1 COUNCILMEMBERS
Carlyn S. Obringer, Mayor
Laura M. Nakamura, Vice Mayor
Dominic D. Aliano
Pablo Benavente
Laura M. Hoffmeister
Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org
Special Meeting of the
Concord City Council
Tuesday
June 24, 2025
5:00 p.m. - Closed Session City Council
Conference Room
1950 Parkside Drive,
Wing A
Concord, CA
NOTICE: The Closed Session will be held in person only in the City Council Conference Room, 1950 Parkside Drive, Wing A. Members of the public may not participate in the Closed Session; however, Public Comment for the Closed Session item will be taken in person when the Closed Session begins at 5:30 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
1. OPENING
Roll Call
2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
3. CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: Town Center II, an approximately 3.10-acre, former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) property at 1765 Galindo Street (APN 126-143-012) Agency negotiators: Valerie Barone, City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Guy Bjerke, Director Community Reuse Project; Thomas Capriola, Senior Assistant City Attorney
2 Negotiating parties: Cypress Equity Investments LLC; Meta Housing Corporation; 330 Land Company LLC
Under negotiation: Price, Terms of Payment
4. ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Regular Meeting
Date: 6/24/2025 5:30 PM
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited by California law to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the hearing or in a written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the hearing.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Law, it is the policy of the City of Concord to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and require a copy of a public hearing notice, or an agenda and/or agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require other accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinator Tianjun Cao at (925) 671-3243 or [email protected], at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
From: Joey Flegel-Mishlove <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2025 6:26 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Megan Nguyen <[email protected]>; Jeffrey Levin <[email protected]> Subject: EBHO Comments on Conference re: Town Center II Site Dear Concord City Councilmembers,
I am writing to you on behalf of East Bay Housing Organizations, respectfully urging you once again to ensure that your disposition of the Town Center II site complies with the California’s Surplus Land Act, and that affordable housing is made a priority and requirement in any sale agreement for the property.
Please see our attached public comment letter ahead of your closed session meeting tomorrow, along with our previous correspondence on this issue from January of this year, as well as a document on who lives in affordable housing in Concord to help ground the discussion.
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Joey Flegel-Mishlove
Joey Flegel-Mishlove (he/him)
Policy Associate
EAST BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS (EBHO)
[email protected] | (414) 899-4452
538 9th Street, Suite 200, Oakland, CA 94612
Thank you for supporting our efforts to protect, preserve, and create affordable housing for all! Visit us at ebho.org and follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.
Benched Correspondence
Closed Session
June 24, 2025
3.a
June 23, 2025
Carlyn Obringer, Mayor
Laura Nakamura, Vice-Mayor
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Pablo Benavente, Councilmember
Re: June 24 Closed Session Conference on Disposition of Town Center II Site Dear Members of the Concord City Council,
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) writes to you once again, respectfully urging you to ensure that your disposition of the Town Center II site complies with the California’s Surplus Land Act, and that affordable housing is made a priority and requirement in any sale agreement for the property.
Last month we celebrated the opening of the Rick Judd Commons in Concord. This apartment building, which will serve as a home for pre-school teachers, mail carriers, home health aides, and more, is the first new 100% affordable housing development to open in our city in over 20 years.1 This was a major triumph for the city since, per Concord’s 2024 Housing Element Annual Progress Report, Concord continues to fall woefully short of our goals for providing affordable housing in our community. Last year, only 36 affordable homes were built in Concord and they were all ADUs, making their true affordability impossible to confirm at this time.
Affordable housing development may often seem to be out of the City’s control, but the sale of the Town Center II site represents a unique opportunity for the City to ensure that a vacant lot is transformed into homes for those who need it most. Not only do we have this opportunity, but our city is actually required by state law to take certain steps to prioritize affordable housing in the disposition of public land. Moreover, as you know, the site was designated in the Housing Element site inventory as accommodating 309 units of housing for lower income households. If this site is not used as designated, then the City could be required to designate an alternative site with enough capacity to ensure the City has sufficient and
1 Rick Judd Commons comprises 62 apartments, 13 of which are reserved for formerly homeless individuals with disabilities, 1 which is reserved for a household living with HIV/AIDS, and the rest reserved for families and individuals earning between 30-60% of the Area Median Income. See our attached chart for examples of occupations with salaries in that range.
suitably zoned land to accommodate the unmet need for lower income housing. Such site selection would also need to be consistent with the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
The Surplus Land Act (SLA) requires that when a jurisdiction disposes of surplus land, developers of affordable housing are given the first opportunity to make offers on the property and the jurisdiction must negotiate with these parties in good faith. Though the City did receive proposals from six developer teams proposing 100% affordable housing projects, no agreement was reached and the City moved on to issue an RFP to the general public. Unfortunately, the RFP released to the general public contained more flexible and relaxed terms than the NOA that was originally issued to affordable housing developers, including the possibility of a City contribution of up to $2.5 million. This incentive was not offered as part of the original Notice of Availability and subsequent negotiations with affordable housing developers. In the past, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has advised cities that if negotiations with affordable housing developers do not result in an agreement, in order to maintain the integrity of that process, it is expected that the same terms shall be imposed for future disposition of the Property.
While we do not know exactly what terms of sale are being negotiated in these closed session conferences, we are deeply concerned based on the RFP that this sale could be deemed by the State to have violated the provisions of the Surplus Land Act. If the City were to proceed to sell the property after being advised by HCD that it was in violation of the SLA, it could be subject to financial penalties up to 30 percent of the sales price or fair market value of the property (whichever is greater) We urge you to avert this scenario either by bringing the original responding affordable housing developers back to the bargaining table, or by making significant affordability a requirement of any sale to the current slate of developers under consideration.
We are attaching to this letter a chart with examples of workers who qualify for affordable housing in Concord, as well as the letter we wrote in January of this year regarding the disposition of the Town Center II Site.
Sincerely,
Joey Flegel-Mishlove
Policy Associate
East Bay Housing Organizations
January 14, 2025
Re: Terms and expectations for RFP to restart Town Center II Disposition – Item 5b Dear Members of the Concord City Council,
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) is glad to see the City of Concord moving forward once again with the disposition of the Town Center II. As a longtime proponent of using public land for public good, and as a cosponsor on several state bills strengthening the Surplus Lands Act (SLA), EBHO and our members have a strong interest in ensuring that the City continues to follow the disposition procedures and affordability protocols in the SLA.
With six developer teams proposing 100% affordable housing projects, it is disappointing that the City failed to come to an agreement with any of the interested developer teams. We have several concerns regarding the process and next steps outlined, as the City moves forward with restarting the disposal of Town Center II. First, with half of the affordable developer teams withdrawing from the process, we are concerned that the requirements in the January 2023 Notice of Availability (NOA) were overly strict. Moreover, the City’s consideration and rationale for formally ending negotiations with the remaining developer teams based upon their inability to pay the appraised value of $4.99 million in one sum and limited experience obtaining LIHTC funding is alarming, considering that staff now seek direction to modify, and perhaps loosen these requirements at the direction of the City Council. The key expectations and terms around a Project Labor Agreement (PLA), price, and payment for the property should have been resolved before the first step in disposing of the property in accordance with the SLA, when affordable housing developers were made aware of the opportunity through the NOA.
Based on the State's review of SLA actions in other cities, it is our understanding that where a local agency has entered into negotiations with affordable housing developers in response to a Notice of Availability that included certain conditions but failed to reach agreements, in order to preserve the integrity of the SLA process the same conditions would need to be imposed on any subsequent disposition of the land. This would include the sales price, the timing of payments, and requirements for a PLA.
We call attention to Government Code section 54226, which states that a locality may sell or lease surplus land below fair market value. The City of Concord had an opportunity to discount the sale price to a local mission-driven affordable housing provider, and as mentioned in the staff report, use the difference as a local subsidy from the City to support affordable housing. As also mentioned on page 3, we want to stress to the City that the SLA mandates that the City must
attach recorded covenants to the land that require at least 15 percent of any housing units developed on the site to be affordable to lower-income households for 55 years.
Using public land for public good, in compliance with the SLA, is a key tool to make Concord a place where families of all incomes can continue to call home from one generation to the next.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to realize this vision and promise.
Sincerely,
Megan Nguyen
Policy Manager
East Bay Housing Organizations
Who Lives in Affordable Housing in Concord?
Prepared by East Bay Housing Organizations, June 2025
This document relies on the 2025 County Income Limits published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as well as Average Annual Salary Data published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Affordable Housing income requirements are based on the Contra Costa County Area Median Income and change based on size of household. While different affordable housing developments have different limits for who qualifies, the maximum income level that is deemed “low-income,” is 80% of AMI. A family of four qualifying as “low-income” (80% of AMI) in Concord in 2025 can earn up to $125,050 per year.
Here is the full chart of 2025 AMI Category Income Limits for Contra Costa County:
Household
Size
Acutely Low
Income
(15% AMI)
Extremely
Low Income
(30% AMI)
Very Low
Income
(50% AMI)
Low Income
(80% AMI)
Median
Income
Moderate
Income
(120% AMI)
1 $16,750 $33,600 $55,950 $87,550 $111,850 $134,250
2 $19,150 $38,400 $63,950 $100,050 $127,850 $153,400
3 $21,550 $43,200 $71,950 $112,550 $143,800 $172,600
4 $23,950 $47,950 $79,900 $125,050 $159,800 $191,750
5 $25,850 $51,800 $86,300 $135,100 $172,600 $207,100
6 $27,800 $55,650 $92,700 $145,100 $185,350 $222,450
7 $29,700 $59,500 $99,100 $155,100 $198,150 $237,750
8 $31,600 $63,300 $105,500 $165,100 $210,950 $253,100
The next page contains a table with several example household sizes and occupations that would qualify for affordable housing in Concord.
Household Potential Incomes
Single Earner, Living Alone Restaurant Cook ($47,580) qualifies as Very Low-Income Construction Laborer ($75,550) qualifies as Low-Income Home Health Aide ($38,010) qualifies as Very Low-Income Emergency Medical Technician ($59,050) qualifies as Low-Income Mail Carrier ($62,260) qualifies as Low-Income
Single Earner, 1 Dependent Social Worker ($79,860) qualifies as Low-Income Waiter/Waitress ($46,130) qualifies as Very Low-Income Middle School Teacher ($90,110) qualifies as Low-Income Home Health Aide ($38,010) qualifies as Extremely Low-Income EMT ($59,050) qualifies as Very Low-Income
Two Earners, Living Together Preschool Teacher and Ambulance Driver (combined $94,220) qualify as Low-Income
Nursing Assistant and Warehouse Worker (combined $100,030) qualify as Low-Income
Building Maintenance Worker and Physical Therapy Aide (combined $97,340) qualify as Low-Income
Two Earners, 1 Dependent School Bus Driver and Waiter/Waitress (combined $111,470) qualify as Low-Income
Plant Nursery Worker and Medical Secretary (combined
$110,410) qualify as Low-Income
Preschool Teacher and Hairdresser (combined $102,870) qualify as Low-Income
Two Earners, 2 Dependents Home Appliance Repairer and Rehabilitation Counselor (combined $116,120) qualify as Low-Income
Mail Carrier and EMT (combined $121,310) qualify as Low- Income
Retail Salesperson and Health Technician (combined $122,180) qualify as Low-Income
Two Earners, 3 Dependents Roofer and Office Clerk (combined $133,620) qualify as Low- Income
Childcare Worker and Language Interpreter (combined $133,990) qualify as Low-Income
Special Education Teacher and Manicurist/Pedicurist (combined $128,420) qualify as Low-Income
Not included in this table are people with no income, people on a fixed income, or people working part time (including many students, seniors, and people with disabilities), all of whom also qualify for and urgently need affordable housing. Additionally, this table does not explore single earners with more than one dependent, but it is not difficult to imagine that a single parent supporting multiple children will likely qualify for affordable housing even when working a full-time job that pays well above minimum wage.