Agenda packet, regular meeting — Concord City Council, June 24, 2025 (part 4 of 5)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 44,460.00$
168 740,680.00$
Project Closeout 59,491.80$

Role Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Principal Const Mgr./Project Manager 4 8 12 335.00 4,020.00$ Sr. Const Mgr/ Resident Engineer 80 80 295.00 23,600.00$ Sr. Construction Inspector 40 40 205.00 8,200.00$
Sr. Construction Inspector 0 205.00 -$
Scheduler 8 8 275.00 2,200.00$
Office Engineer 16 30 46 140.00 6,440.00$
0 0 0 0 20 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 186 44,460.00$
Principal Const Mgr./Project Manager 10 10 6 6 4 4 40 335.00 13,400.00$ Sr. Const Mgr/ Resident Engineer 120 120 120 120 120 80 680 295.00 200,600.00$ Sr. Construction Inspector 172 172 172 172 172 172 1032 205.00 211,560.00$ Sr. Construction Inspector 80 172 172 120 544 205.00 111,520.00$ Scheduler 8 8 8 8 4 4 40 275.00 11,000.00$
Office Engineer 40 40 40 40 40 40 240 140.00 33,600.00$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 430 518 518 460 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 2576 581,680.00$ Principal Const Mgr./Project Manager 4 4 8 335.00 2,680.00$ Sr. Const Mgr/ Resident Engineer 60 60 120 295.00 35,400.00$ Sr. Construction Inspector 40 40 205.00 8,200.00$
Office Engineer 40 40 80 140.00 11,200.00$
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 104 0 0 0 0 248 57,480.00$
0 0 0 0 20 166 350 430 518 518 460 300 144 104 0 0 0 0 3010 683,620.00$ Anticipated Salary Escalation $2,011.80
Total Labor 685,631.80
5,000.00$
5,000.00$
Sub Consultants
Materials Testing 154,000.00$
154,000.00$
844,631.80$
Notes:

1. Hours per month based upon eigh-hour working days.

2. Estimate doesn't include any overtime (OT) hours. However, should OT hours be required due to contractor's schedule, non-exempt employees are subject to OT regulations (billed at time and a half and doubletime).

4. Prevailing Wage (PW) rates subject to PW adjustments.

5. Field Office not included, our Oakland office will be used for office work.

6. Support not included for delays due to weather, CCO, R/W, and claims filed by contractor in response to the Proposed Final Estimate.

7. Subconsultants billed at cost plus 10% markup

PRE-CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

PROJECT CLOSEOUT
Paul Goryl, PE
Lakshmanan Kumar , PE
Lynn Neilsen
Yujia Luo

CONSTRUCTION
Deborah Koerber
Said Najafi
Construction Management Services
Clayton Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project
City of Concord
Project Schedule
2025 2026
TASKS
TASKS

PRE-CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL COST 2025
Pre-Construction
Construction
Staff
HOURLY
RATE
2026 TOTAL
HOURS
Said Najafi
Deborah Koerber
AME

SUB-TOTAL
Lynn Neilsen
Yujia Luo

PROJECT CLOSEOUT SUBTOTAL
Paul Goryl, PE
Lakshmanan Kumar , PE
Lakshmanan Kumar , PE

3. Construction durations is 125 days starting in July 2025 for the Pavement Rehabilitation project.

PROJECT TOTAL
Lynn Neilsen

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUBTOTAL
Paul Goryl, PE
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
Direct Expenses
Yujia Luo

SUB CONSULTANTS SUBTOTAL

Page 17 of 17 ends

Staff Report
Date: June 24, 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 approval of an amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 16489 with Swinerton Management
Consulting for construction management in the amount of $208,475 (for a new not-to-exceed amount of $682,657.50) for the Clayton Road Traffic Operation Improvements - Phase 2 (Project No. 2579); and authorizing the City Manager to execute the amendment in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney. (Measure V, PEG Fees)
CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code 21065; CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15301, 15302, 15303, 15304, 15273, and/or 15378.

Report in Brief
Clayton Road Traffic Operation Improvements – Phase 2 (Project No. 2579) involves the construction of interconnected fiber-optic cable on Clayton Road, between Galindo Street and Washington Boulevard, to help improve real-time traffic monitoring, central communications, and incident management (Project).

A Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Swinerton Management & Consulting (Swinerton) was brought to Council on January 10, 2023, for construction management of the Project with a not-to-exceed budget of $474,182.50. This first amendment to the PSA is being recommended due to additional inspection services that were needed for the increased total number of working days on the Project. This amendment will also extend the duration of the contract to the end September of this year, to cover the additional period for work needed to close out the Project. The project schedule is delayed in part due to the construction contractor and the costs for the extension will be paid through liquidated damages received.

4.o4.o4.o

Page 1 of 6 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.o
June 24, 2025
Recommended Action
Approve an amendment to a Professional Services Agreement for construction management in the amount of $208,475 (for a new not-to-exceed amount of $682,657.50) with Swinerton Management & Consulting; authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; and make the CEQA determinations as provided in this staff report.

Background
The City of Concord released its Broadband Master Plan in March 2018, which includes development of a fiber-optic network to help manage communication between facilities and infrastructure citywide. This includes implementing an adaptive signal system by interconnecting traffic signals with high-speed fiber-optic cables to improve the communication and efficiencies of traffic operations throughout the City.

On January 10,2023, Council awarded the Project construction contract to Gruendl Inc.

DBA Ray’s Electric (Contractor) and a PSA to Swinerton. Construction on the Project began in October 2023 with an original estimated completion date in April 2024. Due to delays by the Contractor, the new estimated substantial completion date will be in June 2025 with full project closeout by the end of September 2025. Project closeout on a larger project typically takes several months following completion of construction activities.

The scope of the Project involves the construction of interconnected fiber-optic cable on Clayton Road, between Galindo Street and Washington Boulevard, to help improve real-time traffic monitoring, central communications, and incident management.

This first amendment to the PSA will extend the contract to September this year and is being recommended due to the increased total number of working days on the Project.

Swinerton and their materials testing subconsultant, Ninyo & Moore, have already agreed to be bound by the Project Stabilization Agreement.

The Contractor is currently well behind contract time and the City has assessed liquidated damages per the contract documents. Liquidated damages paid by the contractor for the project delays are anticipated to cover the full cost of this amendment with Swinerton.

Analysis
Staff negotiated with Swinerton and agreed upon the additional cost of $208,475 for their services through September. The additional cost is for construction management and inspection services that are anticipated to be needed based upon the current project schedule. This will result in a new not-to-exceed total of $682,657.50 for the PSA.

Page 2 of 6 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.o
June 24, 2025
Financial Impact
The current budget for the Project is $5,852,500. The project is funded by Measure V Debt issuance (Fund 407) and PEG Fees (Fund 225). There is sufficient funding budgeted for the Project to cover the cost of this amendment. Per the contract documents, the City is authorized to assess liquidated damages for exceeding the defined number of working days. Liquidated damages will cover the full cost of this amendment.

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.” Clayton Road Traffic Operation Improvements – Phase 2 (Project No. 2579) is Categorically Exempt from the requirement for preparation of an environmental document as provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 “Existing Facilities” and CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 “Replacement and Reconstruction” as the project involves construction on existing streets, Section 15303 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,” and Section 15304 “Minor Alterations to Land” as the project includes the installation of conduits, pull boxes, fiber optic cables, and splice enclosures. No unusual circumstances are present. None of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are present. Accordingly, no further environmental review is warranted. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. The Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk’s office on March 27, 2023, following the Council award of the construction contract.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Project Location Map

2. First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Swinerton Management & Consulting, with Exhibit A – Fee Estimate

Page 3 of 6 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Project Location Map
Clayton Road Traffic Operation Improvements – Phase 2
City Project No. 2579

Page 4 of 6 ends

28 1
Attachment 2

FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
1 This First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement (“First Amendment”) is entered 2 into on this date, June 24, 2025, and amends the Professional Services Agreement, Agreement No. 16489, between the City of Concord (“CITY”) and Swinerton Management & Consulting 3 (“CONSULTANT”).
4 WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional Services Agreement, 5 Agreement No.16489, dated February 24, 2023 (the “Agreement”), wherein CONSULTANT agreed to 6 provide construction management, inspection, and materials testing for Clayton Road Traffic Operation Improvements, Project No. 2579.
7 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the agreement to provide for additional 8 compensation;
9 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and conditions set forth in the 10 Agreement, the parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement as follows:
11 1. Section 1 “TERM” is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall 12 commence on February 7, 2023, and expire on September 30, 2025. 13 2. Section 3 “PAYMENT” is hereby amended to read as follows: The compensation to 14 be paid to CONSULTANT including payment for professional services and 15 reimursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules described in Exhibit A. 16 However, in no event shall the amount CITY pays CONSULTANT exceeds six hundred and eighty-two thousand, six hundred fifty-seven dollars and fifty cents ($682,657.50) for the term of this Agreement.
17 3. Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Professional 18 Services Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the date 20 indicated above.
21 Signatures on the following page.
26 27

Page 5 of 6 ends

28 2
1 2
3 Dated: Swinerton Management & Consulting
4 5 BY:

Jeffrey S. Gee, Principal In Charge
6 [email protected]
7 8
Dated: CITY OF CONCORD
9 10
11 By:

Valerie J. Barone
12 City Manager
13 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
14 15
16 Susanne Brown Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Attorney City Clerk
17 18
19 20 FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION:
21 Concord, California
22 Date:
23 24 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS EXIST OR WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2024/25 TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED 25 EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.

THE SUM OF $208,475. Account Code 2259500C999-74500 / 2252579113-74500 ($474,182.50 previously encumbered, requesting an additional $208,475 for a contract total of $682,657.50). 26 27 Finance Director's Signature

Page 6 of 6 ends

1. Award of a Construction Contract in the amount $2,622,375 to MCK Services, Inc.; authorizing staff to utilize the available project contingency for contract change orders up to 15% of the contract amount ($393,356.25); and
authorizing the Mayor to execute the contract in a form acceptable to the City Attorney;

2. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Avila Project Management in the not-to-exceed amount of
$308,850, including a 10% contingency ($28,077) to provide construction management and related services; and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; and

3. Approval of Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 5987 with HDR, Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $62,481 to provide design support and related services during construction; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; and

4.p4.p4.p4.p4.p4.p4.p4.p

Page 1 of 39 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.p
June 24, 2025

4. Authorizing the City Engineer to accept the improvements upon completion of the project and directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. (Measure V)
CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code 21065; CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15301, 15302, 15303, 15304, and/or 15378.

Report in Brief
Residential Pavement Maintenance – Phase C, Concord Blvd/Myrtle Dr. consists of Pavement Maintenance - Zone 1G and Ayers Road (Project No. 2606) and Pavement Maintenance - Zones 1E & 1F (Project No. 2618). This portion of the project will rehabilitate pavement along three street segments: Concord Boulevard, between Bailey Road and the Clayton city limits, Myrtle Drive, between Ayers Road and Kirker Pass Road, and on Mustang Court, south of Myrtle Drive (Attachment 1) (Project).

The Project has been designed, competitively bid, and is ready for construction contract award. If the award is approved by the City Council (Council), construction in the field is expected to begin in July 2025 and be completed by November 2025.

Recommended Action

1. Award a Construction Contract in the amount $2,622,375 to MCK Services, Inc., for the Residential Pavement Maintenance – Phase C (Project Nos. 2606 & 2618); authorizing staff to utilize the available project contingency for contract change orders up to 15% of the contract amount; and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

2. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Avila Project Management in the not-to-exceed amount of $308,850, including a 10% contingency ($28,077) to provide construction management and related services; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

3. Approve Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 5987 with HDR, Inc. in the not-to- exceed amount of $62,481 to provide design support and related services during the construction phase; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

4. Authorize the City Engineer to accept the improvements upon completion of Residential Pavement Maintenance – Phase C – Concord Blvd./Myrtle Dr.

Project (Project Nos. 2606 & 2618) and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.

5. Make the CEQA determinations as provided in this staff report.

Page 2 of 39 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.p
June 24, 2025
Background
The scope of work for Concord Boulevard, between Bailey Road and the Clayton city limits, and Myrtle Drive, between Ayers Road and Kirker Pass Road, were removed from the two earlier pavement maintenance projects and placed into a separate phase of work and bid package in order to accelerate the design and introduce more efficient construction.

Analysis/Procurement Process
Construction Contract
The Project was advertised for construction bids as required by state law and City of Concord (City) policy. During the bid period, one addendum was issued. Bids were opened on June 5, 2025, and five bids were received in amounts ranging from $2,622,375.00 to $3,150,899.22 for the Total Base Bid. The Total Base Bid was the basis for determining the lowest bid and the basis of award. The Engineer’s Estimate for the Total Base Bid was approximately $2,891,559. All five bids are shown in the following table.

BID SCHEDULE Base Bid Add Alternate
Engineer’s Estimate $2,891,559 $286,900
MCK Services, Inc. $2,622,375.00 $301,000.00
JV Lucas Paving, Inc. $2,636,710.50 $199,800.00
McGuire & Hester $2,702,753.00 $366,480.00
Radius Earthwork Inc. $2,814,031.34 $225,275.00
Ghilotti Bros., Inc. $3,150,899.22 $492,200.00
Although the Project has adequate funding available to award the Additive Alternate scope of work consisting of concrete sidewalk along Concord Boulevard, it is not recommended at this time. During recent field investigations, changed conditions were identified which will require additional drainage design and likely storm drain infrastructure construction before sidewalk improvements can safely take place. Design revisions will be completed for this scope of work and a future project will construct the improvements.

MCK Services, Inc. of Martinez, California was the lowest bidder for the Total Base Bid and submitted a responsive and responsible bid. MCK Services, Inc. has an appropriate and valid contractor’s license and has completed other capital projects for the City.

City staff (Staff) completed an analysis of MCK Services’ bid, determining that this contractor along with its subcontractors possess appropriate and valid licenses, are not

Page 3 of 39 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.p
June 24, 2025
on any debarred lists, and agreed to be bound by the Citywide Project Stabilization Agreement. MCK Services, Inc. and its subcontractors are registered with the Department of Industrial Relations as required by Senate Bill (SB) 854.

Project Stabilization Agreement
On September 13, 2016, the City Council approved a Citywide Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) with the Contra Costa Building & Trades Council for City projects with a construction contract valued at over $750,000. The Project will be subject to the requirements of the PSA as the estimated construction costs exceed $750,000. The prospective bidders for the Project were made aware of this requirement as part of the construction contract. MCK Services, Inc. and their subcontractors have submitted the required documentation to comply with the Citywide PSA for construction services.

Construction Management
Avila Project Management has provided staff augmentation and project management services through the design phase of this Project and has the capability to provide construction management services. Staff and Avila Project Management negotiated the scope of work and cost for the services and agreed upon a base amount of $280,773 as a fair and reasonable compensation for the services required. Staff is requesting the authority to spend up to a 10% contingency of $28,077, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $308,850.

Design Support
On November 8, 2022, Council approved Agreement No. 5987 with HDR, Inc. in the amount of $472,972.50 for design engineering and related services for Pavement Maintenance - Zones 1E & 1F and Concord Boulevard (Project No. 2618) located between Ayers Road and Kirker Pass Road and between Myrtle Drive and Mt. Diablo Creek. Project No. 2618 was divided into two phases; design was completed on the first phase in 2024 and is currently under construction. Design for the second phase, which included Concord Boulevard from Bailey Road to the Clayton city limits, was completed in April 2025.

Staff previously approved two amendments to Agreement No. 5987 with HDR. The first Amendment extended the term of the agreement by twelve months (ending in June 2024) and approved an updated fee schedule. The second amendment extended the term of the Agreement to June 2026. HDR’s scope of work for this Amendment No. 3, is to provide design support during the construction phase of the Project, as described in Attachment 3.

Financial Impact
There are adequate funds in the budget for the construction phase of Residential Pavement Maintenance – Phase C (Project Nos. 2606 & 2618) including Concord Boulevard, Myrtle Drive, and Mustang Court as described above. The Project will use

Page 4 of 39 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.p
June 24, 2025
Measure V funds (Fund 407) for the construction contract, construction management services, and construction design support services.

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 award of the contract and entering into agreements do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Sections 15060(c), 15273, 15378, as it has no potential for resulting in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and/or the activities consist of creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not constitute a “project”. Even if the award of the contract and entering into agreements did constitute a project under CEQA, it 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.” In the alternative, award of this contract entering into agreements are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 – Existing Facilities, 15302 – Replacement and Reconstruction, 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and/or 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, as it involves constructing concrete sidewalk, landscaping, striping, and paving work. No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies. Accordingly, no further environmental review is warranted. 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 Council award of the construction contract.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Project Location Map

2. Bid Sheet

3. Professional Services Agreement with Avila Project Management, with Exhibit A – Fee Proposal

4. Amendment No. 3 with HDR, Inc., with Exhibit A – Fee Proposal

5. Construction Contract

Page 5 of 39 ends

Attachment 1
Project Location Map
Pavement Maintenance – Phase C – Concord Blvd/Myrtle Dr, Project Nos. 2606 & 2618

Page 6 of 39 ends

Attachment 2
City of Concord
Bid Sheet
Project #2606 and #2618 Bid Opening:

Pavement Maintenance Phase C – Concord
Blvd/Myrtle Dr Thursday, June 5, 2025, 2:30 p.m.

City Manager Conference Room
Engineer’s Estimate: $2,891,558.96 To be awarded:

Company Total Base Bid
MCK Services, Inc
865 Howe Road
Martinez, CA 94553
DIR: 1000002375
$2,622,375.00
JV Lucas Paving
865 Howe Road
Martinez, CA 94553
DIR: 1000007669
$2,636,710.50
McGuire and Hester
9009 Railroad Avenue
Oakland, CA, 94603
DIR: 1000000033
$2,702,753.00
Radius Earthwork, Inc.
197 E. Hamilton Ave., Suite 204
Cambell, CA 95008
DIR: 1000517452
$2,814,031.34
Ghilotti Bros.
525 Jacoby Street
San Rafael,CA94904
DIR: 1000001037
$3,150,899.22
Contact: Gerardo Avila, (925) 890-9796

Page 7 of 39 ends

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10/2022 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on June 24, 2025 between the City of Concord, a California municipal corporation, ("CITY") and Gerardo Avila dba Avila Project Management., 5248 S, Montecito, Concord, CA 94521 (“CONSULTANT”).

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

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

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

1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2025 and expire on December 31, 2025.

A. Extension of Term. Upon mutual written agreement by the parties, the term of this Agreement may be extended for 1 additional periods of one (1) year each commencing upon the expiration of the initial or extended term, subject to the same terms and conditions of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall give written notice of its request for extension of the term of the Agreement to the City’s Authorized Representative, as identified in Section 4 below, at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the initial or extended term.

The extension(s) of the term of this Agreement shall be subject to a review of CONSULTANT’S performance in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall be subject to City approval. Such extension of time shall be in writing by a duly executed Amendment to this Agreement.

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

3. PAYMENT. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT including payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules in detail in Exhibit

Page 8 of 39 ends

10/2022 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
A. However, shall in no event shall the amount CITY pays CONSULTANT exceed Three Hundred Eight Thousand, Eight Hundred Fifty Dollard ($308,850.00) for the term of this Agreement. The total includes the sum of the base contract of Two Hundred Eighty Thousand, Seven Hundred Seventy Three Dollars ($280,773.00) and a 10% contingency of Twenty-Eight Thousand, Seventy-Seven Dollars ($28,077.00). Any Amendment to this Agreement that includes an increase to this compensation amount shall be made in accordance with Section 5 below.

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

4. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. Authorized representatives shall represent CITY and CONSULTANT in all matters pertaining to the services to be ordered by CITY or rendered by CONSULTANT under this Agreement except where approval for the CITY is specifically required by the City Council. The CITY’s authorized representative is Carlton Thompson, City Engineer of the Community Development Department. The CONSULTANT’s authorized representative is Gerardo G. Avila, J.D., Principal.

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

A. Amendment for Additional Compensation. CITY’s Authorized Representative is authorized to execute amendments to the Agreement on behalf of CITY, including amendments providing for additional compensation to CONSULTANT not to exceed the Minimum Threshold, including the base contract amount, throughout the term of this Agreement. “Minimum

Page 9 of 39 ends

10/2022 3
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Threshold” means the dollar amount over which Council approval is required during each fiscal year as set forth in Concord City Council Resolution 21-43 pursuant to Concord Municipal Code Section

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

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

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

CONSULTANT shall not represent that CONSULTANT or its officers, agents, employees, volunteers or subcontractors are agents or employees of the CITY, and CONSULTANT shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of the CITY in any capacity whatsoever as an agent, and shall have no authority, express or implied, to bind the CITY to any obligation whatsoever, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement.

As an independent contractor, CONSULTANT shall not be eligible for any benefits, which the City may provide to its employees and all persons, if any, hired by CONSULTANT shall be employees or subcontractors of CONSULTANT and shall not be construed as employees or agents of the CITY in any respect. CONSULTANT shall receive no premium or enhanced pay for work normally understood as overtime, i.e., hours that exceed forty (40) hours per work week, or work performed during non- standard business hours, such as in the evenings or on weekends. CONSULTANT shall not receive a premium or enhanced pay for work performed on a recognized holiday. CONSULTANT shall not receive paid time off for days not worked, whether it be in the form of sick leave, administrative leave, or for any other form of absence. CONSULTANT shall pay all taxes, assessments and premiums under

Page 10 of 39 ends

10/2022 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
the federal Social Security Act, any applicable unemployment insurance contributions, Workers Compensation insurance premiums, sales taxes, use taxes, personal property taxes, or other taxes or assessments now or hereafter in effect and payable by reason of or in connection with the services to be performed by CONSULTANT.

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

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

Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not be obligated or liable for payment hereunder to any party other than the CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT hereby designates the CONSULTANT’S representative as the person primarily responsible for the day-to-day performance of CONSULTANT'S work under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not change the CONSULTANT’S representative without the prior written consent of the CITY. Unless otherwise expressly agreed by the CITY, CONSULTANT'S representative shall remain responsible for the quality and timeliness of performance of the services, notwithstanding any permitted or approved delegation hereunder.

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

CONSULTANT’s records, documents, calculations, and all other instruments of service pertaining to actual project shall be given to CITY at the completion of the project. The CITY reserves

Page 11 of 39 ends

10/2022 5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
the right to specify the file format that electronic document deliverables are presented to the CITY.

10. INDEMNIFICATION.

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

B. For All Other Services. CONSULTANT agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the CITY (including its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers) from and against all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability (including all attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses) arising out of the CONSULTANT’s performance under the terms of this Agreement. This indemnification obligation on CONSULTANT’s part shall not apply to the demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the CITY.

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

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

Page 12 of 39 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Solicitations for Subcontractors including Procurement of Materials and Equipment. In all solicitation, either by competitive bidding or negotiations, made by CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a subcontract including procurement of materials or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor, supplier or lessor shall be notified by CONSULTANT of

Page 13 of 39 ends

10/2022 7
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CONSULTANT’S obligation under this Agreement and the regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the basis of any protected class pursuant to California law.

16. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

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

B. CONSULTANT is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because CONSULTANT:
(1) Will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to its rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel independent of the control and direction of the CITY or of any CITY official, other than normal contract monitoring; and (2) Possesses no authority with respect to any CITY decision beyond the rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. (2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18700(a)(2).)

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

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

Page 14 of 39 ends

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

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

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

21. INTEGRATION. All exhibits identified in this Agreement are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the parties as to the subject matter of this Agreement. It merges and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, commitments, representation, writings, and discussions between CONSULTANT and CITY, whether oral or written.
//
//

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

Page 15 of 39 ends

10/2022 9
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
partnership between the parties. CONSULTANT, its officers, employees and agents shall not have any power to bind or commit the CITY to any decision.

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

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

To CITY: Carlton Thompson,
City Engineer
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519-2578
Phone: (925) 671-3182
Email: [email protected]
To CONSULTANT: Gerardo G. Avila, J.D.

Principal
Gerardo Avila dba Avila Project Management
5248 S. Montecito Drive
Concord, Ca 94521
Phone: (925) 890-9796
Email: [email protected]

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

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

Page 16 of 39 ends

10/2022 10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

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

CONSULTANT CITY OF CONCORD, a Municipal
Corporation
By:_________________________________ By:______________________________ Name: Gerardo G. Avila, J.D. Name: Valerie J. Barone Title: Principal Title City Manager
Address: 5248 S. Montecito Drive Address: 1950 Parkside Drive Concord, Ca 94521 Concord, CA 94519 Telephone: (925) 890-9796 Telephone: (925) 671-3150
Email: [email protected]
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Susanne Meyer Brown Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Attorney City Clerk
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION:

Concord, California
Date:

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS EXIST OR WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR (24/25) TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.

THE SUM OF $308,850.00.

Account Code: 4079500C999-74200 4072618117-74200.

Finance Director's Signature Page 17 of 39
10/2022 11
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
EXHIBIT “B”
CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims from injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by CONSULTANT, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE.

Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

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

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

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

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

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

Page 18 of 39 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 19 of 39 ends

5248 S. MONTECITO DRIVE * CONCORD CA 94521 * (925) 890-9796 EMAIL: [email protected]
May 26, 2025
Bruce Davis, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
City of Concord - Engineering Department
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/52
Concord, CA 94519
Dear Mr. Davis:

Subject: Proposal for Providing Project Management Services – Residential Pavement Maintenance, Concord Blvd, Myrtle & Mustang, 2606 & 2618 - Construction Phase I am pleased to submit this proposal for providing Project Management Services to the City of Concord Engineering Department. In general, the scope of our services includes acting as an extension of City Project Management Staff on the Construction Phase of the Residential Pavement Maintenance, Concord Blvd, Myrtle & Mustang Project, 2606 & 2618. Detailed tasks and fee estimate are attached.

Gerardo Avila will be the City’s Project Manager and Resident Engineer, he will be supported by Assistant Resident/Inspector Engineer, Chris Avila
who will provide daily on-sight observation.

Gerardo is a UOP graduate with 40 years of municipal engineering experience. He also holds a Juris Doctorate from JFK University and is a certified mediator. His post graduate education is an excellent compliment to his engineering degree and has been essential to his success as a project manager and resident engineer on hundreds of municipal projects.

His recent projects include: a public golf course driving range renovation and two downtown plaza reconstruction projects for the City of Walnut Creek ($10 million total); complete street projects for the City of Richmond ($11 million total); an emergency slope repair project for the City of Vallejo Water Department ($600k); and pavement rehabilitation and sidewalk repair projects for the City of El Cerrito ($4 million total).

Chris is also a UOP alumni with 9 years of municipal engineering design, plan checking, inspection, construction, and project management experience.

He is a Qualified Construction Stormwater Inspector (QCSI) and holds a Pipeline Assessment Certification (PACP) and a Construction Management and Leadership Certificate (CMLC) from UC Berkeley Extension.

Chris has provided essential on-call plan checking and inspection services for the Cities of Richmond, San Rafael and El Cerrito. His most recent construction and project management projects include: storm drain , curb ramp, sidewalk and building repair projects for the City of El Cerrito ($2.5 million total); a system wide pump station emergency generator improvement project for the City of Vallejo Water Department ($2 million).

Attachment 3 Exhibit A

Page 20 of 39 ends

5248 S. MONTECITO DRIVE * CONCORD CA 94521 * (925) 890-9796 EMAIL: [email protected]
It is anticipated that this work will be performed between July and December 2025.

APM proposes to perform the work addressed in this proposal on a time and materials basis with an estimated not-to-exceed fee of $308,850 in accord with the attached Fee Estimate and Schedule.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you this proposal and if you have any questions, please contact
me at (925) 890-9796.

Sincerely,
Gerardo G. Avila, J.D.

Avila Project Management
Enclosed: Fee Estimate and Schedule

Page 21 of 39 ends

FEE ESTIMATE
Principal Project
Manager/ RE
Assistat
RE/Inspector
$230 $191
a
Construction Administration – Provide project management and coordination and serve as the point of contact for all communications with the Contractor. Assist the Engineering Department with Project Manager tasks and serve as the project Resident Engineer. Resolution and coordination of field construction issues. Assist with Contract Compliance. Provide weekly/monthly progress reports.
144 16
b
Meetings – Coordinate and lead project meetings (Pre-Construction, Weekly Construction, Project Update, etc.) with interested parties, including City, Contractor, Inspector, Utility Companies & others. Provide agenda and minutes. 50 40
c
Coordination with Design Team, Material Testing, Utility Companies & other Stakeholders – Serve as point of contact between the Public Works Department and the design team, material testing, Police, Fire, and Utility Companies. 72 18
d Submittals – Track and coordinate review by Designers, Public Works and other City Departments of project related submittals, including end of project record drawing. 16 12 e Clarification Processing – Track and coordinate Contractor’s requests for information (RFIs) with Designers and City. 16 12
f Change Order Preparation – Review City's RFQs and Contractor's extra work requests; negotiate, prepare and process contract change orders. 16 2 g Claim Assessment - Review and assess contract claims and potential claims and assist with resolution. 16 2
h Progress Payments – Review contractor’s invoices/pay requests and prepare progress payment documents for processing. 20 12
i Schedules and Budgets – Review contractor’s initial and update schedules and prepare weekly statement of working days. Monitor budgets, purchases and payments 16 8 j
Field Quality Control – Review and document initial, interim and final site conditions.

Monitor compliance with contract documents and prepare regular observation reports; monitor/enforce worksite safety, SWPP/NPDES, traffic and dust control and ADA access.
135 675
k Project Punchlist – Coordinate final review of project site with the various interested parties and generate final project punchlist. Monitor completion of all punchlist items. 8 16 l Project Closeout – Prepare necessary reports/documentation for project acceptance by the City and deliver all project paper/electronic files . 4 4 m Other incidental related tasks 16 16
Total hours 529 833
$280,773
Contingency (10%) $28,077
ESTIMATED FEE TOTAL $308,850
Estimated Hours and Rates
Estimated Fee Subtotal
Tasks
PM & RE for Residential Pavement Maintenance, Concord Blvd, Myrtle & Mustang, 2606 & 2618 - Construction Phase
(90 WDs + 2 weeks pre & 2 weeks post )

Page 22 of 39 ends

5248 S. MONTECITO DRIVE * CONCORD CA 94521 * (925) 890-9796 EMAIL: [email protected]

FEE SCHEDULE
Effective: January to December
2025
Charges for services provided are for the actual hours directly chargeable to the project.

Classification/Title 202
5 Hourly
Rates
2026
Estimated
Hourly Rates
Principal/Project Manager $230 $242
Project Manager $2 18 $229
Senior Engineer/Resident Engineer $2 18 $229
Associate - Engineer/Resident Engineer/Project
Manager $208 $209
Assistant - Engineer/Resident Engineer/Project
Manager/ Inspector $1 91 $201
Engineering Assistant/ Inspector $1 76 $185
CAD Designer $1 91 $201
Clerical/Administrative Support $1 30 $137
Reimbursable Expenses
Charges for specialty services provided by others, as well as reproductions, blueprinting, rental of special equipment, municipal or private base maps, official records, delivery and express mail will be made at 1.10 times the actual cost of the items.

Rates are valid through December 2025

Page 23 of 39 ends

SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 This Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement (“Second Amendment”) is entered into on this date, June 24, 2025, and amends the Professional Services Agreement, Agreement No. 5988, between the City of Concord (“CITY”) and HDR Engineering, Inc., 3003 Oak Road, Suite 500, Walnut Creek, Ca 94597 (“CONSULTANT”).

WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional Services Agreement, Agreement No. 5988, dated November 8, 2022, (the “Agreement”), wherein CONSULTANT agreed to provide design engineering services for Pavement Maintenance - Zones 1E & 1F and Concord Boulevard, Project No. 2618.

WHEREAS, under Section 1 “TERM” the Agreement provides that the Agreement shall expire on June 30, 2023.

WHEREAS, under Section 5 “AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT” the Agreement provides that Agreement may be amended by the parties subject to consent and in accordance with the CITY’S Municipal Code.

WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT executed the first amendment on May 17, 2023, Agreement # 5988, to extend the Agreement term to June 30, 2024.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and conditions set forth in the Agreement, the parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 1 “TERM” is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall commence on November 8, 2022, and expire on December 31, 2025.

2. The first two sentences of Section 3 “PAYMENT” are hereby amended to read as follows: The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT including payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules in detail in Exhibit A (of original Agreement) and Exhibit A (of First Amendment). However, in no event shall the amount CITY pays CONSULTANT exceed five hundred thirty-five thousand, four hundred fifty-four dollars and thirteen cents ($535,454.13) for the term of this Agreement.

3. Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Professional Services Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Attachment 4

Page 24 of 39 ends

2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment on the date indicated above.

Dated: ______________ CONSULTANT
BY: ________________________
Analette Ochoa, Vice President
[email protected]
Dated: ________________ CITY OF CONCORD
By:______________________________
Valerie J. Barone
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________________ Susanne Brown Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Attorney City Clerk

Page 25 of 39 ends

3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION:

Concord, California
Date: ________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS EXIST OR WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 24/25 TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.

THE SUM OF $62,481.63 ($472,972.50 previously encumbered, requesting an additional $62,481.63).

Finance Director's Signature

Page 26 of 39 ends

hdrinc.com
3003 Oak Road., Suite 500, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
(925) 465-2700
June 6, 2025
Gerardo Avila, J.D.

Principal Project Manager
5248 S. Montecito Drive
Concord, CA 94521
RE: Pavement Rehabilitation Project 2618 Zone 1E & 1F and Concord Boulevard Amendment to Provide Design Services During Construction for Concord Boulevard Dear Mr. Avila:

Per your request we are providing the following scope and fee estimate to provide design services during construction for the construction of the pavement rehabilitation project on Concord Boulevard from Bailey Road to Camino Estrada Drive.

HDR’s services will be provided on a time and materials basis at the rates shown in the attached fee estimate. The scope of services and attached fee are estimates only and may require amendments.

Scope of Work
The scope of work include preparation of responses to contractor’s request for information (RFI), review of contractors submittals and shop drawings (Submittals), preparation of up to one contract change order (CCO), participation in one field walk at the completion of construction, and assistance to the City to prepare the final punch list.

Task 1 Project Management & Administration
HDR will provide additional project management, administration, and coordination with City staff.

Assumptions
• Construction will begin in July 2025 and be completed by November 2025. • This task includes up to three virtual meetings with City staff.

Deliverables:
• Monthly invoices
Docusign Envelope ID: 383FAB40-4FDC-4CA4-9432-7F412A01B389

Page 27 of 39 ends

Task 2 Response to Contractor’s Request for Information (RFIs) HDR will response to Contractor’s RFIs. RFIs will be issued by the City’s construction representative with an associated RFI number. HDR will document when each RFI is received and when responses have been issued.

Assumptions
• This task includes responses for up to 15 RFIs.

Deliverables:
• Response to RFIs (PDF)
Task 3 Review Submittals
When requested by the City, HDR will review contractor’s submittals and shop drawings.

Submittals will be reviewed for conformance to the contract plans and specifications. Reviewed submittals will be marked as either conforming to the contract documents, needing revisions and resubmittal, or does not conform to the contract documents.

Assumptions
• This task includes review of up to 10 submittals.

Deliverables:
• Reviewed Submittals (PDF)
Task 4 Contract Change Order (CCO)
Upon request from the City, HDR will prepare a contract change order to modify the work to be completed by the contractor.

Assumptions
• This task includes review of up to one CCO.

Deliverables:
• CCO (PDF)
Task 5 Field Walk and Final Punch List Assistance
HDR will attend a field walk at the completion of construction and assist the City in preparing a final punch list of items for the contractor to compete. HDR will be accompanied by a representative of the City during the field walk.

Assumptions
• The field walk will be completed in a single day.

Docusign Envelope ID: 383FAB40-4FDC-4CA4-9432-7F412A01B389

Page 28 of 39 ends

• City will coordinate the field walk.
• No permits will be required to conduct the field walk.

Deliverables:
• Photos taken during the field walk (JPEG format)
• List of items to be included in the final punch list that were observed by HDR staff during the field walk (Microsoft Word and PDF)
Task 6 As-built Drawings
HDR will prepare As-built Drawings after completion of construction. The As-built Drawings will be based on redline markups depicting actual construction provided to HDR by the City.

Assumptions
• The City or City representative will provide redline markups of changes from the contract drawings.
• This task does not include inspection or verification of as-built conditions.

Deliverables:
• As-built drawings in AutoCAD and PDF format
Thank you for considering this request. Please reach out to HDR’s Project Manager if you have questions at (510) 285-1127 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
HDR Engineering, Inc.

Vikrant Sanghai, PE Garrett Low, PE
Vice President Project Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: 383FAB40-4FDC-4CA4-9432-7F412A01B389

Page 29 of 39 ends

Client
City of Concord
Contract 21-S-P-028 – On-Call General Engineering Design Services Residential Pavement Maintenance Phase C Project 2618
PM Escalation OH Rate Fee
Billing Raw Rate 125.85 114.95 56.44 52.5 40.56 46.13 42.32 161.23% 10% Basic Tasks
1 Project Management & Administration 4 16 4 6 6 36 3,099.06$ - $ 4,996.61$ 809.57$ 8,905.24$ 2 Respond to Contractors Request for Information 36 84 120 8,879.16$ - $ 14,315.87$ 2,319.50$ 25,514.53$ 3 Review Submittals 10 40 50 3,407.10$ - $ 5,493.27$ 890.04$ 9,790.41$ 4 Contract Change Order 12 32 44 3,185.48$ - $ 5,135.95$ 832.14$ 9,153.57$ 5 Field Walk and Final Punch List Assistance 2 8 10 681.42$ - $ 1,098.65$ 178.01$ 1,958.08$ 6 As-built Drawings 4 36 40 2,491.64$ - $ 4,017.27$ 650.89$ 7,159.80$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Subtotal Labor 4 80 204 6 6 300 21,743.86$ - $ 35,057.62$ 5,680.15$ 62,481.63$ Sub Consultant
-$
-$
Subconsultant Markup 10.0% -$
Subtotal Subconsultant -$
Expense
Travel & Per Diem -$
Office Misc. & Reproductions -$
Subtotal Expense -$
Total Optional Tasks
Total Project Cost
-$
62,481.63$

TOTALS BY TASK
Hours Labor Cost Total
Labor
Project Coordinator Project AccountantCivil Coordinator TASK

DESCRIPTION

PIC Civil EIT
Assistant Project
Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: 383FAB40-4FDC-4CA4-9432-7F412A01B389

Page 30 of 39 ends

Attachment 5
Residential Pavement Maint. Phase C

CONTRACT
Projects 2606 & 2618 Page 1
Contract
This public works contract (“Contract”) is entered into by and between the City of Concord (“City”) and MCK Services, Inc. (“Contractor”), for work on the Residential Pavement Maintenance Phase C – Concord Blvd/Myrtle Dr (PJ 2606 & 2618) (“Project”).

The parties agree as follows:

1. Award of Contract. In response to the Notice Inviting Bids, Contractor has submitted a bid to perform the Work to construct the Project. On June 24, 2025, City authorized award of this Contract to Contractor for the amount set forth in Section 4, below.

2. Contract Documents. The Contract Documents incorporated into this Contract include and are comprised of all of the documents listed below. The definitions provided in Article 1 of the General Conditions apply to all of the Contract Documents, including this Contract.

2.1 Notice Inviting Bids;

2.2 Instructions to Bidders;

2.3 Addenda, if any;

2.4 Bid Form and attachments thereto;

2.5 Contract;

2.6 Payment and Performance Bonds;

2.7 General Conditions;

2.8 Special Conditions;

2.9 Project Plans and Specifications;

2.10 Change Orders, if any;

2.11 Notice of Potential Award;

2.12 Notice to Proceed

2.13 City of Concord Standard Plans & Specifications

3. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor will perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor must provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including all necessary labor, materials, supplies, tools, equipment, transportation, onsite facilities, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor must use its best efforts to diligently prosecute and complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents.

4. Payment. As full and complete compensation for Contractor’s timely performance and completion of the Work in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, City will pay Contractor $2,622,375.00 (“Contract Price”) for all of Contractor’s direct and indirect costs to perform the Work, including all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, taxes, insurance, bonds and all overhead costs, in accordance with the payment provisions in the General Conditions.

5. Time for Completion. The Project (Base Bid) must be fully completed within 75 working days (weekends and holidays excluded) from the start date set forth in the Notice to Proceed.

Work will begin in July 2025 but the anticipated start date is provided solely for convenience and is neither certain nor binding. See below:

The Contractor will fully complete the Work for the Project, meeting all requirements for completion of all bid items within working days specified from the commencement date

Page 31 of 39 ends

Attachment 5
Residential Pavement Maint. Phase C

CONTRACT
Projects 2606 & 2618 Page 2
given in the Notice to Proceed (“Contract Time”). By signing below, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion.

6. Liquidated Damages. As further specified in Section 5.4 of the General Conditions and below, if Contractor fails to complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will assess liquidated damages in the amounts described below, and such liquidated damages may be deducted from City’s payments due or to become due to Contractor under this Contract. 1) Contractor shall pay to the City of Concord $1,500 per day for each and every calendar day(s) delay in completing the work in excess of the number of working days specified.
2) The Contractor shall pay to the City of Concord $500 per hour for each hour that the Contractor performs work outside the hours of work without prior approval in writing from the City).

7. Labor Code Compliance.

7.1 General. This Contract is subject to all applicable requirements of Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, including requirements pertaining to wages, working hours and workers’ compensation insurance, as further specified in Article 9 of the General Conditions.

7.2 Prevailing Wages. This Project is subject to the prevailing wage requirements applicable to the locality in which the Work is to be performed for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to perform the Work, including employer payments for health and welfare, pension, vacation, apprenticeship and similar purposes. Copies of these prevailing rates are available online at http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR.

7.3 DIR Registration. City may not enter into the Contract with a bidder without proof that the bidder and its Subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code § 1725.5, subject to limited legal exceptions.

8. Workers’ Compensation Certification. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Labor Code § 3700 which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.”

9. Conflicts of Interest. Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors and agents, may not have, maintain or acquire a conflict of interest in relation to this Contract in violation of any City ordinance or requirement, or in violation of any California law, including Government Code § 1090 et seq., or the Political Reform Act, as set forth in Government Code § 81000 et seq. and its accompanying regulations. Any violation of this Section constitutes a material breach of the Contract.

10. Independent Contractor. Contractor is an independent contractor under this Contract and will have control of the Work and the means and methods by which it is performed. Contractor and its Subcontractors are not employees of City and are not entitled to participate in any health, retirement, or any other employee benefits from City.

11. Notice. Any notice, billing, or payment required by or pursuant to the Contract Documents must be made in writing, signed, dated and sent to the other party by personal delivery, U.S. Mail, a reliable overnight delivery service, or by email as a PDF file. Notice is deemed effective upon delivery, except that service by U.S. Mail is deemed effective on the second working day after deposit for delivery. Notice for each party must be given as follows:

Page 32 of 39 ends

Attachment 5
Residential Pavement Maint. Phase C

CONTRACT
Projects 2606 & 2618 Page 3
City:

Residential Pavement Maintenance Phase C – Concord Blvd/Myrtle Dr (PJ 2606 & 2618)
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive M/S 40
Concord, CA 94519
Attn: Gerardo Avila, Consultant Project Manager
[email protected]
Contractor:

Name: MCK, Inc.

Address: 865 Howe Road
City/State/Zip: Martinez, CA 94553
Phone: (925) 957-9200
Attn: John Moffat, Vice President
Email: [email protected]

12. General Provisions.

12.1 Assignment and Successors. Contractor may not assign its rights or obligations under this Contract, in part or in whole, without City’s written consent. This Contract is binding on Contractor’s and City’s lawful heirs, successors and permitted assigns.

12.2 Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries to this Contract.

12.3 Governing Law and Venue. This Contract will be governed by California law and venue will be in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, and no other place.

Contractor waives any right it may have pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 394, to file a motion to transfer any action arising from or relating to this Contract to a venue outside of Contra Costa County, California.

12.4 Amendment. No amendment or modification of this Contract will be binding unless it is in a writing duly authorized and signed by the parties to this Contract.

12.5 Integration. This Contract and the Contract Documents incorporated herein, including authorized amendments or Change Orders thereto, constitute the final, complete, and exclusive terms of the agreement between City and Contractor.

12.6 Severability. If any provision of the Contract Documents is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, in whole or in part, the remaining provisions of the Contract Documents will remain in full force and effect.

12.7 Iran Contracting Act. If the Contract Price exceeds $1,000,000, Contractor certifies, by signing below, that it is not identified on a list created under the Iran Contracting Act, Public Contract Code § 2200 et seq. (the “Act”), as a person engaging in investment activities in Iran, as defined in the Act, or is otherwise expressly exempt under the Act.

12.8 Authorization. Each individual signing below warrants that he or she is authorized to do so by the party that he or she represents, and that this Contract is legally binding on that party. If Contractor is a corporation, signatures from two officers of the corporation are required pursuant to California Corporation Code § 313.

Page 33 of 39 ends

Attachment 5
Residential Pavement Maint. Phase C

CONTRACT
Projects 2606 & 2618 Page 4
[Signatures are on the following pages]
The parties agree to this Contract as witnessed by the signatures below:

CITY: Approved as to form:
s/_______________________________ s/__________________________________ ________________________________ ___________________________________ Valerie J. Barone, City Manager Susanne Brown, City Attorney Date: ___________________________ Date: ______________________________ Attest:
s/_______________________________
_________________________________
Joelle Fockler, City Clerk
Date: ___________________________
CONTRACTOR: MCK Services, Inc.

Business Name
s/_______________________________ Seal:

John Moffat, Vice-President__
Name, Title
Date: ____________________________
Second Signature (See Section 12.8):
s/_______________________________
_________________________________
Name, Title
Date: ____________________________
___________________________________________________
Contractor’s California License Number(s) and Expiration Date(s) FINANCE DIRECTOR’S CERTIFICATION:

Page 34 of 39 ends

Attachment 5
Residential Pavement Maint. Phase C

CONTRACT
Projects 2606 & 2618 Page 5

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS EXIST OR WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.

THE SUM OF $2,622,375.00
ACCOUNT CODES:
407-9500-C999-74200 / 407-2618-117-74200 - $1,300,000.00 407-9500-C999-74200 / 407-2606-117-74200 - $1,322,375.00 ___________________________
Finance Director’s Signature

END OF CONTRACT

Page 35 of 39 ends

Attachment 5
Residential Pavement Maint. Phase C
Payment Bond
Projects 2606 & 2618 Page 6
Payment Bond
The City of Concord (“City”) and MCK, Inc. (“Contractor”) have entered into a contract for work on the Residential Pavement Maintenance Phase C – Concord Blvd/Myrtle Dr (PJ 2606 & 2618) (“Project”). The Contract is incorporated by reference into this Payment Bond (“Bond”).

1. General. Under this Bond, Contractor as principal and ____________________________, its surety (“Surety”), are bound to City as obligee in an amount not less than $_________________, under California Civil Code § 9550 et seq., to ensure payment to authorized claimants. This Bond is binding on the respective successors, assigns, owners, heirs, or executors of Surety and Contractor.

2. Surety’s Obligation. If Contractor or any of its Subcontractors fails to pay a person authorized in California Civil Code § 9100 to assert a claim against a payment bond, any amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the Contract, or any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of Contractor and its Subcontractors under California Unemployment Insurance Code § 13020 with respect to the work and labor, then Surety will pay the obligation.

3. Beneficiaries. This Bond inures to the benefit of any of the persons named in California Civil Code § 9100, so as to give a right of action to those persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this Bond. Contractor must promptly provide a copy of this Bond upon request by any person with legal rights under this Bond.

4. Duration. If Contractor promptly makes payment of all sums for all labor, materials, and equipment furnished for use in the performance of the Work required by the Contract, in conformance with the time requirements set forth in the Contract and as required by California law, Surety’s obligations under this Bond will be null and void. Otherwise, Surety’s obligations will remain in full force and effect.

5. Waivers. Surety waives any requirement to be notified of alterations to the Contract or extensions of time for performance of the Work under the Contract. Surety waives the provisions of Civil Code §§ 2819 and 2845. City waives the requirement of a new bond for any supplemental contract under Civil Code § 9550. Any notice to Surety may be given in the manner specified in the Contract and delivered or transmitted to Surety as follows:

Attn: ______________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________________________ Email: ____________________________________________________

6. Law and Venue. This Bond will be governed by California law, and venue for any dispute pursuant to this Bond will be in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, and no other place. Surety will be responsible for City’s attorneys’ fees and costs in any action to enforce the provisions of this Bond.
[Signatures are on the following page.]

Page 36 of 39 ends

Attachment 5
Residential Pavement Maint. Phase C
Payment Bond
Projects 2606 & 2618 Page 7

7. Effective Date; Execution. This Bond is entered into and is effective on __________, 20__.

SURETY:
___________________________________
Business Name
s/__________________________________ ______________________________ Date
___________________________________
Name, Title
(Attach Acknowledgment with Notary Seal and Power of Attorney) CONTRACTOR:
___________________________________
Business Name
s/__________________________________ ______________________________ Date
___________________________________
Name, Title
APPROVED BY CITY:
s/ __________________________________ ______________________________ Date
____________________________________
Name, Title

END OF PAYMENT BOND

Page 37 of 39 ends

Residential Pavement Maint. Phase C
Payment Bond
Projects 2606 & 2618 Page 8
Performance Bond
The City of Concord (“City”) and MCK, Inc. (“Contractor”) have entered into a contract for work on the Residential Pavement Maintenance Phase C – Concord Blvd/Myrtle Dr (PJ 2606 & 2618) (“Project”). The Contract is incorporated by reference into this Performance Bond (“Bond”).

1. General. Under this Bond, Contractor as principal and ___________________________, its surety (“Surety”), are bound to City as obligee for an amount not less than $__________________ to ensure Contractor’s faithful performance of its obligations under the Contract. This Bond is binding on the respective successors, assigns, owners, heirs, or executors of Surety and Contractor.

2. Surety’s Obligations. Surety’s obligations are co-extensive with Contractor’s obligations under the Contract. If Contractor fully performs its obligations under the Contract, including its warranty obligations under the Contract, Surety’s obligations under this Bond will become null and void.

Otherwise, Surety’s obligations will remain in full force and effect.

3. Waiver. Surety waives any requirement to be notified of and further consents to any alterations to the Contract made under the applicable provisions of the Contract Documents, including changes to the scope of Work or extensions of time for performance of Work under the Contract.

Surety waives the provisions of Civil Code §§ 2819 and 2845.

4. Application of Contract Balance. Upon making a demand on this Bond for completion of the Work prior to acceptance of the Project, City will make the Contract Balance available to Surety for completion of the Work under the Contract. For purposes of this provision, the Contract Balance is defined as the total amount payable by City to Contractor as the Contract Price minus amounts already paid to Contractor, and minus any liquidated damages, credits, or backcharges to which City is entitled under the terms of the Contract.

5. Contractor Default. Upon written notification from City of Contractor’s termination for default under Article 13 of the Contract General Conditions, time being of the essence, Surety must act within the time specified in Article 13 to remedy the default through one of the following courses of action:

5.1 Arrange for completion of the Work under the Contract by Contractor, with City’s consent, but only if Contractor is in default solely due to its financial inability to complete the Work;

5.2 Arrange for completion of the Work under the Contract by a qualified contractor acceptable to City, and secured by performance and payment bonds issued by an admitted surety as required by the Contract Documents, at Surety’s expense; or

5.3 Waive its right to complete the Work under the Contract and reimburse City the amount of City’s costs to have the remaining Work completed.

6. Surety Default. If Surety defaults on its obligations under the Bond, City will be entitled to recover all costs it incurs due to Surety’s default, including legal, design professional, or delay costs.

7. Notice. Any notice to Surety may be given in the manner specified in the Contract and sent to Surety as follows:

Attn: ______________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: ______________________________________________

Page 38 of 39 ends

Residential Pavement Maint. Phase C
Payment Bond
Projects 2606 & 2618 Page 9
Phone: ____________________________________________________ Fax: ______________________________________________________ Email: ____________________________________________________

8. Law and Venue. This Bond will be governed by California law, and venue for any dispute pursuant to this Bond will be in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, and no other place.

Surety will be responsible for City’s attorneys’ fees and costs in any action to enforce the provisions of this Bond.

9. Effective Date; Execution. This Bond is entered into and effective on ____________________, 20___.

END OF PERFORMANCE BOND

Page 39 of 39 ends

Staff Report
Date: June 24, 2025
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3155
Subject: Considering the denial of a request from La Clinica for a six- month extension and expanded use of the $246,182 remaining in their American Rescue Plan Act grant allocation and require the return of the non-spent grant funds to the City’s General Fund.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060(c), 15061(b), 15262, 15273, 15378, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

Report in Brief
La Clínica is requesting a six-month extension of its $500,000 Monument Optometry grant through December 31, 2025, due to unspent funds totaling $246,182. The underspending is attributed to a decrease in self-pay patients following California’s expansion of Medi-Cal coverage. La Clínica seeks to use the remaining funds to continue supporting staff, provide complete eye exams for self-pay patients (versus partial coverage in the original grant), and maintain use of the optometry camera.

Recommended Action
Deny La Clínica’s request for agreement extension and expanded use of the grant funds and require the return of the remaining unspent funds of $246,182 to the General Fund.

Background
The City of Concord allocated grants to local nonprofits using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to address critical community needs and support economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic. Passed by Congress in 2021, ARPA provided

5.a5.a5.a5.a

Page 1 of 18 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
June 24, 2025
federal relief to states and local governments to aid in recovery efforts and promote long-term resilience.

On March 7, 2023, the City Council approved the allocation of $7 million in ARPA funds to support 22 community-serving programs in Concord. Each grant agreement was initially set to expire on December 31, 2024. On December 3, 2024, Council authorized a six-month extension for nine of the agreements to allow additional time for those organizations to fully expend their awarded funds. The remaining grantees expended their funds, in accordance with their initial grant requirements and time frame.

As part of the original funding conditions, Council stipulated that nonprofit organizations would receive a maximum of 80% of their total grant allocation upfront. The final 20% would be disbursed only after the City verified that funds were spent in accordance with each organization’s approved funding plan. This condition was included in all executed agreements.

To date, 21 of the 22 programs have received 100% of their allocated funding. The only remaining organization is La Clínica’s Monument Optometry program (referred to as “La Clínica” throughout this report).

La Clínica is requesting a six-month extension through December 31, 2025, due to unspent funds ($246,182 of $500,000) caused by an unexpected reduction in self-pay patients after California expanded Medi-Cal (Attachment 1). They seek support from Council to use the remaining funds to cover complete eye exams for all self-pay patients. If approved, they plan to revise the budget to allocate funds for staff support, eye exams, and use of the optometry camera to continue patient services during the extended period.

The following provides an overview of the intended use of La Clínica’s $500,000 in funding to support its Monument Optometry Program, along with a status update provided by the organization.

1. Purchase a combined retinal and optical coherence tomography (OCT) camera to enhance diagnostic capabilities.
• The camera was purchased at a cost of $131,592.01

2. Fund a new Medical Assistant position to improve patient scheduling and imaging throughput.
• A Medical Assistant was funded by the grant effective January 2, 2024.

3. Cover imaging costs for approximately 7,000 uninsured patients, ensuring no one was denied access due to financial barriers.
• La Clínica completed 3,862 eye tests and screenings.

Page 2 of 18 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
June 24, 2025
As of May 22, 2025, La Clínica expended roughly 50% of its $500,000 grant. In total, $246,182 of La Clínica’s grant remains unspent: $146,182 held by the organization and $100,000 retained by the City.

La Clínica submitted Attachment 1 for Council consideration requesting that Council extend their time frame for spending their grant funds and expand the uses for the grant funds. In summary they are specifically requesting the following:
a) Extend the agreement to December 31, 2025; and
b) Utilize unspent funds towards complete eye exams for all self-pay patients.

Analysis
The purpose of providing the ARPA grant was to use federal funds to address critical community needs and support economic recovery in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. economy has since made significant progress toward recovery, and La Clínica’s remaining funds are now sourced from the City’s General Fund. This occurred as part of the Council’s mid-cycle budget review on June 4, 2024, when Council adopted a resolution that granted the City Manager authority to reallocate ARPA-funded projects and make necessary administrative adjustments. This authority ensured full expenditure of ARPA funds by the end of 2024, in compliance with federal guidelines and avoided the risk of funds being forfeited.

Given the substantial amount of unspent funds from the original La Clinica grant, the City’s previous extension of the La Clinica agreement, and the City’s ongoing reliance on reserves to balance the budget over the next two years, staff recommends denying La Clínica’s request for an additional extension. Returning the remaining funds to the General Fund will help support and stabilize reserve levels during this period. The Council could direct the funds to other Council priorities but as these are one-time funds, they would be subject to the City’s fiscal stability ordinance and would need to be invested in a one-time use.

Alternatives
Council could take one of the following actions as an alternative to the staff recommendation:
a. Authorize the City Manager to approve a six-month contract extension, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, that allows La Clínica to use the remaining funds in their possession, $146,182, for expanded uses as proposed. The remaining $100,000 of funding within this grant that remains in the City’s possession would be retained by the City and would go into the City’s reserves, unless Council allocates it to a different use.
b. Authorize the City Manager to approve a six-month contract extension, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, that allows La Clínica to use the full original grant amount, of which $246,182 is currently unspent, for expanded uses as proposed.

Page 3 of 18 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
June 24, 2025
Financial Impact
The funds discussed in this staff report are one-time General Fund dollars. The City Council has full discretion over how to invest these funds, provided the investment does not create ongoing costs for the City. The funding was originally earmarked to support the community as it recovered from the pandemic. While allocating the funds to the City's reserves would provide a positive financial benefit, there is no new budget impact if the funds are instead used to continue implementing the grant program or redirected to another Council priority as a one-time investment.

Environmental Determination
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 allocation of American Rescue Plan Act funds to support community nonprofits does not constitute a “project,” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b), and/or 15378 because there is no potential that the activity will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, 15273 because it involves government funding/fiscal activities, and/or 15262 since the activity involves only feasibility and planning for possible future actions. Even if this activity were determined to be a “project” for CEQA analysis, this activity falls within the "common sense" CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), 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.” No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted. La Clínica was contacted and informed of this agenda item and staff’s recommendation.

Attachment

1. La Clínica’s request for an extension

Page 4 of 18 ends

June 5, 2025

City of Concord

Re: La Clinica de La Raza (La Clinica) is requesting a no cost extension for the Monument Optometry grant

Dear City Council Members,

La Clinica is requesting a no-cost extension of six months for the Monument Optometry grant to support our patients through December 31, 2025. Based on the April expense report, we have the unspent amount of $146,182.74 out of $400,000 that we have received from the city (The total grant amount is $500,000). California expanded Medi-Cal coverage, which was not predicted at the time of proposal, and it reduced the number of self-pay patients. As a result, we were not able to spend down the budgeted amount for the “fees of uninsured patients”. We also request you to allow us to use these funds towards the complete eye exam for all self-pay patients. This will help patients to receive thorough eye care.

If you approve the extension for this grant till December 31, 2025, we would like to revise the budget to use the unspent funds and request the remaining grant funds of $100,000, which will be utilized towards the staff for serving patients and covering expenses for uninsured self-pay patients. If it is allowable, these funds will also be used for paying complete eye exam for all self-pay patients in addition to using optometry camera. This will help us to continue providing services to self-pay patients for the extended duration of time.

Thank you for your support.

Kanwar Singh
Chief Financial Officer
La Clinica de La Raza, Inc.

P.O. Box 22210
Oakland, CA 94623

Attachment 1

Page 5 of 18 ends

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 10:15 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Robinson, Monique <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 5.a: La Clinica Grant

This e-mail is being shared with all Councilmembers

Councilmember Nakamura,

Here is the information you requested related to the recent action to transfer unallocated dollars from the Homeless Strategic Plan Implementation grants to the TSBA Downtown Security Program in the recently adopted budget

• There was $166,000 moved from the Homeless Strategic Plan unallocated grant funding to the TSBA downtown security program.
• There is approximately $246,000 of unspent funds in the La Clinica grant (item 5.a). • The City is holding $100,000 and the La Clinica Grant and La Clinica has $146,000 of unspent funds.

Valerie
Valerie Barone, City Manager (she/her/hers)
City of Concord | Website: www.cityofconcord.org
( (925) 671-3150 | * [email protected]
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01, Concord, CA 94519

Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item 5.a
June 24, 2025

Page 6 of 18 ends

Request from La Clinica for ARPA
Grant Extension
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
June 24, 2025
1

Page 7 of 18 ends

Background on ARPA
2 •American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
• $1.9 trillion federal stimulus package
• Signed into law on March 11, 2021
• Funding meant for state and local fiscal recovery
•Concord received a $27 million allocation
• Concord qualified to utilize the funds as “revenue loss,” allowing flexibility for Council and community priorities

Page 8 of 18 ends

3 Total Allocation $27,040,883
Employee COVID Testing 213,292
CORE Contract 183,000
City Projects/Public Safety 6,500,000
Special Events 500,000
Support to Non-Profits 7,000,000
Support to Unhoused 3,000,000
Support to Small Businesses 2,000,000
General Government Services 6,644,591
Rent Relief Program 1,000,000

Page 9 of 18 ends

4 Organization Award Amount
Bay Area Crisis Nursery 75,000
Blue Devils Performing Arts 100,000
Cancer Support Community 50,000
Community Youth Center of Concord 1,500,000
Concord Historical Society 496,000
• 5 organizations withdrew or were disqualified
• Ad Hoc Committee interviewed 68 organizations
• Council awarded funds to 22 organizations on March 7, 2023 73 organizations applied for ARPA funding:

Page 10 of 18 ends

5 Organization Award Amount
Contra Costa Economic Partnership 200,000
Dentists on Wheels 200,000
Diablo Ballet 139,000
Friends of Camp Concord 180,000
Futures Explored 150,000
Japanese American Religious and Cultural Center 215,000 La Clinica de La Raza, Inc. 58,000
La Clinica de La Raza, Inc. 500,000
Leaven Kids 105,000

Page 11 of 18 ends

6 Organization Award Amount
Meals on Wheels Diablo Region 700,000
Mindful Life Project 111,000
Monument Impact 1,500,000
Mt. Diablo Education Foundation 58,000
Visit Concord/Creative Concord 200,000
Visit Concord 50,000
White Pony Express 200,000
Yours Humanly 213,000
Total Allocations $7,000,000

Page 12 of 18 ends

Current Status of Awardees
7 21 of 22 awardees have used 100% of their funding
• 13 utilized their funds by December 2024
• 9 received a six-month extension, including La Clinica La Clinica de La Raza Optometry Program
• Has used $253,818 of their $500,000 allocation
• $100,000 being held by City; $146,182 in their possession • Requests additional six months extension (total of 30 months)

Page 13 of 18 ends

Current Status of La Clinica Program
8 1. Purchase camera to enhance diagnostic capabilities. Camera was purchased at a cost of $131,592.01.

2. Fund new Medical Assistant Position. The new position was funded by the grant effective January 2, 2024.

3. Cover imaging costs for 7,000 uninsured patients. La Clinica completed 3,862 eye tests and screenings.

Page 14 of 18 ends

La Clinica’s Extension Request
9 • Caused by an unexpected reduction in self-pay patients after California expanded Medi-Cal
• Request use of remaining funds to cover complete eye exams for all self-pay patients; if approved they will revise budget to:
• Fund staffing support
• Eye exams
• Use of optometry camera to continue patient services

Page 15 of 18 ends

Funding Status and Flexibility
10 • ARPA grants designed to address critical community needs and support economic recovery in the wake of COVID-19
• ARPA funds fully spent as of June 2024; grant funding replaced with General Fund dollars
Council has broad discretion for reallocation, with a focus on supporting reserves or one-time investments.

Page 16 of 18 ends

Staff Recommendation and Alternatives
11 Staff recommendation: Deny the request for extension.

Alternatives:

1. Approve 6-month extension allowing La Clinica to utilize the $146,182 in their possession for expanded uses; retain the $100,000 still in City possession.

2. Approve 6-month extension allowing La Clinica to utilize the full $246,182 for expanded uses.

Page 17 of 18 ends

Council Questions and Public
Comment
12 Request from La Clinica for ARPA Grant Extension

Page 18 of 18 ends

Staff Report
Date: June 24, 2025
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mindy Gentry, Director of Community Development Aaron Sage, Planning Manager
Prepared by: Meredith Rupp, Principal Planner
[email protected]
(925) 603-5890
Subject: Considering the following:

1. An overview of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission’s (“MTC”) Transit-Oriented Communities
(“TOC”) Policy and staff’s proposed work plan to increase compliance with the Policy;

2. Adoption of a Resolution committing to take steps toward achieving compliance with MTC's Transit-Oriented
Communities (“TOC”) Policy as a condition for MTC to
allocate discretionary funding for two TOC Planning and Implementation Grants for land use density and parking
management, and authorizing the City Manager to accept
and appropriate the land use density grant funds to
reimbursable project number 2801 (Fund 402), and execute any necessary or appropriate agreements in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney.

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

Report in Brief
In September 2022, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) adopted a Transit-Oriented Communities (“TOC”) Policy (Attachment 2) that encourages Bay Area

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

Page 1 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
jurisdictions with a transit station served by rail, bus rapid transit, or ferry to adopt various policies intended to facilitate transit ridership and affordable housing in proximity to these stations (Attachment 3). MTC has stated that eligibility for future discretionary MTC funding, including the next round of One Bay Area Grant (“OBAG”) funds in 2026, will be based on compliance with the TOC Policy. The City of Concord is subject to the TOC Policy due to its two Bay Area Rapid Transit (“BART”) stations.

Key components of the TOC Policy include greater commercial intensities and residential densities and reduced parking requirements within one-half mile of the City’s BART stations and a minimum number of policies supporting the preservation, protection, and production of housing. Currently, Concord’s existing policies are partially compliant with the TOC Policy, and some new and updated policies, especially related to density and parking, would be required to achieve MTC’s highest level of compliance.

To support the City’s compliance efforts and maximize eligibility for future OBAG funds, staff have developed a work plan for developing the necessary policy changes, with input from the Council’s Infrastructure & Franchise (“I&F”) Committee (Aliano/Hoffmeister). The work plan would be supported by two MTC grants totaling $485,000.1
MTC requires adoption of the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) in order to accept the two grants totaling $485,000. Acceptance of the grants does not require compliance with all components of the TOC Policy, but it does require a commitment to fulfill the scope of work and an intent to make policy changes based on deliverables that emerge from the work.2 Specific policy changes would be brought to the Council as a future public hearing agenda item, with input from the Planning Commission for any Development Code amendments, appropriate City Council subcommittees, and the public.

Recommended Action

1. Consider an overview of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (“MTC”) Transit-Oriented Communities (“TOC”) Policy and staff’s proposed work plan to increase compliance with the Policy; and

2. Adopt a Resolution committing to take steps towards achieving compliance with the MTC’s Transit-Oriented Communities (“TOC”) Policy as a condition for MTC to allocate discretionary funding for two TOC Planning and Implementation Grants for land use density and parking management, and authorizing the City Manager to accept and appropriate the land use density grant funds to reimbursable project number 2801 (Fund 402), and execute any necessary or appropriate agreements in a form acceptable to the City Attorney (Attachment 1). 1 One grant is for $185,000 to evaluate land use densities in Downtown, and the other grant is for $300,000 to evaluate parking management policies.
2 In cases where a jurisdiction is not willing to make changes to a particular TOC Policy-related standard, there is some room to explore alternatives with MTC staff.

Page 2 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
Background
TOC Policy
The overarching purpose of the TOC Policy is to support the region’s transit investments and advance the goals of Plan Bay Area 2050, the long-range Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy.3 One of the stated goals of the TOC Policy is to create places where “Bay Area residents of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work, and access services.”4 The TOC Policy applies to “TOC Areas,” which are the areas within one-half mile of existing and planned major transit stops and stations (i.e., stations served by regional rail, commuter rail, light-rail transit, bus rapid transit, and ferries). MTC has identified 65 jurisdictions with a TOC Area, which are grouped into four “tiers” based on the level of transit service. As shown in Attachment 4, Concord has two TOC Areas: one around the Concord BART Station (“Downtown TOC Area”) and one around the North Concord/Martinez BART Station (“North Concord TOC Area”). Both of these stations are in “Tier 3” of the TOC Policy because they are served by only one BART line.5 As described below, the TOC Policy establishes four types of requirements that apply in the TOC Areas (and only in these areas): (1) land use density and intensity, (2) affordable housing and commercial stabilization, (3) parking management, and (4) station access/circulation.

Land Use Density and Intensity
The TOC Policy establishes minimum density and intensity standards for new residential, office, and mixed-use development. The density requirements apply to the weighted average of allowable densities in zoning districts where new residential, commercial office, and mixed-use development is permitted in the TOC Areas.6 Because a weighted average is used, it is possible for an individual zoning district within the TOC Area to have allowable densities below the minimum TOC standards as long as the weighted average for the TOC exceeds the minimums. In Concord, the weighted average must meet or exceed the minimums shown in Table 1 to achieve full compliance with the TOC Policy.

3 The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) was born out of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (2006), Senate Bill (SB) 32 (2016), and SB 375 (2008) to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. Regional metropolitan planning organizations are required to develop an SCS to align transportation, housing, and land use decisions to achieve GHG emissions reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 4 MTC Resolution No. 4530.
5 MTC has categorized the TOC Areas into four tiers based on level of transit service. Tier 1 applies to rail stations that serve regional centers (e.g, Downtown Oakland, Downtown San Francisco) while Tier 4 applies to commuter rail stations and ferry terminals (e.g., Martinez Amtrak Station, Vallejo Ferry Terminal). Some TOC Policy requirements are adjusted to apply according to transit tier while others are consistent across all tiers. 6 The average may exclude parcels or zones in certain cases (e.g., zones intended for open space, parcels with existing dwelling units).

Page 3 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
Table 1: Land Use Density and Intensity TOC Standards
TOC Policy Standard Residential
Requirement
Commercial
Requirement
Average Minimum Density 50 dwelling units/acre FAR7 of 2.0 Average Maximum Density 75 dwelling units/acre FAR of 4.0 Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization
To achieve full compliance with the TOC Policy, jurisdictions must have at least six adopted affordable housing policies, with at least two policies for each of the “3Ps” (i.e., production, preservation, and protection). Policies must be selected from a menu of 26 options (Attachment 5) and meet prescriptive implementation criteria. Example policies that can be used to achieve compliance include using public land for affordable housing, restricting the conversion of apartments to condominiums, and providing foreclosure assistance. Additionally, jurisdictions must select at least one commercial stabilization policy from a menu of four policy options.

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

1. No minimum automobile parking requirement for new residential development

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

3. No minimum automobile parking requirement for new commercial development

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

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

6. Allow unbundled parking 8

7. Allow shared parking between different land uses

8. Adopt and implement one additional policy from the five options below:
• Require and enforce Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) for new development
7 Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) is the ratio of a building’s gross floor area to the total lot area. FAR is used to measure and regulate the maximum allowable floor area of all structures permitted on a site. In Concord, FAR only applies to non-residential buildings.
8 Unbundled parking means separating the cost of leasing a parking space from the sale or rental price of residential and commercial uses.

Page 4 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
• Curb Strategy/Management that provides priority curb access based on variable need
• Invest parking revenues into a Parking Benefit District that funds streetscape, safety, and TDM programs
• Demand-responsive pricing that prices parking according to level of convenience and demand
• Adding priced parking where it used to be free
Station Access and Circulation
Jurisdictions seeking full TOC Policy compliance must meet the following four requirements related to station access and circulation:
• Adopt a jurisdiction-wide Complete Streets Policy
• Prioritize implementation of active transportation projects9 in TOC Areas • Complete an access gap analysis and capital improvement program for station access
• Identify “Mobility Hub”10 planning and implementation opportunities in TOC Areas Implications of TOC Policy Compliance on Future Funding Eligibility Although TOC Policy compliance is not mandatory, it will make jurisdictions “eligible and/or competitive” for future MTC discretionary funding including OBAG, an important regional funding source for transportation planning and improvements. Since 2015, Concord has received almost $20.8 million in OBAG funding, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Concord’s Previous OBAG Projects
Project Name Funding Amount
Willow Pass Road Repaving and Safe Routes to
School (in design/under construction)
$6,240,000
Monument Boulevard Class I Path (complete) $4,368,000
Galindo Street Multimodal Corridor (in design) $3,361,000 East Downtown Access & Safe Routes to Transit
(under construction)
$2,164,000
Detroit Ave. Bike & Ped Improvements
(complete)
$2,154,000
9 Active transportation encompasses any form of travel that is fully or partially powered by people, such as walking, biking, or using a scooter.
10 Mobility Hubs are an MTC term for places around frequent transit that bring together public transit, bike share, car share, and other ways for people to transfer from one type of transportation to another without a private vehicle. MTC encourages jurisdictions to consult the Mobility Hub Implementation Playbook at https://mtc.ca.gov/tools-and-resources/digital-library/mtc-mobility-hub-implementation-playbook for ideas.

Page 5 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
Project Name Funding Amount
Concord BART Bike & Ped Access
Improvements (complete)
$1,195,000
Various Streets Preservation (complete) $757,000
Oak Grove at Sierra Bike/Ped Traffic Signal
(complete)
$504,900
Concord Salvio Streetscape (complete) $50,000
TOTAL $20,793,900
OBAG is funded primarily from the Federal Highway Administration and other federal sources that are distributed by MTC.11 The next round of OBAG funds, OBAG 4, is planned to open a call for projects in early 2026. Local jurisdictions’ compliance with the TOC Policy will be considered as part of OBAG 4 funding decisions. MTC is currently designing the OBAG 4 program and has not yet determined how this funding will be structured between the more competitive Regional Program and the less competitive County & Local Program.12 MTC has advised that it would be reasonable to assume a structure similar to OBAG 3, which evenly split funding between the County & Local Program and the Regional Program. OBAG funds for local governments in the Regional Program are typically competitive across the nine-county region whereas the County & Local Program is competitive at the county level. For the OBAG 3 County & Local Program, County Transportation Agencies (“CTAs”) nominated projects to MTC for selection and each CTA was assigned a target share of the total funding available.

TOC Policy compliance will be an evaluation criterion for both the Regional Program and County & Local Program in OBAG 4, meaning the City’s degree of TOC Policy compliance could be evaluated against all Bay Area jurisdictions for regional OBAG 4 funding and only against Contra Costa County jurisdictions for county and local OBAG 4 funding. MTC has released a Draft Evaluation Criteria Framework and Draft TOC Evaluation PowerPoint (Attachment 6) (“Scoring Framework Documents”), which are preliminary and subject to change, and illustrate how TOC Policy compliance could be scored and used in OBAG 4 decisions. The Scoring Framework Documents indicate that compliance would be divided into three categories: Not Compliant, Partially Compliant, and Fully Compliant. Some OBAG 4 funding would be set aside for jurisdictions that are considered Fully Compliant with the TOC Policy. Partially Compliant jurisdictions would be eligible for the bulk of the remaining funding, while Not Compliant jurisdictions would be eligible only for funding that furthers their compliance.

As noted later in the Analysis section of this report, Concord is currently estimated to be in the Partially Compliant category.
11 The federal agencies with which MTC works are currently pausing new grant agreements and obligations until they can determine which grants will be impacted by the current administration’s Executive Orders. However, MTC is projecting an allocation of approximately $800 million in funding for OBAG 4. 12 Since 2015, 99 percent of Concord’s OBAG funds have come from the County & Local Program.

Page 6 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
The Scoring Framework Documents introduce a scoring system of weighted standards and point ranges to assess compliance, with 100 points being a perfect score. For jurisdictions like Concord with more than one TOC Area, a score is calculated for each TOC Area and then averaged to calculate the City’s TOC Policy compliance. Per the latest guidance from MTC, a score of 85 points or more would be considered Fully Compliant, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: TOC Policy Compliance Rubric
Compliance Category Points
Not Compliant 0-39
Partially Compliant 40-84
Fully Compliant 85-100
TOC Planning and Implementation Grants
MTC released approximately $20 million for local planning and policy development across all four components of the TOC Policy to help jurisdictions increase their TOC Policy compliance. City staff submitted two TOC Planning and Implementation Grant (“TOC Grant”) applications to fund staff and consultant time as follows (Attachments 7 and 8):
• A Specific Plan and Zoning Amendments Grant for $185,000 to increase the average minimum residential density in the downtown to become fully compliant with the TOC Policy in the Downtown TOC Area.13 The scope of work would include identifying and selecting which policy levers to adjust to meet the minimum density requirements; making the relevant amendments to the 2030 Concord General Plan, Downtown Concord Specific Plan, and Concord Development Code; conducting community engagement; and performing environmental review.
• A Parking Management Grant for $300,000 to revise vehicle and bicycle parking standards and Transportation Demand Measures (TDM) in both TOC Areas. The proposal also requested assistance in determining on-street parking supply and demand within Concord’s two TOC Areas to allow the City to better prepare for any changes to on-street parking regulations and prevent parking from being transferred from off-street spaces to on-street spaces. Community and stakeholder engagement were also included.
13 The North Concord TOC Area was not considered as part of the Specific Plan and Zoning Amendments Grant due to complexities associated with amending the Area Plan, the federal government’s involvement in the Naval Weapons Station Reuse Project, and the current status of the City’s negotiations with a Master Developer and the Navy. Based on preliminary conversations with MTC staff, City staff believes MTC understands and agrees with the City’s reasoning for excluding the North Concord TOC Area and may show flexibility in assessing North Concord’s land use density compliance given the unique nature of the land use planning process for the Naval Weapons Station. These conversations with MTC staff, however, are ongoing.

Page 7 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
On February 14, 2025, the MTC Planning Committee unanimously approved $20 million in grants, including $485,000 to the City of Concord. As indicated above, this funding is from the Federal Highway Administration, which is currently pausing new discretionary grants while it determines the impacts of the current administration’s Executive Orders, resulting in a degree of uncertainty if the grant will eventually be awarded for this work.

MTC requires a resolution of local support as a condition to accept any grant awards.

Council is requested to consider the TOC Policy and adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) to accept the two TOC Grants. Completing the scopes of work in both TOC Grants would further Concord’s compliance with the TOC Policy.

Infrastructure & Franchise Committee
Staff presented and discussed the TOC Policy and TOC Grants with the I&F Committee on March 3, 202514 and April 22, 2025.15 The I&F Committee provided recommendations on where and how to come into greater compliance with the TOC Policy and recommended acceptance of both TOC Grants. The I&F Committee’s recommendations on specific policy changes are included in the Analysis section below.

Analysis
Summary
Staff’s preliminary analysis, shown in Table 4, indicates that Concord would score 66 points and be considered Partially Compliant with the TOC Policy under current conditions. However, with implementation of the TOC Grants and the I&F Committee’s recommendations, staff anticipates the City would score 85 points and be considered Fully Compliant, as shown in Table 5.

Table 4: Concord’s Current TOC Policy Compliance Estimate TOC Area Land Use
Density
Affordable
Housing
Parking
Management
Station
Access/
Circulation
Total
Score
Downtown 17 17 8 25 67
North
Concord
15 17 8 25 65
Normalized Score 66
See Table 5 for Table Notes
14 https://www.cityofconcord.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03032025-1225 15 https://www.cityofconcord.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04222025-1242

Page 8 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
Table 5: Concord’s Projected TOC Policy Compliance Estimate TOC Area Land Use
Density
Affordable
Housing
Parking
Management
Station
Access/
Circulation
Total
Score
Downtown 25 25 17 25 92
North
Concord
15 25 13 25 78
Normalized Score 85
Table Notes:

Green = maximum score possible
The normalized score is used to assess Concord’s compliance. It is the average of the two TOC Area’s total scores.

Under the Draft Framework:

Not Compliant: 0-39 points
Partially Compliant: 40-84 points
Fully Compliant: 85+ points
This analysis is preliminary and makes several assumptions about the implementation of MTC’s Scoring Framework Documents, which are drafts that will likely change.

Additionally, given the complexities of updating the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan (“Area Plan”) that governs the undeveloped portion of the North Concord TOC Area, City staff have requested that MTC provide additional flexibility for this TOC Area, which could further change how Concord’s TOC Policy compliance is assessed.

An analysis of each TOC Policy component is included in the following sections.

Land Use Density and Intensity
The City would need higher residential density and commercial floor area ratio (“FAR”) standards to be fully compliant with the TOC Policy. Table 6 illustrates Concord’s current averages in the TOC Areas compared with the TOC Policy standard. Gray shading is used to identify current areas of noncompliance.

Table 6: Land Use Density in TOC Areas
TOC Policy
Standard
Requirement Downtown TOC
Area
North Concord
TOC Area16
Average Minimum
Residential Density
(8 pts max)
At least 50 units/
acre
29 units/acre 28 units/acre
Average Maximum
Residential Density
(8 pts max)
At least 75 units/
acre
112 units/acre 81 units/acre
16 The North Concord calculations do not include the Coast Guard property because the property is currently designated Military in the General Plan and zoned as a Study District. The calculations will be updated to include the property when more details are provided on the General Plan Amendment and rezoning that is being pursued.

Page 9 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
TOC Policy
Standard
Requirement Downtown TOC
Area
North Concord
TOC Area16
Average Minimum
Commercial Office
FAR
(4 pts max)
At least 2.0 FAR 2.15 FAR 1.8 FAR
Average Maximum
Commercial Office
FAR
(5 pts max)
At least 4.0 FAR 4.8 FAR 2.5 FAR
The I&F Committee expressed support for targeted residential density increases in the Downtown TOC Area, especially if limited to the Downtown Mixed-Use (DMX) Zoning District. As part of the work to implement the Specific Plan and Zoning Amendments Grant, staff would identify and evaluate various options on how to adjust residential density minimums to achieve the 50 dwelling units/acre in the Downtown TOC Area.

City Council feedback, along with community input, would be used to inform the selection the preferred scenario. The I&F Committee recommended refraining from any land use density/intensity changes in the North Concord TOC Area given the ongoing planning process with the Naval Weapons Station Reuse Project.

With completion of the Specific Plan and Zoning Amendments Grant and implementation of the I&F Committee’s recommendations, the Downtown TOC Area would become Fully Compliant with the TOC Policy and the North Concord TOC Area would remain Partially Compliant, scoring 15 out of 25 possible points. However, as noted above, it is anticipated the City would be Fully Compliant overall.

Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization
MTC has provided a menu of acceptable policies to address affordable housing and commercial stabilization (Attachment 5). Concord has existing policies within each of three Affordable Housing categories identified in the TOC Policy (Production, Preservation, and Protection) and within the Commercial Stabilization category.

However, the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance includes prescriptive standards for each policy, such as the amount of funding secured for certain programs, the minimum percentage of inclusionary units, and the amount of tenant relocation assistance. Table 7 analyzes existing Concord policies and their compliance with the TOC Policy’s prescriptive standards.

Page 10 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
Table 7: Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization Compliance Policy Name Key
Requirements
Compliance
Status
Adjustments to
Achieve
Compliance
Housing Production
(2 out of 7 policy options required for compliance)
Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone17
Go beyond
requirements of
state law to
incentivize projects
with at least 15% of
units affordable
(e.g., allowances
for increased
density, reduced
parking
requirements, fast-
tracked permitting).

Fully Compliant.

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

None Needed
Public Land for
Affordable Housing
Have a program in
the Housing
Element, an online
inventory of surplus
sites, and a recent,
ongoing, or
planned
development on a
public site that
exceeds the
affordability
requirements of the
Surplus Lands Act
(i.e., more than
25% of units
affordable). If the
project is not on
City-owned land,
then the City must
show financial
support for the
Partially
Compliant.

Housing Element
Programs 3 and 4
include actions
around facilitating
affordable housing
development on
surplus public land
and Concord has
several publicly
owned sites that
are in various
stages of the
development
process (e.g., City-
owned Town
Center II or
Oak/Laguna site,
BART-owned
Implementation of
Housing Element
Programs 3 and 4
to create a map of
publicly owned land
would fulfill some
compliance
requirements.

However, the
biggest factors will
be:
1) whether
development on
publicly owned land
has more than 25%
of units restricted
as affordable and
2) the City’s ability
to provide
monetary benefits
to a project or
17 Due to overlapping components across production policies, jurisdictions applying for compliance under the Affordable Housing Overlay Production Policy are not permitted to count other Production policies for compliance (i.e., Ministerial Approval Policy or Development Certainty & Streamlined Entitlement Process).

Page 11 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
Policy Name Key
Requirements
Compliance
Status
Adjustments to
Achieve
Compliance
project (e.g.,
grant/loan, waived
fees).

Monument site).

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

MTC’s acceptance
of non-monetary
benefits as
adequate evidence
of the City’s
support for
development on
BART-owned
land.18
Other Production
Policy Notes
Staff conferred with MTC staff about the possibility of using Concord’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for Housing
Production compliance. MTC staff advised that Concord’s inclusionary rate of 6% for rental housing with two-thirds of units for moderate-income households differed too greatly from the TOC Policy requirement of 15% for low-income households to be considered compliant, even though the City’s rate was established based on a feasibility study and the ownership rate exceeds the TOC Policy’s prescribed depth of affordability for ownership units.19
Housing Preservation
(2 out of 8 policy options required for compliance)
Preventing
Displacement from
Substandard
Conditions and
Associated
Enforcement
Activities
Low- or no-interest
loan or grant
program to
rehabilitate owner-
occupied housing
for low-income
homeowners.

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

Fully Compliant.

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

None Needed
Condo Conversion
Restrictions
Impose the
following
Mostly Compliant. The City would
need to establish
18 MTC staff have indicated that the City successfully securing a due diligence grant for the BART-owned site “could count.” MTC staff may, at their discretion, also allow a jurisdiction to count a non-monetary benefit like staff time. 19 I&F Committee members are pursuing conversations with MTC Commissioners to discuss Concord’s current Inclusionary Housing policy relative to the TOC Policy. However, MTC’s TOC Policy Administrative Guidance Version

1.1, updated in May 2025 based on feedback from partners, explicitly states that “a policy with an income mix that does not meet [MTC’s] standard will not be considered compliant, even if the policy was based on a financial feasibility analysis.”

Page 12 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
Policy Name Key
Requirements
Compliance
Status
Adjustments to
Achieve
Compliance
requirements for
condo conversions:
1) Levy an
affordable
housing fee of
$100,000 per
converted unit.
2) Give existing
tenants the first
right to
purchase a unit.
3) Require a
Tenant
Relocation
Assistance
Plan, including
paying existing
tenants three
times the
monthly fair
market rent of
the unit.

Concord Municipal
Code (CMC)
Chapter 17.35
Article II contains
regulations for
condo conversions
that are largely
consistent with the
provision of this
component of the
TOC Policy.
an affordable
housing fee of at
least $100,000 per
unit that applies to
condo conversions
and include
additional tenant
relocation
assistance
provisions. This
would include
increasing the
amount of
assistance paid to
existing tenants
from at least two
times the tenant’s
monthly rent plus
$2,000 at the time
of move out to at
least three times
the monthly fair
market rent of the
unit while retaining
a to-be-determined
amount for
“reasonable
moving expenses.”
Mobile Home
Preservation
Mobile Home
Closure Ordinance
must require a
public hearing as
part of a
conditional
approval for any
closure and include
a Tenant
Relocation
Assistance Plan.

Mostly Compliant.

CMC Chapter

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

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

This would need to
be changed to
require relocation

Page 13 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
Policy Name Key
Requirements
Compliance
Status
Adjustments to
Achieve
Compliance
assistance as a
condition of
approval.

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

Fully Compliant.

Concord’s
ordinance, codified
in CMC Section

19.40.070, meets
the TOC criteria.

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

Fully Compliant.

Concord’s
regulations,
codified in CMC
Section 19.40.030,
meet the TOC
criteria.

None Needed
Tenant Relocation
Assistance
Landlords must
make relocation
payments for all
no-fault evictions
equal to at least
three months’ fair
market rent.

Fully Compliant.

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

None Needed
Commercial Stabilization
(1 out of 4 policy options required for compliance)
Small Business
Advocate Office
Provide a single
point of contact for
small business
owners
Fully Compliant.

The Economic
Development
None Needed

Page 14 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
Policy Name Key
Requirements
Compliance
Status
Adjustments to
Achieve
Compliance
Department has a
designated staff
person for small
businesses.

The City is fully compliant with the TOC Policy in the areas of Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacment and Commercial Stabilization due to existing policies and programs.

To be fully compliant in the Housing Production and Preservation areas, minor amendments to existing policies are needed. The I&F Committee recommended pursuing full compliance with the TOC Policy’s Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization standards by making the changes summarized below. • Production. Achieve compliance with the Public Land for Affordable Housing policy by creating an online map of publicly owned land and citing the BART- owned Monument site20 as evidence of a planned housing development project that would meet the requirements of the policy, which includes a requirement for more than 25% of the units to be restricted as affordable.21 • Preservation. Achieve compliance with the Mobile Home Preservation policy by amending the Mobile Home Closure Ordinance. The City’s current policy states that the Planning Commission “may” require tenant relocation assistance for a mobile home closure. This would be changed to require relocation assistance as a condition of approving a closure.

Parking Management
As shown in Table 8, the City’s parking management policies are not consistent with the TOC Policy.

Table 8: Parking Management Compliance
TOC Policy
Standard
Requirement City Standard Compliance
Status
Minimum
Residential
No parking
minimum
The City enforces AB 2097, which
generally prohibits minimum parking
Fully
Compliant
20 The Monument BART site is a partially vacant, 7.8-acre site on Monument Boulevard between Systron Drive and Cowell Road (Assessor Parcel Number 129-191-016). The site is zoned Residential High Density (RH) and was identified in the Housing Element to accommodate 782 mixed-income housing units. BART identified the site in its mid-term work plan for development in 2029-2033. In 2024, the City was awarded a Priority Sites Technical Assistance Grant from MTC to perform pre-development activities for the site in partnership with BART to assess and address potential environmental constraints to development. This work is ongoing. 21 The level of affordability of development on this site would be determined in partnership with BART. BART has a minimum affordability requirement of 20% for transit-oriented development on its land and a system-wide goal of 35% across its portfolio.

Page 15 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
TOC Policy
Standard
Requirement City Standard Compliance
Status
Automobile
Parking
(2 pts max)
requirements for development
projects within ½ mile of BART.

Maximum
Residential
Automobile
Parking
(6 pts max)

1.0 space per
unit
Parking is based on unit size:
• 1 space per studio unit
• 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit
• 2 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom
unit
• 0.5 space per bedroom beyond 3
• 1 guest space per 3 units
Not
Compliant
Minimum
Commercial
Automobile
Parking
(2 pts max)
No parking
minimum
The City enforces AB 2097, which
generally prohibits minimum parking
requirements for development
projects within one-half mile of
BART.

Fully
Compliant
Parking standards vary by land use,
as listed below.22 Projects within
one-half mile of BART (i.e., in the
Transit Station (TS) Overlay) may
reduce parking by 25%.

Maximum
Commercial
Automobile
Parking
(6 pts max)

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

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

2.2 spaces/
1,000 sq ft
• Professional
Offices: 2.5
spaces/1,000
sq ft
• General retail:
3 spaces/
1,000 sq ft
Not
Compliant.

Requires
discretionary
approval to
comply with
MTC office
standards;
retail standard
does not
comply even
after 25%
reduction
Minimum
Residential
Bicycle Parking
(3 pts max)
1 secure
bicycle
parking
space per
unit
1 secure space for every 4 units Not
Compliant
22 Concord’s regulations do not utilize a “per 1,000 square feet ratio.” Staff have calculated equivalencies for Concord’s standards.

Page 16 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
TOC Policy
Standard
Requirement City Standard Compliance
Status
Minimum
Commercial
Office Bicycle
Parking
(3 pts max)
1 secure
bicycle
parking
space per
5,000
occupied
square feet
If more than 25 employees,
approximately 1.7 bicycle parking
spaces per 5,000 occupied square
feet.23
Fully
Compliant
based on
current auto
parking
standards;
Not
Compliant if
these
standards are
reduced.

Unbundled
Parking
(1 pt max)
Allow
unbundled
parking
The City does not require or prohibit
unbundled parking.

Not
Compliant.

MTC requires
affirmatively
allowing
unbundled
parking.

Shared Parking
(1 pt max)
Allow shared
parking
The City allows shared parking
between two more adjacent
nonresidential uses with approval of
a minor use permit.

Fully
Compliant24
Complement-
ary Policy for
Parking
Management
(1 pt max)
Adopt at
least one of
the following
policies:
• TDM for New
Development
• Curb
Management
• Parking
Benefit
District
• Demand
Responsive
Pricing
• Priced
Parking
The City requires and considers
TDM plans when new development
requests a parking reduction, but
TDM is not a condition of approval
for all new development. MTC
suggested that the City evaluate
how the current TDM policies will
work together with parking
maximums to meet the TOC
requirements.

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

Not
Compliant
23 The City currently requires bicycle parking at a rate of 10% of the amount required for automobiles. This equivalency was calculated based on the City’s current automobile parking requirements for professional offices. 24 MTC indicated that the City’s current policy appears compliant but that a more robust assessment would be needed in tandem with the Parking Management Grant scope of work.

Page 17 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
To implement the Parking Management Grant, a consultant will propose changes to achieve compliance that would be vetted with community stakeholders. The Parking Management Grant scope of work includes an on-street parking supply and demand study to identify potential changes to on-street parking regulations in order to prevent parking from being transferred from off-street spaces to on-street spaces.

The I&F Committee was not supportive of establishing parking maximums for residential uses; however, they were open to exploring compliance options and alternatives for commercial uses, especially in partnership with a technical consultant hired through the Parking Management Grant and with the results of the grant-funded, Concord-specific parking analysis in hand.

Station Access and Circulation
MTC staff have indicated they believe the City fully complies with the station access and circulation components of the TOC Policy, as shown in Table 9. However, these requirements are less prescriptive than for the other three categories, so compliance determinations for this category are more open to interpretation and will be subject to an iterative process.

Table 9: Station Access and Circulation Compliance
TOC Policy Standard Compliance Status
Adopt a jurisdiction-wide Complete
Streets Policy
(3 pts max)
Fully Compliant. Concord’s adopted
General Plan includes a Complete Street
policy (Principle T-1.4 and the associated
policies).

Prioritize implementation of active
transportation projects in TOC area(s)
(7 pts max)
Fully Compliant. Concord has
completed several bike improvements,
especially in the TOC Areas, including a
Class I path on Monument Boulevard and
bike lanes on Concord Boulevard,
Clayton Road, and Grant Street. The
City’s Capital Improvement Plan includes
safe routes to transit and sidewalk gap
closure projects.

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

Identify Mobility Hub planning and
implementation opportunities in TOC
area(s)
(7 pts max)
Likely Compliant. MTC staff have
indicated that Concord’s active
transportation projects also apply to this
category, but it is uncertain how MTC will
interpret Concord’s mobility hub planning

Page 18 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
progress. The City has been working with
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) to plan a mobility hub as part of
CCTA’s INNOVATE 680 program.

Next Steps
Staff will move forward to effectuate the TOC Grants and pursue compliance with TOC Policy components as directed by Council. The timeline would depend on the contracting and consultant procurement process with MTC for the TOC Grants, but work is anticipated to begin in fall 2025 and end in late 2026 to late 2028 depending on the work being completed. Staff estimates that acceptance of both TOC Grants and implementation of the I&F Committee’s recommendations would likely result in Concord being deemed Fully Compliant with the TOC Policy.

Jurisdictions have been advised to submit evidence of TOC Policy compliance by 2026, although it is expected that there will be flexibility for jurisdictions that are still executing the work funded by the TOC Grants. A call for OBAG 4 grant projects is anticipated in 2026 with final approval of the project list as early as 2027.

Alternatives
Council could choose to accept some or none of the I&F Committee’s recommendations and refrain from policy changes related to TOC Policy compliance. There are four main areas for Council to direct staff:
• Residential density in Downtown TOC. Refrain from changing the minimum residential densities in the Downtown TOC Area and choose not accept the MTC Specific Plan and Zoning Amendments Planning Grant. This would decrease Concord’s TOC Policy compliance score, potentially making the City only eligible for the Partially Compliant funding category.
• Residential density and commercial intensity in North Concord TOC.

Pursue amendments to the Area Plan to achieve greater TOC Policy compliance in the North Concord TOC Area. Although this could increase the City’s competitiveness for future discretionary grants, it would require significant staff resources and reopen a multi-stakeholder planning process, including disruption of the ongoing discussions with Brookfield. Furthermore, it is unlikely the City would make sufficient progress on such amendments to qualify for OBAG 4 funding funds, given the involvement of the federal government, involvement of the master developer, and other complexities associated with the Area Plan. • Affordable Housing – Production. Select a different publicly owned site than the Monument BART property as evidence of a planned housing development project to meet the requirements of the Public Land for Affordable Housing policy, or refrain from selecting any site. Refraining from selecting any site would decrease Concord’s TOC Policy compliance score, potentially making the City

Page 19 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
only eligible for the Partially Compliant funding category. As noted earlier in the report, staff believes the Monument BART site is preferable as it is already zoned exclusively for residential development.
• Parking Management. Choose not to change parking policies in the Downtown TOC and/or North Concord TOC Areas and not accept the Parking Management Grant. This would decrease Concord’s TOC Policy compliance score, potentially making the City only eligible for the Partially Compliant funding category. It would also preclude the ability of funding a consultant to complete an on-street parking supply and demand study.

Financial Impact
If the City accepts both TOC Grants, then the estimated staff and consultant costs of approximately $485,000 for land use density and parking management compliance would be fully funded by the grants, assuming grant funding is not ultimately withheld due to the current administration’s Executive Orders. The grants would fund consultant services provided by MTC, with MTC managing these consultant contracts. The land use density grant would also fund City staff time and therefore reimbursable project number 2801 (Fund 402) would be established to collect reimbursable funds. If the funding is withheld, staff would return to the Council to explore other options for pursuing compliance for land use density and parking management. In addition, the negligible staff time costs for pursuing compliance with the affordable housing, commercial stabilization, and station access and circulation components would be funded through the Community Development Department and Transportation Division operating budgets. Based on this analysis, there is no need to identify additional funding to support the City’s TOC Policy compliance, unless the TOC Grants are withheld.

However, the level of effort and staff costs will ultimately depend on what level of compliance the City seeks to achieve.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and the implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code or Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the recommended action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs Sections 15060(c)(2), 15273, and 15378, as it has no potential that the action will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect or direct physical change in the environment and it involves government funding/fiscal activities, with no current policy changes or project approvals, which do not constitute a “project” under CEQA.

Moreover, even if the recommended action did constitute a project under CEQA, it falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), which excludes projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the

Page 20 of 148 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
June 24, 2025
environment.” Accordingly, no further environmental review is required. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

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

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Resolution 25-XX

2. MTC Resolution No. 4530 (TOC Policy)

3. MTC’s TOC Policy Overview

4. Concord TOC Area Maps

5. Affordable Housing Policies Menu

6. Scoring Framework Documents

7. Specific Plans and Zoning Amendments Grant Application

8. Parking Management Grant Application

Page 21 of 148 ends

Res. No. 25-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Committing to Take Steps Toward
Achieving Compliance with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission’s (“MTC’s”) Transit-
Oriented Communities (“TOC”) Policy as a
Condition for MTC to Allocate Regional
Discretionary Funding for Two TOC Planning and
Implementation Grants for Land Use Density and
Parking Management, and Authorizing the City
Manager to Accept and Appropriate the Land Use
Density Grant Funds to Reimbursable Project
Number 2801 (Fund 402), and Execute Any Necessary
or Appropriate Agreements in a Form Acceptable to
the City Attorney
Resolution No. 25-XX
/
WHEREAS, MTC adopted Resolution 4530, the TOC Policy; and WHEREAS, the TOC Policy incentivizes local jurisdictions to plan and zone for higher residential and commercial densities in areas within one half-mile of existing and planned fixed- guideway transit stops and stations to support the region’s transit investments and implement key greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies from Plan Bay Area 2050; and WHEREAS, incentivizing local jurisdictions to also adopt policies focused on increasing housing production of all types, particularly affordable housing production, preservation and protection, commercial anti-displacement and stabilization, parking management, and transit station access and circulation further supports regional transit investments and Plan Bay Area 2050 implementation; and
WHEREAS, in 2023 MTC identified two Tier 3 TOCs in the City of Concord, the Downtown TOC Area and North Concord/Martinez TOC Area; and
WHEREAS, MTC conditions the allocation of regional discretionary funding for fixed- guideway transit extension projects on compliance with the TOC Policy; and WHEREAS, MTC anticipates that future discretionary regional funding, such as the One Bay Area Grant (“OBAG”) program, will consider compliance with the TOC Policy as part of the prioritization and project selection process starting with OBAG 4, expected in 2026; and Attachment 1

Page 22 of 148 ends

Res. No. 25-XX 2
WHEREAS, the TOC Policy establishes different compliance expectations for existing and planned station areas based on the level of transit service; and WHEREAS, the TOC Policy identifies four TOC Policy areas (land use density, affordable housing and commercial stabilization, parking management, and station access/circulation); and WHEREAS, on September 30, 2024 the MTC announced a Call for Projects for Transit Oriented Communities (“TOC”) Planning and Implementation Grants, and informed local jurisdictions of a November 22, 2024 deadline for submittals of Applications, as well as grant application guidance and requirements including compliance with the TOC Policy; and WHEREAS, in response to the MTC’s Call for TOC Planning and Implementation Projects, the City of Concord submitted applications for a Specific Plan and Zoning Amendments Grant for $185,000 related to land use density in the Downtown TOC Area and a Parking Management Grant for $300,000 related to parking in the Downtown and North Concord/Martinez TOC Areas; and WHEREAS, the Infrastructure and Franchise (“I&F”) Council Committee discussed TOC Policy compliance at its meetings on March 3, 2025 and April 22, 2025 and recommended acceptance of both TOC Planning and Implementation Grants; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments, the oral reports from City staff, the written report from City staff dated June 24, 2025, attached materials, exhibits presented, and all other information that constitutes the record of proceedings relating to TOC Policy compliance, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Concord City Clerk (collectively “Project Information”).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: that the City Council accepts grant awards from MTC for $185,000 for a Specific Plan and Zoning Amendments Grant for the Concord TOC Area and $300,000 for a Parking Management Grant in the Concord and North Concord TOC Areas; commits to completing the associated work scopes funded by the grants; and intends to adopt relevant plans, policies or zoning updates emerging from the work completed through the grants to comply with the TOC Policy land use density and parking management requirements; and further makes the following findings:

Page 23 of 148 ends

Res. No. 25-XX 3
Section 1. The above recitals (which are hereby incorporated by reference) are accurate and constitute findings in this matter and, together with the Project Information, serve as an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution.

Section 2. CEQA. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and the implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code or Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the recommended action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs Sections 15060(c)(2), 15273, and 15378, as it has no potential that the action will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect or direct physical change in the environment and it involves government funding/fiscal activities, with no current policy changes or project approvals, which do not constitute a “project” under CEQA. Moreover, even if the recommended action did constitute a project under CEQA, it falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 15061(b)(3), which excludes projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Accordingly, no further environmental review is required. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. Any changes to the City’s regulations developed pursuant to TOC Policy compliance (e.g., specific plan amendments, municipal code amendments) subject to CEQA will be fully evaluated in an appropriate environmental document which will be considered at the time the project is considered.

Section 3. The City Council has reviewed, considered, and evaluated all of the Project Information prior to acting.

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on June 24, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -

Page 24 of 148 ends

Res. No. 25-XX 4
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 June 24, 2025.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

Page 25 of 148 ends

Date: September 28, 2022
W.I.: 1611
Referred by: PLNG

Revised: 10/25/23

ABSTRACT
MTC
Resolution No. 4530, Revised
This Resolution sets forth MTC’s regional
Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy, which
seeks to support the region’s transit investments by creating communities around transit stations and along transit corridors that not only support transit ridership, but that are places where Bay Area residents of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work and access services, such as education, childcare, and healthcare. The TOC Policy is rooted in Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA2050), the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The TOC Policy applies to areas within one half-mile of the following types of existing and planned fixed-guideway transit stops and stations: regional rail, commuter rail, light-rail transit, bus rapid transit, and ferries. The policy requirements consist of the following four elements: 1) minimum required and allowed residential and/or commercial office densities for new development; 2) policies focused on housing production, preservation and protection, and commercial anti-displacement and stabilization polices; 3) parking management; and 4) transit station access and circulation. Further discussion of the Transit-Oriented Communities Policy is contained in the Joint MTC Planning with the ABAG Administration Committee summary sheet dated September 9, 2022.

On
October 25, 2023, Appendix 1 was added and related changes were made to Attachment A to clarify the scope of the TOC Policy’s application to transit extensions. Further discussion of the amendment to the Resolution is contained in the Joint MTC Planning with the ABAG Administrative Committee summary sheet dated October 13, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 26 of 148 ends

Date: September 28, 2022
W.I.: 1611
Referred by: PLNG
Re: Adoption of a Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 4530
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Government Code Section 66500 et çq; and
WHEREAS, MTC adopted Resolution No. 3434 which set forth MTC’s Regional Transit Expansion Program of Projects in 2001, which was amended to add the Transit-Oriented Development Policy in 2005; and
WHEREAS, the TOD Policy successfully increased zoned capacity for residential development in key transit expansion corridors and initiated the regional Station Area Planning Program by requiring major transit expansion projects to meet minimum housing density thresholds around stations in new transit corridors before programming regional discretionary funds for project construction; and
WHEREAS, the TOD Policy applied to a specific set of transit expansion projects listed in Resolution No. 3434, the majority of which have been completed or are under construction; and
WHEREAS, the Station Area Planning program was expanded to become the Priority Development Area Program in 2008 which has resulted in over 61 completed plans with zoning for more than 100,000 housing units and more than 75 million square feet of commercial development near transit to date; and
WHEREAS, California law (California Government Code Section 65080) requires development of a regional Sustainable Communities Strategy to achieve a specified greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target; and
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 27 of 148 ends

MTC Resolution 4530

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, in 2021, MTC unanimously adopted Plan Bay Area 2050, the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which includes designated Growth Geographies, including Priority Development Areas and Transit-Rich Areas, where future growth in housing and jobs would be focused over the next 30 years, as well as strategies to allow a greater mix of housing densities and types and greater commercial densities in Growth Geographies, both of which are high-impact strategies for achieving the Plan’s GHG reduction target; and

WHEREAS, incentivizing local jurisdictions to plan and zone for higher residential and commercial densities in areas within one half-mile of existing and planned fixed-guideway transit stops and stations supports the region’s transit investments and implements key GHG reduction strategies from Plan Bay Area 2050; and

WHEREAS, incentivizing local jurisdictions to also adopt policies focused on increasing housing production of all types, particularly affordable housing production, preservation and protection, commercial anti-displacement and stabilization, parking management, and transit station access and circulation further supports regional transit investments and Plan Bay Area 2050 implementation, now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that MTC adopts the 2022 Transit-Oriented Communities Policy, developed, as detailed in Attachment A, and attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth at length.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Alfredo Pedroza, Chair
The above resolution was entered into by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission at a
duly called and noticed meeting held in
San Francisco, California and at other remote
locations, on September 28, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 28 of 148 ends

Date: September 28, 2022
W.I.: 1611
Referred by: PLNG
Revised: 10/25/23

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES POLICY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Goals ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Definitions....................................................................................................................................... 3 Existing Transit and Transit Enhancements or Improvements ................................................... 4 Transit Extensions ....................................................................................................................... 5 Opt-In for Jurisdictions Not Served by Fixed-Guideway Transit Service .................................. 5 TOC Policy Requirements .............................................................................................................. 5

1. Density Requirements for New Development .................................................................... 5 1A. Calculation of Minimum and Allowable Maximum Residential and Commercial Office Density .................................................................................................................................... 6 1B. Minimum and Allowable Maximum Density for New Residential Development........... 6 1C. Minimum and Allowable Maximum Density for New Commercial Office Development ................................................................................................................................................. 9

2. Affordable Housing Production, Preservation, and Protection Policies and Commercial Protection and Stabilization Policies ........................................................................................ 12 2A. Affordable Housing Production ..................................................................................... 12 2B. Affordable Housing Preservation ................................................................................... 14 2C. Affordable Housing Protection and Anti-Displacement ................................................ 16 2D. Commercial Protection and Stabilization ...................................................................... 18 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 29 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 2 ends

3. Parking Management ........................................................................................................ 19

4. Transit Station Access and Circulation ............................................................................. 21 Funding ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Implementation ............................................................................................................................. 22 Evaluation and Policy Updates ..................................................................................................... 23 Technical Assistance ..................................................................................................................... 23

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 30 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 3 ends

GOALS
MTC’s Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy seeks to support the region’s transit investments by creating communities around transit stations and along transit corridors that not only support transit ridership, but that are places where Bay Area residents of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work, and access services, such as education, childcare, and healthcare. The TOC Policy is rooted in Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA2050), the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and addresses components in all four elements of the Plan, including transportation, housing, the economy, and the environment. Four goals guide the TOC Policy and advance PBA 2050 implementation:
• Increase the overall housing supply and residential densities for new development and prioritize affordable housing in transit-rich areas.
• Increase commercial densities for new development in transit-rich areas near regional transit hubs served by multiple transit providers.
• Prioritize bus transit, active transportation, and shared mobility within and to/from transit-rich areas, particularly to Equity Priority Communities located more than one half- mile from transit stops or stations.
• Support and facilitate partnerships to create equitable transit-oriented communities within the San Francisco Bay Area Region.

DEFINITIONS
Transit-oriented communities (TOCs) are locations within one half-mile from transit stops and stations that are designed to enable people to access and use transit more often for more types of trips. TOCs accomplish this through greater land use density and diversity of uses, implementation of Complete Streets1, effective parking management, and robust multimodal access that maximizes the geographic area accessible from a stop or station via space-efficient forms of mobility (walking, cycling, shared mobility, and public transit) over space-intensive

1 See MTC Resolution No. 4493.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 31 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 4 ends

modes (single-occupancy vehicle travel). Equitable TOCs seek to ensure opportunity for people of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds to live and work in transit- accessible locations by prioritizing the production, preservation, and protection of affordable housing and community-serving businesses from potential displacement that may result from new development and increasing land values or rents. Equitable TOCs also prioritize access to transit for people with disabilities and/or mobility impairments by ensuring that all state and federal accessibility laws, codes, and guidelines are followed and that universal design principles, which enable access not only for people with disabilities but also for people with a wide range of ages, sizes, and abilities, are employed to the greatest extent possible.

TOCs directly support implementation of PBA2050 Strategies H3: Allow a greater mix of housing densities and types in Growth Geographies and EC4: Allow greater commercial densities in Growth Geographies. More specifically, the TOC Policy applies to areas within one half-mile of the following types of existing and planned fixed-guideway transit2 stops and stations: regional rail (e.g., Bay Area Rapid Transit, Caltrain), commuter rail (e.g., Capitol Corridor, Altamont Corridor Express, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, Valley Link), light-rail transit (LRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and ferries.

Existing Transit and Transit Enhancements or Improvements As noted, the TOC Policy will apply to jurisdictions with fixed-guideway transit service stops and stations, as defined above, as well as any enhancements and improvements to these services, including infill stops and stations. Future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding cycles (i.e., OBAG 4 and subsequent funding cycles) will consider funding revisions that prioritize investments in transit station areas that are subject to and compliant with the TOC Policy. (Please see FUNDING section for further detail.)

2 “Fixed guideway means a public transportation facility that uses and occupies a separate right -of-way or rail line for the exclusive use of public transportation and other high occupancy vehicles, or uses a fixed catenary system and a right of way usable by other forms of transportation. This includes, but is not limited to, rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, automated guideway transit, people movers, ferry boat service, and fixed- guideway facilities for buses (such as bus rapid transit) and other high occupancy vehicles.” (49 CFR § 611.105) ATTACHMENT 2

Page 32 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 5 ends

Transit Extensions
In the case of fixed-guideway transit extensions, jurisdictions and project sponsors must comply with TOC Policy requirements as set forth in Appendix 1 to receive allocation(s) of regional discretionary capital funding or endorsement(s) for the transit project extension.

Opt-In for Jurisdictions Not Served by Fixed-Guideway
Transit Service
Jurisdictions with transit stops and stations that are not served by fixed-guideway service (e.g., areas that are only served by regular fixed-route bus transit) may choose to “opt in” and voluntarily meet TOC Policy requirements.3

TOC POLICY REQUIREMENTS
TOC Policy requirements consist of the following four elements: 1) minimum and allowable residential and/or commercial office densities for new development; 2) policies focused on affordable housing production, preservation and protection, and commercial anti-displacement and stabilization polices; 3) parking management; and 4) transit station access and circulation.

These requirements, described further below, apply to areas within one half-mile of existing and planned fixed-guideway transit stops and stations: regional rail, commuter rail, light-rail transit (LRT), and bus rapid transit (BRT), and ferries.

1. Density Requirements for New Development
The TOC Policy seeks to ensure that local planning and zoning will enable new development built within one half-mile of existing or planned fixed-guideway transit stops or stations to be built at sufficiently high densities to support transit ridership and increase the proportion of trips taken by transit. The density requirements do not require that local jurisdictions plan or zone for a particular type of land use, nor do they apply to parcels occupied by existing dwelling units to minimize the risk of displacement.

3 For locations with no fixed-guideway transit service, the Tier 4 density and parking management requirements will apply in addition to all other TOC Policy requirements.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 33 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 6 ends

1A. Calculation of Minimum and Allowable Maximum Residential and Commercial Office Density
On average, minimum and allowable maximum densities should be at or above the ranges specified in the TOC Policy (see Tables 1 and 2) within the half-mile station area. This includes parcels where it may not be physically possible to construct new residential, commercial office, or mixed-use buildings within the specified density ranges due to small parcel sizes, environmental factors, or conflicts with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, etc. 1B. Minimum and Allowable Maximum Density for New Residential Development The TOC Policy seeks to ensure that local jurisdiction planning and zoning will enable new residential development built within one half-mile of existing or planned fixed-guideway transit stops or stations to be built at sufficiently high densities to support transit ridership and increase the proportion of trips taken by transit. The TOC Policy does not require that areas within a station area be zoned for residential uses. It also does not specify any zoning standards for parcels that are currently occupied by existing single- or multi-family dwelling units to minimize the risk of potential displacement.

As shown in Table 1 below, the TOC Policy establishes the following zoning standards for parcels where residential uses are allowed but that are not occupied by existing single- or multi- family residential units:
• Minimum Density: Land use plans and zoning must require that new residential development be built at or above the minimum densities specified in Table 1, on average.

In other words, a local jurisdiction’s plans/zoning could require minimum densities that are higher than those specified in Table 1, but plans/zoning could not allow new development to be built at densities that are lower than those specified in Table 1, on average.
• Allowable Maximum Density: If a local jurisdiction’s land use plans and zoning set an allowable maximum density for new residential development, then the allowable maximum density must be the same as or higher than the specified allowable maximum density in Table 1, on average. In other words, a local jurisdiction’s plans/zoning could allow higher densities than those specified in Table 1, but plans/zoning could not set a density limit (or maximum allowable density) that is lower than that specified in Table 1, ATTACHMENT 2

Page 34 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 7 ends

on average. The allowable maximum densities are consistent with PBA2050 modeling for Strategy H3 (see Forecasting and Modeling Report, pp.44-45) and apply to base zoning (i.e., any density bonuses would be in addition to or on top of the allowable maximum densities specified in Table 1).
• While the TOC Policy does not specify requirements for building heights, local jurisdictions should not limit building heights such that new residential development at the densities specified by the TOC Policy becomes infeasible.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 35 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 8 ends

Table 1: Minimum and Allowable Maximum Density for New Residential Development Level of Transit Service Minimum Density1 Allowable Maximum Density1, 2 Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional
centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco,
Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San
José)
100 units/net acre or higher 150 units/net acre or higher Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more
BART lines or BART and Caltrain
75 units/net acre or higher 100 units/net acre or higher Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART
line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus
rapid transit
50 units/net acre or higher3 75 units/net acre or higher3 Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE,
Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations,
Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry
terminals
25 units/net acre or higher 35 units/net acre or higher Notes:

1. Or equivalent in Floor Area Ratio, or Form-Based development standards; excludes parcels currently occupied by homes.

2. The allowable densities are consistent with PBA2050 modeling for Strategy H3 (see Forecasting and Modeling Report, pp.44-45).

3. Tier 3 jurisdictions with a population of 30,000 or less may comply with Tier 4 residential density requirements.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 36 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 9 ends

1C. Minimum and Allowable Maximum Density for New Commercial Office Development The TOC Policy seeks to ensure that any new commercial office development built within one half-mile of existing or planned fixed-guideway transit stops or stations is built at sufficiently high densities to support transit ridership, increase the proportion of work trips taken by transit, and increase the number of jobs that are accessible via transit. While the TOC Policy does not specify density requirements for other types of commercial uses, jurisdictions are strongly encouraged to plan and zone for a diverse mix of land uses within transit station areas to support the service and recreational needs of residents, workers, and/or visitors.

The TOC Policy does not require that areas within a station area be zoned for commercial office uses. It also does not specify any zoning standards for parcels that are currently occupied by existing single- or multi-family dwelling units to minimize the risk of potential displacement.

As shown in Table 2 below, the TOC Policy establishes the following zoning standards for parcels where commercial office uses are allowed but that are not occupied by existing single- or multi-family residential units:
• Minimum Density: Land use plans and zoning must require that new commercial office development be built at or above the minimum densities specified in Table 2, on average.

In other words, a local jurisdiction’s zoning could require minimum densities that are higher than those specified in Table 2, but zoning could not allow densities that are lower than those specified in Table 2, on average.
• Allowable Maximum Density: If a local jurisdiction’s land use plans and zoning set an allowable maximum density for new commercial office development, then the allowable maximum density must be the same as or higher than the specified allowable maximum density in Table 2, on average. In other words, a local jurisdiction’s zoning could allow higher densities than those specified in Table 2, but zoning could not set a density limit that is lower than that specified in Table 2, on average. The allowable maximum densities are consistent with PBA 2050 modeling for Strategy EC4 (see Forecasting and Modeling Report, pp. 57-58).

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 37 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 10 ends

• While the TOC Policy does not specify requirements for building heights, local jurisdictions should not limit building heights such that new commercial office development at the densities specified by the TOC Policy becomes infeasible.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 38 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 11 ends

Table 2: Minimum and Allowable Maximum Density for New Commercial Office Development Level of Transit Service Minimum Density1 Allowable Maximum Density1, 2 Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional
centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco,
Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San
José)
4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or higher 8 FAR or higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more
BART lines or BART and Caltrain
3 FAR or higher 6 FAR or higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART
line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus
rapid transit
2 FAR or higher 4 FAR or higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE,
Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations,
Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry
terminals
1 FAR or higher 3 FAR or higher
Note:

1. For mixed-use projects that include a commercial office component, this figure shall not be less than the equivalent of the applicable allowed or permitted FAR standard.

2. The allowable densities are consistent with PBA 20505 modeling for Strategy EC4 (see Forecasting and Modeling Report, pp. 57-58).

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 39 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 12 ends

2. Affordable Housing Production, Preservation, and Protection Policies and Commercial Protection and Stabilization Policies
While the production of all housing is a key goal of the TOC Policy, the provision of more affordable housing as well as the protection and preservation of existing affordable housing, particularly in locations that provide good access to transit, is an important means of advancing equity in the region. The affordable housing and anti-displacement policy options included in this requirement are based upon the most comprehensive review to date of the efficacy of policies in this arena, the 2021 “White Paper on Anti-Displacement Strategy Effectiveness” commissioned by the California Air Resources Board to support evidence-based state and local policy.4 Furthermore, the experience of Bay Area and California communities points to the need for a comprehensive approach that includes a mix of production, preservation, and protection policies.

Given the region’s diverse needs and housing and land use contexts, a “menu” of policy options is provided such that local jurisdictions can fulfill TOC Policy requirements by implementing the affordable housing production, preservation, and protection policies that best meet local needs.

Policies may be implemented jurisdiction wide,
or as an overlay in transit station areas, and should address a jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation and other housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. In some cases, state housing laws already require some of the policy options that are included here. However, many of these laws have sunset dates or more limited provisions. Jurisdictions that opt to enact local ordinances that either eliminate the sunset date or provide more significant legal protections can use such actions to satisfy this TOC Policy requirement. 2A. Affordable Housing Production
Two (2) or more of the policies listed in Table 3 below should apply in transit station areas that are subject to the TOC Policy. The adopted policies should address a documented local housing need. MTC/ABAG will issue subsequent guidance that provides further detail as to what should

4 Karen Chapple and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, “White Paper on Anti-Displacement Strategy Effectiveness”, February 28, 2021, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/19RD018%20-%20Anti- Displacement%20Strategy%20Effectiveness.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 40 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 13 ends

be included in affordable housing production policies for them to be considered compliant with the TOC Policy requirement.

Table 3: Affordable Housing Production Policies that Fulfill TOC Policy Requirement Affordable Housing Production
Policy
Description
Inclusionary Zoning Requires that 15% of units in new residential development projects above a certain number of units be deed-restricted affordable to low-income households. A lower percentage may be adopted if it can be demonstrated by a satisfactory financial feasibility analysis that a 15% requirement is not feasible.

Affordable Housing Funding Dedicated local funding for production of deed-restricted affordable housing.

Affordable Housing Overlay
Zones
Area-specific incentives, such as density bonuses and
streamlined environmental review, for development
projects that include at least 15% of units as deed-restricted affordable housing; exceeds any jurisdiction-wide
inclusionary requirements or benefits from state density bonus.

Public Land for Affordable
Housing
Policies to prioritize the reuse of publicly owned land for affordable and mixed-income housing that go beyond
existing state law, typically accompanied by prioritization of available funding for projects on these sites.

Ministerial Approval Grant ministerial approval of residential developments that include, at a minimum 15% affordable units if projects
have 11 or more units, or that exceed inclusionary or
density bonus affordability requirements and do not exceed

0.5 parking spaces per unit.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 41 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 14 ends

Affordable Housing Production
Policy
Description
Public/Community Land Trusts
(This policy may be used to
fulfill either the housing
production or preservation
requirement, but not both.)
Investments or policies to expand the amount of land held by public- and non-profit entities such as co-operatives, community land trusts, and land banks with permanent
affordability protections.

Development Certainty and
Streamlined Entitlement Process
Include the vested rights and five hearing limit provisions currently outlined in SB330 (2019, Skinner) without a
sunset date.
2B. Affordable Housing Preservation
Two
(2) or more of the policies listed in Table 4 below should apply in transit station areas that are subject to the TOC Policy. The adopted policies should address a documented local housing need. MTC/ABAG will issue subsequent guidance that provides further detail as to what should be included in affordable housing preservation policies for them to be considered compliant with the TOC Policy requirement.

Table 4: Affordable Housing Preservation Policies that Fulfill TOC Policy Requirement Affordable Housing
Preservation Policy
Description
Funding to Preserve
Unsubsidized Affordable
Housing
Public investments to preserve unsubsidized housing
affordable to lower- or moderate-income residents
(sometimes referred to as “naturally occurring affordable housing”) as permanently affordable.

Tenant/Community Opportunity
to Purchase
Policies or programs that provide tenants or mission-driven nonprofits the right of first refusal to purchase a property at the market price when it is offered for sale, retaining existing residents and ensuring long-term affordability of the units by requiring resale restrictions to maintain
affordability.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 42 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 15 ends

Affordable Housing
Preservation Policy
Description
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
Preservation
Limits the conversion of occupied SRO rental units to
condominiums or other uses that could result in
displacement of existing residents.

Condominium Conversion
Restrictions
Require that units converted to condos be replaced 1:1 with comparable rental units, unless purchased by current long- term tenants or converted to permanently affordable
housing with protections for existing tenants.

Public/Community Land Trusts
(This policy may be used to
fulfill either the housing
production or preservation
requirement, but not both.)
Investments or policies to expand the amount of land held by public- and non-profit entities such as co-operatives, community land trusts, and land banks with permanent
affordability protections.

Funding to Support Preservation
Capacity
Dedicated local funding for capacity building or other
material support for community land trusts or other
community-based organizations engaged in affordable
housing preservation.

Mobile Home Preservation Policy or program to preserve mobile homes from conversion to other uses that may result in displacement of existing residents.

Preventing Displacement from
Substandard Conditions and
Associated Code Enforcement
Activities (This policy may be
used to fulfill either the housing
preservation or protection
requirement, but not both.)
Policies, programs, or procedures designed to minimize the risk of displacement caused by substandard conditions,
including through local code enforcement activities.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 43 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 16 ends

2C. Affordable Housing Protection and Anti-Displacement Two (2) or more of the policies listed in Table 5 below should apply in transit station areas that are subject to the TOC Policy. The adopted policies should address a documented local housing need. MTC/ABAG will issue subsequent guidance that provides further detail as to what should be included in affordable housing protection and anti-displacement policies for them to be considered compliant with the TOC Policy requirement.

Table 5: Affordable Housing Protection and Anti-Displacement Policies that Fulfill TOC Policy Requirement
Affordable Housing Protection
and Anti-Displacement Policy
Description
“Just Cause” Eviction5 Defines the circumstances for evictions, such as nonpayment of rent, violation of lease terms, or permanent removal of a dwelling from the rental market, with
provisions that are more protective of tenants than those established by AB 1482 (2019, Chiu).6
No Net Loss and Right to Return
to Demolished Homes
Include the no net loss provisions currently outlined in SB 330 (2019, Skinner) without a sunset date. Require one-to- one replacement of units that applies the same or a deeper level of affordability, the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and comparable square footage to the units
demolished. Provide displaced tenants with right of first refusal to rent new comparable units at the same rent as demolished units.

5 Just Cause protections have been found to have a high impact on preventing displacement soon after its implementation (Chapple, 2021). A 2019 study found that cities with just cause eviction laws had much lower eviction and eviction filing rates than those who did not (Cuellar, 2019). 6 This could include, for example, greater limitations on no fault evictions such as “substantial remodels” and/or permanently implementing just cause protections (the protections provided by AB 1482 expire on January 1, 2030).

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 44 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 17 ends

Affordable Housing Protection
and Anti-Displacement Policy
Description
Legal Assistance for Tenants7 Investments or programs that expand access to legal assistance for tenants threatened with displacement. This could range from a “right to counsel”8 to dedicated public funding for tenant legal assistance.

Foreclosure Assistance Provide a dedicated funding source to support owner- occupied homeowners (up to 120% AMI) at-risk of
foreclosure, including direct financial assistance (e.g., mortgage assistance, property tax delinquency, HOA dues, etc.), foreclosure prevention counseling, legal assistance, and/or outreach.

Rental Assistance Program Provide a dedicated funding source and program for rental assistance to low-income households.

Rent Stabilization Restricts annual rent increases based upon a measure of inflation or other metric, with provisions exceeding those established by AB 1482 (2019, Chiu).9

7 Tenant right to counsel has been shown to decrease the rate of evictions and eviction filings. In New York City, where it was first implemented, 84% of tenants facing eviction were able to remain in their homes. In the first six months of San Francisco’s program, two-thirds of tenants who received full scope representation avoided eviction and eviction filings decreased by 10% (Chapple, 2021).
8 “Right to counsel” extends the right to an attorney, required in criminal procedures, to tenants in eviction trials, which are civil procedures.
9 For example, restricting maximum annual rent increases to the percent change in the Consumer Price Index, or permanently implementing rent stabilization protections.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 45 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 18 ends

Affordable Housing Protection
and Anti-Displacement Policy
Description
Preventing Displacement from
Substandard Conditions and
Associated Code Enforcement
Activities (This policy may be
used to fulfill either the housing
preservation or protection
requirement, but not both.)
Policies, programs, or procedures designed to minimize the risk of displacement caused by substandard conditions,
including through local code enforcement activities. This may include, but not be limited to, proactive rental
inspection programs, assistance to landlords for property improvements in exchange for anti-displacement
commitments, and enhanced relocation assistance
requirements for temporary displacement due to
substandard conditions that pose an immediate threat to health and safety.

Tenant Relocation Assistance Policy or program that provides relocation assistance (financial and/or other services) to tenants displaced
through no fault of their own, with assistance exceeding that required under state law.

Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Restricts annual rent increases on mobile home residents based upon a measure of inflation or another metric.

Fair Housing Enforcement Policy, program, or investments that support fair housing testing, compliance monitoring, and enforcement.

Tenant Anti-Harassment
Protections
Policy or program that grants tenants legal protection from unreasonable, abusive, or coercive landlord behavior.
2D. Commercial Protection and Stabilization
One (1)
or more of the policies in Table 6 should apply in transit station areas that are subject to the TOC Policy unless the jurisdiction can document that there are no potential impacts to small businesses and/or community non-profits. MTC/ABAG will issue subsequent guidance that provides further detail as to what should be included in commercial protection and stabilization policies for them to be considered compliant with the TOC Policy requirement.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 46 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 19 ends

Table 6: Commercial Protection and Stabilization Policies that Fulfill TOC Policy Requirement
Commercial Protection and
Stabilization Policy
Description
Small Business and Non-Profit
Overlay Zone
Establish boundaries designated for an overlay, triggering a set of protections and benefits should development impact small businesses (including public markets) or community- serving non-profits.

Small Business and Non-Profit
Preference Policy
Give priority and a right of first offer to local small businesses and/or community-serving non-profits when
selecting a tenant for new market-rate commercial space.

Small Business and Non-Profit
Financial Assistance Program
Dedicated funding program for any impacted small
business and community-serving non-profits.

Small Business Advocate Office Provide a single point of contact for small business owners and/or a small business alliance.

3. Parking Management
Reducing automobile trips and prioritizing the limited land area near transit for other shared transportation modes and active transportation is a key complement to residential and commercial density increases that support higher transit ridership on the region’s existing and planned fixed-guideway transit investments.

Off
-street vehicle parking standards for new residential or general and neighborhood-serving commercial10 development should meet the standards listed in Table 7. These standards do not supersede other applicable requirements for parking for people with disabilities that is required by the California Building Code, or other state or federal laws, or off-street parking for deliveries. Standards may apply to individual projects or may be met through creation of a parking district that provides shared vehicle parking for multiple land uses within an area.

10 This generally includes retail and service businesses.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 47 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 20 ends

In addition to the requirements listed in Table 7, all new residential or general and neighborhood- serving commercial development must provide the following:
• A minimum of one secure bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. • A minimum of one secure bicycle parking space per 5,000 occupied square feet for office commercial.
• Allow unbundled parking.
• Allow shared parking between different land uses.

Jurisdictions should also adopt policies or programs included in MTC/ABAG’s Parking Policy Playbook to address transportation demand management (TDM) and curb management in these locations.

Table 7: Parking Management Requirements
Level of Transit Service
New Residential
Development
New Commercial
Development
Tier 1: Rail stations serving
regional centers (i.e.,
Downtown San Francisco,
Downtown Oakland, and
Downtown San José)
No minimum parking
requirement allowed.

Parking maximum of 0.375
spaces per unit or lower.

No minimum parking
requirement allowed.

Parking maximum equivalent
to 0.25 spaces per 1,000
square feet or lower.

Tier 2: Stop/station served by
two or more BART lines or
BART and Caltrain
No minimum parking
requirement allowed.

Parking maximum of 0.5
spaces per unit or lower.

No minimum parking
requirement allowed.

Parking maximum of 1.6 per
1,000 square feet or lower.

Tier 3: Stop/station served by
one BART line, Caltrain,
light rail transit, or bus rapid
transit
No minimum parking
requirement allowed.

Parking maximum of 1.0
spaces per unit or lower.

No minimum parking
requirement allowed.

Parking maximum of 2.5
spaces per 1,000 square feet
or lower.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 48 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 21 ends

Level of Transit Service
New Residential
Development
New Commercial
Development
Tier 4: Commuter rail
(SMART, ACE, Capitol
Corridor, Valley Link)
stations, Caltrain stations
south of Tamien, or ferry
terminals
Parking maximum of 1.5
spaces per unit or lower.

Parking maximum of 4.0
spaces per 1,000 square feet
or lower.

4. Transit Station Access and Circulation
This requirement seeks to facilitate robust multimodal access to transit stations that maximizes the geographic area accessible from a stop or station via space-efficient forms of mobility (walking, cycling, shared mobility, and public transit) over space-intensive modes (single- occupancy vehicle travel). This helps enable increased residential and commercial density within transit station areas, but also enables those living, working, or accessing destinations beyond the half-mile station area to utilize the region’s transit network for more of their trips without having to rely on private automobiles.

Transit
station access and circulation should prioritize access to transit for people with disabilities and/or mobility impairments by ensuring that all state and federal accessibility laws, codes, and guidelines are followed and that universal design principles, which enable access not only for people with disabilities but also for people with a wide range of ages, sizes, and abilities, are employed to the greatest extent possible.

Local jurisdictions, in coordination with transit agencies, community members, and other stakeholders, should complete the following in all transit station areas subject to the TOC Policy:

1. Adopt policies and design guidelines that comply with MTC’s Complete Streets Policy11 and prioritize implementation of the regional Active Transportation Network and any relevant Community Based Transportation Plans.

11 See MTC Resolution No. 4493.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 49 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 22 ends

2. Complete an access gap analysis and accompanying capital and/or service improvement program for station access via a 10-mintue walk (including for people who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids), and 15-minute bicycle or bus/shuttle trip either as a separate study or analysis or as part of a specific or area plan, active transportation plan, or other transportation plan or study that, at a minimum, includes the following:
a. The geographic area that can currently be accessed via a 10- or 15-minute trip by these modes, with particular focus on access to Equity Priority Communities and other significant origins and/or destinations;
b. Infrastructure and/or service improvements that would expand the geographic area that can be accessed via a 10- or 15-minute trip by these modes; and c. Incorporation of recommended improvements into a capital improvement or service plan for the local jurisdiction and/or transit agency (if applicable).

3. In coordination with transit operators, other mobility service providers, and the community, identify opportunities for Mobility Hub planning and implementation using MTC Mobility Hub locations and MTC’s Mobility Hub Implementation Playbook.

FUNDING
To assist jurisdictions with TOC Policy compliance, MTC’s One Bay Area Grant (OBAG3) program and the Regional Early Access Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0) will offer planning support to jurisdictions subject to the Policy. Future OBAG funding cycles (i.e., OBAG4) will
consider funding revisions that prioritize investments in transit station areas that are subject to and compliant with the TOC Policy.

IMPLEMENTATION
The TOC Policy shall be implemented by requiring local jurisdictions with transit station areas subject to the policy to provide documentation to MTC demonstrating that the policy requirements have been satisfied. Within six months of policy adoption, MTC will provide guidance regarding documentation that local jurisdictions should provide to demonstrate TOC Policy compliance.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 50 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 23 ends

The TOC Policy complements the regional PDA Planning and Technical Assistance Program, which provides funding and technical guidance for comprehensive community planning in PDAs. MTC/ABAG will update PDA planning guidelines to include TOC Policy requirements, as well as guidance on how to achieve TOC Policy compliance, and will use the PDA Planning and Technical Assistance Program to assist local jurisdictions with TOC Policy implementation.

EVALUATION AND POLICY UPDATES
In conjunction with Plan Bay Area updates, MTC will evaluate the TOC Policy and its outcomes every four (4) years. Staff will recommend any revisions or modifications to the TOC Policy based on these evaluations.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
In addition to the guidance referenced in the Policy, MTC will provide further guidance on TOC Policy requirements to local jurisdictions with transit station areas subject to the Policy, including assistance with determining appropriate housing policies, transportation demand management, parking and curb management policies and programs, and transit station access and circulation.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 51 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 24 ends

Date: September 28, 2022
W.I.: 1611
Referred by: PLNG
Revised: 10/25/23

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

APPENDIX 1 – TRANSIT EXTENSIONS

This Appendix 1 details TOC Policy compliance requirements for fixed-guideway transit extension projects seeking allocations of regional discretionary capital funding or endorsements for federal or state discretionary capital funding. The requirements in this Attachment are intended to:
• Honor the purpose and goals of the TOC Policy including the aim to be comprehensive and not focused solely on transit investments.
• Avoid delaying delivery timelines for projects moving into construction phases, which could hamper or disadvantage transit investments.
• Allow appropriate time for local jurisdictions to comply with the TOC Policy.

Accordingly, this Appendix details the applicability of the TOC Policy during stages of project delivery in which a project may be seeking funding, with a focus on implementation for projects with sufficiently defined station areas that are not yet entering construction. Given the many nuances involved in project delivery, MTC staff will work with project sponsors and exercise discretion in terms of placing projects in their appropriate phase at the time of allocation for the purposes of determining TOC Policy compliance requirements.

This Appendix is limited to defining the TOC Policy’s application to transit extensions and does not alter other portions of the Resolution that expect local governments to demonstrate compliance with TOC Policy requirements by the OBAG 4 cycle, anticipated in 2026.

Additionally, beginning in 2026, the requirements contained herein will also apply to fixed guideway transit extension projects seeking MTC endorsement for federal or state discretionary capital funding.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 52 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 25 ends

Transit Extension TOC Applicability by Project Phase

1. Project Development/Environmental Review
Allocations can proceed so long as project sponsors, and local jurisdictions as applicable, provide a letter acknowledging that future allocation requests to MTC will be subject to the TOC policy pursuant to later phases. These commitments can take the form of a City Council resolution or a letter signed by the Mayor or City Manager.12 For any project funding falling in this category, MTC staff will work with the project sponsor and applicable jurisdictions to ensure successful TOC Policy implementation as the project is further developed.

Generally, projects in this category are in the earliest stages of development (planning/pre- environmental) and lacking defined station areas. Funding sought under this category would seek to further define the project, determine station location(s), assess environmental compliance, etc.

Funding for environmental documents on proposed transit extensions with pre-determined station locations, but which have not been adopted for further advancement by the project sponsor, will fall into this category.

2. Project Design and Early Right-of-Way Acquisition
Jurisdictions shall commit in writing to take steps toward achieving compliance by 2026 for the station area(s) attached to the transit extension project(s) that seek regional discretionary funding. The written commitment must state specific steps being taken for each of the four TOC Policy areas (density, affordability, parking, and access/circulation). These commitments can take the form of a City Council resolution or a letter signed by the Mayor or City Manager.13
Generally, these projects will have approved environmental documents, be adopted for advancement by a project sponsor, have defined station areas, and be in a pre-construction phase.

This project category also applies to funding for early right of way purchases, which suggest reasonable certainty on station area location. Funding for various project phases could apply to

12 For projects requesting allocations between now and December 2023, jurisdictions must submit the letter by Dec . 31, 2023. For projects seeking allocations thereafter, jurisdictions must submit the letter with their allocation request.
13 Commitment letters for projects in Stage 2 have the same timing requirements as commitment letters for projects in Stage 1.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 53 of 148 ends

Attachment A
MTC Resolution No. 4530, Revised

Page 26 ends

this category, including supplemental environmental studies for an adopted project which do not re-assess station location, preliminary and final design, and advanced right of way acquisition.

3. Project Construction
Jurisdictions do not need to submit a letter of commitment, but they should work with MTC staff to achieve compliance by 2026.

For projects that have advanced to the construction phase, funding allocations can proceed without TOC compliance or commitments. This category generally applies to projects that are imminently issuing bid documents, contracts, or notices to proceed on major construction packages, or which have already begun final construction.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 54 of 148 ends

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

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

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

TOC Policy Goals

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 55 of 148 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 56 of 148 ends

?×
?×
%&p(
%&p(
A¿
Concord BlvdWillow Pass Rd
CowellRd
Ygnacio Valley Rd
DetroitAve
Diam
ondBl
vd
OakGroveRd
Clayton Rd
KirkerPass Rd
ConcordAve
Sunvall
ey
Blvd
Galindo
St
Treat Blvd
Meadow
Ln
MonumentBlvd
Port Chicago
Concord TOC Areas
I
0 3,000 6,0001,500
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CED\Planning\BARTHousingElementMaps\BARTHousingElementMaps.aprx Map Created: 2/6/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
TOC Area
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 57 of 148 ends

A¿
DetroitAve
Concord Blvd
Cowel
l Rd
Concord Av
e
Ga
lin
do St
Clayton Rd
Willow Pass Rd
M
onu
m
ent Blvd
John F. Baldwin Park
Todos
Santos
Plaza
Ellis
Lake Park
Meadow
Homes Park
Concord
Skate
Park Krueger Play
Fields
BART Park
Concord
Civic
Center
Concord
Community
Park
Port
Chicago
Hwy
Walnut Ave
Fry Way
Grant St
Bonifacio St
Pacheco St
East St
Coventry Rd
ChestnutAve
SixthSt
Mt Diablo St
Salvio St
Galindo St
Oakland Ave
Parkside Dr
Mesa St
Lagu
na St
Broad
way St
San Miguel
Rd
Colfax St
Gateway
Blvd
Downtown Concord TOC Area
I
0 500 1,000250
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CED\Planning\BARTHousingElementMaps\BARTHousingElementMaps.aprx Map Created: 2/18/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
TOC Area
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 58 of 148 ends

?×
Bayview
Circle Park
Sun Terrace
Park
BART
Linear
Park
CNWS
Port Chicago Hwy
Olivera Rd
Hillsborough DrSanford St
Arnold Industrial Wa
y
North Concord TOC Area
I
0 500 1,000250
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CED\Planning\BARTHousingElementMaps\BARTHousingElementMaps.aprx Map Created: 2/18/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
TOC Area
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 59 of 148 ends

A¿
DetroitAve
Concord Blvd
Concord Av
e
Cowell
Rd
Ga
lin
do St
Clayton Rd
Willow Pass R
d
M
onum
ent Bl
vd
RL
RL
RR20RR40
RS10
RS10
RS10
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6RS6
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS8
RS8
RS8
Port
Chicago
Hwy
Walnut Ave
Fry Way
Grant St
Bonifacio St
SixthSt
Pacheco St
East St
Coventry Rd
ChestnutAveMt Diablo St
Salvio St
Galindo St
Oakland Ave
Parkside Dr
Mesa St
Lagu
na St
Broad
way St
Colfax St
San M
iguel
Rd
Gateway
Blvd
Downtown Concord TOC Area
I
0 500 1,000250
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CED\Planning\BARTHousingElementMaps\BARTHousingElementMaps.aprx Map Created: 2/19/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
TOC Area
Zoning Classification
Planned District
Rural Residential (RR)
Single Family Residential (RS)
Residential, Low Density (RL)
Residential, Medium Density (RM)
Residential, High Density (RH)
North Todos Santos (NTS)
Community Office (CO)
Commercial Mixed Use (CMX)
Neighborhood Commerical (NC)
Regional Commercial (RC)
Service Commerical (SC)
Downtown Pedestrian (DP)
Downtown Mixed Use (DMX)
West Concord Mixed Use (WMX)
Office Business Park (OBP)
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
Open Space (OS)
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Unzoned (U)
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 60 of 148 ends

?×
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS7
RS7.5
RS8
RS8
Port Chicago Hwy
Olivera Rd
Hillsborough DrSanford St
Arnold Industrial Wa
y
North Concord TOC Area
I
0 500 1,000250
Feet
\\concord4\GISMedia\MapRequest\CED\Planning\BARTHousingElementMaps\BARTHousingElementMaps.aprx Map Created: 2/18/2025
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
TOC Area
Zoning Classification
Planned District
Single Family Residential (RS)
Residential, Medium Density (RM)
Neighborhood Commerical (NC)
Office Business Park (OBP)
Industrial Business Park (IBP)
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
Open Space (OS)
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Study District (S)
Unzoned (U)
Concord Reuse Project – Green Frame (CRP-GF)
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 61 of 148 ends

ATTACHMENT 5
Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization Policy Options

Page 62 of 148 ends

DRAFT Evaluation Criteria Framework - MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy April 2025
MTC is sharing this DRAFT TOC Evaluation Criteria Framework so jurisdictions can test the framework and provide more detailed feedback to MTC staff alongside the slide deck/ material provided at stakeholder meetings and the May 2025 Joint MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative Committee meeting.

Proposed weights, scores, and thresholds for substantial or partial compliance are conceptual at this stage and are subject to change. This does not represent a final score and is not a determination of whether a jurisdiction complies with the TOC Policy. We look forward to your feedback on this and please don't hesitate to reach out to [email protected] with any questions. An asterisk (*) indicates draft numbers subject to change.

Density (25 points total)
Minimum Density – Residential (DU/A) Weight: 8 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant: meets or exceeds the standard 100 75 50 25 8* Substantial compliance: 85% of required standard 85* 64* 43* 21* 6* Partial compliance: 75% of required standard 75* 56* 38* 19* 4* Minimum Density – Commercial Office (FAR) Weight: 4 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant: meets or exceeds the standard 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 4* Substantial compliance: 85% of required standard 3.40* 2.55* 1.70* 0.85* 3* Partial compliance: 75% of required standard 3.00* 2.25* 1.50* 0.75* 2* Maximum Density – Residential (DU/A) Weight: 8 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant: meets or exceeds the standard 150 100 75 35 8* Substantial compliance: 85% of required standard 128* 85* 64* 30* 6* Partial compliance: 75% of required standard 113* 75* 56* 26* 4* Maximum Density – Commercial Office (FAR) Weight: 5 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant: meets or exceeds the standard 8.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 5* Substantial compliance: 85% of required standard 6.80* 5.10* 3.40* 2.55* 4* Partial compliance: 75% of required standard 6.00* 4.50* 3.00* 2.25* 3* Affordable Housing / Commercial Stabilization (25 points total) Production Policies (2) Weight: 8 points* DRAFT*
Score
Fully compliant: two adopted policies 8*
Partial compliance: one of the two required policies is adopted 4* Preservation Policies (2) Weight: 8 points* DRAFT*
Score
Fully compliant: two adopted policies 8*
Partial compliance: one of the two required policies is adopted 4* Protection Policies (2) Weight: 8 points* DRAFT*
Score
Fully compliant: two adopted policies 8*
Partial compliance: one of the two required policies is adopted 4* Commercial Stabilization Policy (1) Weight: 1 point* DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant: meets or exceeds the standard 1 or 0*
ATTACHMENT 6Page 63 of 148

Parking (25 points total)
Minimum Auto – Residential Weight: 2 points* DRAFT* Score
2 points if jurisdiction demonstrates that it prohibits minimums via attestation/resolution of AB 2097 compliance or code snippet 2 or 0*
Minimum Auto – Commercial Weight: 2 points* DRAFT*
Score
2 points if jurisdiction demonstrates that it prohibits minimums via attestation/resolution of AB 2097 compliance or code snippet 2 or 0*
Maximum Auto – Residential (spaces/unit) Weight: 6 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT* Score
Fully compliant 0.375 0.5 1.0 1.5 6*
Substantial compliance 0.4* 0.6* 1.2* 1.8* 4*
Partial compliance 0.5* 0.7* 1.3* 2.0* 2*
Maximum Auto – Commercial (spaces/ 5,000 sq. ft.)
Weight: 6 points* Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 DRAFT*
Score
Fully compliant 0.25 1.6 2.5 4.0 6*
Substantial compliance 0.29* 1.9* 2.9* 4.7* 4*
Partial compliance 0.33* 2.1* 3.3* 5.3* 2*
Minimum Bicycle – Residential (spaces/ unit) Weight: 3 points* DRAFT* Score
Meets required minimum of 1 bike space per dwelling unit 3*

0.85 to 0.99 bike space per dwelling unit 2*
Minimum Bicycle – Commercial Office (spaces/5,000 sq. ft) Weight: 3 points* DRAFT*
Score
Meets required minimum of 1 bike space per 5000 square feet 3*

0.85 to 0.99 bike space per 5000 square feet 2*
Allow Unbundled Parking Weight: 1 point* DRAFT*
Score
1 point if jurisdiction has adopted the policy 1 or 0* Allow Shared Parking Weight: 1 point* DRAFT*
Score
1 point if jurisdiction has adopted the policy 1 or 0* Parking Management Policy Weight: 1 point* DRAFT*
Score
1 point if jurisdiction has adopted an applicable policy 1 or 0* Station Access & Circulation (25 points total)
Compliant Complete Streets Policy Weight: 3 points* DRAFT* Score
3 points if jurisdiction has adopted an applicable policy 3 or 0* Prioritize or Implement Active Transportation Projects Weight: 7 points* DRAFT* Score
7 points if jurisdiction has prioritized or implemented active transportation projects 7 or 0* Compliant Access Gap Analysis Weight: 8 points* DRAFT*
Score
8 points if jurisdiction has adopted a compliant access gap analysis 8 or 0* Compliant Mobility Hub Plan/ Project/ Application Weight: 7 points* DRAFT* Score
7 points if jurisdiction has adopted a compliant mobility hub plan/ project/ application 7 or 0*

ATTACHMENT 6

Page 64 of 148 ends

Draft TOC Evaluation Criteria
April 2025
Credit: Karl Nielsen
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 65 of 148 ends

TOC Policy Background
• TOC Policy (MTC Reso 4530) adopted in Sep. 2022.
• Applies to area within half-mile of existing and
planned stops/stations served by rail, light rail, BRT, and ferries.
• Program Goals:
• Increase density for commercial development and
housing supply, prioritizing affordable housing.
• Prioritize bus transit, active transportation, and
shared mobility.
• Support and build partnerships to create equitable
transit-oriented communities.

Key Goal: To implement strategies of Plan Bay
Area 2050 over several cycles
Map available via TOC Policy web page
2 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 66 of 148 ends

TOC Policy Implementation To Date
2023 – Present
250+ meetings
with stakeholders,
including 175+
providing direct
support to
jurisdiction staff
Summer 2024
Submission Portal

1.0 launched to
assist with Density
Calculations
Fall 2024
Released Final
Administrative
Guidance detailing
policy component
requirements
Winter 2025
$60 million in
planning and
capital funding
awarded to
support local TOC
implementation
3 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 67 of 148 ends

Policy Components Overview
The TOC policy has four primary components
Density
4 standards
Housing
7 standards
Parking
9 standards
Station
Access
4 standards
Those components are further divided into specific standards 4 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 68 of 148 ends

Scoring Approach
As proposed, OBAG 4 will evaluate compliance at the jurisdiction level Individual
Standard
Score
Sub-scores for
policy standards
Overall
Component
Score
Total score for
each individual
policy component
Station Area
Score
Score across all
four policy
components
Jurisdiction
Score
Total score
averaging TOC
Areas (if multiple)
5 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 69 of 148 ends

Scoring Approach (cont.)
This score will categorize a jurisdiction into a compliance level:

Level 1
Fully
Compliant
Level 2
Partially
Compliant
Level 3
Not Compliant
These categories will likely determine funding eligibility for the OBAG 4 cycle 6 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 70 of 148 ends

Scoring Philosophy & Approach
I Inclusive – Recognizing diverse challenges across communities M Measurable – Ensuring clear evaluation and consistency P Progress-Oriented – Emphasizing improvement not perfection A Adaptive – Usable across funding cycles with room for growth C Clear – Limiting grey area for objectivity and transparency T Targeted– Focusing on meaningful, high-impact outcomes 7 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 71 of 148 ends

Holistic Scorecard – Key Features
A detailed, weighted scoring system that evaluates compliance across all policy areas with granularity, offering a transparent method for tracking over time.

Density
25 points
Housing
25 points
Parking
25 points
Station
Access
25 points
8 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 72 of 148 ends

Holistic Scorecard – Density
The Density Policy Component has four (4) standards totaling 25 points Minimum
Residential
Density
8 points
Maximum
Residential
Density
8 points
Minimum
Commercial
Office FAR
4 points
Maximum
Commercial
Office FAR
5 points
Applies a weight to each standard that reflects regional priorities and impact 9 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 73 of 148 ends

Holistic Scorecard – Density Flexibility
To increase flexibility, each standard can be broken into a spectrum of compliance For example, minimum residential density includes standards for each TOC area Tier Minimum
Residential
Density
Point Range Tier 1
Full – 8 points 100 du/a
Substantial – 6 points 85 du/a
Partial – 4 points 75 du/a
10 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 74 of 148 ends

Holistic Scorecard – Housing
The Housing Policy Component has four (4) standards totaling 25 points Production
Policies (2)
8 points
Preservation
Policies (2)
8 points
Protection
Policies (2)
8 points
Commercial
Stabilization (1)
1 point
Applies a weight to each standard that reflects regional priorities and impact 11 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 75 of 148 ends

Holistic Scorecard – Housing Flexibility
The Housing component has a menu of flexible options, so a point range is less granular Production
Policies
Point Range Action
Full – 8 points Two (2) Production Policies that
meet all Requirements
Partial – 4 points One (1) Production Policy that
meets all requirements
12 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 76 of 148 ends

Holistic Scorecard – Parking
The Parking Policy Component has six (6) standards totaling 25 points Auto MIN
(2)
4 points
Auto MAX
(2)
12 points
Bicycle MIN
(2)
6 points
Unbundled
Parking
1 point
Shared
Parking
1 point
Parking
Mgmt
1 points
Applies a weight to each standard that reflects regional priorities and impact 13 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 77 of 148 ends

Holistic Scorecard – Parking Flexibility
To increase flexibility, each standard can be broken into a spectrum of compliance Auto
Maximum –
Residential
Point Range Tier 1
Full – 6 points 0.375 Maximum Ratio
Substantial – 4 points 0.4 Maximum Ratio
Partial – 2 points 0.5 Maximum Ratio
14 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 78 of 148 ends

Holistic Scorecard – Station Access
The Station Access Policy Component has four (4) standards totaling 25 points Complete Streets
Policy
3 points
Active
Transportation
Network Projects
7 points
Access Gap
Analysis
8 points
Mobility Hub Plan
7 points
Applies a weight to each standard that reflects regional priorities and impact 15 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 79 of 148 ends

Jurisdiction X - Example
Density – 13 points
• Maximum Residential Density
• Maximum Commercial Office FAR
Housing – 9 points
• Production Policy
• Preservation Policy
• Commercial Stabilization Policy
Parking – 12 points
• No Parking Minimums
• Bicycle Parking Minimums (Office + Res)
• Allows Shared Parking
• Parking Management Policy
Station Access – 10 points
• Compliant Complete Streets Policy
• Mobility Hub Plan
16 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 80 of 148 ends

Holistic Scorecard – Example
Density Affordable
Housing Parking Station
Access
Total
Score
Station A 13 9 12 10 44
0 – 39
Not Compliant
40 – 84
Partially Compliant
85 +
Fully Compliant
17 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 81 of 148 ends

Questions for Discussion
• What feedback do you have for us?
• What are aspects of the proposed scoring you like? Where do you anticipate challenges?
• Is there information missing from this presentation that would help you work-plan/ allocate resources for TOC Policy compliance? • What information would be helpful for your decision-makers? • Are there particular policy components that you feel need more flexibility or refinement?
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 82 of 148 ends

Timeline for Engagement
• April 2025 – Meetings with Stakeholders (Planning Directors, Public Works, CTAs)
• Spring 2025 – Likely MTC Planning Committee Meeting
• Summer 2025 – Return to Stakeholders with Revisions
• Fall 2025 – Return to MTC Decision Makers with final framework • Early 2026 – Submission for TOC Compliance due
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 83 of 148 ends

TOC Resources
• General:
• TOC Policy Submission Portal
• Administrative Guidance
• MTC TOC Policy Landing Page
• Technical Assistance Portal
• Summary of TOC Policy Submission Requirements
• Staff Report and Slide Deck Template
• Housing:
• Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee Tool
• Inclusionary Zoning AMI Conversion Spreadsheet
• Density:
• Our team can review your zoning code and planning documents to ensure our records are accurate. Correct data helps identify existing average densities in TOC areas and potential rezoning needs for compliance.

ATTACHMENT 6

Page 84 of 148 ends

Appendix
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 85 of 148 ends

FAQ 1 – How will we score jurisdictions with
multiple TOC areas?
The score for a jurisdictions with multiple TOC areas will be calculated by averaging the station area score for the number of TOC areas. For example:

Density Affordable
Housing Parking Station
Access Total Score
Station A 14 9 12 5 40
Station B 18 9 10 10 47
Station C 11 9 8 8 36
40 47 36 3
(TOC
areas)
41 Normalized
Score
22 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 86 of 148 ends

FAQ 2 – How will we account for work in progress
that will not be completed by the 2026 deadline?
• Jurisdictions currently developing policies (including those that received TOC Planning, Housing, Parking, and Station Access grants which won’t be in contract until Summer 2025) will be asked to submit a timeline and progress report that outlines existing compliance status and anticipated compliance once work is completed.
• The report, along with an adopted resolution committing to TOC compliance must be submitted to be scored.
• MTC staff will assess the existing score prior to work completion and potential score accounting for work that is in progress and determine whether the jurisdiction qualifies under Level 2.
23 ATTACHMENT 6

Page 87 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Information
Project Name: 2030 General Plan, Downtown Concord Specific Plan, and Development Code Updates Local Jurisdiction: City of Concord
County Contra Costa
Applicant/Project
Manager
Meredith Rupp
Principal Planner
Contact
Information
[email protected]
925-603-5890
Housing Element
Certification
October 23, 2023
What type of grant
are you applying
for?
☐ Plan (Maximum award 1.2 million)
☐ Plan Amendment (Maximum grant award $650,000)
☒ Technical Assistance for zoning updates and related activities minimum grant award $100,000)
ATTACHMENT 7

Page 88 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 89 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

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

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

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

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

See attached page.

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

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

ALIGNMENT WITH PROGRAM GOALS AND APPROACH (20 points)

Demonstration of
understanding
and meeting all
TOC policy
requirements

Briefly describe how TOC compliance will be achieved through this grant

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

Concord’s development standards are already consistent with the TOC Policy’s ATTACHMENT 7

Page 90 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

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

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

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

☐ Preserve Existing Affordable Housing
☒ Allow a Greater Mix of Housing Densities and Types in Growth Geographies ☒ Build Adequate Affordable Housing to Ensure Homes for All ☒ Integrate Affordable Housing into All Major Housing Projects ☐ Transform Aging Malls and Office Parks into Neighborhoods ☐ Accelerate reuse of public and community -owned land for mixed-income housing and essential services.
☐ Advance Regional Vision Zero Policy through Street Design and Reduced Speeds ☐ Invest in High-Speed Internet in Underserved Low-Income Communities ☒ Allow greater commercial densities in Growth Geographies ☐ Protect Shoreline communities affected by sea level rise, prioritizing areas of low costs and high benefits
☒ Expand Transportation Demand Management Initiatives
☐ Modernize and expand parks, trails and recreation facilities ☐ Build a Complete Streets Network
☐ Support community-led transportation enhancements in Equity Priority Communities ATTACHMENT 7

Page 91 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similarly, the City intends to use Priority Sites TA funds for the Oak Street/Mount ATTACHMENT 7

Page 92 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

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

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

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

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

Between these Housing Element programs and the proposed grant project, the City will be taking substantial steps to increase the housing supply, focusing the highest densities in our downtown near the BART station. The City also just launched its new rental registry program, which will be used to implement the City’s rent adjustment ATTACHMENT 7

Page 93 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

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

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

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

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

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

Increase square
footage -
commercial

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

PROJECT READINESS (10 points)

Capacity
yes: Is this work included in your current annual workplan? no: Is the work proposed in this application included in your housing element or other General plan elements?
Will this grant augment or provide staff capacity to implement TOC policies? Yes, this grant will both augment existing staff capacity and create new capacity; it will be used to ATTACHMENT 7

Page 94 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TOC SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING CHANGES
Grant Application Form

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

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

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

City Council adoption is targeted for February 2026.

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

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

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 95 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

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

PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF WORK TEMPLATE

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

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

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

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

Task 1 Deliverables:

1.1: Kickoff meeting agenda and notes

1.2: Final scope of work and schedule

1.3: Meeting agendas and notes

Task 2 – Analysis of Existing Conditions and Approaches

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

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 96 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

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

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

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

Task 2 Deliverables:

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

2.2: City Council staff report

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

Task 3 – Community and Stakeholder Engagement

Community engagement will build upon the robust community engagement previously conducted for the 2030 General Plan and Downtown Concord Specific Plan. Engagement materials will be prepared by the City’s consultant. The scope of work and budget assume the Project Team will complete the following activities, with all engagements apart from the BART meeting to include Spanish/English translation and interpretation:
• City Council meeting to seek feedback from Councilmembers on the Approach Matrix and additional engagement to conduct.
• Two (2) focus groups, one focused on housing and one focused on economic development, with interested parties (e.g., Todos Santos Business Association, Concord Chamber of Commerce, Monument Impact, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, East Bay Housing Organizations) to explain the TOC Policy and seek feedback on the Approach Matrix (See Deliverable 2.1). The focus groups will utilize best practices for equitable community engagement to ensure participants from different income levels, races, and ethnicities are part of this process. • A community workshop, conducted once virtually and once in-person, to present the TOC Policy and seek feedback on the Approach Matrix (See Deliverable 2.1). The workshop will be in the evening or on the weekend and will include interactive ATTACHMENT 7

Page 97 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

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

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

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

Task 3 Deliverables:

3.1: City Council meeting (1) and meeting notes

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

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

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

3.5: Survey responses from affected property owners

3.6: BART meeting (1) and meeting notes

Task 4 – 2030 General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments

The 2030 General Plan Land Use Element, initially adopted October 2, 2007, provides specificity on allowable densities and FAR’s for each General Plan designation, which will require increasing the minimum density of certain General Plan designations to achieve conformance with the TOC Policy. The Downtown Concord Specific Plan (Specific Plan), adopted on June 24, 2014, applies to the Downtown Concord Priority Development Area (PDA) and contains much of the Concord TOC. City staff have analyzed the 2030 General Plan and Specific Plan in the context of the TOC Policy and have found that both documents are largely consistent with the TOC Policy. Increasing the minimum densities of certain zoning districts pursuant to the TOC Policy would create only minor inconsistencies with the 2023 General Plan and Specific Plan. This task is intended to correct these minor inconsistencies and advance implementation of both the 2030 General Plan and the Specific Plan.

A consulting firm to be selected by the City will assist City staff in amending the Land Use Element of the 2030 General Plan and Sections 3.4, Land Use and Program and 3.5 Zoning of the Specific Plan to incorporate the Recommended Approach identified in Task 2. The amendments will also consider market realities (i.e., current challenges with financial feasibility of ground floor retail and other commercial development) and changed conditions (e.g., the ATTACHMENT 7

Page 98 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

12 inclusion of several Downtown sites in the City’s Housing Element Sites Inventory). The key amendments could include:
• Increasing the minimum FAR and residential density for certain General Plan designations and zones as determined in Task 2. At a minimum, this is anticipated to affect parcels in the Downtown Mixed Use (DTMU) designation and DMX zone and parcels subject to AB 2923.
• Creating and applying a new overlay zoning district in the area around Clay’s Alley pursuant to Specific Plan Implementation Measure LU-3 B: Define a new district around Pacheco, Adobe, and Clay’s Alley (restaurants, artisanal local retailers). • Changing Block Y, as identified in the Specific Plan, from a commercial land use to a residential or mixed-use residential development consistent with its status as a Housing Element site.

The consultant will prepare new or amended Specific Plan diagrams and projection tables as appropriate, such as to accommodate increased minimum densities. The scope of work assumes updates to the following figures and tables:
• Figure 3.10 Specific Plan Phase I Land Use
• Figure 3.11 Specific Plan Phase I Building Use
• Table 3.4 Preferred Alternative New Development Program (Phase 1 – 2020 Projection) • Figure 3.13 Specific Plan Phase II Land Use
• Figure 3.14 Specific Plan Phase II Building Use
• Figures and data on page 54
• Table 3.5 Preferred Alternative New Development Program (Phase 2 – 2040 Projection) • Figure 3.18 Proposed FAR

Residential and Commercial Densities
The residential densities identified in the 2030 General Plan in the TOC area range between 2.5 to 100 dwelling units/acre, which do not meet the minimum average density. The commercial intensities, reflected in FAR, range from 0.5 to 6.0, which do not meet the minimum average intensity identified in the TOC Policy. Therefore, this scope of work includes amending the 2030 General Plan Land Use Element based on the Recommended Approach in Task 2 to ensure compliance with minimum average densities and intensities of the TOC Policy.

The residential densities assumed within the Specific Plan’s Development Program (50 to 130 dwelling units/acre) are consistent with the proposed increase to minimum residential densities in Task 2; the affected zoning districts would have a minimum residential density no lower than 50 dwelling units/acre and no higher than 130 dwelling units/acre. Therefore, this scope of work does not include amendments to the Specific Plan’s residential densities. This means that Specific Plan amendments will largely focus on the Specific Plan’s retail and commercial office uses. In particular, Blocks K and Z have been identified as development sites that will likely see increased development intensity under the proposed zoning changes finalized in Task 2.

Clay Alley Zoning District
The consultant will provide recommended development standards for a new zoning or overlay district around Clay Alley, including building height, FAR, residential density, and any objective ATTACHMENT 7

Page 99 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

13 design standards necessary to implement the Specific Plan’s vision for this area. The recommendations will be provided in writing and shall be within the maximum intensity of development analyzed for the Specific Plan. The recommendation could be to rezone the subject parcels to another zoning district that already exists, such as Downtown Pedestrian. Because this subtask relates to implementing a component already in the Specific Plan, no amendments to the plan will be needed.

The consultant will prepare Draft 2030 General Plan Land Use Element and Specific Plan Amendments and respond to two rounds of comments from City staff.

Task 4 Deliverables:

4.1: Recommended development standards for Clay Alley area

4.2: Final Draft 2030 General Plan Land Use Element and Specific Plan Amendments

Task 5 –Development Code and Zoning and General Plan Map Amendments

City staff will draft redlined amendments to the Development Code and update the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Diagram to implement the Recommended Approach in Task 2 and Specific Plan amendments in Task 4. It is anticipated that the following changes will need to be captured in the City’s Development Code and/or Zoning and General Plan Maps:
• Increasing the minimum residential density and FAR standards for the DMX zone and any other zones as determined in Task 2’s Recommended Approach • Establishing a new zoning district or overlay for the Clay Alley area and/or BART- owned AB 2923 parcels, as applicable
• Rezoning the Clay Alley area and/or AB 2923 parcels
• Amending the General Plan Land Use Designation for the Clay Alley area, if applicable

Task 5 Deliverables:

5.1: Final Draft Development Code Amendments

5.2: Final Draft Updated Zoning and General Plan Maps

Task 6 – Environmental Review

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the 2030 General Plan and was certified by the City Council in 2007.

A January 2014 Addendum was prepared in conformance with CEQA for the Specific Plan. The 2014 Addendum was an addendum to the Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR) adopted in July 2012 for the Concord Development Code Project, which included amendments to the 2030 General Plan text and map, adoption of a new development code, and a new zoning map. The SEIR was supplemental to the 2030 Concord General Plan EIR. The SEIR analyzed a buildout based on the maximum utilization of land in the City’s urban core, including a FAR of 6.0 and residential density of 100 dwelling units/acre for the DMX zone. Assuming the Recommended Approach ATTACHMENT 7

Page 100 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

14 does not consider other General Plan designations and zoning districts beyond DTMU and DMX, increasing the minimum densities and intensities for DTMU and DMX parcels and/or creating new zoning districts still within the maximum intensities analyzed in the SEIR would not require additional CEQA documentation.

A consultant selected by the City will review the 2014 Addendum and associated SEIR and General Plan EIR to confirm staff’s approach that additional CEQA documentation is not required. To be conservative, this scope of work and budget includes an optional task for a streamlined addendum to the SEIR. The addendum would analyze the proposed changes to the 2030 General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning Map, and Development Code. It would focus on a few key issues and would document that none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.

Task 6 Deliverables:

6.1: CEQA Screening Analysis

6.2: Optional Final CEQA Addendum

Task 7 – Public Hearings

City staff and the consultant team will prepare materials for and present the amendments to the 2030 General Plan, Specific Plan, Development Code, and Zoning Map to the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as the CEQA document, if applicable. This scope of work assumes two public hearings in this Task 7.

Task 7 Deliverables:

7.1: Planning Commission hearing (1) attendance and public hearing notices, staff report, resolution(s), and other materials

7.2: City Council hearing (1) attendance and public hearing notices, staff report, ordinance(s), and other materials

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 101 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

15 PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE & BUDGET

DELIVERABLE

ESTIMATED

DATE OF

COMPLETION

ESTIMATED
BUDET
Task 1 – Kickoff and General Project
Management March 2025 $16,999.29

1.1 Kickoff Meeting March 2025 $2,070.66

1.2 Finalized Scope of Work April 1, 2025 $1,775.33

1.3 General Project Management Ongoing $13,153.30
Task 2 – Analysis of Existing Conditions and
Approaches June 2025 $9,707.31

2.1 Final TOC Mapping Portal Data and
Approach Matrix April 2025
$3,090.66

2.2 City Council Staff Report April 2025 $5,141.32

2.3 Recommended Approach June 2025 $1,475.33
Task 3 – Community and Stakeholder
Engagement June 2025 $50,008.26

3.1 City Council Meeting (1) April 2025 $ 4,285.99

3.2 Bilingual Economic Development Focus
Group (1) April/May 2025
$7,145.99

3.3 Bilingual Housing Focus Group (1) April/May 2025 $6,845.99

3.4 Bilingual Community Workshop (1 virtual, 1
in-person)
May/June 2025 $20,176.63

3.5 Results of Bilingual Survey May 2025 $9,550.66

3.6 BART Meeting (1) April/May 2025 $2,003.00
Task 4 – General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendments September 2025 $52,399.65

4.1 Clay Alley Recommendations June 2025 $3,135.33

4.2 Final Draft General and Specific Plan
Amendments
September 2025 $49,264.32
Task 5 – Development Code and Zoning Map
Amendments September 2025 $18,377.97

5.1 Final Draft Development Code Amendments September 2025 $15,727.31

5.2 Zoning and General Plan Map Amendments August 2025 $2,650.66 Task 6 – Environmental Review December 2025 $24,087.31

6.1 CEQA Screening Analysis September 2025 $8,205.99

6.2 Optional: CEQA Addendum December 2025 $15,881.32
Task 7 – Public Hearings February 2026 $13,703.96
ATTACHMENT 7

Page 102 of 148 ends

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

16 DELIVERABLE

ESTIMATED

DATE OF

COMPLETION

ESTIMATED
BUDET

7.1 Planning Commission Hearing (1) January 2026 $8,842.64

7.2 City Council Hearing (1) February 2026 $4,861.32

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 103 of 148 ends

17 ATTACHMENT 7

Page 104 of 148 ends

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

Page 1 of 9 ends

Grant application due November 22, 2024 at 4pm
Refer to the grant guide for more information
(https://abag.ca.gov/tools-resources/digital-library-498) Submit application to Joel Mandella at [email protected] with following email subject line:
“JURISDICTION NAME 2024 TOC Parking Management Grant Application” Provide the application form in Word format
The purpose of the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy Parking Management requirements is to reduce automobile trips and prioritize the limited land area near transit for other shared transportation modes and active transportation. Please review the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance to understand the required parking standards for new residential and commercial development, bicycle parking, and shared, unbundled, and complementary local parking policies.

Through this call for projects, MTC is proposing a standardized parking management scope of work (found in Attachment A) to help jurisdictions achieve compliance with the TOC Policy parking management requirements. Given existing jurisdictional parking management policies and standards that may comply (or partially comply) with the TOC Policy, jurisdictions are encouraged to review Attachment A and consider how some or all of the tasks will help to achieve parking management TOC Policy compliance when completing this application.

Project Information
Project Name: Concord Parking Management Implementation Sponsor Agency: City of Concord
Sponsor/Project
Manager Contact:

Aaron Elias
925-671-3276
[email protected]
Brief Project
Description:
100 words max
This project will develop a parking and transportation demand management policy for the city of Concord to reduce automobile trips and prioritize land area near transit for other shared transportation modes. This will be achieved through changes to p arking requirements within Concord’s two transit-oriented communities (TOC) and adoption of supportive transportation demand management (TDM) policies based on community and stakeholder engagement.

Partner Agency(ies) List partner agencies/contacts with whom you are coordinating on the project, if any Grant Request: $300,000
Housing Element
Certification
Does your jurisdiction have a 6th Cycle Housing Element certified by HCD? ATTACHMENT 8

Page 105 of 148 ends

2024 TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) PLANNING &
IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS - Parking Management Application Form

Page 2 of 9 ends

☒Yes
☐No
Proposal Impact – 40 points
Proposal Impact

40 points

What impact will the
proposed work have on
the TOC Policy area and
those that frequent it?
What impact will the
proposed work have on
the jurisdiction’s TOC
Policy compliance?

1. List the Transit-Oriented Communities within your jurisdiction that the project will apply to. See the TOC map or list of TOC areas by jurisdiction
☒ Applies to all TOCs in jurisdiction
The city of Concord has two transit-oriented communities focused around the Concord and North Concord BART stations. This project would apply to both of these TOCs

2. A standardized scope of work (found in Attachment A below) is proposed here to help jurisdictions achieve compliance with the TOC Policy parking management requirements. Describe your jurisdiction’s existing parking policies and standards, and the breadth and depth of impacts that the standardized scope of work would have upon these. Detail any proposed deviations from the standardized scope, if applicable.

The city of Concord’s parking standards are identified in section 18.160.040 of the municipal code and provide both a minimum and maximum requirement for various land uses. While these parking standards are generic throughout the city, Concord does enforce AB 2097 and therefore cannot impose any minimum parking requirements for development projects within one-half mile of our two BART stations which encompasses the entirety of the TOC areas. The city does have a robust bicycle parking requirement for both residential and commercial land uses that requires short-term and long-term bicycle parking. However, as currently written, bicycle parking requirements are tied to the number of required vehicle parking spaces. In TOC areas subject to AB 2097 where no parking minimums are imposed, bicycle parking requirements are also affected. The municipal code is silent on the unbundling of parking neither prohibiting it nor requiring it and leave it to t he developer to make the determination. Shared parking is allowed between two adjacent non-residential uses based on a minor use permit. We anticipate the project will assist the city in identifying changes that are needed for TOC compliance.

We anticipate changes to include removal of parking minimums within the TOC are a and a reduction in parking maximums.

We are also looking for guidance on updating our bicycle parking standards and potentially considering how design standards may need to change as a result of new technologies like e-bikes that can be heavier and larger than traditional bicycles. Finally, we would anticipate the standard scope of work to provide more guidance on when to require the implementation of TDM strategies and which strategies may be most effective for a suburban city like Concord. We do not have any proposed deviations from the standard scope, but we would like to request two additions. The first is that the scope provide assistance in determining on-street parking supply and demand within the TOC areas. Reduced off-street requirements are likely to result in a significant increase to on-street parking use. Understanding current supply and demand will allow the city to better prepare for proactive changes to on -street parking regulations to prevent parking simply from being transferred from off-street spaces to on-street spaces defeating potential VMT reduction within the TOC. The second addition to the scope we would request is a review of our bicycle parking space design in addition to the number of ATTACHMENT 8

Page 106 of 148 ends

Concord City CouncilJune 24, 2025

Concord City Council
June 24, 2025