Concord City Council
February 25, 2025

1 COUNCILMEMBERS
Carlyn S. Obringer, Mayor
Laura M. Nakamura, Vice Mayor
Dominic D. Aliano
Pablo Benavente
Laura M. Hoffmeister
Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org
Regular Meeting of the
Concord City Council
Tuesday
February 25, 2025
6:30 p.m. - Open Session Council Chamber
1950 Parkside Drive
and/or various
telephonic/electronic
locations
*IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEETING PARTICIPATION* Members of the public are invited to attend and participate at: Council Chamber, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA.

Please note the following change to the City’s public comment procedures: Unless a Councilmember is participating in the meeting remotely pursuant to AB 2449, remote public comment will not be accepted. Public comment may be provided in-person or via email, as set forth below. Members of the public desiring to provide comments as a part of the meeting are encouraged to either submit written comments by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting or to attend the meeting in person.

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

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

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

2. REMOTE: Remote public comment will not be accepted, except when a Councilmember participates remotely pursuant to AB 2449. At the time of the posting of this agenda, none of the Councilmembers have notified the City Clerk’s Office that they intend to participate remotely pursuant to AB 2449, and therefore no remote public comment will

2 be accepted at the meeting. If, after publication of this agenda and before the meeting begins, any councilmember determines that they will need to participate remotely due to just cause or emergency circumstances under AB 2449, their remote participation will be announced at the outset of the meeting in connection with the Roll Call item. If a Councilmember participates in the meeting remotely pursuant to AB 2449, the public may participate and provide public comment remotely, as follows:
a. Zoom:
https://cityofconcord.zoom.us/j/85960918134?pwd=WPwkwkXSNLZRw6VN4vk1cp40nW GMxw.LHSyhVbCP_RBuOGc or Zoom Webinar ID: 859 6091 8134 and Passcode:
479301
b.Zoom Phone Numbers. Dial Toll Free: (669) 900-6833 or (346) 348-7799 or (253) 215- 8782.
c.During the meeting, each period for public comment will be announced, and participants may use the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom to request to speak. If calling in via Zoom use *9 to raise and lower your hand. The meeting host will call on you, by name, and promote you to panelist in the webinar so you can be seen via your camera. Please enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak. In order to ensure the orderly administration of the meeting using this method, providing your name is encouraged, but is not required. (If you need instructions on how to use this feature, please contact the City Clerk by 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date at [email protected]).

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

1. distributed to the Council before the meeting,

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

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

4. TO WATCH OR LISTEN ONLY:
a.Watch on TV on Comcast Channel 28, Astound/Wave Channels 29 and 1026, and AT&T U-verse Channel 99
b.Watch the TV broadcast through the City’s website by following THIS LINK c.Watch Live Streaming of the meeting by following THIS LINK d.Join the Zoom webinar by following THIS LINK
3 5. INTERPRETATION OR WRITTEN TRANSLATION:

OPEN SESSION

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

Pledge of Allegiance – Councilmember Benavente

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

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

3. PRESENTATIONS
a. Presentation – by Aaron Hawkins, General Manager, Live Nation, providing an update on Concord Pavilion. Introduction by Mayor Obringer.

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

If a request for removal of an item from the Consent Calendar has been received, the Mayor may defer action on the particular item and place the same on the regular agenda for consideration in any order s/he deems appropriate. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above.

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

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

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

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

Use sus auriculares para escuchar el audio o leer la transcipción en el dispositivo.
4 a. Considering – approval of purchase and design of shade structures from Shade Structures, Inc. (DBA USA Shade & Fabric Structures) in the not-to- exceed amount of $104,947.87 (includes quote total of $99,950.35 and a 5% contingency of $4,997.52) for the Shade Structures at Concord Community Pool Project (Project No. 2645). Recommended by the Director of Community Development.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code 21065; CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378. b. Considering – adoption of a Resolution authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to establish the annual parcel assessment for FY 2025-26 for drainage maintenance and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Recommended by the Director of Community Development.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, and/or 15378.
c. Considering – a recommendation from the Council Committee on Housing and Economic Development to:

1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the application, acceptance and appropriation of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) grant funds from the State of California in the amount of $1,576,258 for the next three years; and

2. Increase the First Time Homebuyer Program loan amount from a maximum of $40,000 to a maximum of $60,000 across all income categories. Recommended by the Director of Community
Development.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

Public Hearing Item
d. Considering – introduction of an Ordinance amending Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code) Section 18.200.070 (Standards for Specific Uses - Emergency Shelter and Homeless Shelters) to establish additional objective standards for emergency shelters and homeless shelters, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. (PL23176 – MC) Recommended by the Director of Economic Development.
5 CEQA: Not a “project” under Public Resources Code 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c) or 15378 and in the alternative, if deemed a “project,” exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

5. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda before or during the City Council’s consideration of that item. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Considering – a referral from Council to agendize for discussion and possible direction to staff on two aspects of the current Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program:

1. Whether/to what extent Concord Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program should apply to rented single-family residences and rented condominiums; and

2. Whether/to what extent changes should be made to the Allowable Annual Rent Increase as defined in CMC Section 19.40.040. Continued from February 4, 2025. Report by Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager.

Please note that public comment on this item was taken on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, and the public comment period is closed.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378. b. Considering – direction to staff on the City’s compliance with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) new regional Transit- Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy. Report by Merideth Rupp, Principal Planner.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3) and 15378, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.
c. Considering – the interview and selection process for making appointments to the Planning Commission, which has three open seats. Recommended by the City Clerk.

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

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

8. ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Special Meeting
Date: 3/1/2025 9:00 AM

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

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

Staff Report
Date: February 25, 2025
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mindy Gentry, Director of Community Development Carlton Thompson, PE, City Engineer
Bruce Davis, PE, CIP Manager
Prepared by: William Wahbeh, PE, Associate Civil Engineer [email protected]
(925) 671-5098
Subject: Considering approval of purchase and design of shade structures from Shade Structures, Inc. (DBA USA Shade & Fabric Structures) in the not-to-exceed amount of $104,947.87 (includes quote total of $99,950.35 and a 5% contingency of $4,997.52) for the Shade Structures at Concord Community Pool Project (Project No. 2645).

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

Report in Brief
The first phase of the Shade Structures at Concord Community Pool Project (City Project No. 2645) involves purchase of shade structures for the sides of the swimming pool deck at the pool. See Attachment 1 for project location and Attachment 2 for the shade structure locations at the pool deck. This Phase of the project involves purchasing eight (8) shade structures including engineered drawings from Shade Structures, Inc. (DBA USA Shade & Fabric Structures). Installation of the shade structures, Phase 2 of this project, will be a separate contract that will be put out to bid at a later date. Staff anticipates construction/installation of the shade structure will occur in the fall of this year.

Recommended Action

4.a4.a4.a4.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
February 25, 2025
Approve purchase from Shade Structures, Inc. (DBA USA Shade & Fabric Structures) in the not-to-exceed amount of $104,947.87 (includes quote total of $99,950.35 and a 5% contingency of $4,997.52) for the Shade Structures at the Concord Community Pool Project (Project No. 2645), and make the CEQA determinations as provided in this staff report.

Background
On June 28, 2022, the City Council adopted the CIP Budget for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24 and Five-Year CIP 2022-2027, which included the creation of the Shade Structures for Concord Community Pool Project (Project No. 2645) and initial funding of $220,000 from Parkland Dedication Funds.

Concord Community Pool is and has been one of the premier swimming locations in Contra Costa since its opening in 1967. A recurring issue, which was not addressed during previous renovations, is the lack of shade to provide protection from the harmful UV rays of the sun around the pool deck for parents, pool users, swim teams, spectators, and staff.

Analysis
Staff initiated conceptual design for the shade structures and evaluated various shade options and associated preliminary costs. Based on review with Recreation staff, single post pyramid cantilever shades were determined to be the preferred style to maximize usable area and were the most visually appealing. Final color of material will be determined by Recreation staff at time of procurement. An exhibit of the proposed shade structures is shown in Attachment 2. The material used for the shade structure allows for UV protection and creates shade, while allowing wind and water to pass through.

Several sunshade manufacturers were contacted to review available styles, pricing, and procurement options and US Shade & Fabric Structures was determined to be the preferred manufacturer. A copy of their quote can be found in Attachment 3.

The purchase and design of the shade structures is Phase 1 of this project. Phase 2 will be the installation. The installation work will be separately advertised and bid. It is anticipated that construction will occur in the fall of this year.

Procurement Process
Per City Municipal Code Section 3.10.080 (Waiver of bidding regulations), the City of Concord may buy directly from a vendor at a price established by a competitive bid by another public jurisdiction. Further, the City is participating in a cooperative purchase and utilizing an existing contract with Sourcewell, a State of Minnesota local government agency and service cooperative. This is facilitated through the City’s participation in Sourcewell, where PlayPower, Inc.’s (of which Shade Structures, Inc.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
February 25, 2025
DBA USA Shade & Fabric Structures is a wholly owned subsidiary) has an existing contract.

Financial Impact
The current project budget of $220,000 from Parkland Dedication Area A (Fund 450) is sufficient.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), approval of this purchase does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Sections 15060(c), or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if approval of the task order did constitute a project under CEQA, the approval of this task order falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis. The Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Clerk’s office following the award of the construction contract.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Project Location Map

2. Sunshade Design and Locations on the Pool Deck

3. USA Shade Quote

Attachment 1
Project Location Map
Shade Structures at Concord Community Pool
Project No. 2645

PROJECT LOCATION

Attachment 2
Shade Structure Exhibit
Shade Structures at Concord Community Pool
Project No. 2645
Shade Structure Locations at Pool Deck
View of Typical Single Post Pyramid Cantilever Shade Structure

www.usa-shade.com 800-966-5005
AZ: 289388 CA: 989458 LA: 61718 NV: 78724 NV:78724 NM: 383826 TN: 68712 DIR: 1000003533

PRODUCTS

DESCRIPTION DETAILS
Single Post Pyramid Cantilever Model Number Dimensions Entry Height QTY IMAGE 124.1 20’ x 20’ 10’
8 Fabric Type Fabric Color Electrical Provisions
Colourshade FR TBD N/A
Steel Finish Steel Color Cable/HDW Finish
Powder Coat w/ Coastal Primer TBD Galvanized
Footing Type Mounting Type Anchor Bolts
Drilled Pier Recessed Base Plate Included

SOURCEWELL PRICING

QTY PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT TOTAL
8 124.1 Single Post Pyramid Cantilever $9,937.45 Each $79,499.60 8 FR FABRIC Colourshade FR $108.36 Each $866.88
8 Coastal Primer Heavy Zinc Primer/Undercoat $600.60 Each $4,804.80 8 Anchor Bolt Anchor Bolts $450.28 SET $3,602.24
Unit Subtotal: $88,773.52
Sourcewell Discount - List Less 10%: -$8,877.35
Shipping and Handling: $9,808.02
Taxable Subtotal: $89,704.19
Sales Tax @ 9.75%: $8,746.16
Site Preparation: $0.00
Engineering & Design: $0.00
Stamped Engineered Drawings: $1,500.00
Installation: $0.00
Subtotal: $99,950.35
Payment & Performance Bond @ 2%: $0.00
TOTAL PRICE: $99,950.35

SCOPE OF WORK/NOTES
Unit Supply Only, No Installation.

INCLUSIONS / EXCLUSIONS

INCLUDED / EXCLUDED ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED / EXCLUDED INSTALLATION - MISCELLANEOUS Included Sealed Drawings Excluded Prevailing Wage / Certified Payroll Included Sealed Calculations Excluded Union Wages
Excluded Permit Submittal Excluded Fencing
Excluded Permit Fee Excluded Dirt Removal
Excluded DSA Submittal & Fees Excluded Water and Electrical Included Design and Engineering of Structure Excluded Landscape Repair Included Design and Engineering of Foundation Excluded Demolition (Existing Structures) Excluded Reactions/Loads for Attachment to Walls, Rooftops, etc. Excluded Payment and Performance Bonds Excluded Foundation Location and Elevation Survey Excluded Special Inspection Fees

Staff Report
Date: February 25, 2025
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mindy Gentry, Director of Community Development Carlton Thompson, PE, City Engineer
Prepared by: Bruce Davis, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
[email protected]
(925) 671-3470
Subject: Considering adoption of a Resolution authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to establish the annual parcel assessment for FY 2025-26 for drainage maintenance and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c),
15061(b)(3), 15273, and/or 15378.

Report in Brief
The City of Concord is mandated by State and Federal law to maintain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for storm water discharge. As part of its NPDES permit conditions, Concord is required to implement a comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP must include municipal programs, public participation, and inter-governmental coordination to reduce the discharge of pollutants into storm drains, creeks, the delta, and the San Francisco Bay.

The City annually authorizes the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to direct the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to establish a storm water utility area for Concord, and to impose assessments on parcels within the City of Concord. The revenue from this assessment funds activity required to implement Concord’s SWMP. Adoption of the resolution will continue the current Stormwater Utility

4.b4.b

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
February 25, 2025
Area (SUA) assessment at the current Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) rate of $35 for a single-family residential parcel through Fiscal Year 2025-26.

Recommended Action
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to establish the annual parcel assessment for Fiscal Year 2025-26 for drainage maintenance and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program.

Background
Pollution carried in storm water runoff has a significant impact on water quality and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay Area. Common pollutants found in runoff from urban areas include oil and grease from automobiles; heavy metals like copper, lead, and zinc from automobiles; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from vehicle exhaust and residential fireplaces; pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers from lawns and gardens; polychlorinated biphenyls from old industrial sites; mercury from florescent lights and thermometers; and biological pathogens. Without pollution prevention programs, these pollutants can be carried into municipal storm drainage systems and, ultimately, the delta and the San Francisco Bay.

The 1987 reauthorization of the Federal Clean Water Act and California state legislation require local agencies to obtain an NPDES permit to discharge municipal storm drainage water into federal and state waters. The development and implementation of a joint municipal NPDES permit for storm water discharge is coordinated by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP), which consists of the City of Concord, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Contra Costa County, and eighteen other Contra Costa cities (Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek.) On March 9, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-14 authorizing the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District to establish an annual parcel assessment to fund NPDES Program activities such as street sweeping, public education, industrial outreach, and drainage system maintenance. Resolution No. 93-14 set the initial assessment at $26 per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) per year and limited future assessments to no more than $35 per ERU per year. A single-family residential unit on a parcel with an area between 5,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet was defined as one ERU. Vacant and agricultural lands are exempt from assessment.

Concord’s SUA generates approximately two million dollars each year. The City’s costs to administer the street sweeping portion of the SWMP exceed the amount of revenue collected through this charge and are carried by the City’s General Fund.

In December 2009, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) consolidated the municipal permits from 67 cities and 14 agencies in

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
February 25, 2025
Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Solano counties, into a single Municipal Regional Permit. This MRP requires the City of Concord to implement a comprehensive Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SWMP). The City’s Stormwater Utility Area (SUA) assessment revenues finance the SWMP and other requirements in the MRP. To collect SUA revenues, the City annually authorizes the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to direct the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to establish a storm water utility area for Concord, and reaffirm the approved fee assessment.

Analysis
SUA revenues may only be used for storm water quality-related activities, including street sweeping; catch basin and storm drain maintenance; creek channel maintenance; inspection and monitoring programs to eliminate illicit discharges and illegal connections to the storm drain system, and stream bank erosion control. These efforts are mandated strategies to reduce the amount of pollution reaching the creeks, delta, and the San Francisco Bay estuary system.

On April 4, 2000, the Council adopted Resolution No. 00-29 approving the current rate of $35 per ERU. The annual parcel assessment has remained at $35 per ERU since June 2001. The rate can be increased only through a ballot approved by two-thirds of the property owners. No increase is being requested or proposed, rather an annual resolution is required pursuant to the Stormwater Utility Assessment Ordinance of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Ordinance No. 93- 47), and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act, which is codified in West's California Water Code Appendix, Chapter 63.

Financial Impact
If the City Council adopts the Resolution, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District will reaffirm the annual ERU rate of $35 to generate approximately two million dollars in SUA assessments for the City of Concord to support funding of the City’s SWMP implementation responsibilities in Fiscal Year 2025-26.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), establishing the annual assessment amount and authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to adopt SUA levies and/or assess ERUs does not constitute a "project," within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Section 15060(c)(2), and/or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and/or 15273 because it involves government funding/fiscal activities. Even if such action did constitute a “project” under CEQA, establishing the annual amount and authorizing the

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
February 25, 2025
Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to adopt SUA levies and/or assess ERUs, falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.”
Additionally, pursuant to Section 15273 of the CEQA Guidelines, the establishment of charges for the purpose of meeting operating expenses is categorically exempt.

Projects funded by the annual assessment will undergo CEQA review as necessary.

Therefore, establishing the annual assessment amount and authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to adopt SUA levies and/or assess ERUs does not warrant further environmental review. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

1. Resolution – Annual NPDES Assessment

Res No. 25-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Authorizing the Contra Costa County
Flood Control & Water Conservation District to
Establish an Annual Parcel Assessment for FY 2025-
26 for Drainage Maintenance and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
Resolution No. 25-XX
/
WHEREAS, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, [33 U.S.C. Section 1342(p)], certain municipal storm water discharges require a permit from the appropriate federal or state authorities pursuant to the National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Concord, in conjunction with other affected jurisdictions within Contra Costa County, applied to the State Regional Water Quality Control Board and received a Joint NPDES Permit to discharge storm water and developed a Storm Water Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2768 (West’s Water Code Appendix, Section 63-12 and 63-12.9) authorizes the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District (DISTRICT) to establish storm water utility areas and to impose annual benefit assessments for the purpose of carrying out the activities required under the NPDES Program; and
WHEREAS, the DISTRICT has completed the process for formation of a Concord Storm Water Utility Area (SUA), including the adoption of Storm Water Assessment Drainage Ordinance No. 93-47; and
WHEREAS, the SUA and Program Group Costs Payment Agreement between the City of Concord and DISTRICT requires the City of Concord annually to determine the rate to be assessed per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) for the forthcoming fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 93-14, which established the range of annual assessment to be imposed by the DISTRICT within the SUA at an amount not to exceed $35 per ERU.

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

Attachment 1

Res No. 25-XX 2
Section 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), establishing the annual assessment amount and authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to adopt SUA levies and/or assess ERUs does not constitute a "project," within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Section 15060(c)(2), and/or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and/or 15273 because it involves government funding/fiscal activities. Even if such action did constitute a “project” under CEQA, establishing the annual amount and authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to adopt SUA levies and/or assess ERUs, falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Additionally, pursuant to Section 15273 of the CEQA Guidelines, the establishment of charges for the purpose of meeting operating expenses is categorically exempt. Projects funded by the annual assessment will undergo CEQA review as necessary.

Therefore, establishing the annual assessment amount and authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to adopt SUA levies and/or assess ERUs does not warrant further environmental review. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.

Section 2. The annual assessment imposed by the DISTRICT within the SUA for Fiscal Year 2025-26 shall be $35.00 per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU).

Section 3. The City Council requests the DISTRICT to adopt storm water utility area levies based on said amount per ERU.

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

Res No. 25-XX 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on February 25, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 25-XX was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on February 25, 2025.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

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: Brenda Kain, Interim Community Services Manager [email protected]
(925) 603-5838
Subject: Considering a recommendation from the Council Committee on Housing and Economic Development to:

1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the application, acceptance and appropriation of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) grant funds from the State of California in the
amount of $1,576,258 for the next three years; and

2. Increase the First Time Homebuyer Program loan amount from a maximum of $40,000 to a maximum of $60,000
across all income categories.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

Report in Brief
In December 2021 Council adopted a five-year plan and Resolution which accepted and appropriated Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) grant funds. The initial allocation covered only two of the five years. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has announced the release of the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA, Attachment 1) for second-round funding of the PLHA program for the next three years. The PLHA grant is available to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement jurisdictions to implement plans to address homelessness and increase affordable housing stock. PLHA is an ongoing formula grant that provides non-competitive funding to entitlement cities, as well as competitive grant funding to

4.c4.c4.c4.c4.c4.c

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.c
February 25, 2025
non-entitlement cities. As an entitlement jurisdiction, Concord will receive an allocation of approximately $1,576,258 over the next three years.

Recommended Action
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) authorizing the application, acceptance and appropriation of Permanent Local Housing Allocation Grant Funds from the State of California in the amount of $1,576,258 and increase the First Time Homebuyer program loan amount from a maximum of $40,000 to a maximum of $60,000 across all income categories.

Background
In 2017, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs. As part of the package, the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB2) established a $75 recording fee on real estate documents, which would be directed toward increasing the supply of affordable homes in California.

The intent of the bill is to provide a permanent, on-going source of funding to local governments for housing-related projects and programs that assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of local communities.

The PLHA funds allocated to each entitlement jurisdiction are directly proportionate to each jurisdiction’s share of the total 2017 CDBG allocation in California. Concord received a PLHA allocation of $488,785 in calendar year 2022 (Year 1) and $759,724 in calendar year 2023 (Year 2). Concord is expected to receive an additional allocation of approximately $1,576,258 in years 3-5; however, allocations for each City may fluctuate from year to year depending on recording fees from actual real estate transactions.

Analysis
PLHA Application
To be eligible, local jurisdictions must have a state certified and compliant Housing Element and have timely Annual Progress Reports (APR) on the Housing Element submitted per state law. The City is compliant with both of these requirements. The program guidelines require that the grant application (Attachment 3) include an adopted City Council resolution authorizing the request and receipt of grant funds for the three- year period.

The City’s original PLHA grant application included a high-level, five-year plan outlining how it would use its estimated allocation over the five-year period, which focused on rapid rehousing for unsheltered households and funding for the City’s dedicated Coordinated Outreach Referral Engagement (CORE) outreach team. In October 2024, HCD revised program requirements to require that a minimum of 40% of second-round PLHA funds be allocated to Affordable Owner-Occupied Workforce Housing (AOWH) defined as owner-occupied housing that is affordable to persons and families of low- or moderate-income. Due to the new AOWH requirement, an amended five-year plan must

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.c
February 25, 2025
be submitted with the second-round application which outlines adjustments to the original plan to align with the revised funding allocation requirements (Attachment 4).

The City must submit the application to HCD no later than February 28, 2025, and following application approval, HCD will execute an agreement with the City that encompasses the next three-years of second-round funding, currently estimated at $1,576,258. Following the execution of the agreement, funding is then advanced to the City. An annual report is due to the State by July 31 detailing the activities provided and the appropriate expenditure of funds.

Funding Allocation Recommendations
On February 5, 2025, the Council Committee on Housing and Economic Development (HED) (Hoffmeister/Obringer) recommended allocating funds across three categories:

1. Services to the Unsheltered
In alignment with the City’s Homeless Strategic Plan, HED recommends continuing to use the PLHA grant to fund services and activities supporting the unsheltered population over the next three years:
• CORE Support: $192,500 to continue funding the Care Coordinator added to the City’s dedicated CORE outreach team to provide clinical case management to unsheltered residents (three-year estimate: 52 clients) • Rapid Rehousing Support: $654,781 to continue funding Hope Solutions to provide housing navigation, support services and six to twelve months of rental subsidy to rapidly rehouse unsheltered families with children, victims of domestic violence, and veterans (three-year estimate: 19 households, contingent on depth of subsidy).

2. Affordable Owner- Occupied Workforce Housing (AOWH)
To meet the mandated AOWH funding requirement and to better meet the needs of Concord homebuyers, HED recommends funding the following activity:
• First Time Homebuyer Program: $650,214 to expand the City’s First Time Homebuyer (FTHB) program to include those residents earning up to 150% Area Median Income (AMI), commonly referred to as workforce housing (three-year estimate: 11 home purchases, depending on depth of subsidy)

3. Administration
• $78,763 to administer the programs (Limited to 5% of the total grant amount)
Furthermore, HED recommends increasing the FTHB allocation to up to $60,000 across all income categories to address rising housing costs and provide better support for

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.c
February 25, 2025
homebuyers. Since 2009, the existing FTHB program has allocated up to $40,000 for households earning up to 60% AMI, $30,000 for households at 60-80% AMI, and $20,000 for households at 80-100% AMI. This increase will provide homebuyers with greater financial assistance, making homeownership more attainable and sustainable.

The actual amount of the loan depends on income, household size and the assignment of a housing ratio to prevent over-funding of subsidies (Attachment 5: Concord AOWH Market Study).

The table below details income limits by family size for the various income categories:
2024 State Income Limits: Contra Costa County (June 1, 2024) Number in
Household
1 2 3 4 5 6
Very Low-Income
60%

$65,400

$74,760

$84,120

$93,420

$100,920

$108,420
Low Income
80%

$84,600

$96,650

$108,750

$120,800

$130,500

$140,150
Median Income
100%

$109,000

$124,600

$140,200

$155,700

$168,200

$180,700
Moderate Income
150%

$163,500

$186,900

$210,300

$233,550

$252,300

$271,050
The table below details the annual and total funding recommendations for the three years of second-round PLHA funding:

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
CORE

$100,000

$52,500

$40,000 $192,500
Hope
Solutions

$351,000

$170,781 $133,000 $654,781
AOWH

$343,300

$174,800 $132,114 $650,214
Administration

$41,753

$20,951

$16,059 $78,763
Total
Allocation

$836,053

$419,032 $321,173 $1,576,258
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14,

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.c
February 25, 2025
Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), the applying for and receiving of grant funds does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), or 15378 because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the activity is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15273 because it involves government funding/fiscal activities. Moreover, even if the activity does comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” None of the exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are present. No unusual circumstances are present. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. Therefore, the activity does not warrant further environmental review.

Financial Impact
The City of Concord would allocate an estimated $1,576,258 in grant funding from Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds for the next three years. No General Fund monies would be allocated.

Public Contact
Notice of this meeting has been posted.

Attachments

1. Permanent Local Housing Allocation Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)

2. Resolution authorizing the application, acceptance and appropriation of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Grant Funds from the State of California in the amount of $1,576,258

3. Draft Permanent Local Housing Application

4. Amended City of Concord Five-Year Plan and Program Income Reuse Plan

5. Concord AOWH Market Study

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPART MENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
651 Bannon Street
Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 263-2771
December 29, 2023
Amended October 15, 2024 (CY 2023 Allocation)
MEMORANDUM FOR: Potential Applicants
FROM: Jennifer Seeger, Deputy Director
Division of State Financial Assistance
SUBJECT: Notice of Funding
Availability
Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program
Calendar Year 2023 Formula Allocation
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (Department or HCD ) is
pleased to announce the release of the 2024 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA) Local Government Formula Component Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for approximately $320 million in calendar year (CY) 2021 and 2022 funds as well as new CY 2023 funds as follows:

Allocation Year NOFA Funds Available
CY 2023 calendar year $128.6 million
CY 2022 calendar year $132.1 million
CY 2021 calendar year $59.9 million
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed
information on funds available to each eligible locality under this NOFA for housing-related projects and programs that assist in addressing unmet housing needs of their local communities. Appendix A reflects allocations available as of October 4, 2024. If an application has been previously submitted but no award has been made as of the date of this NOFA, there is no need to resubmit the application for CY 2022 and CY 2021 funds. A new application will be required to request CY 2023 funds.

This NOFA will remain open to eligible Applicants through June 30, 2027. The NOFA will be augmented with additional CY funds as additional revenues are collected and made available.

All Applicants must ensure they meet all threshold requirements outlined in this NOFA and Program Guidelines prior to the submittal of an application. *** PLEASE NOTE ***
All CY 2021 funds unawarded by June 31, 2025 will revert to the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund established to be used for the Multifamily Housing Program (Chapter 6.7 commencing with Section 50675) pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50470 (b)((2)(B)(ii)(VI) to be made available through a future Multifamily Housing Program Notice of Funding Availability.

To receive an award of CY 2021 funds, Applicants
are required to submit an
application and demonstrate a fully compliant housing element and submittal of the applicable Annual Progress Report(s) as detailed in Part II, Section F or G by no later than February 28, 2025.

Attachment 1

Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program
CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA

Applications must be submitted through the online application portal.

The application submittal portal will be available and open for applications beginning October 15, 2024. Personal deliveries will not be accepted. No facsimiles, incomplete applications, application revisions, or walk-in application packages will be accepted.

PLHA Program Guidelines, application forms, and instructions are available on the Department’s PLHA Program website. If you have questions regarding this NOFA, please email the Department at [email protected]. The Department will continue to offer bi-weekly office hours and opportunities for technical assistance to all potential Applicants. To receive information on workshops, office hours, and other program-related updates, please subscribe to the PLHA listserv.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program

Notice of Funding Availability
CY 2023 Formula Allocation

Gavin Newsom,
Governor State of California

Tomiquia Moss, Secretary
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency

Gustavo Velasquez, Director
California Department of Housing and Community Development

PLHA Program Website
Email: [email protected]
October 15, 2024

Table of Contents

I. New in this NOFA................................................................................................................ 1 II. Overview and Timeline ........................................................................................................ 1 III. Program Requirements .................................................................................................... 2 A. Eligible Applicants ............................................................................................................... 2 B. Eligible Activities .................................................................................................................. 3 C. Allocation of funding and limits ............................................................................................ 4 D. Program Administrative, Activity Delivery Costs, and Reimbursement of Costs ................. 5 E. Application review ............................................................................................................... 5 F. Threshold requirements for First-Time Applicants ............................................................... 5 G. Threshold requirements for Previous Grantees ................................................................... 8 H. Administration and Reporting Requirements ...................................................................... 9 IV. Application Webinar ......................................................................................................... 9 V. Appeals ............................................................................................................................... 9 A. Basis of Appeals.................................................................................................................. 9 B. Appeal Process and Deadlines.......................................................................................... 10 C. Decision ............................................................................................................................ 10 VI. Other terms and conditions ............................................................................................ 10 A. Right to modify or suspend ................................................................................................ 10 B. Disclosure of application .................................................................................................... 11 C. Conflicts ............................................................................................................................ 11 Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 12 Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 18 Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 23 Appendix D .............................................................................................................................. 24

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 1 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Notice of Funding Availability
Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program
Local Government Formula Component
CY 2023 Allocation

I. New in this NOFA

A. Affordable Ownership Worker Housing (AOWH) Requirements

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50470(b)(2)(A), twenty percent (20%) of the moneys collected and deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund shall be expended for Affordable Owner-Occupied Workforce Housing (AOWH).

The Department monitors compliance with this requirement both based on allocations adopted in required 5-year plans and any amendments to that plan as well as actual documented expenditures. Based on these indicators, HCD has determined that at the end of the current 5-year period applicable to CY 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 allocations, funds projected to be expended on AOWH are trailing behind the required 20 percent. As such, the Department will, for this final NOFA covered by the 2020-2025 plans, require a set percentage of funds requested to be for AOWH activities.

These requirements are detailed in Section III(B)(1) of this NOFA {Program Overview, Eligible Applicants, Affordable Owner-Occupied Workforce Housing Requirements}.

II. Overview and Timeline

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (Department or HCD) is announcing the release of the calendar year (CY) Allocation Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program’s Local Government Formula Component Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).

Funding for this NOFA is provided pursuant to Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017). SB 2 established the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund (Fund) and authorizes the Department to allocate 70 percent of moneys collected and deposited in the Fund, beginning in calendar year 2019, to Local governments for eligible housing and homelessness activities. The intent of the bill is to provide a permanent, on- going source of funding to Local governments for housing-related projects and programs that assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of their local communities.

This NOFA represents the fifth CY allocation of moneys deposited in the Fund for the prior CY and includes any remaining unawarded funds not requested by eligible A pplicants for prior and available CYs.

Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this NOFA shall have the meanings set forth in PLHA Guidelines Section 101.

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Applicants may apply at any time after the release of the NOFA, however, any Applicant requesting CY 2021 funds (see appendices A and D), must meet all threshold requirements set forth in the PLHA Program Guidelines, Article III, Section 302, including housing element compliance and Annual Progress Report submittal requirements) and submit all required application materials no later than February 28, 2025.

Awards will be made on a rolling basis as they are received, reviewed, and determined to have meet all threshold requirements. If an application is submitted and determined to be incomplete (including
housing element compliance and Annual Progress Report submittal), the Applicant will be alerted to the deficiencies that need to be addressed and the application will be rejected. No award will be made until those deficiencies are addressed to the satisfaction of the Department. Once addressed, the Applicant will need to resubmit the entire application package for reconsideration.

Please note that per state statute, any CY 2021 funds unawarded by June 30, 2025 will revert to the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund established to be used for the Multifamily Housing Program.

III. Program Requirements
The following is provided as a summary for the allocation of the PLHA formula funds to Local governments and is not to be considered a complete representation of the eligibility, threshold, or other requirements, terms, and conditions. All Applicants should fully review the PLHA Program Guidelines for full requirements.

This 2024 NOFA represents the fifth year of funding under the PLHA program for the Entitlement and Non-Entitlement Local government Formula Component as detailed below:

Revenue
Collection Period
NOFA
Issuance
Allocation Application and Award Deadlines
CY 2019 2020 Reverted to MHP as of 6/30/2023
CY 2020 2021 Reverted to MHP as of 6/30/2024
CY 2021 2022 Must apply for funds by February 28, 2025, and be awarded by June 30, 2025 or funds will revert to MHP
CY 2022 2023 Must apply for funds by February 28, 2026, and be awarded by June 30, 2026, or funds will revert to MHP
CY 2023 2024 Must apply for funds by February 28, 2027, and be awarded by June 30, 2027 or funds will revert to MHP
*Please note, application deadlines for reverting funds may be established in future NOFA amendments

A. Eligible Applicants

An Applicant must be an Entitlement Local government, a Non-Entitlement Local government, or a Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund delegated by the Local government pursuant to the PLHA Guidelines Article III, Section 300.

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 3 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA

1. Delegation of Formula Allocation

Per PLHA Guidelines Section 300 (c) and (d), a Local government may delegate to another Local government or Local Housing or Regional Housing Trust Fund to submit an application and administer on its behalf its formula allocation of Program funds, provided that the parties enter into a legally binding agreement and the funds are expended for eligible Activities and consistent with Program requirements. The delegating entity shall be identified in the application. The administering entity shall be responsible for all Program requirements.

Upon delegating its entire formula allocation to another Local government or to a Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund, the Local government that delegated their allocation is no longer involved
in the PLHA application or administration of the
PLHA grant for the full term of the PLHA Plan, which extends through 2023. The delegated Local government or Trust Fund assumes full responsibility for compliance with statute and for meeting all the Department’s requirements, including any penalties for non-compliance.

A Local government can subgrant a portion of its allocation to another entity, as permitted by PLHA Guidelines Section 302(c)(3). When a Local government subgrants a portion of its allocation to another entity, the Local government remains fully accountable and responsible for compliance with statute and for meeting all of the Department’s requirements, including any penalties for noncompliance.

B. Eligible Activities

PLHA funds allocated to eligible Applicants must be used to carry out one or more of the eligible activities listed in the PLHA Guidelines, Article III, Section 301. All services must be provided within the county containing the Local government recipient.

1. Affordable Owner-Occupied Workforce Housing Requirements

a. First time
Applicants requesting funds will be required to allocate 40 percent of funds requested to AOWH activities as defined below:

i. AOWH is defined as “owner-occupied housing that is affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income, as that term is defined in HSC Section 50093, except in high-cost areas where moderate income shall include households earning up to 150 percent of AMI.”

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 4 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA ii. E ligible AOWH activities include the following:

Guideline
Activity
Description AOWH Applicability
2 Predevelopment, development,
acquisition, rehabilitation, and
preservation of Affordable rental and
ownership housing, including Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs), that meets the
needs of a growing workforce earning
up to 120% AMI, or 150% AMI in high-
cost areas. ADUs shall be available for
occupancy for a term of no less than 30
days.

Only those expenditures
directly related to
ownership housing will
count towards the 20%
requirement. Must be
documented after
expenditure of funds.
3 Matching portions of funds placed into
Local or Regional Housing Trust Funds.

4 Matching portions of funds available
through the Low- and Moderate-Income
Housing Asset Fund pursuant to
subdivision (d) of HSC Section 34176.

7 Accessibility modifications in Lower-
income Owner-occupied housing.

All expenditures
8 Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate
foreclosed or vacant homes and
apartments.

Only those expenditures
directly related to
ownership housing will
count towards the 20%
requirement. Must be
documented after
expenditure of funds.
9 Homeownership opportunities,
including, but not limited to, down
payment assistance.

All expenditures

C. Allocation of funding and limits

Appendix A lists the dollar amount of the available PLHA funds by CY allocation.

If a Local government applied for and received a CY allocation, there is a blank in the applicable column(s).

To avoid amending the Standard Agreement each year and to expedite the disbursement of PLHA funds, the Standard Agreement and the Applicant’s required resolution shall include a five-year estimate of PLHA formula allocations, as stated in Appendix B, as the maximum funding amount. The actual amounts may be lower, and the disbursements will be based on the actual allocation amounts.

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 5 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA

D. Program Administrative, Activity Delivery Costs, and Reimbursement of Costs

Predevelopment expenses for construction projects funded by PLHA funds and costs to develop and prepare the PLHA application and Plan may be paid from the PLHA funds regardless of when the costs were incurred. Reimbursement of expenses to prepare the PLHA application and Plan are subject to the cap on administrative costs as detailed in the PLHA Program Guidelines. Other costs incurred more than one year prior to commitment by the Local government may not be paid from the PLHA funds.

E. Application review

An Applicant must submit a complete application and other documents consistent with the deadlines stated in this NOFA. Applications submitted in response to this NOFA must meet the threshold requirements set forth in this section and in PLHA Guidelines Section 302.

F. Threshold requirements for First-Time Applicants

First-time Applicants who have not previously received an award under a prior Local government Formula Allocation NOFA must meet the following threshold requirements:

1. Housing Element Compliance.

a. The housing element of the Applicant and any delegates or subgrantees, if applicable, must have an adopted housing element that has been found by the Department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, pursuant to Government Code section 65585 at the time of application. Additional information on verifying compliance with this requirement is outlined in Appendix C.

b. If an Applicant is applying on behalf of multiple jurisdictions or delegating or sub granting to another jurisdiction, the funds may only be awarded for use in a locality with an adopted housing element that has been found by the Department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of Article

10.6 (commencing with section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, pursuant to Government Code section 65585 at the time of application. If the Applicant is not compliant by time of application that will not prevent an award from being made for use in the localities that are determined to be compliant.

2. Annual Progress Report Submittal.

a. The Applicant must have submitted to the Department the Annual Progress Report (APR) on the housing element for the corresponding calendar year based on the allocations for which the Applicant is applying by the application submittal date as follows:

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 6 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA

Allocation Requested: APR Reporting Period:
2021 allocation CY 2021 APR
2022 allocation CY 2022 APR
2023 allocation CY 2023 APR

Additional information on verifying compliance with this requirement is outlined in Appendix C.

3. Application requests an allocation pursuant to Section 200 of the PLHA Guidelines and identifies the eligible activities to be undertaken. Activities must be carried out in the jurisdiction of the Applicant’s Local government. Jointly funded projects may be carried out as described in PLHA Guidelines Section 301(c).

a. At least 40% of the funds requested in the application must be allocated to AOWH activities as defined in Section III(B)(1)(a)(2) above.

4. Submission of the application must be authorized by the governing board of the Applicant by r esolution, and this r esolution must be submitted as part of the application. The resolution should use the five-year estimate of funding, as listed in Appendix B.

a. The resolution shall certify that, if funds are used for the development of an Affordable Rental Housing Development, the Local government shall make the PLHA assistance in the form of a low-interest, deferred loan to the Sponsor of the Project. The loan shall be evidenced through a Promissory Note secured by a Deed of Trust, and a Regulatory Agreement shall restrict occupancy and rents in accordance with the Local government-approved underwriting of the Project for a term of at least 55 years.

b. If the Local government proposes to allocate funds for any Activity to another entity, the resolution must certify that the Local government’s selection process shall avoid conflicts of interest and shall be accessible to the public.

See PLHA Guidelines Section 302 (c)(3).

c. If the Local government proposes to use funds for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of for-sale housing projects, or units within for- sale housing projects, the resolution must certify that the grantee shall record a deed restriction against the property that will ensure compliance with one of the requirements stated in PLHA Guidelines Section 302(c)(6)(A),(B) or (C).

5. A Five-year Plan which details the following:

a. The manner in which the allocated funds will be used for eligible Activities.

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 7 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA b. A detailed description of the way the Local government will prioritize investments that increase the supply of housing for household with incomes at or below 60 percent of the AMI and a detailed description of how the Plan is consistent with the programs set forth in the Local government’s housing element.

c. Evidence that the Plan was authorized and adopted by resolution by the Local government and that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the Plan’s contents prior to the Plan resolution adoption.

The Plan must be provided to the public for a public comment period, culminating with a public hearing at which the governing board may approve it. The draft Plan should be published for public review on the Applicant’s website.

d. The resolution adopting the Plan should specifically identify the activities the Local government plans to engage in. The resolution is required to be submitted as part of the application. The resolution must specifically state the eligible activities from the Plan application.

e. The following information is required for each proposed Activity:

i. A detailed description of each Activity, pursuant to Section 301, and the percentage of funding being allocated to it. The description must include a minimum of 40 percent directed to Affordable Owner-Occupied Workforce Housing (AOWH).

ii. The projected number of households to be served at each income level and a comparison to the unmet share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation at each income level.

iii. A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule required for the implementation and completion of the Activity.

iv. The period of affordability for each Activity. Rental Projects are required to have an affordability period of at least 55 years.

f. The Plan shall be for a term of five years, illustrating how the allocations from 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 will be used. Refer to instructions in the “Plan” tab of the PLHA Application form.

6. If funds are used for acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of for-sale housing projects or units within for-sale housing projects, then a deed restriction shall be recorded against the property as described in Section 302(c)(6)(A-C).

7. If funds are proposed to be used for development of an Affordable Rental Housing Development, a certification is required that the Local government shall make the PLHA assistance in the form of a low-interest, deferred loan to the Sponsor of the Project. The loan must be evidenced through a Promissory Note

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 8 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA secured by a Deed of Trust, and a Regulatory Agreement is required to restrict occupancy and rents in accordance with the Local government’s approved underwriting of the Project for a term of at least 55 years. If any activity in the five-year PLHA Plan consists of loans being made to a homebuyer, homeowner, developer or owner of a project, a Program income reuse plan describing how repaid PLHA loans will be used for eligible activities specified in Section 301 must be included in the application. This reuse plan must also describe how interest earned from PLHA funds deposited in a Local government interest- bearing account will be used for eligible PLHA activities.

G. Threshold requirements for Previous Grantees

Applicants which have previously received an award of PLHA funds must meet all threshold requirements as outlined in the PLHA Program Guidelines Section 302.

Specifically, prior grantees requesting a new allocation of funds must demonstrate the following:

1. The housing element compliance status of the Applicant and delegates or subgrantees, if applicable, must have adopted a housing element that has been found by the Department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, pursuant to Government Code section 65585 at the time of application.

2. T he Applicant must have submitted to the Department the Annual Progress Report (APR) consistent with the CY allocation being requested as detailed below at the time of application:

Allocation Requested: APR Reporting Period:
2021 allocation CY 2021 APR
2022 allocation CY 2022 APR
2023 allocation CY 2023 APR

3. Applicant must be current on all applicable Annual PLHA required reports at time of award. Annual PLHA reports are due July 31 of each year reporting on the prior calendar year’s activities, per PLHA Guidelines Section 503.

4. Applicant has met commitment and disbursement requirements for previously awarded funds stated in PLHA Guidelines Section 300(e) and must not have incurred any penalties stated in PLHA Guidelines Section 502.

5. Previous grantees will have already received Department approval for their five- year PLHA Plan which must include a list of the activities that the Local government plans to provide using the five years of funding contained in the Standard Agreement. In subsequent funding years, the PLHA Plan continues in

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 9 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA force and effect unless the Local government amends their Plan.

a. If the Local government is proposing that more than 10 percent of the anticipated funds be allocated to a different activity, the Plan must be formally amended, including discussion and approval at a publicly noticed meeting of the Local government’s governing board, and be submitted to the Department for approval.

b. Any amendment proposing to move more than 10 percent of funds that involve moving funds from an AOWH activity (see Section III(B)(1)(a)(ii) above) may only be moved to another AOWH activity.

c. Unless otherwise approved by the Department, all Applicants amending their plan will be required to use 40 percent of each remaining allocation for AOWH activities.

H. Administration and Reporting Requirements

All recipients of PLHA funds must meet the administration and reporting requirements set forth in PLHA Program Guidelines, Article III, Sections 500, 501, and 503.

It is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the application is clear, complete, and accurate. The Department may request additional clarifying information and/or inquire as to where in the application specific information is located. However, missing or forgotten application information or documentation may cause the application not to pass threshold.

IV. Application Webinar

Applicants are strongly encouraged to view the PLHA webinar to gain information critical for preparing the application. The PLHA webinar recording is located on the Department’s PLHA webpage. Any questions on the program should be directed to the Program email at [email protected].

V. Appeals

A. Basis of Appeals

1. Applicants may appeal HCD’s written determination that an application is incomplete, has failed threshold review, or has otherwise been determined to provide insufficient basis for an award (including scoring and tie breaker).

2. At the sole discretion of the Department, the Department’s written determination may include a request for clarifying and/or corrective information.

For purposes of this section, “clarifying information” includes information and/or documentation that resolves ambiguities in any application materials that will inform the Department’s threshold, scoring and feasibility determinations.

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 10 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA

3. No Applicant shall have the right to appeal a decision of HCD relating to another Applicant’s application (e.g., eligibility, award).

4. Any request to appeal HCD’s decision regarding an application shall be reviewed for compliance with the Guidelines and this NOFA. All decisions rendered shall be made by the Program Manager or his/her designee. The decision shall be final, binding, and conclusive, and shall constitute the final action of HCD.

5. The appeal process provided herein applies solely to decisions of HCD made pursuant to this NOFA.

B. Appeal Process and Deadlines

1. Process: To file an appeal, Applicants must submit to HCD, by the deadline set forth below, a written appeal which states all relevant facts, arguments, and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Furthermore, the Applicant must provide a detailed reference to the area or areas of the application that provide clarification and substantiation for the basis of the appeal. No new or additional information will be considered if this information would result in a competitive advantage to an Applicant. Once the written appeal is submitted to HCD, no further information or materials will be accepted or considered thereafter.

Appeals are to be submitted to HCD at [email protected] according to the deadline set forth in HCD review letters.

2. Filing Deadline: Appeals must be received by HCD no later than five (5) business days from the date of HCD’s threshold review, or initial score letters, as applicable, representing HCD’s decision made in response to the application.

C. Decision

Any request to appeal HCD’s decision regarding an application shall be reviewed for compliance with the Guidelines and this NOFA. All decisions rendered shall be final, binding, and conclusive, and shall constitute the final action of HCD.

VI. Other terms and conditions

A. Right to modify or suspend

The Department reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to suspend, amend, or modify the provisions of this NOFA at any time, including, without limitation, the amount of funds available hereunder. If such an action occurs, the Department will notify all interested parties and will post the revisions to the Department’s website.

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 11 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA

B. Disclosure of application

Information provided in the application will become a public record and available for review by the public, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (GC Section 7920.000 et seq.). As such, any materials provided will be disclosed to any person making a request under this Act. The Department cautions Applicants to use discretion in providing information not specifically requested, including, but not limited to, bank account numbers, personal phone numbers, and home addresses.

By providing this information to the Department, the Applicant is waiving any claim of confidentiality and consents to the disclosure of submitted material upon request.

C. Conflicts

In the event of any conflict between the terms of this NOFA and either applicable state or federal law or regulation, the terms of the applicable state or federal law or regulation shall control. Applicants are deemed to have fully read and understand all applicable state and federal laws, and regulations pertaining to PLHA, and understand and agree that the Department shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions in the preparation of this NOFA.

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 12 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Appendix A

Entitlement and Non-Entitlement Local Government Formula Allocations Calendar Years 2021, 2022, and 2023.

• Please refer to Section II.A. Eligible Applicants for a discussion of the definition of Entitlement and Non- Entitlement Local governments.

• If no funds are noted for CY 2021 or CY 2022, those funds have already been requested and awarded to the eligible Local government.

• Funds identified in RED are at risk of converting to HCD’s Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) and must be requested through an application submitted no later than February 28, 2025.

Entitlement Local Governments Non-Entitlement Local Governments Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Alameda $479,024 $367,156 Alpine County $116,768 $57,959 $43,467 Alameda County $800,595 $613,629 Alturas $128,224 $63,112 $48,072 Alhambra $796,443 $399,179 $305,957 Amador City $112,445 $56,885 $43,138 Aliso Viejo $78,309 Amador County $275,316 $135,904 $89,916 Anaheim $3,686,550 $1,847,709 $1,416,205 American Canyon $97,199 $67,623 Antioch $259,046 Anderson $178,480 $90,221 $70,912 Apple Valley $246,524 $188,952 Angels Camp $128,764 $70,091 $54,467 Bakersfield $2,960,656 $1,483,889 $1,137,350 Arcata $107,399 $76,577 Baldwin Park $320,775 Artesia $213,605 $102,568 $79,866 Bellflower $337,495 Arvin $83,886
Berkeley $849,995 Atwater $139,339 $103,072
Buena Park $242,623 Auburn $203,337 $101,762 $79,866 Burbank $313,549 Avenal $80,022 $64,334
Camarillo $88,939 Benicia $88,637
Carlsbad $233,683 $179,110 Biggs $121,739 $62,038 $46,427 Carson $709,383 $355,545 $272,513 Bishop $67,406 $49,716 Cathedral City $484,445 $242,805 $186,101 Blue Lake $117,957 $59,891 $45,513 Cerritos $186,806 $93,627 $71,762 Brawley $86,261
Chico $334,642 $256,491 Butte County $296,625 $189,136 Chino $426,531 $213,778 $163,854 Calaveras County $130,115 Chino Hills $303,241 $151,985 $116,491 Calexico $284,935 $140,413 $104,899 Chula Vista $908,287 $696,170 Calimesa $156,324 $78,680 $55,015 Citrus Heights $268,126 $205,509 Calipatria $59,623 $48,620 Clovis City $313,434 $240,236 Calistoga $73,848 $53,005

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 13 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Entitlement Local Governments Non-Entitlement Local Governments Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Compton $1,316,582 $659,875 $505,771 Capitola $110,351 $80,414 Concord $836,053 $419,032 $321,173 Carmel-by-the-Sea $69,822 $51,178 Contra Costa County $1,860,477 $1,425,991 Chowchilla $88,879 $64,334 Corona $995,498 $498,946 $382,425 Clearlake $107,130 $86,078 Costa Mesa $904,122 $453,148 $347,322 Coalinga $71,095 Cupertino $141,890 $108,754 Colfax $125,522 $63,380 $47,706 Daly City $438,780 $336,310 Colusa $161,187 $81,900 $56,294 Davis $199,046 Colusa County $152,541 $80,558 $59,218 Delano $556,115 $278,726 $213,634 Corcoran $94,784 $67,623 Downey $889,923 $446,031 $341,868 Corning $150,380 $70,896 $59,401 El Cajon $424,070 Crescent City $56,111
El Centro $161,642 Del Norte County $115,988 $78,039 El Monte $726,377 $556,743 Dinuba $113,304 $82,424 Elk Grove $377,026 $288,977 Dixon $194,691 $92,100 $80,597 Encinitas $133,775 $102,534 Dorris $59,354 $44,600 Escondido $1,441,775 $722,621 $553,864 Dos Palos $143,355 $72,238 $54,467 Fairfield $256,861 Dunsmuir $62,307 $47,889
Fontana $841,109 $644,681 El Centro
(Colonia Only)
$102,524
Fountain Valley $123,971 $95,020 El Dorado County $337,874 Fremont $549,661 $421,296 Etna $56,080 $42,919
Fresno $2,921,311 $2,239,084 Eureka $346,539 $167,253 $117,690 Fresno County $1,408,829 $1,079,819 Exeter $78,411 $52,640 Fullerton $1,177,577 $590,205 $452,372 Farmersville $86,463 $64,700 Garden Grove $653,368 Ferndale $121,739 $60,965 $45,148 Gardena $282,801 $216,757 Firebaugh $159,566 $74,922 $56,111 Gilroy $209,401 $160,499 Fort Bragg $75,995 $59,949 Glendale $569,709 Fort Jones $58,281 $44,600
Glendora $85,590 Fortuna $171,995 $83,242 $66,527
Goleta $80,598 $61,776 Fowler $66,064 $50,630
Hanford $253,302 $194,147 Glenn County $201,716 $98,005 $71,643 Hawthorne $402,674 Grass Valley $117,330 $91,560
Hayward $428,245 Greenfield $109,815 $80,049
Hemet $688,525 $345,090 $264,500 Gridley $143,895 $73,848 $51,543 Hesperia $865,117 $433,599 $332,338 Grover Beach $73,836 Huntington Beach $938,184 $470,220 $360,407 Guadalupe $166,051 $78,680 $55,198

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 14 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Entitlement Local Governments Non-Entitlement Local Governments Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Huntington Park $428,208 Gustine $73,848 $60,497
Indio $779,909 $390,892 $299,605 Hidden Hills $124,982 $62,844 $46,975 Inglewood $483,467 Hollister $147,123 $110,381
Irvine $498,055 Holtville $61,770 $45,148
Kern County $3,695,204 $1,852,046 $1,419,530 Humboldt County $207,408 La Habra $333,372 $255,518 Huron $67,138 $50,264
La Mesa $124,064 Imperial $72,922
Laguna Niguel $100,806 Imperial County $311,954 $161,080 $109,102 Lake Elsinore $425,098 $213,060 $163,303 Indian Wells $163,889 $78,948 $59,035 Lake Forest $145,261 Industry $110,824 $55,865 $43,138 Lakewood $177,970 Inyo County $109,009 $78,769
Lancaster $595,694 $456,579 Ione $141,734 $70,359 $57,939 Livermore $137,029 Jackson $143,355 $73,311 $51,909 Lodi $288,277 $220,955 King City $60,131
Lompoc $388,324 $194,629 $149,176 Kings County $148,733 $110,016 Long Beach $1,923,146 Lake County $213,687 $152,225 Los Angeles $22,477,835 $17,228,487 Lakeport $77,874 $54,102 Los Angeles County $9,451,755 $7,244,444 Lassen County $70,912 Lynwood $1,079,969 $541,283 $414,875 Lemoore $237,381 $130,213 $89,002 Madera $362,050 $277,499 Lincoln $344,377 $164,032 $116,045 Marin County $622,026 $476,762 Lindsay $89,953 $65,430 Menifee $165,325 Live Oak $156,324 $77,606 $59,035 Merced $444,694 $340,842 Livingston $93,442 $67,989 Milpitas $204,545 $156,777 Loomis $147,678 $78,411 $65,248 Mission Viejo $135,808 Los Banos $131,824 $103,620 Modesto $831,356 $637,206 Loyalton $116,336 $58,012 $43,869 Montebello $208,137 Madera County $241,065 $187,126 Monterey $99,805 $76,497 Mammoth Lakes $74,922 $62,141 Monterey County $555,851 $426,041 Maricopa $116,336 $58,549 $46,610 Monterey Park $273,366 $209,525 Marina $112,230 $81,510 Moreno Valley $1,761,457 $882,847 $676,672 Mariposa County $87,540 Mountain View $219,939 $168,576 Marysville $66,892 Napa $272,799 $209,091 McFarland $90,758 $65,248
National City $337,079 $258,360 Mendocino County $293,672 $203,608 Newport Beach $111,450 Merced County $335,007 $233,721

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 15 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Entitlement Local Governments Non-Entitlement Local Governments Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Norwalk $389,495 Modoc County $146,597 $68,480 $51,361 Oakland $3,175,817 $2,434,155 Mono County $57,573
Oceanside $426,547 Montague $60,965 $44,600
Ontario $788,724 $604,530 Mount Shasta $74,117 $55,746 Orange $399,168 Napa County $261,158 $128,335 $94,849 Orange County $2,175,998 $1,090,616 $835,919 Nevada City $70,896 $53,919 Oxnard $761,186 Nevada County $281,594 $192,790
Palm Desert $112,562 Orange Cove $70,896 $54,102
Palm Springs $328,816 $164,803 $126,316 Orland $143,355 $78,680 $64,517 Palmdale $1,332,565 $667,885 $511,911 Oroville $83,338 Palo Alto $198,460 $152,112 Pacific Grove $99,615 $74,567 Paradise $80,239 $61,500 Palos Verdes
Estates $170,914 $87,805 $65,796
Paramount $287,932 Parlier $87,805 $68,354
Pasadena $615,081 Pismo Beach $93,442 $69,268
Perris City $797,990 $399,954 $306,551 Placer County $385,467 $247,060 Petaluma $121,138 Placerville $101,494 $69,268
Pico Rivera $222,734 Plumas County $217,387 $104,983 $76,029 Pittsburg $543,387 $272,347 $208,744 Plymouth $116,876 $58,549 $44,783 Placentia $141,124 Point Arena $56,670 $43,101
Pleasanton $129,527 $99,278 Portola $120,659 $62,038 $47,158 Pomona $915,970 $702,059 Rancho Mirage $103,803
Porterville $293,840 $225,218 Red Bluff $100,152 $69,085 Rancho Cordova $244,642 $187,510 Rio Dell $141,193 $72,506 $55,563 Rancho Cucamonga $386,189 $296,001 Rio Vista $157,945 $87,537 $61,411 Rancho Santa
Margarita $173,436 $86,926 $66,626 Riverbank $113,572 $79,135 Redding $221,315 San Benito County $112,767 $76,942 Redondo Beach $112,160 $85,966 San Joaquin $128,764 $65,528 $49,716 Redwood City $228,481 San Juan Bautista $63,917 $48,437 Rialto $1,022,495 $512,477 $392,796 San Juan
Capistrano
$154,638 $108,371
Riverside $1,390,635 $1,065,874 Sand City $56,885 $43,284 Riverside County $6,835,329 $3,425,886 $2,625,824 Santa Cruz County $480,214 $332,575 Rocklin $88,469 Scotts Valley $76,211
Rosemead $294,255 $225,536 Shasta County $267,637 $190,232 Roseville $205,908 Shasta Lake $68,354

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 16 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Entitlement Local Governments Non-Entitlement Local Governments Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Sacramento $1,548,793 Sierra County $124,441 $63,649 $51,361 Sacramento County $2,332,543 $1,787,814 Siskiyou County $127,046 $85,384 Salinas $863,162 $661,584 Solano County $82,789
San Bernardino $1,065,809 Soledad $94,247 $65,065
San Bernardino
County
$2,965,495 $2,272,949 Sonora $76,801 $53,736
San Buenaventura $234,868 South Lake Tahoe $117,142 San Clemente $124,215 Saint Helena $81,364 $63,969 San Diego $3,804,642 Suisun City $257,916 $124,040 $85,165 San Diego County $1,697,409 $1,301,006 Susanville $76,801 $59,583 San Francisco $7,473,904 $5,728,490 Sutter County $111,157 $76,942 San Joaquin County $1,123,219 $860,908 Sutter Creek $128,764 $64,991 $52,092 San Jose $3,728,060 $2,857,429 Taft $136,330 $72,775 $58,487 San Leandro $300,018 $229,953 Tehama $56,348 $43,467 San Luis Obispo
County
$747,989 $573,308 Tehama County $212,668 $148,059
San Marcos $209,727 Trinidad $111,256 $55,865 $42,773 San Mateo $224,653 Trinity County $82,607
San Mateo County $1,036,938 $794,777 Truckee $96,126 $68,354 Santa Ana $1,842,273 Tulare County $486,656 $711,731 Santa Barbara $388,447 $297,731 Tulelake $58,549 $45,148 Santa Barbara
County
$374,398 Tuolumne County $228,987 $161,727
Santa Clara $411,064 $315,066 Ukiah $100,152 $70,547 Santa Clara County $631,595 $484,096 Vernon $111,472 $55,865 $43,503 Santa Clarita $1,006,200 $504,310 $386,536 Wasco $84,069 Santa Cruz $173,959 Weed $65,528 $48,437
Santa Maria $481,953 Westmorland $117,957 $59,086 $44,234 Santa Monica $469,381 $359,765 Wheatland $123,361 $62,575 $47,158 Santa Rosa $456,230 Williams $135,249 $64,186 $48,437 Santee $229,843 $115,198 $88,295 Willits $69,017 $50,630 Seaside $165,564 $126,899 Willows $138,491 $74,653 $59,766 Simi Valley $190,789 Winters $177,399 $86,195 $59,401 Sonoma County $771,043 $590,977 Woodlake $75,995 $57,208 South Gate $1,233,796 $618,382 $473,968 Yolo County $395,616 South San Francisco $186,873 $143,232 Yountville $64,722 $53,371 Stanislaus County $1,975,561 $990,157 $758,921 Yreka $79,216 $56,111

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 17 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Entitlement Local Governments Non-Entitlement Local Governments Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Local Government CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 Stockton $1,467,196 $1,124,555 Yuba County $188,770 Sunnyvale $456,956 $350,241 No data No data No data No data Temecula $467,631 $234,378 $179,642 No data No data No data No data Thousand Oaks $506,368 $253,793 $194,523 No data No data No data No data Torrance $291,992 No data No data No data No data
Tulare $272,990 $209,238 No data No data No data No data Turlock $265,636 $203,601 No data No data No data No data Tustin $253,336 No data No data No data No data
Union City $166,857 No data No data No data No data
Upland $475,232 $238,187 $182,562 No data No data No data No data Vacaville $206,179 $158,029 No data No data No data No data Vallejo $433,249 $332,070 No data No data No data No data Ventura County $737,056 $564,928 No data No data No data No data Victorville $542,468 $415,783 No data No data No data No data Visalia $1,078,990 $540,793 $414,499 No data No data No data No data Vista $268,670 No data No data No data No data
Walnut Creek $90,972 No data No data No data No data Watsonville $310,781 $238,203 No data No data No data No data West Covina $664,967 $333,283 $255,450 No data No data No data No data West Sacramento $404,832 $202,903 $155,518 No data No data No data No data Westminster $873,327 $437,714 $335,493 No data No data No data No data Whittier $328,505 $251,788 No data No data No data No data Woodland $163,607 No data No data No data No data
Yorba Linda $69,999 No data No data No data No data
Yuba City $204,445 No data No data No data No data

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 18 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Appendix B
Five-Year PLHA Allocation Estimate

Entitlement Local Governments Non-Entitlement Local Governments Local Government Estimated
5-Year
Funding Amount
Local Government Estimated
5-Year Funding
Amount
Alameda $3,352,590 Alpine County $408,390
Alhambra $2,793,768 Alturas $475,835
Aliso Viejo $715,062 Amador City $395,168
Anaheim $12,931,710 Amador County $805,115
Antioch $2,365,410 American Canyon $704,612
Apple Valley $1,725,366 Anderson $622,622
Bakersfield $10,385,412 Angels Camp $487,737
Baldwin Park $2,929,068 Arcata $1,056,372
Bellflower $3,081,744 Artesia $814,372
Berkeley $7,761,504 Arvin $831,563
Buena Park $2,215,452 Atwater $949,257
Burbank $2,863,092 Auburn $719,158
Camarillo $812,124 Avenal $627,912
Carlsbad $1,635,492 Benicia $848,754
Carson $2,488,380 Biggs $424,261
Cathedral City $1,699,338 Bishop $502,283
Cerritos $655,278 Blue Lake $409,715
Chico $2,342,088 Brawley $906,940
Chino $1,496,190 Butte County $2,000,572
Chino Hills $1,063,710 Calaveras County $1,238,865
Chula Vista $6,356,898 Calexico $1,222,996
Citrus Heights $1,876,554 Calimesa $532,699
Clovis City $2,193,654 Calipatria $462,611
Compton $4,618,320 Calistoga $511,540
Concord $2,932,710 Capitola $630,557
Corona $3,492,018 Carmel-by-the-Sea $491,704
Costa Mesa $3,171,486 Chowchilla $662,295
Cupertino $993,060 Clearlake $875,203
Daly City $3,070,926 Coalinga $618,655
Davis $1,817,544 Colfax $432,196
Delano $1,950,744 Colusa $515,507
Downey $3,121,674 Colusa County $500,961
El Cajon $3,872,292 Corcoran $683,453
El Centro $1,475,988 Corning $555,180
Elk Grove $2,638,722 Crescent City $485,092
El Monte $5,083,752 Del Norte County $844,787

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 19 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Entitlement Local Governments Non-Entitlement Local Governments Local Government Estimated 5-Year
Funding Amount Local Government Estimated 5-Year
Funding Amount
Encinitas $936,264 Dinuba $889,749
Escondido $5,057,466 Dixon $692,710
Fairfield $2,345,460 Dorris $399,135
Fontana $5,886,732 Dos Palos $496,994
Fountain Valley $867,648 Dunsmuir $432,196
Fremont $3,846,960 El Centro $1,297,051
Fresno $20,445,618 El Dorado County $2,879,974
Fullerton $4,130,712 Etna $403,103
Gardena $1,979,262 Eureka $1,125,138
Garden Grove $5,966,058 Exeter $586,917
Gilroy $1,465,554 Farmersville $589,562
Glendale $5,202,150 Ferndale $426,906
Glendora $781,548 Firebaugh $572,371
Goleta $564,090 Fort Bragg $641,136
Hanford $1,772,808 Fort Jones $415,004
Hawthorne $3,676,914 Fortuna $651,715
Hayward $3,910,410 Fowler $486,414
Hemet $2,415,216 Glenn County $641,136
Hesperia $3,034,662 Grass Valley $813,049
Huntington Beach $3,290,970 Greenfield $839,497
Huntington Park $3,910,068 Gridley $555,180
Indio $2,735,772 Grover Beach $727,093
Inglewood $4,414,656 Guadalupe $606,754
Irvine $4,547,862 Gustine $441,452
Laguna Niguel $920,484 Hidden Hills $428,228
La Habra $2,333,202 Hollister $1,081,498
Lake Forest $1,326,420 Holtville $495,671
Lake Elsinore $1,491,162 Humboldt County $2,066,693
Lakewood $1,625,082 Huron $597,497
La Mesa $1,132,854 Imperial $548,568
Lancaster $4,169,130 Imperial County $1,043,148
Livermore $1,251,240 Indian Wells $532,699
Lodi $2,017,590 Industry $393,581
Lompoc $1,362,162 Inyo County $622,622
Long Beach $17,560,704 Ione $452,032
Los Angeles $157,317,438 Jackson $524,764
Lynwood $3,788,322 King City $805,115
Madera $2,533,914 Kings County $980,995
Menifee $1,509,624 Lake County $1,450,450
Merced $3,112,314 Lakeport $475,835
Milpitas $1,431,570 Lassen County $612,043
Mission Viejo $1,240,098 Lemoore $871,235

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 20 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Entitlement Local Governments Non-Entitlement Local Governments Local Government Estimated 5-Year
Funding Amount Local Government Estimated 5-Year
Funding Amount
Modesto $5,818,482 Lincoln $1,219,029
Montebello $1,900,548 Lindsay $703,289
Monterey $698,514 Live Oak $537,988
Monterey Park $1,913,226 Livingston $653,038
Moreno Valley $6,178,854 Loomis $490,382
Mountain View $1,539,306 Los Banos $1,129,105
Napa $1,909,260 Loyalton $405,747
National City $2,359,146 Madera County $1,643,522
Newport Beach $1,017,678 Mammoth Lakes $490,382
Norwalk $3,556,572 Maricopa $400,458
Oakland $22,226,850 Marina $945,290
Oceanside $3,894,906 Mariposa County $770,732
Ontario $5,520,108 Marysville $662,295
Orange $3,644,898 McFarland $676,841
Oxnard $6,950,574 Mendocino County $2,099,753
Palmdale $4,674,384 Merced County $1,865,687
Palm Desert $1,027,836 Modoc County $458,644
Palm Springs $1,153,422 Mono County $462,611
Palo Alto $1,388,976 Montague $412,359
Paradise $561,576 Mount Shasta $539,311
Paramount $2,629,182 Napa County $859,334
Pasadena $5,616,456 Nevada City $473,190
Perris City $2,799,192 Nevada County $1,837,916
Petaluma $1,106,142 Orange Cove $608,076
Pico Rivera $2,033,838 Orland $555,180
Pittsburg $1,906,098 Oroville $822,306
Placentia $1,288,644 Pacific Grove $712,546
Pleasanton $906,534 Palos Verdes Estates $580,305
Pomona $6,410,670 Parlier $801,148
Porterville $2,056,524 Pismo Beach $597,497
Rancho Cordova $1,712,196 Placer County $2,730,542
Rancho Cucamonga $2,702,856 Placerville $664,940
Rancho Santa Margarita $608,376 Plumas County $727,093
Redding $2,020,884 Plymouth $404,425
Redondo Beach $784,980 Point Arena $404,425
Redwood City $2,086,314 Portola $452,032
Rialto $3,586,716 Rancho Mirage $1,032,569
Riverside $9,732,750 Red Bluff $744,284
Rocklin $807,828 Rio Dell $474,513

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 21 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Entitlement Local Governments Non-Entitlement Local Governments Local Government Estimated 5-Year
Funding Amount
Local Government Estimated 5-Year
Funding Amount
Salinas $6,041,082 San Joaquin $471,868
Roseville $1,880,196 Riverbank $732,382
Sacramento $14,142,402 San Benito County $727,093
Salinas $6,041,082 San Joaquin $471,868
San Bernardino $9,732,162 San Juan Bautista $455,999
San Clemente $1,134,240 San Juan Capistrano $1,418,712
San Diego $34,741,098 Sand City $402,838
San Francisco $52,308,210 Santa Cruz County $3,395,713
San Jose $26,091,876 Scotts Valley $622,622
San Leandro $2,099,760 Shasta County $1,721,544
San Marcos $1,915,068 Shasta Lake $613,366
San Mateo $2,051,364 Sierra County $405,747
Santa Ana $16,822,236 Siskiyou County $852,722
Santa Barbara $2,718,654 Solano County $769,410
Santa Clara $2,876,946 Soledad $725,770
Santa Clarita $3,529,554 Sonora $548,568
Santa Cruz $1,588,464 South Lake Tahoe $994,219
Santa Maria $4,400,826 Saint Helena $534,021
Santa Monica $3,285,096 Suisun City $928,099
Santa Rosa $4,165,950 Susanville $559,147
Santee $806,244 Sutter County $698,000
Seaside $1,158,744 Sutter Creek $471,868
Simi Valley $1,742,142 Taft $543,278
South Gate $4,327,920 Tehama $393,581
South San Francisco $1,307,880 Tehama County $1,120,113 Stockton $10,268,580 Trinidad $396,491
Sunnyvale $3,198,138 Trinity County $729,738
Temecula $1,640,358 Truckee $627,912
Thousand Oaks $1,776,240 Tulare County $3,501,506
Torrance $2,666,244 Tulelake $411,037
Tulare $1,910,598 Tuolumne County $1,453,095
Turlock $1,859,124 Ukiah $778,667
Tustin $2,313,270 Vernon $392,259
Union City $1,523,610 Wasco $813,049
Upland $1,667,022 Weed $459,966
Vacaville $1,443,000 Westmorland $436,163
Vallejo $3,032,214 Wheatland $432,196
San Buenaventura $2,144,634 Williams $485,092
Victorville $3,796,620 Willits $553,857
Visalia $3,784,890 Willows $561,792
Vista $2,453,292 Winters $532,699

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 22 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Entitlement Local Governments
Local Government Estimate 5-Year
Funding Amount
Walnut Creek $830,694
Watsonville $2,175,090
West Covina $2,332,578
Westminster $3,063,462
West Sacramento $1,420,074
Whittier $2,299,140
Woodland $1,493,934
Yorba Linda $639,174
Yuba City $1,866,840
Alameda County $5,603,190
Contra Costa County $13,021,068
Fresno County $9,860,088
Kern County $12,962,064
Los Angeles County $66,150,756
Marin County $4,353,426
Monterey County $3,890,280
Orange County $7,632,984
Riverside County $23,977,026
Sacramento County $16,324,956
San Bernardino County $20,754,846
San Diego County $11,879,796
San Joaquin County $7,861,158
San Luis Obispo County $5,235,012
San Mateo County $7,257,300
Santa Barbara County $3,418,722
Santa Clara County $4,420,398
Sonoma County $5,396,358
Stanislaus County $6,929,892
Ventura County $5,158,494

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 23 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Appendix C
Housing Element and Annual Progress Report (APR) Compliance Status

Housing element and Annual Progress Report (APR) compliance is a threshold requirement for PLHA.

The housing element and APR compliance status of the Applicant and delegates or subgrantees, if applicable, must be established prior to submittal of the application.

If an Applicant is applying on behalf of multiple jurisdictions or delegating or sub-granting to another entity, the funds may only be awarded for use in a locality that is compliant with its APR requirements and which has an adopted housing element that has been found by the Department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, pursuant to Government Code section 65585 at the time of award. If the Applicant is not compliant by time of application that will not prevent an award from being made for use in the localities that have been compliant.

Please note, if PLHA awards are made within 120 days of the housing element due date, the Department may refer to the jurisdiction’s compliance from the prior cycle.

To verify current housing element and APR compliance status, please consult the following resources:

Housing Element Compliance: Housing Element Review and Compliance Report | California Department of Housing and Community Development

Annual Progress Report Submittal: Annual Progress Reports - Data Dashboard and Downloads | California Department of Housing and Community Development

Please note that PLHA is an over-the-counter (OTC) program, allowing Applicants to apply at any point during the OTC application window. If a jurisdiction is currently out of compliance, that jurisdiction, may still apply and once it reaches compliance with the housing element and APR requirements, it will be eligible to apply for PLHA funds.

However, if a Local government is requesting CY 2021 funds, they must apply no later than February 28, 2025, and demonstrate they have met all threshold requirements, including housing element compliance and APR submittal requirements by no later than at the time of application submittal to avoid reversion.

For questions about Housing Element Compliance, please email [email protected]. For inquiries on the status of APR submittal, please email [email protected].

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 24 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Appendix D
Urban County Jurisdictions

The jurisdictions listed below are not eligible to receive a direct allocation of PLHA funds though they can still benefit from the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program funds based upon an application through their designated Urban County.

An Urban County may apply on the behalf of the Local governments listed below, and the Urban County’s allocation can provide funding for eligible activities within the boundaries of these Local governments, as well as the unincorporated area of the designated Urban County.

If an Urban County is applying on behalf of multiple jurisdictions, the funds may only be awarded for use in localities that are compliant with their APR and housing element requirements as detailed in Appendix C. A locality is compliant with its housing element requirements when it has an adopted housing element that has been found by the Department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, pursuant to Government Code section 65585 at the time of award. If the Urban County is not compliant by time of award that will not prevent an award from being made for use in the localities that are compliant.

Local Government Urban County that can apply on
the jurisdiction’s behalf
Adelanto San Bernardino County
Agoura Hills Los Angeles County
Albany Alameda County
Arcadia Los Angeles County
Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo County
Atascadero San Luis Obispo County
Atherton San Mateo County
Avalon Los Angeles County
Azusa Los Angeles County
Banning Riverside County
Barstow San Bernardino County
Beaumont Riverside County
Bell Los Angeles County
Bell Gardens Los Angeles County
Belmont San Mateo County
Belvedere Marin County
Beverly Hills Los Angeles County
Big Bear Lake San Bernardino County
Blythe Riverside County

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 25 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Bradbury Los Angeles County
Brea Orange County
Brentwood Contra Costa County
Brisbane San Mateo County
Buellton Santa Barbara County
Burlingame San Mateo County
Calabasas Los Angeles County
California City Kern County
Campbell Santa Clara County
Canyon Lake Riverside County
Carpinteria Santa Barbara County
Ceres Stanislaus County
Claremont Los Angeles County
Clayton Contra Costa County
Cloverdale Sonoma County
Coachella Riverside County
Colma San Mateo County
Colton San Bernardino County
Commerce Los Angeles County
Coronado San Diego County
Corte Madera Marin County
Cotati Sonoma County
Covina Los Angeles County
Cudahy Los Angeles County
Culver City Los Angeles County
Cypress Orange County
Dana Point Orange County
Danville Contra Costa County
Del Mar San Diego County
Del Rey Oaks Monterey County
Desert Hot Springs Riverside County
Diamond Bar Los Angeles County
Duarte Los Angeles County
Dublin Alameda County
East Palo Alto San Mateo County
Eastvale Riverside County
El Cerrito Contra Costa County
El Segundo Los Angeles County
Emeryville Alameda County
Escalon San Joaquin County
Fairfax Marin County
Fillmore Ventura County
Folsom Sacramento County

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 26 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Foster City San Mateo County
Galt Sacramento County
Gonzales Monterey County
Grand Terrace San Bernardino County
Half Moon Bay San Mateo County
Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles County
Healdsburg Sonoma County
Hercules Contra Costa County
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Highland San Bernardino County
Hillsborough San Mateo County
Hughson Stanislaus County
Imperial Beach San Diego County
Irwindale Los Angeles County
Isleton Sacramento County
Jurupa Valley Riverside County
Kerman Fresno County
Kingsburg Fresno County
La Canada Flintridge Los Angeles County
La Habra Heights Los Angeles County
La Mirada Los Angeles County
La Palma Orange County
La Puente Los Angeles County
La Quinta Riverside County
La Verne Los Angeles County
Lafayette Contra Costa County
Laguna Beach Orange County
Laguna Hills Orange County
Laguna Woods Orange County
Larkspur Marin County
Lathrop San Joaquin County
Lawndale Los Angeles County
Lemon Grove San Diego County
Loma Linda San Bernardino County
Lomita Los Angeles County
Los Alamitos Orange County
Los Altos Santa Clara County
Los Altos Hills Santa Clara County
Los Gatos Santa Clara County
Malibu Los Angeles County
Manhattan Beach Los Angeles County
Manteca San Joaquin County
Martinez Contra Costa County

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 27 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA Maywood Los Angeles County
Mendota Fresno County
Menlo Park San Mateo County
Mill Valley Marin County
Millbrae San Mateo County
Monrovia Los Angeles County
Montclair San Bernardino County
Monte Sereno Santa Clara County
Moorpark Ventura County
Moraga Contra Costa County
Morgan Hill Santa Clara County
Morro Bay San Luis Obispo County
Murrieta Riverside County
Needles San Bernardino County
Newark Alameda County
Newman Stanislaus County
Norco Riverside County
Novato Marin County
Oakdale Stanislaus County
Oakley Contra Costa County
Ojai Ventura County
Orinda Contra Costa County
Pacifica San Mateo County
Paso Robles San Luis Obispo County
Patterson Stanislaus County
Piedmont Alameda County
Pinole Contra Costa County
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County
Port Hueneme Ventura County
Portola Valley San Mateo County
Poway San Diego County
Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles County
Redlands San Bernardino County
Reedley Fresno County
Richmond Contra Costa County
Ridgecrest Kern County
Ripon San Joaquin County
Rohnert Park Sonoma County
Rolling Hills Los Angeles County
Rolling Hills Estates Los Angeles County
Ross Marin County
San Anselmo Marin County
San Bruno San Mateo County

California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 28 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program – CY 2023 Formula Allocation NOFA San Carlos San Mateo County
San Dimas Los Angeles County
San Fernando Los Angeles County
San Gabriel Los Angeles County
San Jacinto Riverside County
San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo County
San Marino Los Angeles County
San Pablo Contra Costa County
San Rafael Marin County
San Ramon Contra Costa County
Sanger Fresno County
Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles County
Santa Paula Ventura County
Saratoga Santa Clara County
Sausalito Marin County
Seal Beach Orange County
Sebastopol Sonoma County
Selma Fresno County
Shafter Kern County
Sierra Madre Los Angeles County
Signal Hill Los Angeles County
Solana Beach San Diego County
Solvang Santa Barbara County
Sonoma Sonoma County
South El Monte Los Angeles County
South Pasadena Los Angeles County
Stanton Orange County
Tehachapi Kern County
Temple City Los Angeles County
Tiburon Marin County
Tracy San Joaquin County
Twentynine Palms San Bernardino County
Villa Park Orange County
Walnut Los Angeles County
Waterford Stanislaus County
West Hollywood Los Angeles County
Westlake Village Los Angeles County
Wildomar Riverside County
Windsor Sonoma County
Woodside San Mateo County
Yucaipa San Bernardino County
Yucca Valley San Bernardino County

Res No. 25-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Authorizing the Application,
Acceptance and Appropriation of Permanent Local
Housing Allocation (PLHA) Grant Funds from the
State of California in the Amount of $1,576,258.

Resolution No. 25-XX
/
WHEREAS, the State of California (the “State”), Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) is authorized to provide up to $296 million under the Senate Bill (SB) 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program Formula Component from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for assistance to Cities and Counties (as described in Health and Safety Code section 50470 et seq. (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017 (SB 2)); WHEREAS, the “Department” issued a Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) dated October 15, 2024 under the PLHA Program;
WHEREAS, the City of Concord (“Applicant”) is an eligible Local government who has applied for program funds to administer one or more eligible activities, or a Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund to whom an eligible Local government delegated its PLHA formula allocation; WHEREAS, the Department may approve funding allocations for PLHA Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the Guidelines, NOFA, Program requirements, the Standard Agreement, and other contracts between the Department and PLHA grant recipients; WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, after giving all public notices required by State law and the Concord Municipal Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting to consider this action; and
WHEREAS, at such public meeting, the City Council considered all testimony and information received at the public meeting, the oral report from City staff, and the written report from City staff dated February 25, 2025, (“City Council Information”).

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

Attachment 2

Res No. 25-XX 2
Section 1. CEQA. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the applying for and receiving of grant funds does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Section 15060 (c)(2), 15060(c)(3), or 15378 because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the activity is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15273 because it involves government funding/fiscal activitiesMoreover, even if the activity does compromise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty” that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” None of the exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are present. No unusual circumstances are present. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. Therefore, the activity does not warrant further environmental review.

Section 2. If Applicant receives a grant of PLHA funds from the Department pursuant to the above referenced PLHA NOFA, it represents and certifies that it will use all such funds in a manner consistent and in compliance with all applicable state and federal statutes, rules, regulations, and laws, including without limitation all rules and laws regarding the PLHA Program, as well as any and all contracts Applicant may have with the Department.

Section 3. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to receive a PLHA grant, in an amount not to exceed the five-year estimate of the PLHA formula allocations, as stated in Appendix B of the current Notice of Funding Availability dated December 29, 2023, in accordance with all applicable rules and laws.

Section 4. Applicant hereby agrees to use the PLHA funds for eligible activities as approved by the Department and in accordance with all Program requirements, Guidelines, other rules, and laws, as well as in a manner consistent and in compliance with the Standard Agreement and other contracts between Applicant and the Department.

Section 5. Pursuant to Sections 302(c)(4) and 302(c)(5) of the Guidelines, Applicant’s PLHA

Res No. 25-XX 3
Plan Amendment for the 2020-2023 Allocations is attached to this resolution, and Applicant hereby adopts this PLHA Plan Amendment and certifies compliance with all public notice, public comment, and public hearing requirements in accordance with the Guidelines.

Section 6. Applicant certifies that it has or will subgrant some or all of its PLHA funds to another entity or entities. Pursuant to Guidelines Section 302(c)(3), “entity” means a housing developer or program operator, but does not mean an administering local government to whom a local government may delegate its PLHA allocation.

Section 7. Applicant certifies that its selection process of these subgrantees was or will be accessible to the public and avoided or shall avoid any conflicts of interest.

Section 8. Pursuant to Applicant’s certification in this resolution, the PLHA funds will be expended only for eligible Activities and consistent with all program requirements.

Section 9. Applicant certifies that, if funds are used for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of for-sale housing projects or units within for-sale housing projects, the grantee shall record a deed restriction against the property that will ensure compliance with one of the requirements stated in the PLHA Program Guidelines Section 302(c)(6)(A), (B) and (C).

Section 10. Applicant shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Standard Agreement, the PLHA Program Guidelines and any other applicable SB 2 Guidelines published by the Department.

Section 11. The City Manager of the City of Concord is authorized to execute the PLHA Program Application, the PLHA Standard Agreement and any subsequent amendments or modifications thereto, as well as any other documents, which are related to the Program or the PLHA grant awarded to Applicant, as the Department may deem appropriate.

Section 12. The City hereby accepts and appropriates [Fund 402 (General Reimbursable Projects)] the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Grant Funds from the State of California in the amount of $836,053 for Fiscal Year 2021, $419,032 for Fiscal Year 2022 and $321,173 for Fiscal Year 2023.

Section 13. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

Res No. 25-XX 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on February 25, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 25-XX was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on February 25, 2025.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

Allocation Years New & Streamlined
Submission Deadline
5-Year Plan Amendment
Submission Deadline
Year 1 (2019) n/a n/a
Year 2 (2020) n/a n/a
Year 3 (2021) 02/28/2025 06/30/2025
Year 4 (2022) 02/28/2026 06/30/2026
Year 5 (2023) 02/28/2027 06/30/2027
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Formula
Allocation
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) October 15, 2024
2024 Application for Previous Awardees
State of California
Gavin Newsom, Governor
Website: Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA) Tomiquia Moss, Secretary
Department of Housing and Community Development
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
Program Design and Implementation, PLHA Program
651 Bannon Street, Sacramento, CA 95811
Email: [email protected]
Attachment 3

End of Document

Threshold items are indicated in "blue" cells.

Sponsor must complete the following worksheets in the PLHA Formula Allocation Application.

Formula Allocation Application
"Red" shaded cells indicate the Sponsor has failed to meet a requirement of the program. Cells in the worksheet shaded in "red" indicate that the Applicant has failed to meet the minimum required.

Urban County
Checklist
IncludedX
Application and Adopting the
PLHA Plan (2021-2023
Allocations) Reso
Pursuant to section 302(c)(4) of the Guidelines, Applicant’s PLHA Plan for 2021-2023 allocations is attached to this resolution, and Applicant certifies compliance with all public notice, comment, and hearing requirements in accordance with the Guidelines.

Document DescriptionElectronic File Name
Disclosure of Application (California Public Records Act Statutes of 1968 Chapter 1473): Information provided in the application will become a public record available for review by the public, pursuant to the California Public Records Act Statutes of 1968 Chapter 1473. As such, any materials provided will be disclosable to any person making a request under this Act. The Department cautions Applicants to use discretion in providing information not specifically requested, including but not limited to, bank accounts, personal phone numbers and home addresses. By providing this information to the Department, the Applicant is waiving any claim of confidentiality and consents to the disclosure of submitted material upon request."
Included?
Applications must be on the Department’s forms and cannot be altered or modified by the Applicant. Excel forms must be in Excel format and 'save as' .xls or .xlsx.

Do not 'save as' .xlsm or .pdf format. For application errors please fill out the Application Support worksheet and email the entire workbook to Application Support for application errors at [email protected].

General Instructions (Additional instructions and guidance are given throughout the Formula Allocation Application in "red" text and in cell comments.

Guideline references are made with "§" and the corresponding guideline section number. "Yellow" cells are for Sponsor input. Failure to provide the required attachments and documentation may disqualify your application from consideration. An Applicant must submit a complete application and other documents consistent with the deadlines stated in this NOFA. Applications submitted in response to this NOFA must meet the threshold requirements set forth in this section and in PLHA Guidelines Section 302.

Required attachments are indicated in "orange" throughout the Streamline Application. Failure to provide the required attachments and documentation may disqualify your application from consideration. Electronically attached files must use the naming convention in the PLHA Application. For Example: "App1 Tin" or "Reuse Plan".

Instructions Rev. 10/10/24
When opening this file, a yellow banner at the top may appear with a button that says "Enable Content". It is essential that you click this box so that the macros are enabled. Enabling macros is necessary for full worksheet functionality. Macros do not work with Microsoft's Excel version for Apple Mac.

This NOFA will remain open to eligible applicants through June 30, 2027.

Applications must be submitted electronically to the Department’s HCD Portal Sign In website. To receive an award of CY 2021 funds, applicants are required to submit an application and demonstrate a fully compliant Housing Element and submittal of the applicable Annual Progress Report(s) no later than February 28, 2025.

All CY 2021 funds must be awarded by June 30, 2025 or they will revert to the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund per statute.

Included
Included
§302(c)(4)(D) Evidence that the Plan was authorized and adopted by resolution by the Local jurisdiction and that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on its content.

PLHA webpage for Plan Adoption Resolution Document, located under our Forms tab. If you are not amending your plan with this application this should be the last resolution executed. If you are amending you plan with this application you must submit a new resolution that was executed adopting the new plan.

Program Income Reuse Plan describing how repaid loans or accrued interest will be used for eligible activities in Section 301.

Provide a copy of the signed application. Signature can be typed into the Excel workbook, PDF with Docusigned signature or PDF with wet ink signature in blue ink preferred.

Included
Threshold
Requireme
X Reuse Plan
X Executed Application
X App1 TIN
X Plan Adoption Reso
Included
X Applicant Delegation
Agreement Legally binding agreement between Delegating and Administering Local Governments. Not Applicable
Provide a signed Gov't TIN Form
PLHA Page 1 Instructions & ChecklistPage 44 of 59
Yes
Yes
Yes
End of Document
***Please note the following changes were made in the Amended NOFA*** All Applicants requesting funds must submit a plan amendment with this application if 40% of each allocation being requested is NOT already allocated to an ownership activity.

All Applicants requesting an amendment to the 5-Year Plan with this application must redirect 40% of each allocation towards a homeownership Activity.

Ownership activities are 2,3,4,7,8,9 (activities 2,3,4, & 8 will only count as ownership if the funds will go towards ownership sub activities as opposed to rental housing sub activities including ADU's) $20,952
Concord
2021 PLHA Formula Allocation Amount: $41,803
§300(a) and (b) Eligible Applicants for the Entitlement and Non-Entitlement formula component described in Section §100(b)(1) and (2) are limited to the metropolitan cities and urban counties allocated a grant for the federal fiscal year 2017 pursuant to the federal CDBG formula specified in 42 USC, Section §5306 and Non-entitlement local governments.

Applicant: City of Concord
Which Allocation(s) are you applying for with this application? 2021 - 2023 $836,053
$419,032
$321,173
Allowable Local Admin (5%):

Allowable Local Admin (5%):

Allowable Local Admin (5%):

Admin requested?
Eligible Applicant Type: Entitlement
Local Government Recipient of PLHA Formula Allocation:

Admin requested?
Admin requested?2023 PLHA Formula Allocation Amount: $16,059 2022 PLHA Formula Allocation Amount:
§302(c)(5) Is the applicant submitting a plan amendment with this application? (If you wish to or are required to reallocate more than 10 percent of funds among Activities from the previously approved 5-Year Plan included in the PLHA program Standard Agreement, Exhibit E you must submit an updated plan and resolution approving the new plan) 40% of each allocation being changed must go towards an ownership activity.

Yes
CA
[email protected]
Valerie Barone
City:

Address:

County:

Instructions: If the Local Government Recipient of the PLHA Formula Allocation delegated its PLHA formula allocation to another Local Government in any prior round, the Applicant (for which information is required below) continues to be the administering Local Government, which received the award. The PLHA award will be made to the Applicant (upon meeting threshold requirements) and the Applicant is responsible for meeting all program requirements throughout the term of the Standard Agreement. §300 Eligible Applicants
1950 Parkside Drive
§503(b) Applicant certifies that they are in compliance with the State Grants Management Section and are current with any required PLHA Annual Reporting Requirements. Yes
Zip Code:
1950 Parkside DriveAddress:

Brenda Kain
CA
City: 94519
Yes
§302(a) Housing Element compliance: Applicant and Delegating Local Government's if applicable Housing Element was adopted by the Local Government’s governing body by the application submittal date and subsequently determined to be in substantial compliance with state Housing Element Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.

Concord
Yes
Contact Name:

Address:

Local Government Formula Allocation for Returning Applicants Rev. 10/10/24 This streamlined application form is limited to Applicants who applied for and received an award under one or more of the previous Formula Allocation NOFA's (2020, 2021, 2022, or 2023).

Yes
If a reallocation of more than 10 percent of funds was made (and Applicant is amending their plan with this application) Applicant has attached an amended Plan and resolution that has been discussed and approved at a publicly-noticed meeting of the governing body.

CA Zip: 94519 Contra CostaState:
§302(c)(2) Applicant certifies that submission of the application was authorized by the governing board of the Applicant. §302 Threshold Requirements
Title:
94519
§302(b) Applicant or Delegating Local Government has submitted the Annual Progress Report(s) to the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Government Code Section 65400 for the allocations being requested. Yes Did Applicant receive an award under one or more of the previous NOFA's? (2020, 2021, 2022 or 2023) Title: Community Services
Manager
State:

Contact Email:

City Manager
1950 Parksisde Drive
925-603-5838
Date
Certifications
Valerie Barone
Authorized Representative Printed Name
City Manager
Title
On behalf of the entity identified below, I certify that: The information, statements and attachments included in this application are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct and I possess the legal authority to submit this application on behalf of the entity identified in the signature block.

Signature
§302(c)(8) If a program income reuse plan was not submitted with the 2020 application, has Applicant attached a program income reuse plan describing how repaid loans and/or accrued interest will be reused for eligible activities specified in Section 301? File Name: Application and Plan Adoption
Reso
Concord
[email protected] Rep. Email: Phone:

Yes
File Name: Reuse Plan Program Income Reuse Plan describing how repaid loans or accrued interest will be used for eligible activities in Section 301. Uploaded to HCD? Auth Rep Name:

Yes
Yes
§302(c)(4)(D) Evidence that the Plan was authorized and adopted by resolution by the Local jurisdiction and that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on its content.

PLHA webpage for Application and Plan Adoption Resolution Document Uploaded to HCD?
Contact Phone:

ConcordCity:

Yes
Zip Code:
925-671-3150
State:

PLHA Page 1 Formula Allocation Application

Rev. 10/10/24
List the cities that are part of your Urban
County.

Are they opting
in to receive a
portion of the
PLHA award?
List the amount of the
allocation being applied for
that will be shared with this
city.

EXAMPLE: City of Trees Yes $20,000.00
If you are an Urban County, please complete the following table if you are planning on sharing your allocation with cities within your jurisdiction who do not have their own PLHA allocation:

URBAN COUNTY

End of Document

End of Document
Organization: Email: Contact Phone:

Application Development Team (ADT) Support Form Rev. 10/10/24 Please complete the "yellow" cells in the form below and email a copy to: [email protected]. A member of the Application Development Team will respond to your request within ASAP.

Full Name: Date Requested: Application
Version Date:

Justification:

Issue # Program
Name & Tab Section Cell# Update/Comment Urgency ADT Status Status Date 2 PLHA Supp
App
1 PLHA Supp
App
3 PLHA Supp
App
4 PLHA Supp
App
6 PLHA Supp
App
5 PLHA Supp
App
7 PLHA Supp
App
8 PLHA Supp
App
10 PLHA Supp
App
9 PLHA Supp
App
11 PLHA Supp
App
12 PLHA Supp
App
14 PLHA Supp
App
13 PLHA Supp
App
15 PLHA Supp
App
16 PLHA Supp
App
18 PLHA Supp
App
17 PLHA Supp
App
19 PLHA Supp
App
20 PLHA Supp
App
22 PLHA Supp
App
21 PLHA Supp
App
23 PLHA Supp
App
24 PLHA Supp
App
25 PLHA Supp
App
PLHA Page 1 Application SupportPage 48 of 59
§301 Eligible Activities
PLHA Formula - Amendment for years 2021, 2022, 2023 Rev. 10/10/24 Eligible Applicant Type: Entitlement
Local Government Recipient of PLHA Formula Allocation: Concord 2022 PLHA Formula Allocation Amount: n/a 2021 Allowable Local Admin (5%): n/a Admin requested? Yes 2021 PLHA Formula Allocation Amount: n/a 2020 Allowable Local Admin (5%): n/a Admin requested? Yes Instructions: If the Local Government Recipient of the PLHA Formula Allocation delegated its PLHA formula allocation to a Local Housing Trust Fund or to another Local Government, the Applicant (for which information is required below) is the Local Housing Trust Fund or administering Local Government. The PLHA award will be made to the Applicant (upon meeting threshold requirements) and the Applicant is responsible for meeting all program requirements throughout the term of the Standard Agreement.

The 302(c)(4) Plan template worksheet requires first choosing one or more of the Eligible Activities listed below. If "Yes" is clicked, the 302(c)(4) Plan worksheet opens a series of questions about what precise activities are planned. Some specific activities, such as providing downpayment assistance to lower-income households for acquisition of an affordable home, could be included under either Activity 2 or 9. Please only choose one of those Activities; don't list the downpayment assistance under both Activities. Please note that 40% of each allocation you are requesting to amend with this application MUST be allocated to an activity that supports Homeownership in accordance with the NOFA. Ownership activities are 2,3,4,7,8,9 (activities 2,3,4, & 8 will only count as ownership if the funds will go towards ownership sub activities as opposed to rental housing sub activities including ADU's) If the PLHA funds are used for the same Activity but for different Area Median Income (AMI) level, select the highest AMI level the Activity will serve (you can always go lower than what is listed but you may not serve higher than what is listed without completing a plan amendment in the future).

For each year (2021-2023), allocations must equal 100% annually including the allowable administrative costs of up to 5%. §300 Eligible Applicants
§300(a) and (b) Eligible Applicants for the Entitlement and Non-Entitlement formula component described in Section §100(b)(1) and (2) are limited to the metropolitan cities and urban counties allocated a grant for the federal fiscal year 2017 pursuant to the federal CDBG formula specified in 42 USC, Section §5306 and Non- entitlement local governments.

Applicant: City of Concord
Address: 1950 Parkside Drive
2023 PLHA Formula Allocation Amount: n/a 2022 Allowable Local Admin (5%): n/a Admin requested? Yes County: Contra Costa
Auth Rep Name: Valerie Barone Title: City Manager Auth Rep. Email: [email protected] Phone: 925-671-3150 City: Concord State: CA Zip: 94519
Zip Code: 94519
Contact Name: Brenda Kain Title: Community Services
Manager Contact Email: [email protected] Contact Phone: 925-603-5838 Address: 1950 Parkside Drive City: Concord State: CA
File Name:

Application and/or Adopting the
PLHA Plan (2020-2023
Allocations) Reso
Pursuant to section 302(c)(4) of the Guidelines, Applicant’s PLHA Plan for 2020- 2023 allocations is attached to this resolution, and Applicant certifies compliance with all public notice, comment, and hearing requirements in accordance with the Guidelines.

Uploaded to
HCD? Yes
Zip Code: 94519
§300(d) Is Applicant delegated by another Local government to administer on its behalf its formula allocation of program funds? No §300(d) If Applicant answered "Yes" above, has the Applicant attached the legally binding agreement required by §300(c) and (d)?
A sample agreement can be
found by double clicking on
the icon to the right
N/A
Address: 1950 Parkside Drive City: Concord State: CA
File Name: Gov TIN Provide a signed Gov't TIN Form Uploaded to HCD? Yes File Name: Applicant Delegation
Agreement
Legally binding agreement between Delegating and Administering Local Governments (sample provided—just click on icon in row 19, column AH) Uploaded to HCD? N/A §301(a)(9) Homeownership opportunities, including, but not limited to, down payment assistance. Yes §301(a)(6) Assisting persons who are experiencing or At-risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid re-housing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing.

Yes
§301(a)(7) Accessibility modifications in Lower-income Owner-occupied housing. No §301(a)(8) Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes and apartments. No §301(a)(3) Matching portions of funds placed into Local or Regional Housing Trust Funds. No §301(a)(4) Matching portions of funds available through the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of HSC Section 34176. No
§301(a)(5) Capitalized Reserves for services connected to the preservation and creation of new permanent supportive housing. No §301(a) Eligible activities are limited to the following: Select below:
§301(a)(1) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to Extremely low-,Very low-, Low-, or Moderate-income households, including necessary operating subsidies. No §301(a)(2) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental and ownership housing, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120 percent of AMI, or 150 percent of AMI in high-cost areas. ADUs shall be available for occupancy for a term of no less than 30 days.

No
Docum ent
PLHA Page 1 Formula Allocation Application

§301(a)(10) Fiscal incentives made by a county to a city within the county to incentivize approval of one or more affordable housing Projects, or matching funds invested by a county in an affordable housing development Project in a city within the county, provided that the city has made an equal or greater investment in the Project. The county fiscal incentives shall be in the form of a grant or low-interest loan to an affordable housing Project. Matching funds investments by both the county and the city also shall be a grant or low-interest deferred loan to the affordable housing Project.

No
PLHA Page 2 Formula Allocation Application

Attachment 4
1 City of Concord

Permanent Local Housing Allocation
Amended 5-Year Plan and Program Income Reuse Plan
Introduction
In 2017, Governor Brown signed the Legislative Housing Package to address the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs. Seventy percent of the revenues generated from the California State Property Transfer Fees (SB2, 2017) are earmarked for Permanen t Local Housing Allocation (PLHA).

The revenue from SB2 will vary from year to year, as revenue is dependent on real estate transactions with fluctuating activity.

The PLHA provides an annual source of funding to governments in California to help cities and counties implement plans to increase affordable housing stock. These funds will be allocated as formula grants to entitlement jurisdictions based on the formula prescribed under federal law for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to be locally administered.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) announced the availability of approximately $195 million in funding for the PLHA program in their Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). This NOFA is funded from revenues deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund in calendar year 2019. As an entitlement local government for PLHA funds , the City of Concord will
receive an estimated five-year allocation of $2,932,710.

The City of Concord
is amending its five-year plan to include an allocation for Affordable Ownership Workforce Housing as detailed below.

PLHA Activities Detail
The City will respond to the required Section 302 (c)(4) PLHA Guidelines for activities and use of funds as follows:
§302(c)(4)(A) The manner in which allocated funds will be used for eligible activities:

The City of Concord will use allocated funds to assist persons who are experiencing homelessness by providing rapid rehousing and rental assistance to individuals and families, including case management and housing navigation services that allow people to obtain and retain housing.

The City will also

Attachment 4
2 allocate funds to add clinical case management services to the City -funded Coordinated Outreach Referral and Engagement (CORE) homeless outreach team and for administration of the program.

§302(c)(4)(B) Description of the way the City will prioritize investments that increase the supply of housing for households with incomes at or below 60% Area Median Income (AMI)

Homeless individuals and families are classified as “Presumed Beneficiaries” under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, meaning they are considered to be “Very- Low Income”’ at 30% or less of area AMI. Prioritizing PLHA dollars to rapidly rehouse unhoused individuals and families will help to increase the supply of housing available to those households. By providing six to twelve months of rental assistance, clinical case management , housing navigation, and ongoing support to obtain and retain housing, households are better positioned to maintain housing once the rental subsidy ends.

§302(c)(4)(C) Description of how the Plan is consistent with programs set forth in the City’s Housing Element

Providing funds for the First Time Homebuyer program and for case management and rental assistance to rapidly rehouse unsheltered residents is consistent with the City’s Housing Element by expanding housing opportunities for individuals and families.

• Housing Element Goal H-3: Promote the expansion of housing opportunities for all special needs groups, including seniors, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, first-time homebuyers, large families, and homeless individuals and families.

§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a detailed and complete description of how allocated funds will be used for the proposed Activity.

The City will allocate funds in accordance with section 301(a)(6) of the funding application:

§301(a)(6): Assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing.

The City of Concord will allocate funds to assist persons who are experiencing homelessness by providing the following services:

1. Continue to fund Hope Solution for rapid rehousing to individuals and families, including six to twelve months of rental assistance, case management, and ongoing support services, and housing navigation services that allow people to obtain and retain housing (Approximately 41% of three- year grant);

2. Continue to fund a Care Coordinator in the City -funded Coordinated Outreach Referral and Engagement (CORE) homeless outreach team to provide needed clinical case management services to unsheltered individuals living on the streets, in encampments and along water ways (Approximately 12% of three-year grant )

Attachment 4
3 3. Meet the need for Affordable Ownership Workforce Housing by expanding the City’s existing First Time Homebuyer (FTHB) program to include homebuyers earning from 100 to 150% AMI (Approximately 42% of three-year grant);

4. A maximum of 5% of the annual grant will be allocated to Administration

§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity.

Upon approval of Concord’s PLHA application from the State, the City will execute contract amendments with those organizations currently providing rapid rehousing, homeless outreach and First Time Homebuyer services.

To monitor programs funded with PLHA, the City will require quarterly reports from funded agencies that include numbers served, income levels, and a narrative, as well as a sources and uses report detailing funds expended and a request for reimbursement.

Program Income Reuse Plan

The City of Concord is proposing to use 2021/22/23 PLHA funds to assist persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness by providing grants to local service providers.

The City is not anticipating
receiving any program income from these activities.

The City’s First Time Homebuyer (FTHB) loan is a deferred loan with a fifteen (15) year term. Upon sale of the home or at the end of the term the City will receive a share of the home’s appreciation equal to the benefit received from the City. For instance, i f the City loan represents 10% of the original purchase price of the home, then 10% of the appreciation amount is owed, in addition to the original loan amount. This will allow the City to continue to provide FTHB loans to future homebuyers.

Delegation of Allocation

The City of Concord is not proposing to delegate its PLHA funds for 2019-2023. Therefore, no legally binding applicant agreement regarding delegation is included.

1 Dated: February 2, 2025
Overview
BAAHA’s Program and Market Study has been compiled to assist the City of Concord (hereinafter referred to as the City) in establishing:
• Feasibility of directing Affordable Owner-Occupied Workforce Housing (AOWH) funds to the City’s First Time Homebuyer Program (herein referred to as the FTHB and/or City FTHB) • Parameters applied towards structuring the City’s FTHB The study focuses on the following elements:
• Evaluate the City of Concord’s housing supply to assess the merits and needs of applying AOWH funds to subsidize City FTHB Program transactions.
• Establish recommended FTHB Program parameters to maximize the effective application of FTHB funds to best serve the Concord first time home buying community. • Designate recommended program parameters and
strategies, including program safeguards, to be
applied towards the successful and equitable implementation of the FTHB Program • Identify Program benefits that can be recognized by the City and FTHB participants Concord Housing Supply/Inventory
Overview
BAAHA’s Housing Supply/Inventory study was conducted to assess the composition of sales activity for the current single unit residence market in Concord. Single unit residences include condominiums, townhomes, and single-family detached homes. BAAHA applied data derived from the Association of Realtor’s property sales statistic for the past twelve months, and current for-sale inventory. The study has yielded the following findings and observations.

Findings
Over the past three years the number of single family unit residences sold has been:

Number of Sales – Past Three Years
Year 2022 2023 2024 Total
Units Sold 1,350 1,096 1,006
Change/Delta -23.18% -8.95% -32.12%
Bedroom Size By Property Type Distribution – Past Twelve Months Bedroom Size 1 Bdrm 2 Bdrm 3 Bdrm 4 Bdrm 5 Bdrm + Total Condos 48 98 11 9 0 166
Townhomes 0 36 47 5 0 88
Single family detached 0 35 379 281 57 752
Total units all categories 48 169 437 295 57 1006
City of Concord
Affordable Owner Occupied Workforce Housing (AOWH)
First Time Home Buyer Loan Program
Market Study - Program Findings and Recommendations
Attachment 5

2 Distribution of Sold (12 month) and Current Inventory per Price Range

Price <=$300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 Total Sold Inventory 35 73 97 57 128 193 583
Current Inventory 12 25 8 4 4 8 61

Observations

Based on $600,000 of gross funding and $60,000 City FTHB allocations per household, the City would provide assistance to 10 eligible City FTHB participants. As noted below in this presentation, BAAHA has determined that the most likely maximum purchase price for City FTHB Program participants will be approximately $800,000. Based on the historic annual sales of 583 units and current availability of 61 units, the City has a sufficient supply of housing inventory to support a City FTHB Program allocation of ten (10) units.

Funding Viability

Overview

BAAHA has analyzed key components to determine the viability and suggested program structure for implementing the City FTHB Program. Key components addressing the viability of the City’s FTHB Program include:
• The correlation of Concord home prices and mortgage interest rates • Accessibility to partnering subsidies
• Expansion of purchase power in servicing low- to moderate-income first time homebuyer households Home Prices and Interest Rates

BAAHA has conducted an analysis that compares the volume of property sales and median prices in relation to mortgage cost adjustments over a three-year duration. There is a consistent expected correlation between the fluctuation of interest rates in conjunction with the volume and the median price of properties sold over the past three years (2022 through 2024).

Property Sales Activity in Conjunction with Mortgage Interest Rate (2022-2024)

Year
Units
Sold
Change
Units
Sold
%
Change
Median
Price
Change
Price
%
Change
Interest
Rate
Mortgage
Cost with
3% Down
Cost
Change
%
Change
2022 1,350 $770,000 5.55% $4,264
2023 1,096 -254 -18.81% $725,000 -$45,000 -5.84% 7.75% $5,038 $774 18.15% 2024 1,006 -90 -8.21% $761,000 $36,000 4.97% 7.00% $4,911 -$127 -2.52% Total Change -344 -27.03% -$9,000 -0.88% $647 15.63%

The primary observations that are relevant to structuring the City’s FTHB Program are:
• The number of property sales from 2022 through 2024 have decreased by 344 homes, a drop of 27%.

The decrease in sales is likely attributable to the rise in interest rates, and related increase in the cost of ownership.
• From 2022 to 2024 increased interest rates have increased mortgage costs for a median priced home by $647, a 15.63% increase.
• From 2022 to 2024 the median price of a home decreased by 0.88%. This slight price decrease is likely attributable to the rise in interest rates; which in turn, increased the cost of ownership.

3 Access to Partnering Subsidies

BAAHA has access to combine additional homebuyer subsidies from partnering public and private agencies.

These subsidies are primarily directed towards low- to lower-income households, whose household incomes are less than 80% of the area’s median income. Partnering subsidies include, but are not limited to:
• Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) WISH Program – the WISH subsidy is directed towards households whose incomes must be at or below the area’s low-income (80% AMI) threshold. The subsidy provides up a $30,000 forgivable loan which is forgiven over a five-year duration (20% forgiveness per year).

The subsidy is subordinate to the City’s FTHB Program loan, and no monthly payments are required by the homeowner.
• Private Institution Subsidies – There are a few regional community banks offering Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) focused subsidies directed towards households whose incomes must be at or below the area’s low income (80% AMI) threshold. In addition, these community banks also offer incentive(s) such as reduced fixed mortgage interest rates of up to 1% for homes located in to Low Income and/or Minority Census Tracts. One such bank, Frist Citizens Bank (FCB), partners with BAAHA to provide up to a $30,000 FCB forgivable loan grant that is forgiven over a five-year duration. These loans are subordinate to the City’s FTHB Program loan and no monthly payments are required by the homeowner.

By incorporating the assistance of partnering subsidies, the City’s FTHB Program can expand the total amount of subsidy provided to households at or below the low-income threshold to reach up to $120,000 in total down payment assistance subsidy. Based on 2024 subsidy capitalization and purchase activity, the WISH Program funding cycle is anticipated to commence in April 2025 with funds available through December 2025. FCB currently has funds available.

Expanded Purchase Capacity and Increased Access to Housing Inventory

Data provided in the below table demonstrates the impact the City’s FTHB Program combined with partnering subsidies, would have on: 1) first time homebuyer household’s purchase capacity; and 2) access to the City’s housing purchase inventory base (established based on 12 months of past sales).

The analysis applies to a Concord median household size of 2.74 (rounded to 3), and an 80% Area Median Income ceiling of $108,750 for a three-person household.

In employing the above referenced parameters, BAAHA’s analysis yielded an increase in both the purchase price for the household, and substantially increased access to additional for sale housing stock (per past twelve months of activity/inventory). With just the City’s FTHB subsidy, the household’s purchase capacity increased from $473,000 to $526,146 (an increase of 11.17%); the increase in accessibility to housing stock expanded from 186 units to 218 units and increase of 32 units (17.20%). With both City and partnering subsidies, the households purchase capacity increased from $473,000 to $608,000, an increase of 28.65%. Access to additional inventory expanded from 186 units to 267, and increase of 81 units (43.55%)

Purchase Structure No Subsidy City FTHB All Subsidies Maximum Purchase Price $473,285 $526,146 $608,887
Down Payment as % 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Down payment as $ $14,199 $15,784 $18,267
City FTHB $0 $60,000 $60,000
Partner Subsidies – WISH $0 $30,000
Partner Subsidies - FCB $0 $0 $30,000
Total funds applied towards purchase $14,199 $75,784 $138,267 Total monthly ownership costs $3,852 $3,852 $3,852
Maximum Debt and Housing Ratio Allowance 45.00% 45.00% 45.00% Monthly income/earnings requirement* $9,063 $9,063 $9,063

4 Purchase Implications No Subsidy City FTHB All Subsidies Household size 3 3 3
Low Income 80% AMI Ceiling $108,750 $108,750 $108,750
Dollar increase in purchase capacity $52,861 $135,602
Percentage increase in price 11.17% 28.65%
Number of homes available at price point (12,mos) 186 218 267 Increase in number of home available 32 81
Percentage increase in number of home available 17.20% 43.55% *Monthly income earnings is at 1/12th of the maximum 80% AMI allowance

Safeguards and Program Limits

BAAHA suggests that the following program safeguards and parameters be incorporated into the City FTHB Program. These safeguards/limits are provided to assure City FTHB funding is appropriated fairly and by the level of financial need required to assist eligible Program participating first time homebuyers.

Housing Ratios

Housing ratios are calculated by dividing total housing costs by gross monthly earnings. The two foremost safeguards housing ratios provide are:
• Preventing over-funding of subsided provided to FTHB participating households • Preventing households from purchasing a home they cannot afford

The assignment of a 28% floor housing ratio helps prevent over-funding of subsidies. The 28% floor ratio provides an underwriting guideline that determines the maximum dollar amount of funding that can be applied towards the City’s FTHB loan.

The application of this funding guideline is demonstrated in the table below. The projected maximum purchase price a 60% AMI (lower-income) three-person household could purchase with the City’s FTHB subsidy and partnering subsidies is $517,462. Based on applying a 28% floor ratio, 60% to 100% AMI three person households will receive $60,000 in City FTHB subsides, versus three-person household earning 120% plus in gross earnings will receive $33,741 in City FTHB subsidies. A 150% AMI three-person household will not receive City FTHB funding.

City
Subsidy
Adjusted
City
Subsidy
Adjusted
City
Subsidy
Adjusted
City
Subsidy
Adjusted
City
Subsidy
AMI Category 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% 150.00%
Purchase price $517,462 $517,462 $517,462 $517,462 $517,462 Down payment as % 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Down payment as $ $15,524 $15,524 $15,524 $15,524 $15,524 Subsidies
Concord FTHB $ $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $33,741 $0
Other subsidies $60,000 $60,000
Total Subsidies $ $120,000 $120,000 $60,000 $33,741 $0
Total Subsidies % 23.08% 23.08% 11.54% 6.49% 0.00%
Total down payment &subsidy $135,524 $135,524 $75,524 $49,264 $15,524 Total housing costs $3,153 $3,153 $3,744 $3,930 $4,169
Housing ratio allowance as % 45.00% 34.80% 32.06% 28.05% 23.80% Monthly income requirement $7,008 $9,063 $11,679 $14,013 $17,519 Annual income requirement $84,090 $108,750 $140,150 $168,150 $210,225

5 Program Income Limits and Imputed Income

City FTHB will cap first time homebuyer’s household gross incomes at 150% of the Area’s Median Income, as established by California HCD guidelines and represented below (2024 HCD income Limits).

Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very low income 60% $65,400 $74,730 $84,090 $93,420 $100,890 $108,360 $115,830 Low Income 80% $84,600 $96,650 $108,750 $120,800 $130,500 $140,150 $149,800 Median income 100% $109,000 $124,550 $140,150 $155,700 $168,150 $180,600 $193,050 Moderate income 120% $130,800 $149,500 $168,150 $186,850 $201,800 $216,750 $231,700 Moderate plus 150% $163,500 $186,825 $210,225 $233,550 $252,225 $270,900 $289,575

Imputed income is applied to assist the City in preventing abuses by households that have a high dollar balance of asset. High levels of non-exempt assets could disqualify a household from participating in the City FTHB Program due to being over Program income. Imputed income calculations employ California’s Code Regulation Title 25. Title 25 assigns a 10% interest rate for all non-exempt assets with a combined value of over $5,000.

Assets applied exclude government recognized retirement accounts.

Findings and Program Benefits

BAAHA’s market and analytical studies have established that the delivery of a City FTHB Program can bring a number of valuable benefits to the City and its first time homebuyer community, including and not limited to.

• Expanded affordability through reduction of homeownership costs. For example, home ownership costs for a $500,000 home would be $4,069 per a month without subsidies. With the City’s FTHB subsidy ($60,000) the cost is reduced to $3,639 (10.6% reduction); with partnering subsidies ($120,000) the cost would be reduced to $3,020 (25.8% reduction). The reduction in cost enables a very low income three- person household to realistically purchase a two-bedroom home or condo in Concord. Over the past twelve months there were 205 homes that sold for up to $500,000 in Concord (currently there are approximately 45 homes selling for up to $500,000).

• Expanded purchase power – City FTHB subsidies can increase purchase power for lower-income and moderate-income first time homebuyers. As noted in the example above, a three-person low income household (80% AMI $108,750) without any subsidies would have a maximum purchase capacity of $473,285. The City FTHB subsidy would expand the household’s purchase capacity to $526,146 ($52,861 and 17.20% price gain). The combination of all subsidies would expand the household purchase capacity to $608,887 ($135,602 and 28.65% price gain). The benefit of expanded purchase power would be realized at all income levels for City FTHB Program participants.

• Expanded housing inventory selection – The increase in purchase power in the above example increased the number of homes household would have been able to access by 43.55%. The benefit of expanded purchase power would be realized at all income levels for City FTHB Program participants.

• Median income to home price multiple – City FTHB subsidies may assist in alleviating a challenge for Concord’s low- to moderate- income homebuyers to purchase a home in Concord. When compared to surrounding neighboring cities, Concord has the third lowest median income of $115,600, and inversely, the third highest Median Income to Median Home price multiple of 7.33. The higher price to income multiple further supports the need to provide Concord’s low- to moderate- income first time homebuyers additional support and resources to purchase a home.

City Pittsburg Clayton Antioch Concord Martinez Walnut Creek Median Home Price* $582,000 $1,120,000 $638,000 $825,000 $930,000 $1,570,000 Median Income 2024 $104,100 $177,400 $94,000 $115,600 $129,200 $139,800 Income to Home Price Multiple 5.59 6.31 6.79 7.14 7.20 11.23 * California Association of Realtors (CAR) median price is based on a moving average. BAAHA’s pricing model is derived from CAR data, and is based on an annual cycle.

6 • Expand number of households that can access to purchase a home in Concord. Based on 2023 Census data, BAAHA estimates the City of Concord has in excess of 9,000 renting households that have the earning capacity to capitalize on City FTHB resources. The level of obtainable financial subsidy combined with an effective City homebuyer outreach and education campaign can help expand the ability for eligible renters to secure homeownership in the Concord. Homebuyer educational and counseling will include extensive outreach directed towards Concord’s first time homebuyer residents and workforce to provide a HUD approved homebuyer education and counseling curriculum. Education and counseling will be delivered by BAAHA and a regional HUD Certified non-profit homebuyer education and counseling provider.

Staff Report
Date: February 25, 2025
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mindy Gentry, Director of Community Development Meredith Rupp, Principal Planner
Prepared by: Michael Hart, Associate Planner
[email protected]
(925) 671-5821
Subject: Considering introduction of an Ordinance amending Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code) Section

18.200.070 (Standards for Specific Uses - Emergency Shelter and Homeless Shelters) to establish additional objective standards for emergency shelters and homeless shelters, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. (PL23176 – MC)
CEQA: Not a “project” under Public Resources Code 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c) or 15378 and in the
alternative, if deemed a “project,” exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

Report in Brief
The state legislature adopted Assembly Bill (“AB”) 139 to promote development of emergency shelters to help address the needs of California’s unhoused population.

Additionally, the City of Concord’s 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing Element) contains programs to address the needs of the City’s unsheltered population.1 On September 10, 2024, the City Council adopted amendments to the Concord Municipal Code (“CMC”) to bring the City’s Emergency Shelters and Homeless Shelters Ordinance into compliance with state law and the Housing Element. At the time, Council 1 The City adopted its 2023-2031 Housing Element on August 22, 2023 and it was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 23, 2023.

4.d4.d4.d4.d

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.d
February 25, 2025
directed staff to draft amendments to provide more objective standards to the outdoor waiting area screening requirement, storage locker requirement, the amount of bicycle storage, as well as hours that security is present at facilities. The proposed amendments are to address Council’s direction.

Recommended Action
Introduce an Ordinance amending Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code) Chapter 18.200.070 (Standards for Specific Uses - Emergency Shelter and Homeless Shelters) for to establish additional objective standards for emergency shelters and homeless shelters, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. (PL23176 - MC) (Attachment 1)
Background
AB 139 (2019) Emergency and Transitional Housing Act of 20192 This legislation restricts objective management and development standards that a local government can establish for emergency homeless shelters, which are limited to the following:
• The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility.
• Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. • The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas.
• The provision of onsite management.
• The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart.
• The length of stay.
• Lighting.
• Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.

If an application for an Emergency Shelter or Homeless Shelter does not meet the criteria in the applicable state law or the CMC, it may still be allowed in the applicable zoning district subject to the discretionary review and approval of a Use Permit. 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation
To address the aforementioned bill, Program 22.6 was incorporated into the 2023-2031 Housing Element, which requires the following:
2 California Government Code 65583

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.d
February 25, 2025
(a): Simplify the regulations for emergency shelters, including distancing and proximity to transit requirements, maximum bed count, and other facility requirements, and ensure that staff parking is calculated based on the demonstrated demand;
(b): Ensure that Emergency Shelters, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) uses, and Group Housing are not subject to a discretionary Design and Site Review process.3
(c): Allow supportive housing by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, consistent with California Government Code Section 65651; (d): Allow Low-Barrier Navigation Centers by-right in mixed-use and non- residential zones that permit residential uses.

The ordinance adopted on September 10, 2024, implemented items (a) and (b) of Program 22.6. However, Council requested additional objective requirements relating to outdoor waiting areas, storage lockers, bicycle storage, and security hours, which would be implemented with the proposed amendments.

July 17, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting
On July 17, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing relating to amendments proposed to Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.200 (Standards for Specific Uses) which, among other things, proposed amendments to the Emergency Shelters and Homeless Shelters Ordinance for consistency with state law and implementation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 (Ayes: Mizutani, Laub, Barbour, Corio, Kaushal) to adopt a Resolution No. 24.10 recommending City Council approve the Ordinance amending the above municipal code.

August 13, 2024, City Council Meeting
On August 13, 2024, the City Council introduced an ordinance with proposed amendments to bring the CMC into compliance with AB 139 as well as fully implement Program 22.6 of the Housing Element. During the hearing, the Council expressed concerns about a lack objective standards and requested more robust screening of outdoor waiting areas, establishing minimum storage locker sizes, increasing the amount of bicycle storage lockers, and regulating the hours in which a security guard is present at the facility. In order to advance the Housing Element and conform with state law, Council voted to approve the ordinance as written with a vote of 5-0 (Ayes:

Hoffmeister, Nakamura, Aliano, Birsan, Obringer), with the caveat that staff return with the requested changes. Those changes are within the matters previously considered by the Planning Commission.
3 This program was implemented under an ordinance containing Concord Municipal Code amendments related to housing acceleration, which was adopted by City Council on October 3, 2023.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.d
February 25, 2025
September 10, 2024, City Council Meeting
On September 10, 2024, the City Council adopted the Ordinance that was introduced on August 13, 2024.

Analysis
The proposed amendments would amend CMC Section 18.200.070 (Exhibit A to Attachment 1). This section establishes the Development Code standards emergency and homeless shelters.

The proposed amendments to CMC Section 18.200.070 include the following:
• Require that all facilities comply with the established objective design standards for emergency shelters, pursuant to CMC Chapter 18.152. • Provide objective standards to the screening requirement for outdoor waiting areas, ensuring that the areas are completely screened from the public right- of-way with solid walls, solid fences, or a combination of fences and tall landscaping.
• Expand security guard provisions to require a security guard on-site at least one hour before the facility opens and at least one hour after the facility closes and if the Police Department determines additional security is needed, then the facility must comply within seven days.
• Provide minimum storage area requirements (in cubic feet) for storage lockers.
• Require a bicycle parking ratio of one-half space per bed, which shall be provided by a bicycle storage locker.

Development Code Amendment Findings
Pursuant to CMC Section 18.455.070, a Development Code amendment may be approved only if all the applicable findings are made. Staff’s analysis on how the project meets each finding is set forth below:
1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan; The proposed amendments consist of updates to a section within the Development Code to establish additional objective standards and are in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the expansion of housing opportunities for all groups with special housing needs, such as emergency shelters. The proposed amendments are also internally consistent with all other provisions and elements of the General Plan and implement Housing Element Program 22.6.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.d
February 25, 2025
2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and
To further assist California’s unhoused population, the State has adopted laws to accelerate development for emergency shelters. The proposed amendments would implement state law requirements in addition to the Housing Element. The proposed amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. On the contrary, the proposed amendments will serve the City’s public interest by facilitating and streamlining the review of special needs housing projects that will provide assistance to the City of Concord’s unhoused population. In the event the City has discretion on projects facilitated by the proposed amendments, the City will evaluate the projects against applicable policies to ensure they will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the city. 3) Zoning map amendments shall also find that the affected site is physically suitable, including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities, for the requested zoning designation and proposed or anticipated uses and/or development.

This amendment does not include any amendments to the zoning map.

Financial Impact
These amendments will have a negligible financial impact to the City.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the proposed Development Code amendments do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Section 15060(c)(2) or 15378 because it has not potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if the Development Code amendments did constitute a project under CEQA, the amendments fall within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal.

Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment….” Therefore, the proposed amendments do not warrant further environmental review. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Notification was published in the East Bay Times, as

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.d
February 25, 2025
required by state law and the CMC. Additionally, notice has been provided to all interested parties, and all individuals on the housing interested parties list.

Attachments

1. Ordinance
Exhibit A – Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.200 (Standards for Specific Uses)

2. Objective Design Standards Chapter 6 – Special Case Standards

Ord. No. 25-XX 1
ORDINANCE NO. 25-XX

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CONCORD MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE
18 (DEVELOPMENT CODE), SECTION 18.200.070 (STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC USES – EMERGENCY SHELTER AND HOMELESS
SHELTERS) (PL23176 - MC)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65800 et seq. provides for the amendment of any and all adopted City of Concord (“City”) zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations; and WHEREAS, the State of California Legislature has found and declared the availability of housing is a statewide concern and priority; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has found that local governments have a responsibility to facilitate the development of housing for all economic segments of the community (Government Code 65580(d)); and
WHEREAS, to facilitate the development of supportive housing, low barrier navigation centers, and emergency shelters, the State of California has enacted Assembly Bill 139 (2019) to, among other things, limit the objective management and development standards that a local government can establish for emergency homeless shelters; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted and the California Department of Housing and Community Development has certified a 2023-2031 Housing Element in compliance with state law that includes goals for providing a balanced supply of housing types, densities, and prices to meet the needs of all income groups residing or who wish to reside in Concord, and promoting the expansion of housing opportunities for all groups with special housing needs; and WHEREAS, the 2023-2031 Housing Element includes goals to facilitate housing to meet the needs of all income groups residing or who wish to reside in Concord, including those experiencing homelessness. More specifically Program 22.6 includes facilitating emergency shelters to promote the expansion of housing opportunities for all groups, including those with special housing needs; and Attachment 1

Ord. No. 25-XX 2
WHEREAS, the City finds that the housing supply shortage for persons with special housing needs is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and that it is a public purpose of the City, and a public policy of the State of California, to make an adequate supply of housing available for persons with special housing needs; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing relating to amendments proposed to Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter

18.200 (Standards for Specific Uses) which, among other things, proposed amendments to the Emergency Shelters and Homeless Shelters Ordinance for consistency with state law and implementation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and voted 5-0 (Ayes: Mizutani, Laub, Barbour, Corio, Kaushal) to adopt a Resolution No. 24.10 recommending City Council approve the Ordinance amending the above municipal code; and
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2024, City Council held a duly noticed public hearing relating to amendments proposed to Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.200 (Standards for Specific Uses) which, among other things, proposed amendments to the Emergency Shelters and Homeless Shelters Ordinance for consistency with state law and implementation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, at their August 13, 2024 public hearing, City Council voted 5-0 (Hoffmeister, Nakamura, Aliano, Birsan, Obringer) to adopt Ordinance No. 24-5, with a request that staff return with further amendments relating to screening requirements for outdoor waiting areas, storage locker size, the amount of bicycle storage, and hours where security is present; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance No 24-5 to, among other things, amend Concord Municipal Code, Title 18, (Development Code), Chapter 18.20 (Standards for Specific Uses); and
WHEREAS, staff developed amendments to the Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code) Chapter 18.200 (Standards for Specific Uses) based on the recommendations made

Ord. No. 25-XX 3
by City Council at the August 13, 2024 public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on February 25, 2025, to consider the proposed amendments to Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code) Chapter 18.200 (Standards for Specific Uses); and
WHEREAS, at such public hearing, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments and at the public hearing, the oral report from City staff, the written report from City staff dated February 4, 2025, attached materials, exhibits presented, and all other information that constitutes the record of proceedings relating to the Ordinance, which is maintained at the offices of the City of Concord City Clerk (collectively, “City Council Information”), and declared their intent to approve and adopt the Ordinance;

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

Section 1. All of the facts set forth in the Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

Section 2. The City Council has reviewed, considered, and evaluated all of the Planning Commission Information, City Council Information, all other pertinent plans, documents, and testimony prior to acting upon Ordinance.

Section 3. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its decision are located in an may be obtained from the City of Concord Clerk’s Office, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA 94519.

Section 4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council finds that the proposed Municipal Code amendments are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) or 15378 in that they do not constitute a “project” as defined by CEQA since they do not have the

Ord. No. 25-XX 4
potential to result in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

If the Ordinance did constitute a “project” under CEQA, the Ordinance falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), excluding project where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment…” Therefore, the proposed Ordinance does not warrant further environmental review. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.

Section 5. Development Code Amendment Findings
1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan.

The proposed amendments consist of updates to a section within the Development Code to establish additional objective standards and are in conformance with the General Plan by promoting the expansion of housing opportunities for all groups with special housing needs, such as emergency shelters. The proposed amendments are also internally consistent with all other provisions and elements of the General Plan and implement Housing Element Program 22.6.
2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.

To further assist California’s unhoused population, the State has adopted laws to accelerate development for emergency shelters. The proposed amendments would implement state law requirements in addition to the Housing Element. The proposed amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. On the contrary, the proposed amendments will serve the City’s public interest by facilitating and streamlining the review of special needs housing projects that will provide assistance to the City of Concord’s unhoused population. In the event the City has discretion on projects facilitated by the proposed amendments, the City will evaluate the projects against

Ord. No. 25-XX 5
applicable policies to ensure they will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the city.
3) Zoning map amendments shall also find that the affected site is physically suitable, including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities, for the requested zoning designation and proposed or anticipated uses and/or development.

These amendments do not include any amendments to the zoning map.

Section 6. The City Council does hereby pass and adopt this Ordinance No. 25-XX.

Section 7. Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Section 18.200.070 (Standards for Specific Uses – Emergency Shelter and Homeless Shelters) are hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibits A and attached here to and made a part hereof.

Section 8. This Ordinance No. 25-XX shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption. In the event a summary of said Ordinance is published in lieu of the entire Ordinance, a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to its adoption and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers. Additionally, a summary prepared by the City Attorney’s Office shall be published once at least five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance and once within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers, in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Concord. __________________________________
Carlyn Obringer
Mayor
ATTEST:

Ord. No. 25-XX 6
Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
(Seal)
Ordinance No. 25-XX was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord held on February 25, 2025, and was thereafter duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on ______________by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an ordinance duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Concord, California.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A: CMC Chapter 18.200 (Standards for Specific Uses)

18.200.070 Emergency shelters and homeless shelters.

Where allowed by Division II of this title (Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards), emergency shelters and homeless shelters shall comply with the requirements of this section.

A. Purpose. The following requirements are to implement the programs in the Housing Element, ensure compliance with Section 65583 of the Government Code, and meet the emergency shelter needs of the community.

B. Applicability. Where allowed by Division II of this title (Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards), an emergency or homeless shelter is a permitted use. A use permit is required for an emergency or homeless shelter that does not comply with the standards of this section.

C. Location. No emergency or homeless shelter shall be located within 300 feet of another emergency or homeless shelter. The separation distance shall be the shortest horizontal distance measured in a straight line from the property line of the lot with an existing emergency or homeless shelter to the property line of the lot on which an emergency or homeless shelter is proposed to be located, without regard to intervening structures or objects.

D. Facility Requirements. Each Every emergency or homeless shelter whether new construction or conversion of an existing structure shall include, at a minimum, the following:

1. The requirements of the City’s objective design standards set forth in Chapter 18.152 shall apply to both new construction and conversion of an existing structure. In the event there are conflicting provisions, this Section shall prevail.

12. An indoor or outdoor area for client congregation, so that clients waiting for services are not required to use the public sidewalk for queuing in compliance with the following requirements:
a. Minimum area of ten square feet per shelter bed;
ba. At least one adjacent staff office or reception area with direct visibility of the area; cb. Available for client use at least one hour prior to intake; and dc. Outdoor waiting areas shall be completely screened from view from the public right-of-way with solid walls, solid fences, or a combination of fences and landscaping that is at least three feet in height and at least 50% of the waiting area shall be provided with shade and rain protection.

Outdoor waiting areas shall be locked whenever staff is not present on the site, and provided with shade and rain protection.

23. On-site staff, including at least one security guard that is appropriately licensed by the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services or approved equivalent, shall be present at all times clients or prospective clients are present on the site, including in the client congregation area.

Security guards shall be on-site at least one hour before the facility opens and at least one hour after the facility closes. If the City, acting by and through the Chief of Police or their designee, determines additional security is needed, the facility, within seven days of receiving written notice from the City, shall provide the additional hours and/or security guards.

Security personnel shall have a nameplate containing the security personnel’s name and the word “SECURITY” printed in bold/capital. The word “Security” is not required if the security guard is wearing some type of clothing to identify him/her as a security guard. The nameplate shall be exhibited prominently on the clothing and shall be visible and easily read at all times. Hanging name badges and lanyards are prohibited. Alternatively, this requirement may be satisfied by embroidering Attachment 1
Exhibit A
Exhibit A to Attachment 1

Concord Municipal Code Page 2/2
The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 23-6, passed September 12, 2023. the security personnel’s name and the word “SECURITY” on the security personnel’s outermost garment with the required information meeting the above specifications and located at chest level.

Shelters shall develop and implement a management and security plan with operational standards in compliance with applicable funding requirements, and any local, county and state requirements. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the management and security plan shall be approved by the planning division after consulting with the Chief of Police or their designee.

34. Outdoor lighting in compliance with the following requirements:
a. Applicable objective standards in CDC 18.150.110 and 18.160.110(D), except when in conflict with the following requirements:
i. A minimum of ten foot-candles at all client entrances and extending in an unobstructed direction outward five feet;
ii. A minimum of two foot-candles in other areas accessible from the street; iii. Lighting shall be provided for a period not less than thirty minutes after sunset until thirty minutes before sunrise; and
iv. The planning manager may modify the above requirements upon determining that alternate lighting will be adequate for security purposes.

45. One locker or storage cabinet for personal property shall be provided for each shelter bed. The locker shall provide a minimum of 12 cubic feet worth of storage. The shelter shall provide each client with a lock to the locker or storage cabinet at no charge.

6. At least 10 percent of the required storage lockers One-half bicycle space for each bed, which shall be provided by an enclosed locking bicycle locker. The bicycle locker shall have minimum dimensions of 42 inches wide, 75 inches deep, and 54 inches high to accommodate secure storage of a bicycle.

57. Unless smoking is otherwise prohibited pursuant to Chapter 8.35, provide a designated smoking area. The smoking area shall comply with the requirements of CDC 8.35.100(b).

78. Provide bathrooms and bathing facilities in the quantity and at locations as required by the California Plumbing Code (Title 24, Part 5 of the California Code of Regulations). Shower stalls must include an interior lock on the shower door, and an emergency call button or pull cord; and

89. The site of the facility shall be kept free of litter, graffiti, and any other undesirable material at all times. The property owner and/or operator shall remove abandoned personal property, trash, litter and debris on a daily basis. Graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours of written notice from the city.

E. Maximum Number of Beds. No more than 25 beds shall be provided in any single emergency or homeless shelter.

Attachment 22

City of Concord

MEMORANDUM
February 25, 2025
TO: Concord City Council
FROM: Valerie Barone, City Manager
WRITTEN BY: Sophia Huckabay, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: Council continued the below actions from its meeting of February 4, 2025, for Council deliberation and direction to staff. Specifically, Council is considering the following:
(1) Whether/to what extent Concord Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter

19.40 Residential Tenant Protection Program should apply to rented single-family residences and rented condominiums, and (2) Whether/to what extent changes should be made to the Allowable Annual Rent Increase as defined in CMC Section 19.40.040.

Please note that public comment on this item was taken on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, and the public comment period is closed.

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

At the February 4, 2025, City Council meeting this item was opened as Agenda Item 3.a, and Council received a staff presentation and took approximately three hours of public comment, then closed the Public Comment period and continued the item to the February 25, 2025, City Council meeting. This link to the February 4, 2025, 1meeting contains the original staff report including its related attachments, as well as a video link to the meeting.

As this is a continued item, the staff report and all attachments from the February 4, 2025, meeting and all public comment received are still under consideration by the Council at the meeting on February 25, 2025.
1 https://stream.ci.concord.ca.us/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1264&doctype=1

5.a5.a5.a5.a5.a

In addition to the aforementioned materials, staff has provided additional information requested by the City Council during the February 4, 2025, Council meeting as attachments to this memo.

Specifically, the following documents have been attached at Council’s request:

1. Rent increase caps in California jurisdictions with rent stabilization/control, and just cause for eviction, relocation assistance, and rent registry requirements as they apply to rented single-family homes and condominiums: updated as of February 2025.

Further, the City Council asked for data on how many single-family homes and condominiums have been registered in the City’s Rent Registry Program and how many property owners have informed the City that their property is not a rental property. As a reminder, the City’s initial rental inventory list for single-family homes and condominiums was derived from information obtained from the Contra Costa County Assessor's Office on June 6, 2024, based on either the homeowner not filing a homeowners’ property tax exemption for the property, or the registered mailing address for the property differing from the address of the property. The City’s initial list included 7,999 single-family homes and condominiums that were “assumed” to be rental properties.

As of February 7, 2025, out of the 7,999 single-family homes and condominiums presumed to be rented, 959 (12%) have registered in the City’s Rent Registry, and owners of 408 (5%) of the properties have told the City that their properties are not rentals.

Please note that after the February 4, 2025, Council meeting, the City paused the registration requirements for rented single-family homes and condominiums until further notice. Property owners of these units were notified via mail of this action. Information of the paused registration requirements was also sent to the Housing Interested Parties email list. If the Council retains the requirement for rented single-family homes and condominium owners to register their properties in the Rent Registry program, a new registration deadline will be established, and property owners will be notified by mail of the new deadline. Note the deadline for multi-family property owners to complete their unit registrations in the Rent Registry and pay their fees remains February 28, 2025.

Next Steps: At the February 25, 2025, Council meeting direction will be provided to staff on if and how Council desires to apply the Just Cause for Eviction Protection requirements to rented single-family residences and rented condominiums, and whether and to what extent changes should be made to the Allowable Annual Rent Increase for multi-family complexes. Once that direction is received, staff will return to Council with a revised draft ordinance for Council consideration and introduction at its meeting on March 25, 2025.

The second reading of the Ordinance would occur on April 22, 2025, which would create an effective date for the updated ordinance of May 22, 2025, which is 30 days after the second reading.

Attachments:
1) Rent increase caps in California jurisdictions with rent stabilization/control, just cause for eviction, relocation assistance, and rent registry requirements for rented single-family homes and condominiums: Updated as of February 2025

2) Written public communication received between the February 4, 2025, Council meeting and the publication of this report

Rent Increase Caps in California Jurisdictions with Rent Stabilization/Control, and Just Cause for Eviction, Relocation Assistance and Rent Registry Requirements as Applied to Rented Single-Family Homes and Condominiums Updated as of February 2025
City % of CPI Cap % +/- CPI
Cap Max Cap Min Cap
(Floor)
Current
Allowable Rent
Increase
(2/18/25)
Just Cause
for Eviction
Apply to Single
Family Homes
Base
Relocation
Assistance for
Single Family
Homes
Rent Registry Apply to Single
Family Homes
State of CA - AB
1482 Tenant
Protection Act
5% + local
CPI 10%
Varies per
region –
Concord = 8.8%
Yes Dependent on
ownership
Dependent on
ownership -
One month of
tenant’s
current rent
No
Alameda City 70% of CPI 5% 1% 2.70% Yes Yes
$6,340 -
$12,242

(based on
number of
bedrooms)
Yes Yes
Antioch 60% of CPI 3% 1.44% Yes Yes 2 X current
monthly rent
Only for units
withdrawn
from rental
market
Yes
Baldwin Park 100% of CPI 5% 1% 3.90% Yes Yes

2.5 X monthly
HUD Fair
Market Rent
Yes No
Attachment 1

City % of CPI cap % +/- CPI
cap Max Cap Min Cap
(floor)
Current
Allowable Rent
Increase
(2/18/25)
Just Cause
for Eviction
Apply to Single
Family Homes
Base
Relocation
Assistance for
Single Family
Homes
Rent Registry Apply to Single
Family Homes
Bell Gardens 50% of CPI 4% 1.95% Yes Yes 3 X current
monthly rent Yes Yes
Berkeley 65% of CPI 7% 0% 2.10% Yes Yes $19 ,126 Yes Yes Beverly Hills 100% of CPI 3% 3.90% Yes No N/A Yes No
Burbank Yes
Some – same
exemptions as
AB 1482
Dependent on
ownership-
3 X current
monthly rent
No
Commerce 5% + local
CPI 10% 8.90% Yes
Some – same
exemptions as
AB 1482
1 X current
monthly rent No
Concord 60% of CPI 3% 0% 2.52% Yes Yes
2 X current
monthly rent +
$2,000
Yes Yes
Cudahy 100% of CPI 3% 3.00% Yes Yes 3 X current
monthly rent Yes No
Culver City 100% of CPI 5% 2% 3.25% Yes Yes
3 X monthly
HUD Fair
Market Rent +
$1,000
Yes Yes

City % of CPI cap % +/- CPI
cap Max Cap Min Cap
(floor)
Current
Allowable Rent
Increase
(2/18/25)
Just Cause
for Eviction
Apply to Single
Family Homes
Base
Relocation
Assistance for
Single Family
Homes
Rent Registry Apply to Single
Family Homes
East Palo Alto 80% of CPI 10% 0% 1.90% Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes El Cerrito No N/A Yes Yes
Emeryville Yes Yes (if owns 4
or more unit)
5X monthly
HUD Fair
Market Rent or
4X current
monthly rent,
whichever
greater
No
Fairfax
Rent
Stabilization
and Just
Cause for
Eviction
repealed by
voters

Glendale Yes No N/A No
Half Moon Bay 80% of CPI 3% 0% 2.6% Yes Yes 3 X current monthly rent Yes Yes
Hayward
5% 5.00% Yes Yes 1 X current
monthly rent No

City % of CPI cap % +/- CPI
cap Max Cap Min Cap
(floor)
Current
Allowable Rent
Increase
(2/18/25)
Just Cause
for Eviction
Apply to Single
Family Homes
Base
Relocation
Assistance for
Single Family
Homes
Rent Registry Apply to Single
Family Homes
Healdsburg 10% 10% No N/A No
Inglewood
(5+ units)
100% of CPI 10% 3% 3.90% Yes
Some – same
exemptions as
AB 1482
3X current
monthly rent +
$3,000
Yes Dependent on
ownership
Inglewood
(1-4 units)
5% + local
CPI 10% 8.90% Yes
Some – same
exemptions as
AB 1482
3X current
monthly rent +
$3,000
Yes Dependent on
ownership
Larkspur
5% + local
CPI 7% 7.00% Yes No N/A No No
Long Beach Yes
Some – same
exemptions as
AB 1482
N/A No
Los Angeles City
4% 4.00% Yes Yes 1 X current
monthly rent Yes Yes
Los Angeles
County
(Unincorporated)
General =
60% of CPI

Small
Owner = 1%
+ 60% of CPI

Luxury = 2%
+ 60% of CPI
8% 0%
General =

2.565%

Small Owners =

3.565%

Luxury = 4.565%
Yes Yes
$7,654 -
$14,759
(based on
number of
bedrooms)
Yes Yes

City % of CPI cap % +/- CPI
cap Max Cap Min Cap
(floor)
Current
Allowable Rent
Increase
(2/18/25)
Just Cause
for Eviction
Apply to Single
Family Homes
Base
Relocation
Assistance for
Single Family
Homes
Rent Registry Apply to Single
Family Homes
Los Gatos 70% of CPI 5% 5.00% No N/A No
Marin County Yes Yes (if owns 3
or more units) N/A Yes Yes (if owns 3
or more units)
Maywood 100% of CPI 4% 3.9% No N/A Yes Yes
Milpitas Yes No N/A No
Monterey No N/A Yes No
Mountain View 100% of CPI 5% 2% 2.40% Yes No N/A Yes Yes Oakland 60% of CPI 10% 3% 2.30% Yes Yes
$8,042.34 -
$12,218.17
(based on
number of
bedrooms)
Yes Yes
Ojai 4% 4.00% Yes No N/A No
Oxnard
4% 4.00% Yes No N/A Yes No
Palm Springs

75% of CPI 2.49% No No N/A Yes Yes

City % of CPI cap % +/- CPI
cap Max Cap Min Cap
(floor)
Current
Allowable Rent
Increase
(2/18/25)
Just Cause
for Eviction
Apply to Single
Family Homes
Base
Relocation
Assistance for
Single Family
Homes
Rent Registry Apply to Single
Family Homes
Palo Alto Yes
No, unless
corporate
ownership
N/A Yes No
Pasadena

75% of CPI 0% Yes Yes
$6,417 -
$21,286
(based on
number of
bedrooms and
length of
tenancy)
+ moving
expense of
$1,503
Yes Yes
Petaluma Yes
Yes (if own
more than 4
units)
Lesser of 250%
of one month
of rent or
$9,000
No
Pomona 100% of CPI 4% 4.00% Yes No N/A No
Richmond 60% of CPI 3% 0% 1.40% Yes Yes
$4,355.81 -
$18,255.22
(Based on
number of
bedrooms)
Yes Yes

City % of CPI cap % +/- CPI
cap Max Cap Min Cap
(floor)
Current
Allowable Rent
Increase
(2/18/25)
Just Cause
for Eviction
Apply to Single
Family Homes
Base
Relocation
Assistance for
Single Family
Homes
Rent Registry Apply to Single
Family Homes
Sacramento 5% + local
CPI 10% 8.80% Yes No N/A Yes No
Salinas 75% of CPI 2.75% 2.69% Yes No N/A Yes Yes
San Diego Yes Yes 2 X current
monthly rent Yes Yes
San Francisco 60% of CPI 1.40% Yes Yes
$7,912 -
$31,982.66
(based on
number of
bedrooms)
Yes Yes
San Jose 5% 5.00% Yes No N/A Yes No
San Rafael Yes
Yes (if own
more than 3
units)
2 X current
monthly rent No No
Santa Ana 80% of CPI 3% 3.00% Yes
Some – same
exemptions as
AB 1482
3 X current
monthly rent Yes
Some – same
exemptions as
AB 1482
Santa Barbara Yes
Some – same
exemptions as
AB 1482
N/A No No

City % of CPI cap % +/- CPI
cap Max Cap Min Cap
(floor)
Current
Allowable Rent
Increase
(2/18/25)
Just Cause
for Eviction
Apply to Single
Family Homes
Base
Relocation
Assistance for
Single Family
Homes
Rent Registry Apply to Single
Family Homes
Santa Cruz Yes
Some – same
exemptions as
AB 1482
2 X current
monthly rent No No
Santa Monica 75% of CPI 3% 0% 3.00% Yes Yes
$19,100 -
$36,600
(based on
number of
bedrooms)
Yes Yes
Union City Yes No N/A No No
Ventura Yes
Some – same
exemptions as
AB 1482
2 X current
monthly rent No No
West Hollywood 75% of CPI 3% 0% 3.00% Yes Yes
$9,087 -
$22,812
(based on
number of
bedrooms)
Yes Yes

Average 78.07% 4.0% 5.76% 1.41% 4.02%
Count (out of 54
listed jurisdictions) 26 7 31 24 38

From: Jeff Goyert <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 11:11 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: heather goyert <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Program. Hearing Feb 25th comment “EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ”
My family owns several single-family homes in Concord that we rent. I started living in Concord in the 1990’s and bought a few rental homes over the years. I also am a Real Estate Broker with an office on Clayton Rd. This new program has been a concern since it passed last year. We have already registered our properties and paid the fees required. I just got a letter now saying we should not have registered as it may now apply to us. It is very frustrating and confusing as this deadline has been pushed back several times already. I understand the rent cap does not apply to single family homes or condos. My understanding was we are required to register our rentals, and we had to have “just cause” to evict tenants going forward or pay tenants to leave our properties if we didn’t have just cause. If this program doesn’t apply to us, I would like a refund on the fees I paid to register. Our costs as landlords have skyrocketed over the past few years with cost of insurance going up over $1000 per property which over double what it was just last year. Construction and repair costs have also doubled in the last 5 years. HOA’s are charging huge assessments and increasing monthly fees after finding they can’t get insurance, and their budgeted repairs don’t line up with actual costs any longer. I think the rent cap of 3% is ridiculously low and is forcing many landlords out of business. Covid restrictions already put landlord in a bad position and halted any rent increases for several years. Many landlords had tenants not pay rent and never recovered. This is just another reason to sell our rental homes.

As a Real Estate Broker I can attest to the fact that many of my clients are selling their rentals in Concord. Long time landlords are fleeing the city. The price of Condos and rental homes are dropping with very little demand from investors. This is actually lowering the amount of rentals available for rent. Rentals that are being sold, are being bought by owner occupied buyers. I see rents rising because of this. I don’t see this program working for landlords or renters.

Attachment 2

Jeff Goyert
Northern California Real Estate Services Inc
Phone:800 474-2681
Fax: 925 726-2692
Website: www.norcalhome.net
DRE#01290813
NMLS#322684
Need to send me a file securely? Click Here
Click link below to fill out loan application
https://primaryrealestate.my1003app.com/322684/register Warning!!!
We will never provide you wire instructions so please never wire funds without checking with your Escrow officer directly.

This communication is from Northern California Real Estate Services Inc and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of this information. If you receive this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or re-disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information. ' . If the disclaimer can't be applied, attach the message to a new disclaimer message.

From: mark greenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 3:41 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark <[email protected]>
Subject: Bad Rent control against single family owners! I understand the Concord City Council will be considering possible changes to Concord’s horrible new rental control ordinance, which makes it almost impossible for individual homeowners like me to rent our home out if we need to. It also adversely affects renters, who are already experiencing rent increases and reduced rental availability.

Yes this ordinance is that bad, and it looks like the majority of the council now are seeing the light and are willing to consider major changes, but they need to hear your voices! I strongly encourage the Council to remove individually owned homes and condos from the ordinance!
Specifically -
Mayor Obringer, city council members, city staff;
First I would like to congratulate mayor Obringer for her re-election to council representing district 2 and her outstanding service to our community. I would also like to congratulate council member Benavente for his election to represent district 4.

I would like to comment tonight on probably the worst mistake our council made in 2024. That is the decision to include individually owned homes and condos in the scope of the rental control ordinance. This ordinance imposed costs and possession restrictions on individuals no different from large corporations like Blackstone. It assumes individual owners behave like large profit focused corporations and can keep their rentals forever. They don’t. Unlike big corporations, individual home owners have changing life circumstances. They may need to sell. They may need to move back into their home, and when they die, their children will need to sell.

What about Grandma in the nursing home using rental income from her home to pay expenses? What about the young couple relocating due to a work opportunity who need to rent their home now, but hope to return to Concord some day?
Individual homeowners owners like you and me, who NOW cannot rent their homes out temporarily, even if the renter agrees to lease for a few months or a few years. Lease terminations even when the homeowner dies are no longer legal under this crazy new law.

In April you will have an opportunity to reconsider this decision. Councilmember Benavente, you may be the swing vote on this. council members Obringer and Hoffmeister have said this ordinance goes too far and needs to change. I am hoping council members Nakamura and Aliano see the light too, but if not, this decision will come down to you.

I would encourage you to read the ordinance carefully, especially starting on page 16, where the so- called just cause rules are defined for individual homeowners. Did you know the ordinance prevents evictions even when homeowners need to sell their homes? Imagine putting your house on the market with the tenant living in it, and having to tell the prospective new owners they will have to do the eviction, pay the high moving expenses, and hire an attorney to manage the process? It makes selling impossible and therefore it makes renting impossible.

As homeowners learn about this horrible ordinance, they are leaving their homes vacant. New tenants suffer as rental availability is being reduced and rents are being increased. Big companies like Blackstone who have permanent rentals are laughing all the way to bank. Individual home owners like you and me who may want to rent their homes out for shorter terms or may need to sell are in a world of hurt.

Please do the right thing and replace this unjust ordinance with something that treats both tenants and individual homeowners fairly.

Sincerely,
Mark Greenberg
Crystal Ranch

From: Marla Lucas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 4:36 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Law
Hello City of Concord,
I wanted to share that I am NOT in favor of the rental ordinance the city adopted. I hope the city council removes single-family homes from the rental control ordinance. My husband and I have owned our home since July 2021 in Concord and there is a possibility that we will need to rent out our house due to a temporary job relocation.

The way the current guidelines are written, you, the City Council have given the renter more rights than the homeowner. We do NOT want to sell our home; however, given how the ordinance is written, we will have to let our house sit empty while we are gone instead of using the rental income to pay the mortgage.

Please do better and remove single-family homes from the rent control ordinance.

Best regards,
Marla Lucas
776 Tiffany Pl, Concord, CA

From: meinayoung1 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 5:00 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Ordnance Reconsideration
Dear Mayor and City Council,
We are Business and Housing Network (BAHN), with thousands of small property owners, mainly immigrants, who are struggling to sustain the rapidly rising costs of running a rental business while being beaten by the rent regulations.

We agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4.

We maintain that the city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

Studies show that unsustainable and restrictive rent caps and just cause ordinances and requirements hinder housing providers’ ability to continue providing rental housing for renters; these extreme policies only exacerbate the housing shotage.

Thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for making this request and for some City Council members being open to reconsideration. We as housing providers welcome this change in your decision-making process.

Sincerely,
Meina Young
President of Business and Housing Network (BAHN)
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S8, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone

From: Peter P <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:54 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent Control Reconsideration
Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing to support the city's decision to review the rent control ordinance. Rent control is a bad policy for the City of Concord because:

1. Concord has a lot of open spaces for development, rent control scares away developers.

2. Rent control discourages home owners from building more ADUs.

3. Rent control comes with Just Cause Eviction which makes it impossible to evict bad tenants, a lot of people are afraid of renting. It creates bad situations like San Francisco where on the one hand there's a housing shortage and on the other hand there are 60 thousand vacant units in the city because the housing providers are scared of the risks. .

4. When bad tenants stay, good tenants will eventually leave. This is bad for the business and the community. It creates dangerous and declining cities like Oakland. Your neighbor Antioch is another Oakland in the making: Destroying the police department in the name of racism and strict rent control and just cause eviction has resulted in much more crimes in the City of Antioch.

Concord must do better. The first step to take is to repeal the rent control ordinance.

Peter Jinda Pan
Real Estate Broker
Tel: 510-599-8887
Email: [email protected]
DRE LICENSE # 01020033,
WE APPRECIATE YOUR REFERRALS.

From: JANET KREUTZINGER <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 4:12 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Reconsider Rent Control Ordinance
To all Council members,
Please reconsider the Concord Rent Control Ordinance .

I have attended many of your city rent control meetings in the past. We were always told that It would not be applied to single family homes and condominiums. Then 3 of you changed it.

I ask/demand that you please restore the rent cap to 5% plus CPI in order to align with the California state law. The repairs, water, garbage, PG&E keep going up much higher than what Concord allows us to increase the rent.

Homeowners insurance has now become another expensive nightmare for us.

The 5% plus CPI makes it more equal and fair for landlords and tenants together, instead of the way Concord has set their rent control.

Most homes are not owned by corporations but rather a medium income family who saved and scrapped to buy the house.

To keep up the repairs/maintenance on a single family home is more expensive and involved than on 1 unit in an apartment building.

My personal experience with repairs have been expensive nightmares. Damages not remodeling, one time cost me $85,000. Another time $10,000. We try to keep the property looking nice but I just can’t . Rent control needs to be fair.

Just Cause Eviction:

Two months rent of ($3000) +($3000)=$6000 + ($2000 or $3000) stipend = $9000 that the landlord would have to keep in reserve. That is too much…
Sincerely,
Janet Kreutzinger

From: valerie france <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 5:21 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Chip Congdon <[email protected]>
Subject: "Just cause eviction" subsidies from new tenant ordinance Dear Concord council members,
My husband & I have kept our first house in Concord after moving away 22 years ago. It has been a rental ever since with its ups and downs. We've always kept the rent fairly low and definitely lower than the average rent for the area.

As it turns out, my husband & I are going though a separation and the only way for us to stay in the Bay area is for one of us to move back into our own house in Concord. To our horror, we found out that we needed to pay our tenants 2 months rent + $2,000 moving stipend -that's over $8K for us- out of our savings account. Talking about bad timing with this new ordinance! We served our tenants, who found a new place right away in the same neighborhood; we are happy about it but they left really quickly, gave us their 30-day notice, so we now have to carry both mortgages, property taxes and utility fees for both houses until our current place is sold....what a burden on a really emotionally draining circumstances. We remember being tenants ourselves, reason why we always kept the rent affordable for our tenants but this ordinance and its just clause eviction is adding salt to our wounds. For an owner to move back to his/her rental is never an ideal situation and is often due to financial hardship or divorce or both. It does not make sense that when an owner moves back in, he/she is being hit by such a financial burden.

We are asking the City of Concord to reconsider the 2 months payment + moving stipend coming out of owner's pockets when owner or close relative is moving back into their property.

Sincerely,
Valerie & Clarke Congdon

From: yiting ding <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 6:17 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control
Honorable City Council Members,
I have one rental house in concord. I am writing to support the city's decision to review the rent control ordinance. Rent control is a bad policy because it can lead to a decrease in the quality and quantity of available rental housing, discourage new construction, and ultimately make housing less affordable in the long run by creating a mismatch between supply and demand, even though it may seem to help current tenants in the short term by keeping rents artificially low; this is due to landlords having less incentive to maintain properties or build new ones when profits are capped by rent control regulations. More details as below,

1. Concord has a lot of open spaces for development, rent control scares away developers.

2. Rent control discourages home owners from building more ADUs.

3. Rent control comes with Just Cause Eviction which makes it impossible to evict bad tenants, a lot of people are afraid of renting. It creates bad situations like San Francisco where on the one hand there's a housing shortage and on the other hand there are 60 thousand vacant units in the city because the housing providers are scared of the risks.

4. When bad tenants stay, good tenants will eventually leave. This is bad for the business and the community. It creates dangerous and declining cities like Oakland. Your neighbor Antioch is another Oakland in making: Destroying the police department in the name of racism and strict rent control and just cause eviction has resulted in much more crimes in Antioch.

Concord can and must do better. The first step to take is to repeal the rent control ordinance.

Yiting Din

From: Jenny <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 7:06 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control
Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing to support the city's decision to review the rent control ordinance. Rent control is a bad policy for concord .

Concord can and must do better. The first step to take is to repeal the rent control ordinance.

Thank you very much !
Jenny

From: steve tan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 7:09 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Repeal rent control ordinance please!
Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing to support the city's decision to review the rent control ordinance. Rent control is a bad policy for the City of Concord because:

1. Concord has a lot of open spaces for development, rent control scares away developers.

2. Rent control discourages home owners from building more ADUs.

3. Rent control comes with Just Cause Eviction which makes it impossible to evict bad tenants, a lot of people are afraid of renting. It creates bad situations like San Francisco where on the one hand there's a housing shortage and on the other hand there are 60 thousand vacant units in the city because the housing providers are scared of the risks.

4. When bad tenants stay, good tenants will eventually leave. This is bad for the business and the community. It creates dangerous and declining cities like Oakland. Your neighbor Antioch is another Oakland in making: Destroying the police department in the name of racism and strict rent control and just cause eviction has resulted in much more crimes in Antioch.

Concord can and must do better. The first step to take is to repeal the rent control ordinance.

Best Regards,
Steve Tan
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

From: Camille Calenda <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 6:22 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council,
We support your decision to bring forward a discussion on the city's rent control ordinance during the February 4 meeting. However, we continue to believe that the current ordinance is overly harsh and should have been rejected outright.

We encourage further discussion on revisiting the rent cap, as it is both unsustainable and overly restrictive. Additionally, we believe it is important for the city to reconsider the just cause ordinance and remove provisions that limit housing providers' ability to effectively manage rental properties for the benefit of Concord’s renters.

A special thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for initiating this conversation and to those Council members who are open to re-evaluating the issue. As housing providers, we welcome this opportunity for constructive dialogue and potential change. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Camille Calenda
Ph. 831-621-6196 or Cell: 831-915-0091
Fax: 831-920-2889
Email: [email protected]

From: adam price <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 8:19 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rental ordinance
Hello, i have owned real estate in concord since 2001. This new ordinance would be a catalyst to sell as yet another strain/cost that would be absorbed by landlords.This in turn would be making it harder to rent without somehow affecting the overall supply of rentals as landlords WILL liquidate their real estate in the city.

This is forcing the hand of oversight and control . Please reconsider this draconian policy Adam Price
Concord 925-687-9922

From: Paul L <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 10:48 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 2/4/2025 Rent Control follow up
Hello City Clerk and Council members. I attended the 2/4/2025 city council meeting and was unable to stay to present my comments. Thank you for taking your time and consideration to read my attached letter.

Much appreciated
Paul L

2/5/2025
Concord Council Members
Carlyn S Obringer
Laura M Nakamura
Dominic D Aliano
Pablo Benavente
Laura M Hoffmeister
RE: City Council Meeting 2/4/2025 Residential Tenant Protection Program Dear Council members,
I attended the meeting on 2/4/2025 and was unable to stay long enough to present my comments.

Thank you for taking your time and consideration to read my letter.

The tenant protection portions of the single family home ordinance should be reconsidered, modified or terminated. The following is one example of how the ordinance will create extreme financial and emotional hardship to the owners of rented Single Family homes.

Under the ordinance if an owner of a rented sf home wants to sell the home for any reason the owner cannot terminate the tenancy without cause prior to selling. After the close of escrow the new owner will be responsible to terminate the tenancy which will likely require eviction and take 3- 12 months to obtain possession.

If the seller wants to renovate and or remodel the home prior to selling the owner must relocate and provide housing for the tenants at the owners expense, and after the remodel the owner must relocate the existing tenants back into the remodeled home prior to selling.

Has the council members thoroughly considered the following.

1. Typical remodels take 4-6 months. If the owner is required to pay for the tenants relocation and housing costs of approx. $20,000 which is an extreme financial hardship, most if not all owners will not remodel the home prior to selling. This will significantly reduce remodels in concord and result in the loss of many remodeling jobs. Not remodeling a home that has been a rental for many years prior to selling it will significantly reduce the potential buyers and reduce the selling price a minimum of $75,000 which will result in less money for the seller and reduced property tax for the city of Concord, this loss of increase in property tax will be on going.

2. Will prospective buyers want to purchase a home knowing they will have to evict the uncooperative tenant to obtain possession? (this will significantly limit the buyers and potential selling price)

3. Will prospective buyers want to purchase a home not knowing the final condition of the home? The new buyer wont have possession for months after the close of escrow due to the tenant occupying the home, many tenants may damage the home prior to vacating.

4. Will a prospective buyer want to take the financial and emotional risk of dealing with an uncooperative tenant ? (evictions can take 3-12 months and cost a minimum of $5,000) Evictions are very stressful for everyone especially the owner.

5. Most owner occupied loans require the new owner taking possession within 60 days of close of escrow. If the new owner has to evict the tenant they wont have possession with in those first 60 days. Failing to take possession of a home within 60 days on a owner occupied loan is considered a breach of the loan agreement and can have serious consequences including potential foreclosure action from the lender. If the lender finds out there is an uncooperative tenant occupying the home the lender is likely not going to approve and or fund the loan. (Most potential buyers will not want to take this risk) This section is extremely unfair, one sided and will create extreme financial and emotional hardship. I request at a minimum this section be removed from the Ordinance.

I think it would be a great idea and very helpful to everyone to have a forum in which the city invites only the property owners to attend a question and answer meeting at which time you can here directly from the owners with no time limit for there comments. Hear there concerns and suggestions on how we can work together as partners to solve the issues of most importance. In addition I am available to meet with any and or all council members if I can be of further assistance.

Thank you again for your time and consideration
Sincerely
Paul Livson
925 408 5600

From: Doug Kell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 11:40 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control ordinance
Dear City Council members;
As a follow-up to my 2/3 email I reviewed an article in the Mercury News 2/6/24 concerning the Alameda County Board of Supervisors’ discussion on tenant ordinances.

Supervisor Nate Miley … ” stressed the need for government to balance the concerns of both landlords and tenants, ” .

This is a quote by Mr. Miley: “I will not do anything that will harm either side…when you hurt small landlords, and you drive small property owners out of the market, you’re only causing more vacancies and homelessness. “
Please consider exempting small landlords (5 units or less) and particularly single family homes from the Ordinance. We are not the corporate owners of large apartment complexes that the tenant advocate groups seemed to be referring to in their testimonies at the 2/4/25 council meeting.

Thank you for your consideration .

Doug Kell

From: curt snarr <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:41 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent control ordinance
As a single family homeowner I am writing to express my strong disappointment with the city council and opposition to this ordinance. While I understand the need for affordable housing, but the burden to provide support for renters should not be transferred from one element of the community (renters) to another (small rental owners). The responsabilty for affordable housing lies with the federal housing authority. It should be recognized that the need for support is greatly outweighed by the budget, and approved vouchers, of the section 8 program which has been in place for over 40 years. If the federal government can not afford to meet this need it is unreasonable to transfer the burden to homeowners within the concord community by controlling and usurping property rights. The city should respect homeowners as equally valuable members of the community and recognize they pay property taxes supporting the county and city. If large investors, from outside the community, have been proven to abuse renters in concord it may be justifiable to exercise control and regulation on them only. However, it has been demonstrably proven in sf, Oakland and Berkeley that policies mirroring this ordinance are proven ineffective . Rents in these cities are highest in the nation after years of poorly architected and managed rent control efforts.

These rent controls have not provided greater housing development and have created a contentious and costly bureaucratic operations for those cities.

From: Weizhong Zhu
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:36 PM
To: Concord City Council Email
Subject: Rent Control Ordinance
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a property owner who owns a small condo rental unit in concord. I have been struggling to sustain the rapidly rising costs of running a rental property including HOA Dues, maintenance cost, insurance, utility, …while also being burdened by very difficult, confusing, and complex rent ordinances and regulations.

We agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on February 4th. We maintain that the city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected. Studies show that unsustainable and restrictive rent caps and just cause ordinances and requirements hinder housing providers’ ability to continue providing rental housing for renters; these extreme policies only exacerbate the housing shortage.

Thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for making this request and for some City Council members being open to reconsideration. We as housing providers welcome this change in your decision-making process. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
John Zhu

From: lifeisreal
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 3:36 PM
To: Concord City Council Email
Subject: House owner of concord
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am the member of Business and Housing Network (BAHN), with thousands of small property owners, mainly immigrants, who are struggling to sustain the rapidly rising costs of running a rental business while being beaten by the rent regulations.

I am agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb.

4. I , maintain that the city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

Studies show that unsustainable and restrictive rent caps and just cause ordinances and requirements hinder housing providers’ ability to continue providing rental housing for renters; these extreme policies only exacerbate the housing shotage.

Thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for making this request and for some City Council members being open to reconsideration. I , as housing providers welcome this change in your decision-making process.

Sincerely,
Wan Wu
Household of concord city

From: Sara Harkness <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2025 10:55 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rescind Rent Control
Dear City Council Members,
Please consider rescinding the current rent control ordinance to the one that aligns with the state policy.

Also, please exempt single family homes or exempt landlords who own a single rental property in Concord.

I am not a wealthy corporation gouging the poor but a single retiree who already subsidizes renters with below market rent.

As an owner of one sfr property in Concord I have endured hardship to maintain a property where renters are not invested in its care or maintenance. Expenses continue to increase yearly: taxes, insurance, gardening, painting, roofing, plumbing, electrical, tree trimming, landscaping, fencing, new appliances, pest control, HVAC, repairs, etc., are all maintenance items not supported by renters, but born solely by landlords.

With prohibitive rent control I will not be able to keep this property which is my retirement income and which supports and houses a family in Concord who would ultimately then be displaced.

Please reconsider the cumulative impact of your restrictive ordinance and adopt one that better serves all parties.

Thank you.

Sincere regards,
Sara Harkness

From: madhu grandhi <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2025 1:53 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council,
We agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4.

We maintain that the city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

We support a discussion on re-evaluating the unsustainable and restrictive rent cap. In addition, the city should review the just cause ordinance and remove requirements that hinder housing providers’ ability to continue providing rental housing for Concord renters.

Thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for making this request and for some City Council members being open to reconsideration. We as housing providers welcome this change in your decision-making process.

Regards
Madhu Grandhi
510 270 2048

From: Robin McGann <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:34 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor and City Council,
We agree with your decision to agendize a discussion on the city’s rent control ordinance on Feb. 4.

We maintain that the city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

We support a discussion on re-evaluating the unsustainable and restrictive rent cap. In addition, the city should review the just cause ordinance and remove requirements that hinder housing providers’ ability to continue providing rental housing for Concord renters. Do you really want to "price" landlords out of the rental market? If this ordinance is not changed, I, for one, will just sell my property and another rental property will be off the market.

Thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for making this request and for some City Council members being open to reconsideration. We as housing providers welcome this change in your decision-making process.

From: Gary Aulakh <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 8:39 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Adjustment on Rent Control Policies Needed!
Hello,
I am a resident of Concord and am also a housing provider in Concord. I have family members that also provide housing for the city of Concord (apartment buildings and houses). We are going to be suffering, as housing providers and business owners, at the hands of these ill-fated policies put forth by the City Council. We need to have these policies removed or altered to better impact the city for the future.

The reality of housing is difficult for every single American, not just renters. Insurance costs have nearly doubled and will continue to go up significantly every single year! Utility costs have increased greatly and will continue to go up significantly every single year! Labor and materials costs have shot up and are going to up significantly every single year! These are costs mostly resting on the shoulders of property owners (utilities sometimes passed to tenants, but not always). It is not fair, it is ill-fated, and is short-sighted, to force property owners who have worked their whole lives to acquire properties to provide housing for Concord residents to have to be the sole people shouldering the burdens of these costs while enacted rent control policies. Enacting rent control policies will damage both renters, property owners, and the community as a whole.

Effects of Rent Control Policies:
• Increased market rent prices
• increase property values, making owning property even more difficult for your average person
• Lack of funds for property owners to repair properties so buildings get to be in disrepair and become problems for the city and communities
• Renters are forced, because of public policy, to remain in apartment units for long periods of time when they really want freedom and mobility, which then negatively impacts their lives.
• lower tax revenue for the city
Homes (including ADU's) and Condos should be exempt from any rent control policies.

Relocation fees should be lowered.

Housing providers providing enough notice (120+ days) should be exempt from relocation fees.

What we really need is aggressive pro-building, YIMBY policies to provide more housing. Every city in the US that has promoted building housing has seen rent levels level-out and even drop significantly (Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Memphis, etc).

Concord needs to be forward-thinking, abandon short-sighted policies, and promote building more housing quickly INSTEAD of enacting rent controls which will drastically harm all residents of Concord.

Do the right thing for the City of Concord. The future can be bright if you make the right decisions.

Best,
Gary

From: Massoud. Fanaieyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 6:00 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Amenment to City Municipal Code 19.40, Rent Registery Dear City Clerk, Concord City Council,
It is my understanding that the topic of registering single family homes will be discussed in the upcoming meeting scheduled for Feb 25th. It is also my understanding that the meeting is not open to the public but the public can provide feedback by email which is the intent of this communication. I also heard that there have been other sessions open to public that I somehow never heard about and didn't get a chance to provide feedback.

We own a few properties in Concord including our first house ever that we love and hope to move back to one day. However due to my long commute to San Francisco we ended up moving out but kept it as a rental. This news of registering houses in Concord, as perhaps the first stages for rent stabilization (rent control as commonly known) down the road was devastating to us as we have seen what damages it had caused to the properties in San Francisco and Berkeley as some examples. The property owners in these areas refused to keep up and improve their investment properties since they were not able to recover the improvements made to the properties. Needless to say it had a huge negative impact on the value of the properties in these areas with the rent control. Both cities have dropped or significantly modified their restrictions.

It is our hope that this program City of Concord is considering is dropped permanently.

Warmest regards,
Massoud and Ziba Fanaieyan

From: John Jackson- KW <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:24 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Tenant protections- Concord
Hello Ms. Hoffmeister,
I am writing in regards to the tenant protection considerations being addressed coming up at the February 25 city council meeting.

I am a local realtor with Keller Williams East Bay (Lic. #02123606). I work with buyers and sellers in the area of all ages and lifestyles. I would like to encourage the council to exempt single family and condo landlords from any tenant protection act policies. These policies inhibit their rights to freely pursue the dreams of housing and financial mobility and they limit the supply of good homes on the market.

The reason I ask that these policies exempt single family and condo landlords is that doing so will harm both property owners, prospective buyers, and ultimately the city of Concord.

I appreciate your time and am grateful for your service.

Thank you,
John Jackson
Keller Williams Realty East Bay
(925) 640-6446

From: animo3 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 10:20 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Concorde Rental Registration Program - REMOVE single family homes and condominiums
“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the City of Concord. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ”
February 17, 2025
City of Concord – Housing Division
1950 Parkside Drive (M/s 10A), Concord, California 94519 Vote to REMOVE single family homes and condiminiums from the City of Concord Residential Tenant Protection Program.

Modest rent control measures can be a fair and a reasonable way to keep rents in Concord stable.

This must be based on cost-of-living considerations with the understanding that both tenants and landlords need equal consideration and protection under the law. A light touch is what is needed here.

Policies currently under review by Concord’s Housing Division are likely to cause an undue burden on landlords. Rent rollbacks, rent increase of no more than 2.52%, pay for a tenant’s moving costs, and prohibiting owner move-in eviction of families with school aged children. These requirements ensure an unequal burden on the landlord and an excessive gain for the tenants.

The most egregious policy is allowing renters to stay in the rental property while it is being sold. This will result in a substantial financial loss to landlords selling their house. A rental property that has had the same tenants for 10 years will certainly need to be upgraded. Painting, and flooring upgrades are best done without furniture and residents. Staging would also be out of the question.

An adequate notice to the tenants is more than sufficient. This provision completely ignores the landlord’s financial situation. Equal consideration for tenants and landlords is the equitable action to take. When an owner decides to sell their house, the owner should be allowed to ask the tenants to move out. Will the City of Concord compensate owners for the financial loss that will be inevitable when they sell their tenant occupied house or condo? The only person that will benefit is a “flipper” that purchases the house at a discount, evicts the tennants and does the upgrades to the house after the renters move out.

None of these regulations consider the landlord. My mom owns a rental property in Concord. She is 88 years old, lives in an assisted living facility and depends on the income from her Concord home.

She pays her property tax, and provides safe and comfortable living conditions for her tenants. The tenants have lived in her Concord house for 10 years. My mom hasn’t raised the rent in 10 years.

When and if she is ready to sell the property, she should be free to notify the tenants according to her lease and they can find alternative living conditions without Concord’s rental board stepping in.

This should be a fair deal for all. Causing undue burden on landlords will drive rental properties out of Concord. Landlords take all of the risk. The actions of the Concord Rental Board are likely to make the housing situation in Concord worse.

The Concord Rental Board has been sloppy. The original Rental Registration Form required landlords to provide the City of Concord with the tenant's name, phone number and email.

I called to ask whether Concord had the authority to collect this information. They told me that in fact they didn’t have that authority. They told me we shouldn't provide this information. They also informed me that the stated deadline of January 19, 2025 was changed to February 28, 2025. I lated called to ask additional information about this registration form and was informed that registration was put on hold for single family homes and condominiums until the vote on February 25. I want to help my mom comply with all of City of Concord’s requirements. We all have family members that pay rent. It is fair and just to look out for renters. Putting a choke hold on landlords will NOT accomplish this goal.

Warm Regards,
Jan Thomas

From: Cindy Brumley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 1:35 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Rent Control Reconsideration
Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please see the attached letter for your consideration.

Thank-you,
Cindy Brumley
Brumley Properties, LLC
P .O. Box 354
Clayton, CA 94517
925-381-1719

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 2:24 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura
<[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]> Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Do not expand the tenant protection program- it will harm the community Dear Members of the Concord City Council,
I respectfully demand that the City Council take the following actions regarding Ordinance No. 24-3 and the Residential Tenant Protection Program:

1. Do Not Expand the Tenant Protection Program to Include Single-Family Homes and Condominiums
• The current ordinance already imposes significant regulatory burdens on landlords, including just cause eviction requirements and a rent registry, which disproportionately harm small property owners. Extending these restrictions to single-family homes and condominiums would further infringe on property rights and discourage investment in Concord’s rental market.
• The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (California Civil Code § 1954.50 et seq.) explicitly exempts single-family homes and condominiums from rent control, reflecting state policy to preserve flexibility for these property types. Expanding just cause eviction rules to these units conflicts with the intent of state law and risks legal challenges.
• Small landlords, who often rely on single-family rentals for income, would face excessive compliance costs, such as relocation assistance fees (up to $14,000 for no-fault evictions), making it financially unfeasible to rent these properties. This could reduce rental housing supply, exacerbating Concord’s housing shortage.

2.Increase the Annual Allowable Rent Increase to Match California State Law • The current ordinance caps annual rent increases at 3% or 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is lower, which is stricter than the statewide limit under AB 1482 (Tenant Protection Act of 2019). AB 1482 allows rent increases of 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living (CPI), up to a maximum of 10%. • Concord’s stricter cap fails to account for rising maintenance, insurance, and property tax costs, which often exceed the CPI. This undermines landlords’ ability to maintain properties, leading to deferred maintenance and declining housing quality.
• Aligning with state law would provide a fair balance between tenant protections and landlords’ ability to earn a reasonable return, consistent with constitutional

protections under the Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment) and due process principles.

Rationale for These Demands
• Legal Concerns: Expanding the Tenant Protection Program to single-family homes and condominiums risks violating state law and constitutional protections, including preemption under Costa-Hawkins and potential regulatory takings claims. The current rent cap may also be challenged as confiscatory, violating due process. • Economic Impact: Stricter regulations and rent caps discourage new housing development and maintenance, worsening Concord’s housing crisis. Data from similar markets (e.g., San Francisco) show that rent control reduces rental supply and increases rents for non- controlled units.
• Community Impact: Small landlords, who own a significant portion of Concord’s rental stock, face disproportionate burdens that may force them to sell or convert properties, reducing affordable housing options for tenants.

Request for Action
I urge the City Council to:
• Reject any proposals to extend the Tenant Protection Program to single-family homes and condominiums, preserving these property types for flexible use and investment. • Amend Ordinance No. 24-3 to align the annual allowable rent increase with AB 1482, setting the cap at 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living (up to 10%), to ensure fairness and sustainability for both tenants and landlords.

I request a written response to this demand within 30 days, outlining the Council’s position and any planned actions. I also encourage the Council to hold public hearings to allow broader community input on these critical issues.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.

Azita Berloui
comm

From: Ashley Provost <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:59 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Repeal rent control please
Good morning,

I write to express my staunch desire to repeal the residential rent control ordinance passed last year. I have owned and operated my home staging business on Shary Circle for 15 years, and I have owned that property in Concord for about 5 years.

As a home stager I am ground-level in real estate, often the second person to know when a home is being sold just after the listing realtor. While homes selling does benefit my business in the short- term, ultimately I feel strongly that rent control is bad for housing in Concord. And you will see homes selling as a result of this.

Just in this last year I have seen many landlords choosing to sell their newly rent-controlled investment properties, leaving fewer rentals. These are often the most affordable, accessible rentals and now they are not available to rent, reducing concord residents’ housing options. I know one landlord who is selling FORTY concord condos, removing them from the rental market. This is a loss for affordable housing in the Bay Area.

Additionally, this of course also ultimately lowers home values. And I would argue goes against the American Dream.

Thank you for your time.

Thanks!
Ashley

Ashley Provost Design
925-788-8624
Www.ashleyprovostdesign.com
Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Ashley-Provost-Design-109987652347185/

From: Michael Reiser <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 9:59 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Attorney Letter in Support of Concord Tenant Protection Ordinance

Good Morning City Clerk,

I have attached a letter in support of Concord’s Residential Tenant Protection Program. I would appreciate it if it was read and considered before the council’s deliberations on February 25th.

Thank you and have a great day,

Michael Reiser Jr.

2702 Clayton Road, Ste. 202
Concord CA 94519
Tel.: (925) 609-7900
Fax: (925) 609-7901

February 18, 2025

Honorable Members of the Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

Dear Council Members:

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding potential changes to Concord's Residential Tenant Protection Program. As a staff attorney at Contra Costa Senior Legal Services and a lifelong member of the Claycord community, I bring both professional expertise and personal investment to this issue. Having graduated from De La Salle High School in 2005, I chose to build my legal career serving the community that helped raise me. I work daily with Concord's senior population, using the Tenant Protection Program as a vital tool to prevent displacement and homelessness among our most vulnerable residents.

When the Residential Tenant Protection Program was established last year, I was proud to see Concord take this bold step to protect its residents, particularly given our city's history of standing up for working families and seniors. Now, barely a year into implementation, I am deeply troubled by proposals to weaken the ordinance by removing just cause protections for single-family homes.

I have seen firsthand how this ordinance has already begun to make a positive difference in the lives of Concord's seniors. Every week, I work with elderly clients who, thanks to these protections, have the time and resources they need to safely transition to new housing rather than facing immediate displacement or homelessness. Any weakening of these protections, particularly for single-family homes, would be devastating to our community.

The proposal to remove just cause protections from single-family homes is particularly troubling given that over 57% of Concord's housing stock consists of single-family homes. This would effectively gut the ordinance, leaving the majority of Concord's tenants vulnerable to arbitrary eviction. We cannot ignore that 35% of California's single-family rental homes are owned by corporate entities, not individual homeowners. These corporations can landlords absolutely afford to provide basic protections to their tenants.

The human cost of weakening these protections would be immense. When seniors are evicted, they often face dire circumstances:

 Many live on fixed incomes and cannot afford rapidly rising rents  Physical and mental health typically deteriorates significantly after eviction  The trauma of displacement can accelerate cognitive decline

2702 Clayton Road, Ste. 202
Concord CA 94519
Tel.: (925) 609-7900
Fax: (925) 609-7901

 Finding new housing is especially challenging for seniors with mobility issues or medical needs
 Many end up living in their cars or on the streets, leading to costly emergency room visits

From a fiscal perspective, protecting tenants saves our city money. The cost of services for one homeless senior - including emergency medical care, crisis response, and shelter services - far exceeds the cost of providing relocation assistance and reasonable time to find new housing.

Prevention is both more humane and more cost-effective than managing the aftermath of displacement.

The role of local government should be to protect its most vulnerable residents, not to maximize returns for corporate landlords. Our seniors have contributed to this community for decades - they've paid taxes, volunteered, raised families here, and helped build Concord into what it is today. They deserve to age in place with dignity and security.

As someone who works directly with Concord's senior tenants every day, I urge you to maintain and strengthen our existing tenant protections. The current ordinance represents a carefully crafted balance between landlord and tenant interests. It provides crucial stability for our community while still allowing landlords to make reasonable returns on their investments.

Our seniors need more protection, not less. Rather than rolling back these vital safeguards, we should be looking at ways to enhance them and ensure they're working effectively for all parties.

Concord took a brave stand for its residents when it passed this ordinance. Let's not retreat from that commitment now.

Thank you for your consideration of this crucial issue.

Sincerely,

Michael Reiser Jr.

Staff Attorney
Contra Costa Senior Legal Services

February 17, 2025

Mayor Carlyn Obringer
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519

Dear Mayor Carlyn and City Council Members,

We hope that your ruling on February 25th on the current rent ordinance will be amended to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. Please consider separating the rental units owned by mom and pop and those owned by large businesses/corporations into two categories. This is not a “one size fits all” ordinance.

Mom and pop rental units of 20 or less should be excluded from your current ordinance.

We strongly believe that this new ordinance is making it harder for those owners to survive. Understandably, the business rentals will still likely do well as they have the funding and should be held accountable to tenants as opposed to the mom and pop owners who are already willing to share their housing at a livable cost.

For those of us who have lived here most of our lives, we feel you should exclude single family dwellings as well.

Thanking you in advance for making the right decisions.

Respectfully,

Eizo and Mary Kobayashi

-----Original Message-----
From: Staged the Magnolia Way <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:47 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Repeal rent control

I do not support the rent control law that passed last year.

Please consider repealing the ordinance.

Thank you,
Veronica

From: Lauren McLane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:54 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control ordinance
Hello,

I am a realtor, local property owner and active community participant.

I want to share my concern over the just cause eviction and rent control ordinances.

Should these be enforced, many of us will be forced to sell our properties as the restrictions will not allow us to keep up with the increased cost of maintaining them.

Additionally, as a realtor, I fear that this which actually hurt tenants as it is not likely investors will purchase in Concord in the future, leaving a shortage of rentals.

I ask that you take these concerns into consideration. Thank you for all you do for our community.

Warm regards,
Lauren

If you know someone who is looking to make a move, please let me know, your referrals are always appreciated!

Want to schedule a time to talk? Head to https://calendly.com/homesbylauren/meeting-with- lauren to book!

From: Sacha Simpson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:51 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Sacha Simpson <[email protected]>
Subject: Fair Housing for All: Protecting Tenants Without Punishing Landlords Honorable Members of the City Council,
As real estate professionals, we all agree—tenant rights must be protected. However, Concord’s new rent control law risks unfairly burdening landlords, and it’s critical that the city council re- evaluates its approach to ensure a balanced policy that works for everyone.

With 36 years in this industry, I’ve seen what happens when rent control policies are implemented without adequate safeguards for property owners. When landlords face excessive restrictions and financial strain, the long-term consequences can be devastating—not just for them, but for the entire housing market.

Why Protecting Landlords Matters

1. Maintaining Housing Supply – If landlords can’t cover rising costs or make a fair return on investment, many will be forced to sell or convert their properties, ultimately reducing the number of available rental units. A shrinking rental market leads to even higher rents and fewer options for tenants—ironically hurting those the law intends to protect.

2. Encouraging Property Maintenance & Investment – Rental properties require ongoing maintenance, upgrades, and repairs. If landlords are financially squeezed due to rigid rent control policies, they may struggle to keep up with maintenance, leading to deteriorating housing conditions for tenants.

3. Attracting Responsible Housing Providers – Private landlords play a crucial role in the rental market. If policies make it too difficult for them to operate, it pushes small, local property owners out, leaving only large corporate investors who may not have the same level of community care and personal investment in maintaining quality housing.

4. Preventing Unintended Evictions & Vacancy Issues – When landlords feel trapped by restrictive policies, they may look for ways to sell their property or find alternatives to traditional leasing. This could lead to more properties being converted into short-term rentals or sitting vacant, again reducing options for long-term tenants.

5. Promoting Fairness – Rent control policies should not assume that all landlords are large corporations or predatory investors. Many are small, local property owners who rely on rental income to support their families, pay mortgages, and keep their properties in good condition. They deserve fair treatment and the ability to operate their business without excessive restrictions.

A Call for a Balanced Approach

Tenant protections and landlord rights should not be opposing forces. A sustainable housing market depends on a fair and balanced policy that encourages property owners to stay invested in rental housing while ensuring tenants have access to stable, affordable homes.

I urge the city council to reconsider the current rent control policy and work toward a solution that acknowledges the needs of both tenants and landlords. A collaborative, well-thought-out approach will lead to better long-term outcomes for Concord’s housing market and its residents.

Let’s get this right—for the sake of our community.

Respectfully:

Sacha Simpson
Real Estate Professional | 36 Years of Experience
Advocate for Fair & Balanced Housing Policies

Serving the real estate community since 1989

SACHA SIMPSON | REALTOR ®

Re/MAX Accord
800 S. Broadway #100 Walnut Creek, CA
94596 M: (925) 701-1044
Lic# 01030598
E: [email protected]
sacha-simpson.realestate-
bayarea.com

From: Greg Brumley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 4:18 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Subject: Rent control ordinance review
Mayor Obringer and Council Members,
Thank you for your thoughtful review of the Rent Control and Just Cause ordinance. It has resulted in hardships and undesirable consequences. Please see the attached letter.

Regards,
Greg Brumley
925-250-1425
[email protected]

Greg Brumley
Brumley Properties LLC
1519 Davis Ave
Concord CA 94519

2/18/25 VIA E-Mail

Concord City Council,
Mayor Carlyn Obringer & Council Members Laura Hoffmeister, Laura Nakamura, Dominic Aliano, & Pablo Benavente

Re: Rent control and Just Cause Eviction ordinance

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am a lifelong Concord resident of 65 years, and my parents sacrificed to purchase rental housing in the early 1960s. I grew up living in the apartments where we managed the property. My sister and I continue managing our property to this day, and our adult kids now assist us as needed. Some of them also reside in the same apartments. We are the definition of Mom & Pop landlords.

I am strongly opposed to the 3% or 60% of CPI limits, as well as the Just Cause payment requirements.

The annual limitation in the ordinance does not permit a property owner to keep pace with increased operating costs. Property tax, insurance, water, city sewer fees, garbage, rent registry fees, and increasing interest rates all combine to create increased costs for operation. It is not fair to impose unreasonable limits on rental adjustments. The provisions of pre-existing State law AB1482, strike a fair balance while safeguarding tenants against unreasonable increases.

The Just Cause provisions affecting single family homes and condos have created a serious burden on people that never planned to become rental housing providers. And for others like us, we learned that we would have a huge obligation in the event of a catastrophic event that displaced our tenants. For instance, at a 20 unit building we own, we would owe the tenants in excess of $235,000, if our building suffered a fire or earthquake, making the property uninhabitable.

The Concord ordinance should be amended to exempt the small investment properties consisting of 20 or fewer units, including all single family homes and condos. AB1482 remains in effect statewide and serves the needs of tenants. At a minimum, the Just Cause payment provisions should never apply when a tenant is displaced involuntarily, such as after an earthquake, fire, or flood.

I hope you will reconsider the ordinance and correct some of the most egregious provisions that can result in the unintended consequences outlined. I would gladly have a meeting with any of you to further discuss ideas that property owners can live with and result in balanced tenant protections.

Regards,
Greg Brumley
925-250-1425

From: Stephanie Bergin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 4:11 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]> Cc: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Re-Evaluate Rent Control
Dear Mayor Obringer and City Council Members,

I am the daughter of a housing provider for Concord renters. My father has provided housing in Concord for over 30 years. He and my mother are immigrants themselves and have worked tirelessly to house anyone needing housing. After all those years, it would be such a shame for him to be forced to sell his building due to these new laws the council have enacted.

We support amending the overly restrictive rent control ordinance. I ask that you limit the scope of the "just cause" ordinance and revert the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, consistent with state law.

Your rent registry data already shows that state law is working in Concord and that mass evictions or rent gouging are not happening in the city. Please do not punish housing providers by keeping this draconian law in place.

Please let reason prevail and vote YES to re-evaluate the rent control ordinance.

Many thanks
Stephanie Bergin

From: Ron Navarra <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 3:56 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Reconsideration of Concord Rent Control Ordinance

I am traveling but want to reiterate my email below in light of next weeks meeting .

Sent from Ron's iPhone

On Jan 30, 2025, at 4:45 PM, Ron Navarra <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I maintain that the city’s ordinance is unjustifiably punitive and should have been rejected.

We support a discussion on re-evaluating the unsustainable and restrictive rent cap. In addition, the city should review the just cause ordinance and remove requirements that hinder housing providers’ ability to continue providing rental housing for Concord renters.

Thank you to newly elected Councilmember Pablo Benavente for making this request and for some City Council members being open to reconsideration. We as housing providers welcome this change in your decision-making process.

Sincerely,
Ron Navarra

From: Kate Halfon <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 9:58 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Reconsider rent control ordinance
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

My name is Kate Halfon and I am the owner and broker of Welcome Home Management, I manage rental properties in Contra Costa and Alameda county.

My clients are not large corporations but individual owners. While I understand the concerns surrounding housing affordability, I’ve seen firsthand how extreme rent control measures can harm property owners, pushing them to sell their properties. When these homes are sold, they are often removed from the rental market entirely, exacerbating the housing shortage. Last summer, I lost 2 properties as owners decided to sell when the tenant vacated as they did not want to deal with the strict rules Concord has put in place, these homes are no longer providing rental housing as they are now owner occupied. Every year I do a presentation on the current state of the rental market. Last year there were 244 2 bedroom rentals available in Concord onZillow. This year at the same time there are only 179 rentals listed for rent. That is a significant decrease.

At the meeting I heard many tenant groups say wait and give the program time to work. We already have the data to understand how this will work. I can give a very specific example of how this can play out over time. We manage a small multiunit property where tenants are paying anywhere between $820 and $2,500 for identical units due to extreme rent control in that city (Berkeley). With rent increases capped less than the state rent cap, those paying $820 today will still be paying less than $1,000 by 2033. This creates an unsustainable situation for landlords and results in a wide disparity in rental rates for like units.

There are better ways to solve the housing crisis. Continuing to put burden on the small landlords who often keep their rents well below market is going to make this crisis even worse. Many of them are still recovering from lost rents during the pandemic. They provide housing to tenants who have housing vouchers, who are immigrants and who are undocumented. All of the landlords who spoke at the last meeting are trying to provide a safe place for tenants to live. However this ordinance if it continues as is will continue to reduce the number of units available for rent as showcased above.

Many people shared their “horror” stories of their personal situation as a tenant or landlord. I do believe those to be the outliers of the majority of rentals in the city. I encourage you to talk to those of us who represent many landlords and work to ensure they provide safe, well-maintained homes

and follow all the laws in every individual city in the county. We are happy to work with you for the good of all in the community.

I ask that you limit the scope of the "just cause" ordinance and revert the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, consistent with state law. Your rent registry data already shows that state law is working in Concord and that mass evictions or rent gouging are not happening in the city. In encourage you to vote Yes to reevaluate this program.

Regards,

Kate Halfon, Broker
925-375-4125
[email protected]
www.welcomehmi.com
BRE # 02166494

Our email and website domain have changed.

Please update your records with the new information!

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 11:20 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: No rent control, no rental registration
Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing to support the city's decision to review the rent control ordinance. Rent control is a bad policy because it can lead to a decrease in the quality and quantity of available rental housing, discourage new construction, and ultimately make housing less affordable in the long run by creating a mismatch between supply and demand, even though it may seem to help current tenants in the short term by keeping rents artificially low; this is due to landlords having less incentive to maintain properties or build new ones when profits are capped by rent control regulations. More details as below,

1. Concord has a lot of open spaces for development, rent control scares away developers.

2. Rent control discourages home owners from building more ADUs.

3. Rent control comes with Just Cause Eviction which makes it impossible to evict bad tenants, a lot of people are afraid of renting. It creates bad situations like San Francisco where on the one hand there's a housing shortage and on the other hand there are 60 thousand vacant units in the city because the housing providers are scared of the risks.

4. When bad tenants stay, good tenants will eventually leave. This is bad for the business and the community. It creates dangerous and declining cities like Oakland. Your neighbor Antioch is another Oakland in making: Destroying the police department in the name of racism and strict rent control and just cause eviction has resulted in much more crimes in Antioch.

Concord can and must do better. The first step to take is to repeal the rent control ordinance.

Linda Guo

From: John Fang <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 12:39 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Strong Opposition to Local Rent Control Regulations - Rent cap limit and 'just case' exception under consideration Feb 25.

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am writing to strongly oppose Concord’s rent control ordinance and any further expansion of local rental regulations. These policies place unnecessary financial burdens on property owners, discourage investment in rental housing, and ultimately lead to reduced housing supply and higher rents—the exact opposite of what they intend to achieve.

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, enacted in 1995, already provides clear exemptions for single-family homes and condominiums from both rent cap requirements and just cause eviction regulations. There is no need for Concord to impose additional, conflicting restrictions that create confusion, legal challenges, and financial disincentives for housing providers.

Furthermore, rental property owners bear all major costs associated with maintaining housing, including property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and repairs, while tenants do not. Yet, the current rent cap, limiting increases to 60% of the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), fails to account for the rapidly rising costs of ownership. This artificial cap makes it unsustainable for landlords to continue offering rental units, particularly for small property owners.

A critical consequence of local rent control is the deterrence of real estate investment. When investors see a city implementing restrictive rent control policies, they become unwilling to develop new housing or purchase rental properties in that area. This reduction in available rental housing creates a supply shortage, leading to higher rents for tenants. Instead of keeping housing affordable, rent control shrinks the market and drives up costs over time.

Additionally, the just cause eviction requirement further burdens landlords, making it difficult to manage their properties efficiently. By restricting a property owner’s ability to address problem tenants or reclaim their property for legitimate reasons, the city is discouraging responsible landlords from participating in the rental market. This pushes more small property owners to sell their units or convert them into owner-occupied housing, further reducing rental availability.

We have already seen the consequences of price cap regulations in other industries, such as the California insurance market, where many major insurance companies have stopped issuing

policies or have dramatically increased premiums because they are unable to charge rates that reflect their actual costs. As a result, homeowners now struggle to obtain insurance or face doubling costs, creating an affordability crisis. The same will happen in the rental market: if rental income is artificially restricted while ownership costs continue to rise, landlords will leave the market, reducing rental supply and increasing rents overall.

The defeat of Proposition 33 in November 2024 demonstrated that voters do not support expanding rent control. The City Council should respect this decision and prioritize policies that encourage housing development rather than discouraging it. Expanding rent control will only result in fewer rental properties, higher rents, and a worsening housing crisis in the long run.

I urge the City Council to eliminate or significantly roll back the current rent control ordinance and reject any further expansion of local rental regulations. Concord must align with state law, support property investment, and encourage a fair and sustainable housing market that benefits both landlords and tenants.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I encourage the Council to adopt policies that promote housing growth and investment, rather than deterring it through restrictive and counterproductive regulations.

Sincerely,
John Fang

From: SHEILA STOKLEY <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 12:16 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Rent Control
Hello,
I am writing to thank you for re-visiting Concord's rent control ordinance.

I am a property manager we currently manage 167 units in Concord.

We currently have 5 rental property owners selling their units. Another 10 will be selling soon. They are telling us that a large reason is the restrictive rent control. Many of these owners are just waiting until the tenants move out so they can avoid paying the no just cause payments to the tenants for asking them to move.

When these property sell, they are not going to new rentals, they are going to single family owners and therefore removing properties from your market.

The major two areas that go over a reasonable rent control are the excessively small rent increase amount. This does in no way keep up with the high rates of repairs and insurance and other property costs.

The other area is the overly high amount of move out payments in a no fault request to move. Most of our owners do not have large bank accounts and simply cannot afford the 2000 + 2 months of rent just so they can get their property back. Many need to move back in, or have a family member move in and some need to sell (mostly because of a death in the family). This payment puts an undue burden on these people.

We do support fair rent control, the State bill has become manageable and most rental property owners can live with that. I would suggest that Concord uses the State rules and then finds the bad, unscrupulous landlords and takes action against them for those specific cases. This would promote strong rental relationships between the City, the tenants and the landlords.

Thank you for your consideration,
Sheila
Sheila Stokley
Stokley Properties, Inc.
2300 Contra Costa Blvd. Suite 110
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
P: (925) 658-1415 ext 11 F: (925) 658-1416
stokleyproperties.net

From: Eric Lischeske <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 1:18 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Lischeske <[email protected]>
Subject: Expanding Concord Rent Control

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

My name is Eric Lischeske and I am the owner of a single duplex in Concord. I bought the property in 2023 using a large portion of my retirement savings in the hope that it would provide a long-term source of income. I also wanted to invest locally, as I have lived in east Contra Costa, including Concord, for over 30 years.

When I acquired the property, one of the units was owner occupied and the other had a tenant whose rent was significantly below market. I did meet with the existing tenant and explained what I planned to do with the property including any outstanding maintenance. We agreed to an initial modest rent increase, and I then rented the other duplex to a family. Both tenants are very happy with their units and enjoy living in a well maintained, quiet and secure neighborhood.

While I understand the concerns surrounding housing affordability, I do not see the logic in enforcing extreme rent control measures on individual property owners. I would like to make you aware that extreme rent control along with blanket rent roll back without any consideration to timing and circumstances can push individual owners like me to sell their properties. My understanding is that when these homes are sold, they are often removed from the rental market entirely, further increasing the housing shortage.

It seems to me that there are better ways to solve the housing crisis. Continuing to put burden on the small landlords who often keep their rents well below market is going to make this crisis even worse. We do provide safe, well-maintained housing and follow all the laws defined by the city, county and state. I am certainly happy to work with you for the good of all in the community, but I would caution that forcing small landlords out of the market is not in everyone's best interest.

In closing, I ask that you limit the scope of the "just cause" ordinance and revert the rent cap to 5% plus CPI, consistent with state law. I encourage you to vote Yes to reevaluate this program.