, potentially leading to discrimination or requiring excessive qualifications to mitigate financial risks.

Better Alternatives to Rent Control
Instead of rent control, Concord should consider policies that encourage housing development and investment. Increasing housing supply through zoning reforms, incentivizing new construction, and offering tax benefits for landlords who provide affordable housing are all more effective solutions to address housing affordability issues without the harmful effects of rent regulation.

In conclusion, while rent control may appear to be a solution to rising housing costs, it ultimately harms landlords, reduces property values, discourages maintenance, and shrinks the rental market. I urge the City of Concord to reject any rent control proposals and instead pursue policies that promote a healthy and sustainable housing market.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Varinder Sudhir

Residential Tenant
Protection Program
Single Family Homes and Condominiums

SOPHIA HUCKABAY, HOUSING MANAGER
FEBRUARY 4, 2025
1

Purpose
Council directed staff to bring back two topics related to the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program:

1. Single family homes and condominiums

2. Allowable annual rent increase (rent increase cap)
formula
2

Background
▪ March 5, 2024 - adoption of amended Residential Tenant Protection Program
▪ April 19, 2024 - Program went into effect
▪ January 28, 2025 - Council directed staff to agendize tonight’s discussion
▪February 28, 2025 – Rent Registry deadline
3

Topic 1:

Single Family Homes and Condominiums
▪ Rented single family homes and condominiums are not
subject to the rent stabilization related regulations of the Program
▪ Program regulations related to annual rental registration, just cause for eviction, and minimum lease terms apply to rented single family homes and rented condominiums
4

Topic 1:

Single Family Homes and Condominiums
• Requires approved “just cause reason” for terminating tenancy • Requires payment of permanent relocation assistance and a moving stipend (2 months of tenant’s current rent + $2,000 moving stipend)
• No additional month’s rent for protected tenants is required • No payment for temporary relocations that result from the “no fault” eviction of an intent to demolish/substantially remodel the unit
5

Topic 1:

Single Family Homes and Condominiums
• Owner Move-Ins: requires an owner to move into the unit within 90 days of tenant vacancy; owner must occupy for at least 24 consecutive months, thereafter, as their primary residence
• Property owners required to record notice that removes the single family home from the rental market for 10 years (Ellis Act) • If property owner returns unit as available for rent following a “no fault” eviction for an owner move-in, Ellis Act, or a government order, tenant retains the right to return at terms in effect at the time of vacancy
6

Topic 1:

Single Family Homes and Condominiums
• Requires rental property owners of single family homes and rented condominiums to register annually and pay the Rent Registry fee (currently $29 per unit)
• Property owners must offer tenants a written lease with a minimum term of either 12 or 6 months prior to offering a shorter lease term
7

Topic 2: Rent Increase Caps
8 Concord
▪ 60% of CPI, or 3%, whichever is less
▪ Current rent cap: calculated to be 2.52% until July 31, 2025 ▪ If Council continues to utilize this formula, the rent cap will be

2.25% from August 1, 2025 – July 31, 2026
CA State
▪ 5% plus the Consumer Price Index (CPI), or 10%, whichever is less ▪ Current rent cap is 8.8% until Summer of 2025

Next Steps
If Council directs changes to the Program, staff will prepare a draft ordinance amending the Residential Tenant Protection Program based on the direction received.
9

Direction to Staff
Council directed staff to bring back two topics related to the City’s Residential Tenant Protection Program:

1. Single family homes and condominiums

2. Allowable annual rent increase formula
10

Questions?
11

Staff Report
Date: February 25, 2025
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mindy Gentry, Director of Community Development Prepared by: Meredith Rupp, Principal Planner
[email protected]
(925) 603-5890
Subject: Considering direction to staff on the City’s compliance with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) new
regional Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy
CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3) and 15378, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

Report in Brief
In September 2022, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) adopted a regional Transit-Oriented Communities (“TOC”) Policy to implement Play Bay Area 2050, the region’s Long-Range Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy.1 The goal of the TOC Policy is to support the region’s transit investments by creating communities around transit that not only support transit ridership, but that are places where “Bay Area residents of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work, and access services.”2 The TOC Policy only applies to the areas within a ½-mile radius of certain transit stops and stations. In Concord, it applies to the area within ½ mile of the Concord and North Concord/Martinez BART Stations.

There are four elements to the TOC Policy: 1) land use density for new residential and commercial office development, 2) affordable housing and commercial stabilization, 3) 1 The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) was born out of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (2006), Senate Bill (SB) 32 (2016), and SB 375 (2008) to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. Regional metropolitan planning organizations are required to develop a SCS to align transportation, housing, and land use decisions to achieve GHG emissions reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2 MTC Resolution No. 4530.

5.b5.b5.b5.b5.b5.b5.b5.b

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
parking management, and 4) station access and circulation. Compliance with the TOC Policy is voluntary for jurisdictions but will be needed to be competitive for One Bay Area Grant (“OBAG”) funding starting in 2026.

Currently, Concord’s existing policies are mostly consistent with the TOC Policy, especially relative to affordable housing and commercial stabilization and station access and circulation. However, some new and updated policies would be required for full compliance.

In October 2024, MTC issued a Call for Projects for jurisdictions seeking technical assistance and/or grant funding to support work necessary to come into compliance with the TOC Policy. Concord applied for grant funding in the amount of approximately $485,000, which the City is not obligated to take, related to the land use density and intensity and parking management policies. MTC staff and the Planning Committee have recommended approval of Concord’s funding request for $485,000 to MTC’s Programming and Allocations Committee3. If approved, and prior to awarding any funding, documentation of local support is required. The City Council (“Council”) is being requested to review the proposed staff work plan – which, if supported by Council, will result in the City becoming more compliant with the TOC Policy – and to provide direction on whether staff should pursue all, some, or none of the proposed changes needed to achieve compliance. MTC has not defined what compliance will entail or how it will be weighed in OBAG 4 funding awards but has suggested that it will be looking for “meaningful progress” towards compliance.4
Recommended Action
Provide direction to staff on the City’s compliance with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) new regional Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy.

Background
TOC Policy
In September 2022, MTC adopted the TOC Policy to support the region’s transit investments and advance the goals of Plan Bay Area 2050 (Attachment 1). The TOC Policy applies to “TOC Areas”, which are the areas within ½ mile of existing and planned transit stops and stations (i.e., regional rail, commuter rail, light-rail transit, bus rapid transit, and ferries).5 MTC has identified 65 jurisdictions with a TOC Area. As shown in Attachment 2, Concord has two TOC Areas: one around the Concord BART Station (“Downtown TOC Area”) and one around the North Concord/Martinez BART 3 This grant is federally funded and could potentially be impacted pursuant to the recent Executive Orders. 4 At the MTC Planning Committee meeting on February 14, 2025, MTC staff indicated that 100% compliance in all four TOC Policy components may not be the right benchmark and that the Planning Committee would be asked to weigh in on a definition of compliance at a later meeting. 5 The ½-mile radius around a transit station applies even if the jurisdiction has adopted a Priority Development Area (PDA) with different boundaries.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
Station (“North Concord TOC Area”). Both Concord BART Stations are considered Tier 3 stations for TOC Policy purposes because the stations serve only one BART line.6 Compliance with the TOC Policy is voluntary. However, as discussed later in this section, future OBAG and other discretionary MTC funding cycles will consider prioritizing investments in transit station areas that are compliant with the TOC Policy.

In the TOC Areas, and only in the TOC Areas, the TOC Policy establishes requirements related to four components: land use density, affordable housing and commercial stabilization, parking management, and station access/circulation.

Land Use Density and Intensity
The TOC Policy establishes minimum development density and intensity standards for new residential, office, and mixed-use development. The density requirements apply to the weighted average of allowable densities in zoning districts where new residential, commercial office, and mixed-use development is permitted in the TOC Areas.7 Because a weighted average is used, it is possible for an individual zoning district within the TOC area to have allowable densities below the minimum TOC standards as long as the weighted average for the TOC exceeds the minimums. In Concord, the weighted average must meet or exceed the minimums shown in Table 1 to achieve full compliance with the TOC Policy.

Table 1: Land Use Density TOC Standards
TOC Policy Standard Residential
Requirement
Commercial
Requirement
Average Minimum Density 50 dwelling units/acre FAR8 of 2.0 Average Maximum Density 75 dwelling units/acre FAR of 4.0 Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization
To achieve full compliance with the TOC Policy, jurisdictions must have at least six adopted affordable housing policies, with at least two policies for each of the “3Ps” (i.e., production, preservation, and protection). Policies must be selected from a menu of 26 options (see Attachment 3) and meet prescriptive implementation criteria. Example policies that can be used to achieve compliance include using public land for affordable housing, restricting the conversion of apartments to condominiums, and providing 6 MTC has categorized the TOC Areas into four tiers based on level of transit service. Tier 1 applies to rail stations that serve regional centers (e.g, Downtown Oakland, Downtown San Francisco) while Tier 4 applies to commuter rail stations and ferry terminals (e.g., Martinez Amtrak Station, Vallejo Ferry Terminal). Some TOC Policy requirements are adjusted to apply according to transit tier while others are consistent across all tiers. 7 The average may exclude parcels or zones in certain cases (e.g., zones intended for open space, parcels with existing dwelling units).
8 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) is the ratio of a building’s gross floor area to the total lot area. FAR is used to measure and regulate the maximum allowable floor area of all structures permitted on a site. In Concord, FAR only applies to non-residential buildings.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
foreclosure assistance. Additionally, jurisdictions must select at least one commercial stabilization policy from a menu of four policy options.

Parking Management
To achieve full compliance with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction must have eight parking management policies within its TOC Areas, including minimum and maximum parking requirements. The standards applicable to Concord’s TOC Areas are listed below.

1. No minimum automobile parking requirement for new residential development

2. Maximum residential parking ratio of 1.0 space per residential unit

3. No minimum automobile parking requirement for new commercial development

4. Maximum commercial parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office, retail, or services businesses

5. Minimum bicycle parking ratio of 1 secure bicycle space per dwelling unit and 1 secure bicycle space per 5,000 occupied square feet of commercial office space

6. Allow unbundled parking 9

7. Allow shared parking between different land uses

8. Adopt and implement one additional policy from the five options below:
• Require and enforce Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) for new development
• Curb Strategy/Management that provides priority curb access based on variable need
• Invest parking revenues into a Parking Benefit District that funds streetscape, safety, and TDM programs
• Demand-responsive pricing that prices parking according to level of convenience and demand
• Adding priced parking where it used to be free
Station Access and Circulation
Jurisdictions seeking full TOC Policy compliance must meet the following four requirements related to station access and circulation:
• Adopt a jurisdiction-wide Complete Streets Policy
• Prioritize implementation of active transportation projects10 in TOC Areas 9 Unbundled parking means separating the cost of leasing a parking space from the sale or rental price of residential and commercial uses.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
• Complete an access gap analysis and capital improvement program for station access
• Identify “Mobility Hub”11 planning and implementation opportunities in TOC Areas Implications of TOC Policy Compliance on Future Funding Eligibility Although TOC Policy compliance is not mandatory, it will make jurisdictions “eligible and/or competitive” for MTC discretionary funding, including future OBAG funding cycles. OBAG funds are an important source of regional dollars to implement transportation improvements and planning. Since 2015, Concord has received almost $20.8 million in OBAG funding, as shown in Table 2. OBAG is funded by federal transportation dollars, primarily from the Federal Highway Administration.12 Table 2: Concord’s Previous OBAG Projects
Project Name Funding Amount
Actuated Pedestrian/Bicycle Traffic Signal on
Oak Grove Rd at Sierra Rd
$504,900
Concord Various Streets Preservation $757,000
Detroit Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements
$2,154,000
Concord BART Station Bicycle and Pedestrian
Access Improvements
$1,195,000
Concord Salvio Streetscape $50,000
Willow Pass Road Rehab and Safe Routes to
School
$1,012,000
Monument Blvd Class I Path $4,368,000
Willow Pass Road Rehab and Safe Routes to
School
$4,183,000
Willow Pass Repaving and Safe Routes to
School
$215,000
East Downtown Concord Access & Safe Routes
to Transit
$2,164,000
Galindo Street Multimodal Corridor $3,361,000
Willow Pass Road Bikeway Connection $830,000
TOTAL $20,793,900
10 Active transportation encompasses any form of travel that is fully or partially powered by people, such as walking, biking, or using a scooter.
11 Mobility Hubs are an MTC term for places around frequent transit that bring together public transit, bike share, car share, and other ways for people to transfer from one type of transportation to another without a private vehicle. MTC encourages jurisdictions to consult the Mobility Hub Implementation Playbook at https://mtc.ca.gov/tools-and-resources/digital-library/mtc-mobility-hub-implementation-playbook for ideas. 12 The federal agencies with which MTC works are currently pausing new grant agreements and obligations until they can determine which grants will be impacted by recent Executive Orders.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
The next round of OBAG funds, OBAG 4, is planned to launch in early 2026. Local jurisdictions’ compliance with the TOC Policy will be considered as part of OBAG 4 funding decisions. However, because MTC is currently designing the OBAG 4 program, jurisdictions do not know how compliance will be assessed or weighted. Similarly, it is uncertain how OBAG 4 funding will be structured between the more competitive Regional Program and less competitive County & Local Program.13 MTC has advised that it would be reasonable to assume a structure similar to OBAG 3, which evenly split funding between the County & Local Program and the Regional Program. OBAG 3 funds for local governments in the Regional Program are typically competitive across the nine-county region whereas the County & Local Program is competitive at the county level. For the County & Local Program in OBAG 3, County Transportation Agencies (“CTAs”) nominated projects to MTC for selection and each CTA was assigned a target share of the total funding available. TOC Policy compliance is anticipated to be an evaluation criterion for both the Regional Program and County & Local Program in OBAG 4, indicating that the City’s level of TOC Policy compliance could be evaluated against all Bay Area jurisdictions for regional OBAG 4 funding and only against Contra Costa County jurisdictions for county and local OBAG 4 funding.

MTC has also indicated that there will be a degree of flexibility in achieving TOC Policy compliance knowing that jurisdictions will be varied in their degree of compliance; however, this degree of flexibility has not been defined.

TOC Planning and Implementation Grants
MTC released approximately $20 million for local planning and policy development across all four components of the TOC Policy. City staff submitted two TOC planning and implementation grant applications to fund staff and consultant time as follows (and included in Attachments 4 and 5):
• A Specific Plan and Zoning Amendments Grant for approximately $185,300 to increase the average minimum residential density and average minimum FAR in the downtown to become fully compliant with the TOC Policy in the Downtown TOC Area.14 The scope of work would include identifying and selecting which policy levers to adjust to meet the minimum density requirements; making the relevant amendments to the 2030 Concord General Plan, Downtown Concord Specific Plan, and Concord Development Code; conducting community engagement; and performing environmental review.
13 Since 2015, 99 percent of Concord’s OBAG funds have come from the County & Local Program. 14 The North Concord TOC Area was not considered as part of the Specific Plan and Zoning Amendments Grant due to complexities associated with amending the Area Plan, the federal government’s involvement in the Naval Weapons Station Reuse Project, and the current status of the City’s negotiations with a Master Developer and the Navy. Based on preliminary conversations with MTC staff, City staff believes MTC understands and agrees with the City’s reasoning for excluding the North Concord TOC Area and may show flexibility in assessing compliance given the unique nature of the land use planning process for the Naval Weapons Station.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
• A Parking Management Grant for $300,000 to revise vehicle and bicycle parking standards and TDM measures in both TOC Areas. The proposal also requested assistance in determining on-street parking supply and demand within Concord’s two TOC Areas to allow the City to better prepare for any changes to on-street parking regulations and prevent parking from being transferred from off-street spaces to on-street spaces. Community and stakeholder engagement were also included.

If both scopes of work were completed, both TOC Areas would be fully compliant with the parking management component of the TOC Policy and the Downtown TOC Area would be fully compliant with the land use density components of the TOC Policy.

On February 14, 2025, the MTC Planning Committee unanimously approved $20 million in grants, including $485,000 to the City of Concord, for TOC Policy planning. The next step will be consideration of the grant funding by MTC’s Programming and Allocations Committee. As indicated above, this funding is from the Federal Highway Administration, which is currently pausing new discretionary grants while it determines the impacts of recent Executive Orders, resulting in a degree of uncertainty if the grant will eventually be awarded for this work. MTC requires a resolution of local support as a condition to accept any grant awards. If Council is supportive of greater compliance with the TOC Policy, staff will return with a resolution for Council adoption. As discussed in the Alternatives sections of this staff report, Council direction received tonight could lead staff to request modifications to the proposed scopes of work before coming back to the Council for a resolution demonstrating local support.

Analysis
Currently, Concord’s existing policies are mostly consistent with the TOC Policy, especially relative to affordable housing and commercial stabilization and station access and circulation. However, some new and updated policies would be required for full compliance. In the following sections, Concord’s consistency with the TOC Policy and changes that would be needed for full compliance are analyzed and discussed for each of the four TOC Policy components.

Land Use Density and Intensity
In general, the City would need higher residential density and commercial FAR standards to be fully compliant with the TOC Policy. Table 3 illustrates Concord’s current averages in the TOC Area compared with the TOC Policy standard. Grey shading is used to identify current areas of noncompliance.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
Table 3: Land Use Density in TOC Areas
TOC Policy
Standard
Requirement Downtown TOC
Area
North Concord
TOC Area15
Average Minimum
Residential Density
At least 50 units/
acre
29 units/acre 28 units/acre
Average Maximum
Residential Density
At least 75 units/
acre
112 units/acre 81 units/acre
Average Minimum
Commercial Office
FAR
At least 2.0 FAR 2.15 FAR 1.8 FAR
Average Maximum
Commercial Office
FAR
At least 4.0 FAR 4.8 FAR 2.5 FAR
Downtown TOC Area
In the Downtown TOC, the zones that most affect the weighted average are Downtown Mixed-Use (DMX), which makes up 100 acres, and Residential High Density (RH), which makes up 28 acres (see Attachment 2 for zoning maps). These two zoning districts are some of the densest in the city, but the minimum residential density in both zones is 33 dwelling units per acre. Adjusting the minimum residential density of at least one of these zones would be necessary to achieve full TOC Policy compliance, and increases to the DMX zone would have a bigger impact on the weighted average than changes to the RH zone. This means that the DMX District’s minimum density could be increased to a lesser number than the RH District due to the larger geographic area.

Further, the City is not seeing development projects being submitted at the lower end of the density range in the DMX District.

Table 4 provides data on recent multi-family housing projects in the Downtown TOC Area to better contextualize this policy issue. As shown below, the densities of recent projects in the DMX zone have not been below 100 units per net acre.

Table 4: Recent Residential Projects Downtown
Project Name and Address Zoning
District
Total Units Approved
Density
The Ashbury
1650 Ashbury Dr.

DMX 183 102 units/acre
Concord Village
2400 Salvio St.

DMX 230 100 units/acre
Blue Oak Square (formerly
The Argent)
DMX 181 110 units/acre
15 The North Concord calculations do not include the Coast Guard property because the property is currently designated Military in the General Plan and zoned as a Study District. The calculations will be updated to include the property when more details are provided on the General Plan Amendment and rezoning that is being pursued.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
2400 Willow Pass Rd.

Rick Judd Commons
1313-21 Galindo St.

DMX 62 117 units/acre
RMG Affordable Housing
1335 Galindo St.

DMX 75 136 units/acre
The Grant
1776 Grant St.

DMX 139 101 units/acre
If awarded the Specific Plan and Zoning Amendments Grant, and pending Council direction, staff would identify and evaluate multiple options on how to adjust residential density minimums to achieve the 50 dwelling units/acre in the Downtown TOC Area.

North Concord TOC Area
The Concord Reuse Project Area Plan, adopted in 2012, was used to calculate minimum and maximum residential densities and commercial FAR in the North Concord TOC Area. Due to the complexities required to change the 2012 Area Plan and the current status of the City’s negotiation with a Master Developer and the Navy, staff does not recommend any changes for the North Concord TOC Area density and intensity regulations. MTC staff understand the unique constraints of the North Concord TOC Area and City staff believe MTC may exercise some flexibility in the North Concord TOC Area’s compliance for the land use density and intensity component.

Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization
Concord has policies within each of the “3Ps,” as required for TOC Policy compliance.

However, the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance includes prescriptive standards for each policy, such as the amount of funding secured for certain programs, the minimum percentage of inclusionary units, and the amount of tenant relocation assistance. Table 5 illustrates the policies that comply with the TOC Policy and policies that could be good candidates for compliance given the simplicity of revisions that would be needed for full compliance. (See Attachment 3 for the full list of policy options.) Multiple discussions between City and MTC staff informed this analysis.

Table 5: Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization Compliance Policy Name Key Requirements Compliance
Status
Adjustments to
Achieve
Compliance
Housing Production
(2 out of 7 policy options required for compliance)
Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone16
Go beyond
requirements of
Fully Compliant. None Needed
16 Due to overlapping components across production policies, jurisdictions applying for compliance under the Affordable Housing Overlay Production Policy are not permitted to count other Production policies for compliance (i.e., Ministerial Approval Policy or Development Certainty & Streamlined Entitlement Process).

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
state law to
incentivize projects
with at least 15% of
units affordable
(e.g., allowances
for increased
density, reduced
parking
requirements, fast-
tracked permitting).

The City’s
Affordable Housing
Incentive Program
meets the criteria of
this policy. It is a
citywide program
that applies in
certain zones when
at least 40% of
units are affordable.

Public Land for
Affordable Housing
Have a program in
the Housing
Element, an online
inventory of surplus
sites, and a recent,
ongoing, or planned
development on a
public site that
exceeds the
affordability
requirements of the
Surplus Lands Act
(i.e., more than
25% of units
affordable). If the
project is not on
City-owned land,
then the City must
show financial
support for the
project (e.g.,
grant/loan, waived
fees).

Partially
Compliant.

Housing Element
Programs 3 and 4
include actions
around facilitating
affordable housing
development on
surplus public land
and Concord has
several publicly
owned sites that
are in various
stages of the
development
process (e.g., City-
owned Town
Center II or
Oak/Laguna site,
BART-owned
Monument site).

Development on at
least one of these
sites would have to
have more than
25% of the units
restricted as
affordable.

Implementation of
Housing Element
Programs 3 and 4
to create a map of
publicly owned land
would fulfill some
compliance
requirements.

However, the
biggest factors will
be:
1) whether
development on
publicly owned land
has more than 25%
of units restricted
as affordable and
2) the City’s ability
to provide monetary
benefits to a project
or MTC’s
acceptance of non-
monetary benefits
as adequate
evidence of the
City’s support for
development on
BART-owned
land.17
Other Production
Policy Notes
Staff conferred with MTC staff about the possibility of using Concord’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for Housing
17 MTC staff have indicated that the City successfully securing a due diligence grant for the BART-owned site “could count.” MTC staff may, at their discretion, also allow a jurisdiction to count a non-monetary benefit like staff time.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
Production compliance. MTC staff advised that Concord’s inclusionary rate of 6% for rental housing differed too greatly from the TOC Policy requirement of 15% to be considered compliant, even though the City’s rate was established based on a feasibility study.

Housing Preservation
(2 out of 8 policy options required for compliance)
Preventing
Displacement from
Substandard
Conditions and
Associated
Enforcement
Activities
Low- or no-interest
loan or grant
program to
rehabilitate owner-
occupied housing
for low-income
homeowners.

Grants or loans
need to be at least
$10,000.

Fully Compliant.

The City’s home
rehabilitation loan
and grant program,
administered by
Habitat for
Humanity, meets all
TOC Policy criteria.

None Needed
Condo Conversion
Restrictions
Impose the
following
requirements for
condo conversions:
1) Levy an
affordable
housing fee of
$100,000 per
converted unit.
2) Give existing
tenants the first
right to
purchase a unit.
3) Require a
Tenant
Relocation
Assistance Plan,
including paying
existing tenants
three times the
monthly fair
market rent of
the unit.

Mostly Compliant.

Concord Municipal
Code (CMC)
Chapter 17.35
Article II contains
regulations for
condo conversions
that are largely
consistent with the
provision of this
component of the
TOC Policy.

The City would
need to establish
an affordable
housing fee of at
least $100,000 per
unit that applies to
condo conversions
and include
additional tenant
relocation
assistance
provisions. This
would include
increasing the
amount of
assistance paid to
existing tenants
from at least two
times the tenant’s
monthly rent plus
$2,000 at the time
of move out to at
least three times
the monthly fair
market rent of the
unit while retaining
a to-be-determined

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
amount for
“reasonable moving
expenses.”
Mobile Home
Preservation
Mobile Home
Closure Ordinance
must require a
public hearing as
part of a conditional
approval for any
closure and include
a Tenant
Relocation
Assistance Plan.

Mostly Compliant.

CMC Chapter

15.105 limits
redevelopment of
mobile home parks
by requiring a
report on the impact
and a plan to
mitigate impacts.

Language in the
CMC currently
states that the
Planning
Commission “may”
require relocation
assistance and
other conditions of
approval for mobile
home park closure.

This would need to
be changed to
require relocation
assistance as a
condition of
approval.

Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement
(2 out of 11 policy options required for compliance)
Just Cause Eviction A Just Cause for
Eviction ordinance
without a sunset
date that goes
beyond the
provisions of state
law and requires
landlords to file
notices with a
government
agency.

Fully Compliant.

Concord’s
ordinance, codified
in CMC Section

19.40.070, meets
the TOC criteria.

None Needed
Rent Stabilization Rent Stabilization
ordinance without a
sunset date that
applies to multi-
family properties
with 3 or more units
with restrictions that
are more favorable
to tenants than
those established in
state law.

Fully Compliant.

Concord’s
regulations, codified
in CMC Section

19.40.030, meet the
TOC criteria.

None Needed
Tenant Relocation Landlords must Fully Compliant. None Needed

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
Assistance make relocation
payments for all no-
fault evictions equal
to at least three
months’ fair market
rent.

Concord’s
Residential Tenant
Protection Program
meets the TOC
criteria.

Commercial Stabilization
(1 out of 4 policy options required for compliance)
Small Business
Advocate Office
Provide a single
point of contact for
small business
owners
Fully Compliant.

The Economic
Development
Department has a
designated staff
person for small
businesses.

None Needed
Parking Management
As shown in Table 6, the City’s parking management policies are not consistent with the TOC Policy. The City would need to decrease automobile parking requirements for new residential and commercial developments and increase the bicycle parking requirements. If the Parking Management Grant is accepted, a consultant would propose changes to achieve compliance that would be vetted with community leaders and stakeholders.

Table 6: Parking Management Compliance
TOC Policy
Standard
Requirement City of Concord Standard Compliance
Status
Minimum
Residential
Automobile
Parking
No parking
minimum
The City enforces AB 2097, and
therefore cannot impose any
minimum parking requirement for
development projects within ½ mile
of BART.18
Fully
Compliant
Maximum
Residential
Automobile
Parking

1.0 space per
unit
Parking is based on number of
bedrooms:
• 1 space/studio
• 1.5 spaces/1-bedroom unit
• 2 spaces/2- and 3-bedroom unit
• 1 guest space/each 3 units
Incompliant
18 For projects that are not within ½ mile of BART, the CMC would otherwise require the parking minimums found in Table 18.160.040. For multi-family projects, the parking requirements are tied to the number of bedrooms and start at 1 space/studio. For affordable housing within the Transit Station (TS) Overlay, the minimum starts at 0.5 spaces/studio.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
Minimum
Commercial
Automobile
Parking
No parking
minimum
The City enforces AB 2097, and
therefore cannot impose any
minimum parking requirement for
development projects within ½ mile
of BART.19
Fully
Compliant
Parking standards vary by land use,
as listed below.20 Projects within ½
mile of BART (i.e., in the Transit
Station (TS) Overlay) may reduce
parking by 25%.

Maximum
Commercial
Automobile
Parking

2.5 space per
1,000 sq ft
for "office,
retail, and
services
businesses" Standard
Requirement
• Admin Office:

2.9 spaces/
1,000 sq ft
• Professional
Offices: 3.3
spaces/1,000
sq ft
• General
retail: 4
spaces/
1,000 sq ft
With 25%
Overlay
Reduction
• Admin Office:

2.2 spaces/
1,000 sq ft
• Professional
Offices: 2.5
spaces/1,000
sq ft
• General retail:
3 spaces/
1,000 sq ft
Partially
Compliant
(when TS
Overlay
reductions are
assumed)
Minimum
Residential
Bicycle Parking
1 secure
bicycle
parking
space per
unit
1 secure space for every 4 units Incompliant
Minimum
Commercial
Office Bicycle
Parking
1 secure
bicycle
parking
space per
5,000
occupied
square feet
If more than 25 employees, bicycle
parking must be provided at 10% of
the amount required for automobiles.

With the City’s current automobile
parking requirements, this standard
complies with the TOC Policy.

However, if commercial automobile
parking requirements are decreased
to come into compliance with the
Partially
Compliant
19 For projects that are not within ½ mile of BART, the CMC would otherwise require the parking minimums found in Table 18.160.040. For commercial office projects, this is 1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area. For general retail uses, it is 1 space/250 square feet of gross floor area. 20 Concord’s regulations do not utilize a “per 1,000 square feet ratio.” Staff have calculated equivalences for Concord’s standards.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
TOC Policy’s parking maximums,
then this standard will no longer
comply with the TOC Policy.

Unbundled
Parking
Allow
unbundled
parking
The City does not require or prohibit
unbundled parking. City staff has
been working with MTC to determine
compliance and will require a
comprehensive analysis to make a
firm determination.

Likely
Compliant
Shared Parking Allow shared
parking
The City allows shared parking
between two more adjacent
nonresidential uses with approval of
a minor use permit.

Fully
Compliant
Complement-
ary Policy for
Parking
Management
Adopt at
least one of
the following
policies:
• TDM for New
Development
• Curb
Management
• Parking
Benefit
District
• Demand
Responsive
Pricing
• Priced
Parking
The City requires and considers
TDM plans when new development
requests a parking reduction, but
TDM is not a condition of approval
for all new development. MTC
suggested that the City evaluate
how the current TDM policies will
work together with parking
maximums to meet the TOC
requirements.

The City does not have adopted
policies relative to the other options.

Partially
Compliant
Station Access and Circulation
Based on preliminary discussions with MTC staff, it appears that the City is generally in compliance with the station access and circulation components of the TOC Policy, as shown in Table 7. The compliance requirements for Station Access and Circulation are less prescriptive than for the other three categories, so compliance determinations for this category are more open to interpretation. MTC staff believes the City’s existing policies result in full compliance; however, this determination will be subject to an iterative process.

Table 7: Station Access and Circulation Compliance
TOC Policy Standard Compliance Status
Adopt a jurisdiction-wide Complete
Streets Policy
Fully Compliant. Concord’s adopted
General Plan includes a Complete Street
policy (Principle T-1.4 and the associated
policies).

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
Prioritize implementation of active
transportation projects in TOC area(s)
Fully Compliant. Concord has completed
several bike improvements in the
Downtown TOC Area, including a path on
Monument Boulevard, a bike route on
Cowell Road, and bike lanes on Concord
Boulevard. The City’s Capital
Improvement Plan includes safe routes to
transit and sidewalk gap closure projects.

Complete an access gap analysis and
capital improvement program for station
access
Fully Compliant. The City and BART
have multiple studies that fulfill this
requirement.

Identify Mobility Hub planning and
implementation opportunities in TOC
area(s)
Likely Compliant. MTC staff have
indicated that Concord’s active
transportation projects also apply to this
category, but it is uncertain how MTC will
interpret Concord’s mobility hub planning
progress. The City has been working with
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) to plan a mobility hub as part of
CCTA’s INNOVATE 680 program.

Compliance Workplan
Changes to City regulations would be required to achieve full compliance with the TOC Policy. Staff is seeking Council direction on which areas of compliance to pursue. Table 8 illustrates a tentative compliance workplan for both TOC Areas for Council’s consideration.

Table 8: Staff’s Proposal for TOC Policy Compliance
TOC Policy Component Downtown TOC Area North Concord TOC Area Land Use Density Perform scope of work
included in the Specific
Plan and Zoning
Amendments Grant to
achieve full compliance by
increasing the minimum
residential density in select
zoning districts. Community
outreach and Council
direction would determine
which zoning district(s) to
adjust.

Would not perform any
work in this area given the
ongoing planning process
for the Naval Weapons
Station Reuse Project. The
City would likely achieve
partial (25%) compliance
by meeting the maximum
residential density
requirement based on the
densities in the 2012
Concord Reuse Project
Area Plan.

Affordable Housing and
Commercial Stabilization
Achieve full compliance by making small adjustments to
at least one existing Preservation program (i.e., condo

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
conversion restrictions and/or mobile home preservation) and implementing Housing Element Programs 3 and 4
related to public lands. Notably, the City would need to submit evidence of at least one project on public land that plans to have an affordability percentage greater than
25%.

Parking Management Achieve full compliance by performing the scope of work included in the Parking Management Grant. This would
include decreasing the maximum residential and
commercial automobile parking requirements and
increasing bicycle parking requirements in both TOC
Areas. The exact compliance approach would be
informed by an on-street parking study and vetted by
stakeholders, including decision making by the City
Council.

Station Access and
Circulation
Achieve full compliance with implementation of current
plans and coordination with MTC on mobility hubs.

Next Steps
As discussed in the following section, Council could direct staff to pursue compliance in some, all, or none of the TOC Policy compliance areas. City staff will move forward to pursue compliance with TOC Policy components as directed by Council. Jurisdictions have been advised to submit evidence of compliance by 2026, although it is expected that there will be some flexibility, especially for jurisdictions that are still executing the work funded by TOC planning and implementation grants.

Pending approval by MTC of the $485,000 in TOC Policy planning and implementation grants, staff will return to Council with a resolution of local support as required for award of the grant. Pursuant to feedback received tonight, City staff will coordinate with MTC to refine the scopes of work in the TOC Policy planning and implementation grants, if needed. Both scopes of work include the following tasks (see Attachments 4 and 5 for the full scopes of work):
• Analyzing the existing conditions and compliance gaps • Identifying and evaluating approaches to achieve compliance • Community and stakeholder engagement to select the preferred approach • Developing policy updates (e.g., General Plan amendments, Municipal Code amendments)
• Public hearings and ordinance adoption for revised parking and density requirements in compliance with the TOC Policy

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
The City is largely compliant in the affordable housing and commercial stabilization and station access and circulation components; accepting the grant funds would inform the City on additional modifications needed to be compliant with the land use density and parking management components. If the scopes of work included in the proposals are completed as currently written, then the Downtown TOC Area would be fully compliant with the land use density components of the TOC Policy and both TOC Areas would be compliant with the parking management components.

Alternatives
The Council has several TOC Policy compliance aspects to consider: (1) the selection of which policies to pursue, if any, (2) which TOC Areas to pursue them in, and (3) the level of compliance to target. The Council could pursue compliance with some, all, or none of the TOC Policy standards in one, both, or neither TOC Area. Moreover, the City could make regulatory changes to bring City standards closer to TOC standards without meeting the standard completely. However, it is uncertain how MTC will evaluate the City for partial efforts that do not meet the TOC Policy’s prescriptive standards.

If Council’s goals are to stay as competitive as feasible for OBAG and other regional roadway funding sources, Council will need to address all areas where the City is not already fully compliant.

Financial Impact
If the City is awarded grants for both TOC planning and implementation proposals, then the estimated staff and consultant costs of approximately $485,000 would be fully funded by the grants, assuming grant funding is not in jeopardy under the recent Executive Orders. If funding is not awarded, then staff time costs for pursuing compliance for land use density and parking management components would be funded through the Planning Division’s operating budget, which could have an impact to the Division’s revenues and result in the delay of project processing. In addition, the negligible staff time costs for pursuing compliance with the affordable housing and commercial stabilization and station access and circulation components would also be funded through the Community Development Department’s and the Transportation Division’s operating budget. There is no need to identify additional funding to support the City’s TOC Policy compliance. However, the level of effort and staff costs will depend on what level of compliance the City seeks to achieve.

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 action does 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.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025
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 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.

Any changes to the City’s regulations developed pursuant to TOC Policy compliance (e.g., specific plan amendments, municipal code amendments) will be fully evaluated in an appropriate environmental document which will be considered at the time the project is considered.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted and the housing interested parties list was notified.

Attachments

1. MTC’s TOC Policy Overview

2. TOC Area Maps

3. Affordable Housing Policies Menu

4. Specific Plans and Zoning Amendments Grant Application

5. Parking Management Grant Application

MTC’s Transit-Oriented Communities Policy
On September 28, 2022, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy (MTC Resolution 4530) to support the region’s transit investments by creating communities around transit stations and along transit corridors that not only enable transit ridership, but also are places where Bay Area residents of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work, and access services.

Future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding cycles
will consider prioritizing investments in transit
station areas that are subject to and compliant with
the TOC Policy. Jurisdictions should anticipate
demonstrating compliance prior to the adoption of
OBAG 4, expected in 2026. MTC’s TOC Policy
Administrative Guidance provides more information
on requirements and the process and required
documentation for confirming compliance.

Applicability
The TOC Policy applies to the half-mile area around
existing and planned fixed-guideway transit stops
and stations (i.e., regional rail, commuter rail, light- rail transit, bus rapid transit, and ferries). Compliance with the TOC Policy is voluntary for jurisdictions that want to advance the goals of Plan Bay Area 2050 or
to be eligible and/or competitive for some MTC
discretionary funding. Access a map of TOC areas or
a spreadsheet of jurisdictions and TOC areas subject
to the OBAG 4 compliance deadline.

TOC Policy Goals

1. Increase the overall housing
supply in part by increasing the
density for new residential
projects. Prioritize affordable
housing in transit-rich areas.

2. In areas near regional transit
hubs, increase density for
businesses and commercial
development.

3. Prioritize bus transit, active
transportation, and shared
mobility within and to/from
transit
-rich areas, particularly to
Equity Priority Communities.

4. Support and build partnerships
to create equitable transit-
oriented communities within the
San Francisco Bay Area.

Transit Tiers
Areas subject to the TOC Policy are categorized by tier according to level of transit service:
• Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San José).
• Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain. • Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit.
• Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals.

Implementation Process and Timeline
MTC developed an online submission portal to streamline the process for jurisdictions to demonstrate compliance with TOC Policy requirements. Jurisdictions can submit documentation on a rolling basis until an anticipated deadline corresponding with OBAG 4 in early 2026. Jurisdictions can contact MTC for assistance with the compliance process.

Attachment 1

TOC Policy Requirements
The TOC Policy focuses on the core elements of land use density, affordable housing, parking management, and complete streets/multimodal access to implement Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies.

1. Minimum residential and commercial office densities for new development:
• On average, the minimum density for parcels in the ½-mile TOC area must exceed a threshold determined by the TOC area’s Transit Tier. • If a jurisdiction adopts a maximum density for parcels in the ½-mile TOC area, on average, the maximum density must exceed a threshold determined by the TOC area’s Transit Tier.
• A jurisdiction is not required to zone for a particular land use in the TOC area. • Only areas where residential uses are allowed are included in residential density calculations, and only zoning districts that allow commercial office land uses as a primary use are included in commercial office density calculations. • Parcels with existing dwelling units can be excluded from the residential and commercial office density calculations.

2. Policies for affordable housing and commercial stabilization:
• A jurisdiction must adopt at least two policies for each of the “3Ps” of affordable housing (production, preservation, protection) and at least one policy for commercial stabilization.
• A jurisdiction chooses policies that best meet local needs from a menu of options. • Policies must apply in TOC areas, but a jurisdiction may choose to apply them beyond the TOC area(s), including jurisdiction wide.

3. Parking management:
• No minimum parking requirements allowed in most Transit Tiers for new residential or commercial development.
• Parking maximums for new residential and general/neighborhood commercial uses vary by Transit Tier.
• Requirements for bicycle, shared, and unbundled parking as well as Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/curb management.

4. Transit station access and circulation:
• Adopt policies/guidelines that comply with Complete Streets Policy. • Prioritize implementation of Active Transportation Plan and/or relevant Community Based Transportation Plans within TOC station area. • Complete an access gap analysis and accompanying capital and/or service improvement program.
• Identify opportunities for Mobility Hub planning and implementation.

See MTC’s TOC Policy Administrative Guidance for more information on requirements and the process and required documentation for confirming compliance.

Attachment 1

?×
?×
%&p(
%&p(
A¿
Concord BlvdWillow Pass Rd
CowellRd
Ygnacio Valley Rd
DetroitAve
Diam
ondBl
vd
OakGroveRd
Clayton Rd
KirkerPass Rd
ConcordAve
Sunvall
ey
Blvd
Galindo
St
Treat Blvd
Meadow
Ln
MonumentBlvd
Port Chicago
Concord TOC Areas
I
0 3,000 6,0001,500
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CED\Planning\BARTHousingElementMaps\BARTHousingElementMaps.aprx Map Created: 2/6/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
TOC Area
Attachment 2

A¿
DetroitAve
Concord Blvd
Cowel
l Rd
Concord Av
e
Ga
lin
do St
Clayton Rd
Willow Pass Rd
M
onu
m
ent Blv
d
John F. Baldwin Park
Todos
Santos
Plaza
Ellis
Lake Park
Meadow
Homes Park
Concord
Skate
Park Krueger Play
Fields
BART Park
Concord
Civic
Center
Concord
Community
Park
Po
rt
Chicago
Hwy
Walnut Ave
Fry Way
Grant S
t
Bonifacio St
Pacheco St
East St
Coventry Rd
ChestnutAve
SixthSt
Mt Diablo St
Salvio St
Galindo St
Oakland Ave
Parkside Dr
Mesa St
Lagu
na St
Broad
way St
San Miguel
Rd
Colfax St
Gateway
Blvd
Downtown Concord TOC Area
I
0 500 1,000250
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CED\Planning\BARTHousingElementMaps\BARTHousingElementMaps.aprx Map Created: 2/18/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
TOC Area
ATTACHMENT 2

?×
Bayview
Circle Park
Sun Terrace
Park
BART
Linear
Park
CNWS
Port Chicago Hwy
Olivera Rd
Hillsborough DrSanford St
Arnold Industrial Wa
y
North Concord TOC Area
I
0 500 1,000250
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CED\Planning\BARTHousingElementMaps\BARTHousingElementMaps.aprx Map Created: 2/18/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
TOC Area
ATTACHMENT 2

A¿
DetroitAve
Concord Blvd
Concord Av
e
Cowell
Rd
Ga
lin
do St
Clayton Rd
Willow Pass R
d
M
onum
ent Bl
vd
RL
RL
RR20RR40
RS10
RS10
RS10
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6RS6
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS8
RS8
RS8
Po
rt
Chicago
Hwy
Walnut Ave
Fry Way
Grant St
Bonifacio St
SixthSt
Pacheco St
East St
Coventry Rd
ChestnutAveMt Diablo St
Salvio St
Galindo St
Oakland Ave
Parkside Dr
Mesa St
Lagu
na St
Broad
way St
Colfax St
San M
iguel
Rd
Gateway
Blvd
Downtown Concord TOC Area
I
0 500 1,000250
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CED\Planning\BARTHousingElementMaps\BARTHousingElementMaps.aprx Map Created: 2/19/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
TOC Area
Zoning Classification
Planned District
Rural Residential (RR)
Single Family Residential (RS)
Residential, Low Density (RL)
Residential, Medium Density (RM)
Residential, High Density (RH)
North Todos Santos (NTS)
Community Office (CO)
Commercial Mixed Use (CMX)
Neighborhood Commerical (NC)
Regional Commercial (RC)
Service Commerical (SC)
Downtown Pedestrian (DP)
Downtown Mixed Use (DMX)
West Concord Mixed Use (WMX)
Office Business Park (OBP)
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
Open Space (OS)
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Unzoned (U)
ATTACHMENT 2

?×
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS7
RS7.5
RS8
RS8
Port Chicago Hwy
Olivera Rd
Hillsborough DrSanford St
Arnold Industrial Wa
y
North Concord TOC Area
I
0 500 1,000250
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CED\Planning\BARTHousingElementMaps\BARTHousingElementMaps.aprx Map Created: 2/18/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
TOC Area
Zoning Classification
Planned District
Single Family Residential (RS)
Residential, Medium Density (RM)
Neighborhood Commerical (NC)
Office Business Park (OBP)
Industrial Business Park (IBP)
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
Open Space (OS)
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Study District (S)
Unzoned (U)
Concord Reuse Project – Green Frame (CRP-GF)
ATTACHMENT 2

Attachment 3
Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization Policy Options

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form
1 Grant application due Friday, November 22, 2023
MTC is making $8 million available for one-time grants to jurisdictions in the nine-county Bay Area to address the TOC policy of Increasing residential and commercial densities around station areas.

Applicants may apply for specific plans that comprehensively implement the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy or for technical assistance to support activities necessary to update zoning and amend existing plans to be TOC compliant. If you are interested in submitting applications for more than one specific plan, please reach out to Ada Chan (contact below) to discuss.

The TOC Policy seeks to ensure that local planning policies and zoning regulations enable new development within TOC areas to be built at sufficiently high densities to support transit ridership and increase the proportion of trips taken by transit. Please review the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance to see each TOC Transit Tier’s density/intensity standards for new residential and commercial office development.

The plans should be comprehensive and address overall TOC Policy compliance. In addition to meeting TOC Policy requirements, plans must align with federal, state, regional, and local goals and policies and industry best practices (e.g., Mobility Hubs Implementation Playbook, Parking Policy Playbook, Complete Streets Policy, Plan Bay Area 2050 ).

Examples of eligible projects include specific plans to comprehensively address multiple components of the TOC Policy, plan amendments, updates to zoning regulations or re-zoning parcels and the related work necessary for adoption, including code amendments, community outreach, analysis, presentations and CEQA.

Refer to the 2024 Call for Projects Application Guide for more information.

Submit application by November 22 at 4pm to Ada Chan at [email protected] with following email subject line: “JURISDICTION NAME 2024 TOC Planning/Rezoning Grant Application” Provide the application form in both Word and PDF versions.

Project Information
Project Name: 2030 General Plan, Downtown Concord Specific Plan, and Development Code Updates Local Jurisdiction: City of Concord
County Contra Costa
Applicant/Project
Manager
Meredith Rupp
Principal Planner
Contact
Information
[email protected]
925-603-5890
Housing Element
Certification
October 23, 2023
What type of grant
are you applying
for?
☐ Plan (Maximum award 1.2 million)
☐ Plan Amendment (Maximum grant award $650,000)
☒ Technical Assistance for zoning updates and related activities minimum grant award $100,000)
Attachment 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

2 Amount
Requested
$185,283.74
(Note that this includes an optional line item of $15,881.32 for a CEQA Addendum if needed .

Without the Addendum, an amount of $169,402.42 is budgeted.) Brief Project
Description:

Amend the 2030 Concord General Plan, Downtown Concord Specific Plan, and Concord Development Code to increase the average minimum residential density and average minimum FAR in the Concord TOC area. The Downtown Concord Mixed Use (DMX) zone will be the primary focus of these updates. Conduct associated community engagement and environmental review.

Project Information and Expectations for Work to be Completed For a plan or plan
amendment:

Respond to
following questions
All plans must either:
• Include all of the required sections below
• Integrate previously-adopted or concurrent plans and policies for any sections not included
• Amend or adopt a plan that includes each section.

Check each section below that will be completed or amended, through this grant. The minimum grant requirements are available in the 2024 Call for Projects Application Guide.

☒ Plan Section: Development Standards
☐ Plan Section: Public Realm Standards
☐ Plan Section: Community and Equity
☐ Plan Section: Capital Improvements
☐ Plan Section: Implementation
☒ Zoning and General Plan Amendments (to achieve consistency with plan) ☒ Environmental Document
☐ Community Assessment
☒ Community Engagement

If you did not check one or more of the boxes above, please indicate the planning process through which it was, or will be, completed, and provide a link documenting its completion (250 words max)

Although we are applying for a TA for zoning updates grant, our scope of work does include minor amendments to a plan and have therefore provided an answer to this question.

All categories above are addressed in the Downtown Concord Specific Plan, which was adopted after an 18-month community outreach and development process. The Specific Plan includes public realm standards; strategies for anti-displacement and sustainability; cost estimates and strategies for financing and implementing public improvements; a detailed assessment of the area’s opportunities and constraints, including an inventory of affordable housing and a regional retail lease comparison; and a robust Implementation chapter with specific actions, responsible parties, and timelines.

ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

3 The City anticipates amending the Development Standards section of the Specific Plan to ensure TOC compliance and will plan to conduct community outreach as part of this process.

The Specific Plan is available at https://www.cityofconcord.org/301/Downtown- Concord-Specific-Plan.

The City’s Housing Element also includes analysis relevant to the Community Assessment and Community Engagement categories:
https://www.cityofconcord.org/1200/Housing-Element-2023-2031.

Scope of work and
budget
Submit proposed scope of work and preliminary budget with application. (Template available at end of application.)

See attached page.

For Technical
Assistance and/or
staffing assistance
proposals
Provide description of activities that will be funded and your approach as well as how the proposed activities will allow the jurisdiction to become TOC compliant:

Our approach is to initiate targeted General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning Map, and Development Code amendments to 1) achieve TOC compliance for density within ½ mile of the Concord BART Station and 2) advance implementation of the Downtown Concord Specific Plan (Specific Plan). Key activities that will be funded include evaluating and identifying the exact zones/parcels and standards that will be adjusted, making the identified changes to the City’s Development Code and Zoning Map, conducting community engagement to inform our approach, amending the General Plan and Specific Plan to reflect land use intensity changes, creating two overlay districts to implement the Specific Plan’s vision surrounding the City’s historic Pacheco Adobe and the other to address BART’s TOD guidelines, and conducting environmental analysis, if necessary, on the General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning Map, and Development Code amendments. These tasks are fully described in the scope of work. The City anticipates selecting consultants with a current Master Services Agreement to complete the Downtown Specific Plan amendments and environmental analysis and to support community engagement. With completion of the scope of work, the Concord BART Station TOC Area will be fully compliant with the land use densities of the TOC Policy.

ALIGNMENT WITH PROGRAM GOALS AND APPROACH (20 points)

Demonstration of
understanding
and meeting all
TOC policy
requirements

Briefly describe how TOC compliance will be achieved through this grant

This grant will enable the City of Concord to reach the TOC Policy’s average minimum residential density of 50 dwelling units/net acre (du/a) and average minimum commercial office FAR of 2.0 for the Concord BART Station TOC Area (Concord TOC).

Concord’s development standards are already consistent with the TOC Policy’s ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

4 maximum densities, and so increasing the City’s average density minimums will enable Concord TOC to be fully compliant with the TOC’s Residential and Office Density component. The City’s General Plan specifies the range of densities and will require updates to ensure compliance with maximum densities. Because the City of Concord has an adopted Specific Plan and Supplemental EIR that covers much of the Concord TOC area, and because the City has objective development standards in place, most transit-oriented development is approved administratively in the Concord TOC. The City of Concord is also applying for a Parking Management grant to bring its parking regulations into compliance with the TOC policy, including increasing the bike parking requirements, decreasing vehicle parking maximums, and enhancing Transportation Demand Management practices. Award of this TOC Planning grant addressing the land use policies, combined with the Parking Management grant, will eliminate the need for project-specific review of development proposals consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and TOC policies. Because the City of Concord is already in substantial compliance with the Housing and Station Access/Circulation components of the TOC Policy, selection of our two TOC Planning/Rezoning and Parking Management grant applications will enable the Concord TOC to achieve full compliance with the TOC Policy. The North Concord/Martinez BART Station TOC Area (North Concord TOC) is the subject of a lengthy, ongoing development process involving the Concord Naval Weapons Station. This area has been undergoing a significant community process for the last 18 years and is subjected to its own specific plan process involving the federal government. The North Concord TOC is therefore not a good candidate for rezoning or changes to the Area Plan and Development Code at this time as the City is working closely with the master developer toward a Disposition and Development Agreement. The City of Concord has opted to prioritize the Concord Station for these limited grant resources given this and the relative competitiveness of the Concord TOC.

Plan Bay Area 2050
Goals and
Strategies
How does the project
align with Plan Bay
Area 2050.

Which Plan Bay Area 2050 Strategies will this project support? (check all that apply)

☐ Preserve Existing Affordable Housing
☒ Allow a Greater Mix of Housing Densities and Types in Growth Geographies ☒ Build Adequate Affordable Housing to Ensure Homes for All ☒ Integrate Affordable Housing into All Major Housing Projects ☐ Transform Aging Malls and Office Parks into Neighborhoods ☐ Accelerate reuse of public and community -owned land for mixed-income housing and essential services.
☐ Advance Regional Vision Zero Policy through Street Design and Reduced Speeds ☐ Invest in High-Speed Internet in Underserved Low-Income Communities ☒ Allow greater commercial densities in Growth Geographies ☐ Protect Shoreline communities affected by sea level rise, prioritizing areas of low costs and high benefits
☒ Expand Transportation Demand Management Initiatives
☐ Modernize and expand parks, trails and recreation facilities ☐ Build a Complete Streets Network
☐ Support community-led transportation enhancements in Equity Priority Communities ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

5 ☐ None of the Above
☒ Other (s) Please Describe
Maintain Urban Growth Boundaries: the Concord TOC is an urbanized area with only infill development opportunities
ALIGNMENT WITH MTC PROGRAMS PRIORITIES (20 points)

Regional
Programs and
policies
Select the regional programs and policies with which the project is aligned:

☒ TOC areas with Priority Development Area (PDA) or specific plan ☒ MTC Priority Sites
☐ Mapping and Wayfinding Pilot Station
☒ The TOC Policy area is also in/overlaps with an MTC Equity Priority Communities (EPCs)

Describe how the project aligns with the selected regional priorities, funding programs and geographies. If your TOC area has a completed or in-progress PDA or specific plan, please indicate the name of the plan/adoption date. If your TOC area is also an M TC priority site or mapping and wayfinding site, or is in/overlaps with an MTC EPC, please identify the relevant sites/EPC.

PDAs: The vast majority of the Concord TOC is within the Downtown Concord PDA. A specific plan for this PDA, the Downtown Concord Specific Plan, was adopted June 24, 2014. This grant application is consistent with and furthers the goals of the Specific Plan. By increasing the minimum residential and commercial densities in key mixed- used zones in the Downtown, this project would help the City meet all six goals of the Specific Plan: 1) increasing job creation, 2) enhancing the business climate and expanding the economic base, 3) intensification of uses and densities from current built level, 4) increasing BART ridership and efficiency of multi-modal connections, 5) constructing housing projects for a mix of housing types and income levels, and 6) promoting mid and high-density housing. These goals are consistent with regional priorities and PDA planning policies to concentrate growth in areas near public transit so that the region can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address our regional housing shortage.

Priority Sites: The Concord TOC includes three sites in the Public Sites Portfolio:

Concord Town Center II (APN 126-143-012, 1765 Galindo Street) and two parcels at the intersections of Oak Street/Mount Diablo Street and Laguna Street/Mount Diablo Street (APNs 126-122-024 and 126-112-026, referred to as Concord Downtown Parcels 1: Mount Diablo Street and Concord Downtown Parcels 2: Oak Street in MTC’s portfolio). All three parcels have been declared as surplus land and are in various stages of being made available for affordable housing development consistent with the Surplus Lands Act. The Concord TOC also contains the northern portion of a Regionally Significant priority site, the Monument BART site (APN 126-191-016). The City received a Priority Sites TA award and is working with BART to complete due diligence activities on the BART-owned Monument site as indicated in the grant.

Similarly, the City intends to use Priority Sites TA funds for the Oak Street/Mount ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

6 Diablo Street parcels to evaluate the impact of vacating Mount Diablo Street to accommodate a larger development. This grant, which would increase the minimum allowed residential and commercial densities in the TOC area, would amplify the benefits of developing the priority sites by increasing the number of homes and jobs in the area, creating more demand for multi-modal transportation, retail, and cultural and community amenities.

Equity Priority Communities: Of the six census tracts that the Concord TOC partially includes, two of them are EPCs (Census Tracts 3280 and 3361.01). According to the Plan Bay Area 2050 Plus mapping EPC tool, the tract that includes Todos Santos Plaza exceeds all EPC demographic variable thresholds except the 70% people of color threshold and has particularly high rates of seniors over 75, zero-vehicle households, and people with a disability. The tract that includes Ellis Lake Park is identified as an EPC due to high rates of households with low incomes and people of color, and it also exceeds threshold values for limited English proficiency and rent burden. By increasing the minimum residential density in these areas, a larger number of affordable homes will be built due to the City’s inclusionary housing policy. Increased commercial development and housing and transportation investments in these areas can also increase residents’ mobility and access to jobs and services. Concord’s robust housing preservation and tenant protections, including rent stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction policies, will advance development without displacement in these vulnerable neighborhoods.

Indicate how the proposed work will integrate or overlap with any in-progress planning processes related to your selections.

As previously mentioned, several Priority Sites within the Concord TOC are in the planning phase and are anticipated to be developed with affordable housing pursuant to the Surplus Lands Act. The proposed grant project will complement these efforts to redevelop and densify our downtown area. The City is also currently working on implementation of our Housing Element, with several programs related to removing barriers to development. Notable programs that were implemented in 2024 include by-right processing for multifamily housing projects and sites previously identified in past Housing Elements, inclusionary housing for rental housing projects, and a by- right 25% density increase in the Transit Station Overlay District. In 2025, key programs will include reducing parking for group housing, increasing maximum permitted heights in key zones, rezoning high-opportunity areas to affirmatively further fair housing, facilitating housing development on faith-owned land and land owned by educational institutions beyond the requirements of state law, and providing objective standards for small lot and medium density development.

Between these Housing Element programs and the proposed grant project, the City will be taking substantial steps to increase the housing supply, focusing the highest densities in our downtown near the BART station. The City also just launched its new rental registry program, which will be used to implement the City’s rent adjustment ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

7 program and will facilitate continued implementation of our Just Cause for Eviction and tenant relocation ordinance and proactive code enforcement program. These housing preservation and tenant protection programs will work in tandem with housing production efforts to curb potential gentrification and displacement while adding to Concord’s housing diversity and supply. Finally, the City is submitting a grant application for Parking Management in both of its TOC areas. If the City of Concord is awarded in both the Parking Management and TOC Planning grant categories, then the Development Code updates for the Concord TOC can occur in parallel. These planning grants will holistically build upon and complement the strong housing and station access policies in place to increase activity in the downtown, enable more people to access and use transit more often, and prioritize space for homes, jobs, and services over cars.

IMPACT (40 points)
TOC Station/Stop
(s) that will be
impacted by this
application
Concord BART
Parcels that will be
rezoned for
residential as part
of this effort.

This project will require amending residential density and FAR minimums in existing zones and perhaps creating new zoning districts/overlays. However, all the affected parcels are in mixed-use districts that already allow residential development (and would continue to be mixed-use under the anticipated amendments).

Increase in total
housing unit
capacity resulting
from project.
4,600 units – Based on the acreages in the TOC dashboard, the proposed amendments would increase the minimum development potential by approximately 4,600 units.

Projected increase
in deed-restricted
affordable housing
units resulting from
proposal
455+ units – Due to Concord’s inclusionary housing requirement and the Surplus Lands Act, the increased housing capacity quantified above would result in 458 to 776 deed- restricted, affordable units depending on whether projects include rental or for-sale units.

Increase square
footage -
commercial

8.7 million square feet
Describe impact of
proposed project
on jurisdiction’s
overall TOC
compliance
This grant would enable the Concord TOC to be fully compliant with the TOC’s Residential and Office Density component. Parking Management is the only other category where the Concord TOC is out of compliance with the TOC Policy. The City is also applying for a Parking Management grant to come into compliance under that category for both TOC areas. If awarded both grants, the Concord TOC would be 100% compliant with the TOC policy with completion of the proposed scopes of work.

PROJECT READINESS (10 points)

Capacity
yes: Is this work included in your current annual workplan? no: Is the work proposed in this application included in your housing element or other General plan elements?
Will this grant augment or provide staff capacity to implement TOC policies? Yes, this grant will both augment existing staff capacity and create new capacity; it will be used to ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

8 cover staff time and to hire CEQA and planning consultants to perform discrete parts of the work. A large portion of the work can be performed by Planning Division staff because the Planning Division has proactively allotted time to this effort; however, given the large number of commitments within the City’s Housing Element, the grant funds would additionally support our efforts to hire consultants to help facilitate this work. Additionally, since the Division has limited financial resources to draw upon, a TOC grant would make this effort more manageable and financially feasible.

Schedule Briefly describe the project’s timeline and status, such as any preliminary work that has been done or is underway.

The City has completed a comprehensive analysis of our TOC compliance, including vetting assumptions with ABAG/MTC staff and updating the TOC data portal. We have identified and documented where and how we need to amend our policies and programs to be compliant with the TOC Policy, which we used in determining whether to apply for any of the TOC grants. If awarded, we anticipate the entire effort taking approximately 12 months, broken up into 7 tasks. Task 1, Kickoff and General Project Management would begin in March 2025. Task 2, Analysis of Existing Conditions and Approaches and Task 3, Community and Stakeholder Engagement would be completed by June 2025, followed by the Specific and General Plan Amendments in Task 4 and Development Code and Zoning Map amendments in Task 5. With Tasks 4 and 5 completed in parallel by September 2025, Task 6, Environmental Review could be completed by the end of 2025, followed by public hearings (Task 7) in early 2026.

City Council adoption is targeted for February 2026.

Submit further details in the budget schedules at end of application.

Category 1 Post Award Requirements
Post Award Please check the boxes to indicate understanding of the post -award requirements if awarded funding:
☒ Adopt a Resolution of local support Resolution of local support ☒ Submit drafts and deliverables for MTC review and approval. ☒ MTC Project Manager will be included on any Technical Advisory Committee and outreach for community meetings and hearings.
☒ Procurement of consulting services are subject to CalTrans procurement and DBE requirements

ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

9 2024 Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Planning Grant Application:

PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF WORK TEMPLATE

INSTRUCTIONS: Use this template as a resource for developing a Preliminary Scope of Work. • Describe the task(s) to be supported by the TOC Planning Grant. For guidance on minimum requirements, see Attachment A of the Applicant Guide. • Identify anticipated deliverables related to each task. • Delete any unused tasks in the template.
• Once you have completed the tasks and deliverables portion, fill the preliminary schedule at the end of the document, adding anticipated dates of completion Save and include the completed template as an attachment to your TOC Grant application.

SCOPE OF WORK
2030 General Plan, Downtown Concord Specific Plan, and Development Code Updates Task 1 – Kickoff and General Project Management

City of Concord staff and consultants (“Project Team”) will meet to discuss the scope of work and deliverables, schedule, and roles and responsibilities. The schedule assumes the Kickoff meeting will occur in early March and any revisions to the scope of work and schedule will be finalized by the end of March.

This task also includes staff time needed for periodic meetings with members of the Project Team, communications, contract administration, and managing the budget and schedule.

Task 1 Deliverables:

1.1: Kickoff meeting agenda and notes

1.2: Final scope of work and schedule

1.3: Meeting agendas and notes

Task 2 – Analysis of Existing Conditions and Approaches

City of Concord staff will do an in-depth review of MTC’s TOC Portal to ensure that the correct zoning information is captured and that parcels with existing residential dwelling units are excluded from the weighted average calculations (unless they are identified in the Concord Housing Element Sites Inventory). At the time of writing, Concord TOC’s average minimum residential density is 26.7 dwelling units/acre and minimum average FAR is 0.93.

ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

10 City staff will then run different scenarios in the TOC portal and identify at least two approaches to achieve an average minimum residential density of at least 50 dwelling units per net acre and average minimum FAR of 2.0. It is assumed that the approaches will include a combination of the following potential adjustments:
• Rezoning BART-owned parcels subject to AB 2923 to a minimum residential density of at least 75 dwelling units per acre and FAR of 3.0, per BART’s TOD baseline standards for Neighborhood/Town Center stations. This could be achieved through the creation of a zoning overlay or development of a new zoning district. • Increasing the minimum residential density of the Downtown Mixed Use (DMX) zoning district from 33 to 60-70+ dwelling units per acre and minimum FAR from 1.0 to 3.0.

The increase could be tiered to be highest near the BART Station and unchanged father from the BART Station.
• Other adjustments identified in the Kickoff meeting, through community engagement, and/or direction from the City Council.

City staff will outline the potential approaches and evaluate them against project/TOC policy goals, obtain stakeholder feedback, and seek direction from the City Council to determine the Recommended Approach.

Task 2 Deliverables:

2.1: Approach Matrix outlining and evaluating at least two methods to achieve the TOC Policy’s average minimum density requirements

2.2: City Council staff report

2.3: Recommended Approach that will be implemented in Tasks 4 and 5

Task 3 – Community and Stakeholder Engagement

Community engagement will build upon the robust community engagement previously conducted for the 2030 General Plan and Downtown Concord Specific Plan. Engagement materials will be prepared by the City’s consultant. The scope of work and budget assume the Project Team will complete the following activities, with all engagements apart from the BART meeting to include Spanish/English translation and interpretation:
• City Council meeting to seek feedback from Councilmembers on the Approach Matrix and additional engagement to conduct.
• Two (2) focus groups, one focused on housing and one focused on economic development, with interested parties (e.g., Todos Santos Business Association, Concord Chamber of Commerce, Monument Impact, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, East Bay Housing Organizations) to explain the TOC Policy and seek feedback on the Approach Matrix (See Deliverable 2.1). The focus groups will utilize best practices for equitable community engagement to ensure participants from different income levels, races, and ethnicities are part of this process. • A community workshop, conducted once virtually and once in-person, to present the TOC Policy and seek feedback on the Approach Matrix (See Deliverable 2.1). The workshop will be in the evening or on the weekend and will include interactive ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

11 exercises or open house stations to seek community feedback. The Project Team will work with community- and faith-based organizations and utilize best practices for equitable community engagement to ensure a diversity of participants. • Survey of affected property owners to seek input on the Approach Matrix and level of interest in increasing land use intensity.
• Meeting with BART staff to discuss BART-owned parcels subject to AB 2923 and receive feedback and guidance related to BART’s TOD Guidelines.

The scope of work and budget assume the City’s consultant will lead the survey and community workshop and City staff will lead all other engagement activities with support from the City’s consultant.

If Concord is awarded both a Specific Plan/Zoning Changes grant and Parking Management grant, then the outreach plan prepared for the Parking Management grant will include the activities and stakeholders mentioned above so that engagement is conducted with both projects in mind and stakeholders are not overly burdened with engagement requests.

Task 3 Deliverables:

3.1: City Council meeting (1) and meeting notes

3.2: Economic Development focus group meeting (1) and meeting notes

3.3: Housing focus group meeting (1) and meeting notes

3.4: Community Workshop (1 virtual and 1 in-person)

3.5: Survey responses from affected property owners

3.6: BART meeting (1) and meeting notes

Task 4 – 2030 General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments

The 2030 General Plan Land Use Element, initially adopted October 2, 2007, provides specificity on allowable densities and FAR’s for each General Plan designation, which will require increasing the minimum density of certain General Plan designations to achieve conformance with the TOC Policy. The Downtown Concord Specific Plan (Specific Plan), adopted on June 24, 2014, applies to the Downtown Concord Priority Development Area (PDA) and contains much of the Concord TOC. City staff have analyzed the 2030 General Plan and Specific Plan in the context of the TOC Policy and have found that both documents are largely consistent with the TOC Policy. Increasing the minimum densities of certain zoning districts pursuant to the TOC Policy would create only minor inconsistencies with the 2023 General Plan and Specific Plan. This task is intended to correct these minor inconsistencies and advance implementation of both the 2030 General Plan and the Specific Plan.

A consulting firm to be selected by the City will assist City staff in amending the Land Use Element of the 2030 General Plan and Sections 3.4, Land Use and Program and 3.5 Zoning of the Specific Plan to incorporate the Recommended Approach identified in Task 2. The amendments will also consider market realities (i.e., current challenges with financial feasibility of ground floor retail and other commercial development) and changed conditions (e.g., the ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

12 inclusion of several Downtown sites in the City’s Housing Element Sites Inventory). The key amendments could include:
• Increasing the minimum FAR and residential density for certain General Plan designations and zones as determined in Task 2. At a minimum, this is anticipated to affect parcels in the Downtown Mixed Use (DTMU) designation and DMX zone and parcels subject to AB 2923.
• Creating and applying a new overlay zoning district in the area around Clay’s Alley pursuant to Specific Plan Implementation Measure LU-3 B: Define a new district around Pacheco, Adobe, and Clay’s Alley (restaurants, artisanal local retailers). • Changing Block Y, as identified in the Specific Plan, from a commercial land use to a residential or mixed-use residential development consistent with its status as a Housing Element site.

The consultant will prepare new or amended Specific Plan diagrams and projection tables as appropriate, such as to accommodate increased minimum densities. The scope of work assumes updates to the following figures and tables:
• Figure 3.10 Specific Plan Phase I Land Use
• Figure 3.11 Specific Plan Phase I Building Use
• Table 3.4 Preferred Alternative New Development Program (Phase 1 – 2020 Projection) • Figure 3.13 Specific Plan Phase II Land Use
• Figure 3.14 Specific Plan Phase II Building Use
• Figures and data on page 54
• Table 3.5 Preferred Alternative New Development Program (Phase 2 – 2040 Projection) • Figure 3.18 Proposed FAR

Residential and Commercial Densities
The residential densities identified in the 2030 General Plan in the TOC area range between 2.5 to 100 dwelling units/acre, which do not meet the minimum average density. The commercial intensities, reflected in FAR, range from 0.5 to 6.0, which do not meet the minimum average intensity identified in the TOC Policy. Therefore, this scope of work includes amending the 2030 General Plan Land Use Element based on the Recommended Approach in Task 2 to ensure compliance with minimum average densities and intensities of the TOC Policy.

The residential densities assumed within the Specific Plan’s Development Program (50 to 130 dwelling units/acre) are consistent with the proposed increase to minimum residential densities in Task 2; the affected zoning districts would have a minimum residential density no lower than 50 dwelling units/acre and no higher than 130 dwelling units/acre. Therefore, this scope of work does not include amendments to the Specific Plan’s residential densities. This means that Specific Plan amendments will largely focus on the Specific Plan’s retail and commercial office uses. In particular, Blocks K and Z have been identified as development sites that will likely see increased development intensity under the proposed zoning changes finalized in Task 2.

Clay Alley Zoning District
The consultant will provide recommended development standards for a new zoning or overlay district around Clay Alley, including building height, FAR, residential density, and any objective ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

13 design standards necessary to implement the Specific Plan’s vision for this area. The recommendations will be provided in writing and shall be within the maximum intensity of development analyzed for the Specific Plan. The recommendation could be to rezone the subject parcels to another zoning district that already exists, such as Downtown Pedestrian. Because this subtask relates to implementing a component already in the Specific Plan, no amendments to the plan will be needed.

The consultant will prepare Draft 2030 General Plan Land Use Element and Specific Plan Amendments and respond to two rounds of comments from City staff.

Task 4 Deliverables:

4.1: Recommended development standards for Clay Alley area

4.2: Final Draft 2030 General Plan Land Use Element and Specific Plan Amendments

Task 5 –Development Code and Zoning and General Plan Map Amendments

City staff will draft redlined amendments to the Development Code and update the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Diagram to implement the Recommended Approach in Task 2 and Specific Plan amendments in Task 4. It is anticipated that the following changes will need to be captured in the City’s Development Code and/or Zoning and General Plan Maps:
• Increasing the minimum residential density and FAR standards for the DMX zone and any other zones as determined in Task 2’s Recommended Approach • Establishing a new zoning district or overlay for the Clay Alley area and/or BART- owned AB 2923 parcels, as applicable
• Rezoning the Clay Alley area and/or AB 2923 parcels
• Amending the General Plan Land Use Designation for the Clay Alley area, if applicable

Task 5 Deliverables:

5.1: Final Draft Development Code Amendments

5.2: Final Draft Updated Zoning and General Plan Maps

Task 6 – Environmental Review

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the 2030 General Plan and was certified by the City Council in 2007.

A January 2014 Addendum was prepared in conformance with CEQA for the Specific Plan. The 2014 Addendum was an addendum to the Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR) adopted in July 2012 for the Concord Development Code Project, which included amendments to the 2030 General Plan text and map, adoption of a new development code, and a new zoning map. The SEIR was supplemental to the 2030 Concord General Plan EIR. The SEIR analyzed a buildout based on the maximum utilization of land in the City’s urban core, including a FAR of 6.0 and residential density of 100 dwelling units/acre for the DMX zone. Assuming the Recommended Approach ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

14 does not consider other General Plan designations and zoning districts beyond DTMU and DMX, increasing the minimum densities and intensities for DTMU and DMX parcels and/or creating new zoning districts still within the maximum intensities analyzed in the SEIR would not require additional CEQA documentation.

A consultant selected by the City will review the 2014 Addendum and associated SEIR and General Plan EIR to confirm staff’s approach that additional CEQA documentation is not required. To be conservative, this scope of work and budget includes an optional task for a streamlined addendum to the SEIR. The addendum would analyze the proposed changes to the 2030 General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning Map, and Development Code. It would focus on a few key issues and would document that none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.

Task 6 Deliverables:

6.1: CEQA Screening Analysis

6.2: Optional Final CEQA Addendum

Task 7 – Public Hearings

City staff and the consultant team will prepare materials for and present the amendments to the 2030 General Plan, Specific Plan, Development Code, and Zoning Map to the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as the CEQA document, if applicable. This scope of work assumes two public hearings in this Task 7.

Task 7 Deliverables:

7.1: Planning Commission hearing (1) attendance and public hearing notices, staff report, resolution(s), and other materials

7.2: City Council hearing (1) attendance and public hearing notices, staff report, ordinance(s), and other materials

ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

15 PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE & BUDGET

DELIVERABLE

ESTIMATED

DATE OF

COMPLETION

ESTIMATED
BUDET
Task 1 – Kickoff and General Project
Management March 2025 $16,999.29

1.1 Kickoff Meeting March 2025 $2,070.66

1.2 Finalized Scope of Work April 1, 2025 $1,775.33

1.3 General Project Management Ongoing $13,153.30
Task 2 – Analysis of Existing Conditions and
Approaches June 2025 $9,707.31

2.1 Final TOC Mapping Portal Data and
Approach Matrix April 2025
$3,090.66

2.2 City Council Staff Report April 2025 $5,141.32

2.3 Recommended Approach June 2025 $1,475.33
Task 3 – Community and Stakeholder
Engagement June 2025 $50,008.26

3.1 City Council Meeting (1) April 2025 $ 4,285.99

3.2 Bilingual Economic Development Focus
Group (1) April/May 2025
$7,145.99

3.3 Bilingual Housing Focus Group (1) April/May 2025 $6,845.99

3.4 Bilingual Community Workshop (1 virtual, 1
in-person)
May/June 2025 $20,176.63

3.5 Results of Bilingual Survey May 2025 $9,550.66

3.6 BART Meeting (1) April/May 2025 $2,003.00
Task 4 – General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendments September 2025 $52,399.65

4.1 Clay Alley Recommendations June 2025 $3,135.33

4.2 Final Draft General and Specific Plan
Amendments
September 2025 $49,264.32
Task 5 – Development Code and Zoning Map
Amendments September 2025 $18,377.97

5.1 Final Draft Development Code Amendments September 2025 $15,727.31

5.2 Zoning and General Plan Map Amendments August 2025 $2,650.66 Task 6 – Environmental Review December 2025 $24,087.31

6.1 CEQA Screening Analysis September 2025 $8,205.99

6.2 Optional: CEQA Addendum December 2025 $15,881.32
Task 7 – Public Hearings February 2026 $13,703.96
ATTACHMENT 4

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

16 DELIVERABLE

ESTIMATED

DATE OF

COMPLETION

ESTIMATED
BUDET

7.1 Planning Commission Hearing (1) January 2026 $8,842.64

7.2 City Council Hearing (1) February 2026 $4,861.32

ATTACHMENT 4

17 ATTACHMENT 4

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

Grant application due November 22, 2024 at 4pm
Refer to the grant guide for more information
(https://abag.ca.gov/tools-resources/digital-library-498) Submit application to Joel Mandella at [email protected] with following email subject line:
“JURISDICTION NAME 2024 TOC Parking Management Grant Application” Provide the application form in Word format
The purpose of the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy Parking Management requirements is to reduce automobile trips and prioritize the limited land area near transit for other shared transportation modes and active transportation. Please review the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance to understand the required parking standards for new residential and commercial development, bicycle parking, and shared, unbundled, and complementary local parking policies.

Through this call for projects, MTC is proposing a standardized parking management scope of work (found in Attachment A) to help jurisdictions achieve compliance with the TOC Policy parking management requirements. Given existing jurisdictional parking management policies and standards that may comply (or partially comply) with the TOC Policy, jurisdictions are encouraged to review Attachment A and consider how some or all of the tasks will help to achieve parking management TOC Policy compliance when completing this application.

Project Information
Project Name: Concord Parking Management Implementation Sponsor Agency: City of Concord
Sponsor/Project
Manager Contact:

Aaron Elias
925-671-3276
[email protected]
Brief Project
Description:
100 words max
This project will develop a parking and transportation demand management policy for the city of Concord to reduce automobile trips and prioritize land area near transit for other shared transportation modes. This will be achieved through changes to p arking requirements within Concord’s two transit-oriented communities (TOC) and adoption of supportive transpo rtation demand management (TDM) policies based on community and stakeholder engagement.

Partner Agency(ies) List partner agencies/contacts with whom you are coordinating on the project, if any Grant Request: $300,000
Housing Element
Certification
Does your jurisdiction have a 6th Cycle Housing Element certified by HCD? Attachment 5

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

☒Yes
☐No
Proposal Impact – 40 points
Proposal Impact

40 points

What impact will the
proposed work have on
the TOC Policy area and
those that frequent it?
What impact will the
proposed work have on
the jurisdiction’s TOC
Policy compliance?

1. List the Transit-Oriented Communities within your jurisdiction that the project will apply to. See the TOC map or list of TOC areas by jurisdiction
☒ Applies to all TOCs in jurisdiction
The city of Concord has two transit-oriented communities focused around the Concord and North Concord BART stations. This project would apply to both of these TOCs

2. A standardized scope of work (found in Attachment A below) is proposed here to help jurisdictions achieve compliance with the TOC Policy parking management requirements. Describe your jurisdiction’s existing parking policies and standards, and the breadth and depth of impacts that the standardized scope of work would have upon these. Detail any proposed deviations from the standardized scope, if applicable.

The city of Concord’s parking standards are identified in section 18.160.040 of the municipal code and provide both a minimum and maximum requirement for various land uses. While these parking standards are generic throughout the city, Concord does enforce AB 2097 and therefore cannot impose any minimum parking requirements for development projects within one-half mile of our two BART stations which encompasses the entirety of the TOC areas. The city does have a robust bicycle parking requirement for both residential and commercial land uses that requires short-term and long-term bicycle parking. However, as currently written, bicycle parking requirements are tied to the number of required vehicle parking spaces. In TOC areas subject to AB 2097 where no parking minimums are imposed, bicycle parking requirements are also affected. The municipal code is silent on the unbundling of parking neither prohibiting it nor requiring it and leave it to t he developer to make the determination. Shared parking is allowed between two adjacent non-residential uses based on a minor use permit. We anticipate the project will assist the city in identifying changes that are needed for TOC compliance.

We anticipate changes to include removal of parking minimums within the TOC are a and a reduction in parking maximums.

We are also looking for guidance on updating our bicycle parking standards and potentially considering how design standards may need to change as a result of new technologies like e-bikes that can be heavier and larger than traditional bicycles. Finally, we would anticipate the standard scope of work to provide more guidance on when to require the implementation of TDM strategies and which strategies may be most effective for a suburban city like Concord. We do not have any proposed deviations from the standard scope, but we would like to request two additions. The first is that the scope provide assistance in determining on-street parking supply and demand within the TOC areas. Reduced off-street requirements are likely to result in a significant increase to on-street parking use. Understanding current supply and demand will allow the city to better prepare for proactive changes to on -street parking regulations to prevent parking simply from being transferred from off-street spaces to on-street spaces defeating potential VMT reduction within the TOC. The second addition to the scope we would request is a review of our bicycle parking space design in addition to the number of ATTACHMENT 5

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

spaces required. E-bikes and other technologies are making bicycles larger and heavier which may require changes to current design standards to accommodate them. This would affect the size of the areas needed to store bicycles when combining bicycle parking size and number of parking space requirement. We would like to update these standards simultaneously to any updates to the number of bicycle parking spaces required .

3. Describe the depth of impact of your proposal on the number of residents, transit riders, and those traveling within the TOC station area(s). Applicants are encouraged to include estimated numbers here for current and/or future conditions to help quantify impact, if available.

Based on online population maps and BART data, it is estimated the total population within ½ mile of the Concord BART station is about 9,000 residents while the N. Concord BART station has about 2,500 residents. Ridership based on 2015 data from BART shows the N. Concord BART station has about 2,900 riders per day while Concord has about 6,600 riders per day.

Pedestrian and bicycle mode choice in 2015 was about 29% of riders at Concord and 10% of riders at N. Concord. Changes from the proposal would likely increase the non-auto mode share of transit passengers accessing the two BART stations since these policies would generally encourage reduced vehicle ownership. Reduced vehicle ownership would also likely lead to additional services within the TOC to serve these residents such as new dining and shopping establishments that are reachable by non-auto modes. Significant growth in both residential and commercial population is anticipated at the North Concord station in the coming decades due to the redevelopment of the Concord Naval Weapons Station which is proposing the highest densities in the vicinity of the N. Concord BART station. The parking and TDM policy changes resulting from the project would have a significant effect on the development in this part of the Naval Weapons Station.

4. How will this proposal impact your jurisdiction’s TOC Policy compliance? Do you anticipate that your jurisdiction will achieve TOC Policy compliance for parking management as a result of the work requested in this proposal? This proposal would allow the city of Concord to achieve TOC Policy compliance for parking management through a detailed process that first seeks to identify areas for improving parking and TDM policies. The project would then work through community and stakeholder engagement to revise these policies in our transit -oriented communities to improve access and circulation for the alternative transit, walk, and bike trips. The scope allows for the final outcome to be tai lored to the needs of Concord and because of the community engagement, can be more easily adopted by city council since it illustrates what the residents of Concord are looking for.

Alignment with TOC Policy Goals and Approach – 30 points Alignment with TOC
Policy Goals and
Approach

1. Most jurisdictions have some TOC Policy parking management components already in place. Does your jurisdiction have:

ATTACHMENT 5

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

30 points

How does the project align
with achieving TOC Policy
goals and approach, as
well as Plan Bay Area 2050
goals?

☒ Parking minimums, and describe where applicable, if so: The city establishes parking minimums that apply to all areas of the city for various land uses as laid out in Concord Municipal Code Section 18.160.040. The city does enforce AB 2097 which prohibits requiring these minimums within a half mile of the Concord and North Concord BART stations.

☒ Parking maximums, and describe where applicable, if so: Parking maximums align with the parking minimums in the city of Concord covering a wide array of land use types. A minor exception can be granted for parking up to 10% higher than code requirements and a use permit is required for over 10%.

☒ Parking districts/area caps, and describe where applicable, if so: Areas zoned as DP and DMX districts, which are mostly downtown, have slightly different parking requirements. Main differences are that off-street parking can be located farther away compared to typical development and that an in -lieu fee can be paid to the city to satisfy the required parking. The in-lieu fee is deposited into a special fund and can be used for things such as transportation system management, and parking and transportation demand management projects.

☒Shared parking requirements or policies, and describe where applicable, if so: Shared parking is allowed between two or more non-residential uses that have distinct and different peak hours of parking demand through a minor use permit.

☐ Unbundled parking requirements or policies, and describe where applicable, if so: Please describe

☒Any complementary parking policies or TDM measures, such as those outlined in the MTC/ABAG Parking Policy Playbook, or additional ones not listed there. List each and describe where applicable, if so: As noted in the parking district response, the downtown area allows a parking in -lieu fee to meet the parking requirements. This fee is placed in a special fund to be used for TDM strategies or other transportation improvements.

☒Bicycle parking requirements, and describe where applicable, if so: Concord requires bicycle parking for all types of land uses for both short-term and long-term. Short-term parking is set at 5% of the required vehicle parking with a minimum of two spaces. Long-term spaces are required at one space per 4 residential units or 10% of required vehicle parking for non-residential uses with 25 or more employees.

ATTACHMENT 5

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

2. Briefly describe the policies, plans, documents or standards related to parking management checked in #1 above, or any other policies, standards, or requirements that are already in place or in progress relevant to parking management (see TOC Policy Administrative Guidance for more information).

There are two primary documents that contain the policies and plans pertaining to parking management in TOC areas. The first is the municipal code which applies to both the N. Concord and Concord BART station TOCs. This document stipulates the required minimum and maximum parking, provides zones where fee in lieu parking can be allowed, describes when and where parking can be shared, and required bicycle parking. The second document is the Downtown Specific Plan which includes large sections of the TOC area near the Concord BART station. This document calls for a transit overlay district with reduced parking requirement, encourages private parking entities allow public parking after business hours, encourages partnerships with companies like Zipcar, and encourages evaluation of the potential to increase shared and unbundled parking within the city of Concord. These documents provide a framework that the proposed project can help modify and implement to develop parking management strategies that will wor k for Concord.

3. Given your jurisdiction’s existing (or in progress) relevant policies, requirements or standards described in #1 and #2 above, how does your proposal manage to ‘close the gap’ between existing conditions and achieving TOC Policy compliance?
Our proposal will help close the gap by assisting in implementing policies from the specific plan to expand on parking management in the municipal code and by making recommendations for new and innovative strategies that can be incorporated into. The project would review both of these documents and determine which areas would need to be adjusted to be compliant with MTC requirements. The proposed changes would be vetted through community leaders and stakeholders to ensure the changes would work for the Concord Community. Finally, the project would develop a comprehensive list of changes that would be needed allowing for a comprehensive municipal code updating reducing the potential for inconsistencies between code sections.

4. Briefly describe how the project supports the following goals related to Plan Bay Area 2050:
• Climate – Reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by managing travel demand to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and improving access to low carbon transportation options • Regional Connectivity Priorities – Beyond MTC’s TOC Policy, advances regional priorities to improve transportation connectivity and access to all communities, and improve safety for all users of the transportation system
• Equity – Mitigates disproportionate impacts and advances equitable outcomes in climate, access, mobility, and safety
The project is supportive of three Plan Bay Area 2050 goals on climate, regional connectivity priorities, and equity. The project is anticipated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since it will reduce the number of required parking spaces in the ATTACHMENT 5

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

TOC and unbundle parking from housing costs. A more restrictive parking supply will encourage residents within the TOC to seek alternative modes such as BART which will reduce VMT. Changes in parking management in Concord’s two TOC areas are also anticipated to lead to higher densities due to decreases in parking costs on developers and to encourage higher demands for alternative modes requiring facility improvements in the areas to improve connectivity and safety for these alternative modes within the TOC. Finally, the TOC in Concord covers large portions of an Equity Priority Community near the Concord BART station and parking demand changes resulting from the project would be anticipated to reduce VMT in the area allowing for better access, mobility, and safety for residents using non -auto modes of travel.

Alignment with other MTC programs or grants underway – 20 points Alignment with other
MTC programs or
grants underway
20 points
How does the project align
with other regional
priorities, funding
programs and
geographies?
Select the regional plans and policies with which the project is aligned:
☒ TOC areas with Priority Development Area (PDA) or specific plans completed or in progress ☒ MTC Priority Sites
☐ Mapping and Wayfinding Pilot location
☒ The TOC Policy area is also in/overlaps with an MTC Equity Priority Community (EPC) Describe how the project aligns with the selected regional priorities, funding programs and geographies. If your TOC area has a completed or in-progress PDA or specific plan, please indicate the name of the plan/adoption date. If your TOC area is also an MTC priority site or mapping and wayfinding site, or is in/overlaps with an MTC EPC, please identify the relevant sites/EPC.

Both the Concord and North Concord BART station TOC’s are within Priority Development Areas. The Concord BART Station TOC encompasses a large section of the Downtown Concord PDA while the North Concord BART TOC encompasses the Community Reuse Area/Los Medanos PDA which is the site of the ongoing redevelopment of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. The Concord BART TOC also covers three Priority Sites in the Public Sites Portfolio list (Concord Town Center II, Concord Downtow n Parcels 1: Mount Diablo Street, and Concord Downtown Parcels 2: Oak Street) and one priority site that is Regionally Significant (Monument Blvd BART Owned Property). North Concord BART TOC encompasses the area for the Regionally Significant site of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Finally, the Concord BART TOC encompasses portions of an Equity Priority Community per Plan Bay Area 2050 near downtown Concord.

Indicate how the proposed work will integrate or overlap with any in-progress planning processes related to your selections.

The main integration with planning processes would be for the redevelopment of the Concord Naval Weapons Station which is a priority development area since the planning for this land is ongoing with a Specific Plan starting in 2025. The proposed wor k would help inform the policies of the specific plan and encourage parking management strategies for the proposed high -density ATTACHMENT 5

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

development near the North Concord BART station that would reduce automobile travel and encourage the use of alternative modes. The work would also be beneficial on the Concord BART TOC as there are vacant parcels of land in this TOC and there ha s been a lot of development proposals in this area with 150+ residential units off Ashbury Drive, Concord Boulevard, and Willow Pass Road all within the Concord BART TOC. Additionally, Concord already has affordable housing policies and programs in plac e that promote affordable housing production and preservation and tenant protections. These policies and programs will complement the transportation-related investments that this grant supports by enabling development and transportation improvements in the TOC areas while limiting displacement. Finally, the city is also submitting a TOC grant application for Specific Plan/Zoning Changes for the Concord BART TOC. If awarded in both categories, this parking management grant would coincide with a planning grant that seeks to increase the minimum residential and commercial office densities in the Concord BART TOC. This would enable the Concord BART TOC to become fully compliant with the TOC policy and would allow for a more holistic planning process addressing land use and transportation at the same time.

Project Readiness – 10 Points
Project Readiness
10 points

1. Describe the project’s timeline and ability to complete the project within 18 months of grant award.

To complete the project within 18 months of grant award, we believe a draft deadline timeline would include five overarching tasks: The first task would be releasing the RFP and getting a consultant under contract which we have assumed will take up to three months. Task 2 is to get a better understanding of where Concord is at through an existing conditions review which we believe will take about a month to complete. Task 3 is community and stakeholder engagement to understand the needs/desires of the community which is assumed to take up to four months. Task 4 would take what we learned from engagement to develop an approach to achieve the required parking maximums and supportive TDM policies along with documenting all the revisions that would be needed to the parking code for the TOC area and new policies for parking and transportation demand management. This task is estimated to take up to six months. Finally, Task 5 will seek to implement the changes and adopt the new ordinances. Given the public hearings and general timelines for approval, we believe this task could take up to four months. Combined, these five tasks will complete the project in 18 months from the grant award.

2. Describe internal coordination among relevant jurisdiction departments to deliver the proposed project – i.e. planning, transportation, public works. Have the relevant department staff engaged on the development of the proposed work?
Both the transportation and planning divisions have been working closely to review the new requirements for the areas incorporated within Concord’s two TOC areas. We have collaboratively worked on assembling a matrix of where we believe we are in compliance and areas where work will need to be done. This matrix is actively being shared and discussed with city management. This collaboration led to the request for the two additional scope items Concord is requesting for the grant.

The supply and demand of off-street parking is based on needs from the transportation division while the request to look into the design of bicycle parking rather than just the number of bicycle parking spaces is a planning request based on ATTACHMENT 5

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

previous discussions with one of our planning commissioners.

3. Has the jurisdiction City Council given support or direction to complete the work included in the proposed project? If not, what is the plan to achieve this?
Given the elections, there has not been time to bring this before council but city staff has been working across departments for transportation and planning to coordinate. We have also been working with city management to provide an overview of what the grant is and what it is for. Our plan to achieve support or direction from city council now that the election is over is to pro vide a summary of what the new TOC policies require and provide specific examples of what changes may be needed to come into compliance. This summary is anticipated to be provided either in one-on-one sessions or a group session with the council members through the beginning of the new year.

Post Award Requirements
Post Award Please check the box to indicate understanding of the post-award requirement:
☒ Adopt a Resolution of support before contract is finalized.

Attachment A –Standardized Scope of Work proposed by MTC Based on jurisdiction need, MTC will award up to $300,000 to complete the scope of work MTC will procure and administer consultant contracts to help successful applicants come into compliance with the TOC Policy’s Station Access and Circulation requirements. Jurisdictions may request funds to hire their own consultants but must do so in coordination with MTC.

Scope of Work for Parking Maximums and Parking & Transportation Demand Management Policy Adoption
Please reference this scope of work to complete your proposal for technical assistance for parking management. This standardized scope of work anticipates including the following tasks (with each task listing example activities that may be performed):

Parking Maximums and Parking & Transportation Demand Management Policy Adoption A. Review of Existing Policies and Conditions
▪ Comprehensive review of existing policies and requirements (local policies in addition to regional and state legislation rega rding parking requirements); data collection
ATTACHMENT 5

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

▪ Possible deliverables: draft and final existing policy memo B. Community and Stakeholder Engagement
▪ Outreach effort to gather the input of stakeholders, including residents, developers, businesses, etc. to be considered within the updated parking requirements
▪ Possible deliverables: stakeholder engagement plan, outreach materials C. Determine approach for achieving parking maximums and supportive TDM policies ▪ As outlined in the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance, adopt one of the following two approaches for meeting the TOC Policy’s maximum parking standards:
i. Adopt an overlay zone or updates to a parking use table or chapter. ii. Adopt a parking district, station area cap, or other methods that limits parking. ▪ Possible deliverables: existing code language and modifications needs; draft and final recommendations for revisions D. Revise Parking Code for TOC Areas
▪ Determine options to update Municipal Code to meet TOC requirements to eliminate parking minimums, enact parking maximums, al low shared parking and unbundled parking, and meet standards for bicycle parking in new residential and commercial office develop ments ▪ Possible deliverables: existing code language and modifications needs; draft and final recommendations for revisions E. Parking & Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) Policy ▪ Develop policy to reduce automobile trips and VMT and complement a parking maximum policy; Identify a toolbox of PTDM strateg ies and methods for estimating and monitoring effectiveness; Establish monitoring requirements ➢ Include complementary policies for parking management (shared parking, parking benefit district, pricing and/or demand responsive pricing)
➢ Include bike parking requirements
▪ Deliverables: policy document
F. Ordinance Adoption
▪ Present parking maximum and PTDM policies to appointed officials for consideration and recommendation ➢ Includes pre-meetings (i.e., planning commission listening sessions) before going to city councils ▪ Possible deliverables: public hearing(s)
Note: It is recommended that Parking Maximums and Parking & Transportation Demand Management Policy Adoption connect to Station Access and Circulation for a holistic transportation approach to the TOC area.

Please note that the anticipated assistance activities listed above are subject to change. Final scope of work for each selec ted applicant may also depend on planning already completed by the applicant.

ATTACHMENT 5

From: Dani Lanis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:57 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Prinz <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda item 5b

Dear Concord City Council,

Kindly see Emeryville's citywide bicycle parking ordinance and guidelines via the link below, which were updated within the past year and referenced best practices from several cities around the country including accommodations for ebikes and cargo bikes:

https://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/15108/Item-81-Attachment-1---Redline- version-of-proposed-revised-Regs (pages 62-68)

There is more to good bike parking policy than just what's indicated in the Emeryville code here, but this is certainly a good place to start.

Best regards,

Dani Lanis (he/him/el)
Advocacy Manager
Mail: PO Box 1736 Oakland, CA 94604
Office: 466 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
Email: [email protected]
************

The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail is at risk of weekday closure for all cyclists and pedestrians. The final vote is coming up on March 20: learn more at BikeEastBay.org/RSR and sign the petition to support bridge access for all!

Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 5.b
February 25, 2025

Transit-Oriented
Community (TOC) Policy

MEREDITH RUPP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
FEBRUARY 25, 2025
1

Agenda

1. TOC Policy Background

2. Compliance Standards

3. Concord’s Current Compliance Status

4. Policy Direction

5. Next Steps
2

TOC Policy Background
• MTC policy to advance implementation
of Plan Bay Area and support regional
transportation investments
• Applies to ½-mile around transit hubs
• Compliance is voluntary but needed to
be most competitive for funding starting
in 2026
3

4 Project Name Funding Amount
Willow Pass Rd. Repaving and Safe Routes to School (in design) $6,240,000 Monument Blvd Class I Path (complete) $4,368,000
Galindo Street Multimodal Corridor (complete) $3,361,000 East Downtown Access & Safe Routes to Transit (under construction) $2,164,000 Detroit Ave. Bike & Ped Improvements (complete) $2,154,000 Concord BART Bike & Ped Access Improvements (complete) $1,195,000 Various Streets Preservation (complete) $757,000
Oak Grove at Sierra Bike/Ped Traffic Signal (complete) $504,900 Concord Salvio Streetscape (complete) $50,000
TOTAL $20,793,900
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)

OBAG 4
•Regional Program and County & Local Program
• Next funding cycle schedule for 2026 and TOC consistency will be a meaningful factor
• Many unknowns on how compliance will be defined and
weighed
•Federal funding uncertainty
5

Concord’s
TOC Areas
6