City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
October 14, 2025
Analysis
On June 30, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 131 into law, introducing significant changes to CEQA requirements for housing-related actions. A key provision exempts local rezoning actions that implement an approved Housing Element from CEQA environmental review. Since Concord's AFFH rezoning is a certified program within the 2023-2031 Housing Element, an EIR or other environmental analysis is no longer required.
SB 131 began as a placeholder bill in January 2025, with substantive amendments added on June 27, 2025, just three days before its enactment. The City reviewed the implications upon signing, determining that continuing EIR preparation would be unnecessary and could introduce delays, litigation risks, financial penalties, or even loss of permitting authority. State agencies, including the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Attorney General's Office, have emphasized avoiding procedural barriers to housing production.
As a result of the new legislation, the program’s process has been revised, as illustrated in the table below.
Revised AFFH Overlay Zoning Program Process
Surveys, stakeholder meetings, community workshops (complete) Initial Site Selection for analysis, Planning Commission and City Council meetings (complete)
Preparation of a Draft EIR (Removed from process per SB 131) Public review and comment period for the Draft EIR (Removed from process per SB 131)
Preparation of a Final EIR (Removed from process per SB 131) Staff update to the City Council focused on what has changed and the anticipated timeline for program completion (today)
Planning Commission review and recommendation to the City Council to adopt an overlay district, including the sites subject to the overlay zoning district and development standards.
City Council review and adoption of an overlay zoning district, including the sites subject to the overlay zoning district and development standards.
Next Steps and Anticipated Timeline
• November 5, 2025: Planning Commission meeting to review sites under consideration for inclusion in the overlay district and the proposed development standards. This is the next opportunity for community input on these topics.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
October 14, 2025
• January 27, 2026: City Council public hearing to review and take action on the Planning Commission’s recommendations, the sites under consideration for inclusion in the overlay district and the proposed development standards This will provide an additional opportunity for community input on these topics.
Public Notification for AFFH Meetings
To ensure broad awareness and participation, staff will continue to use multiple methods to notify the public of upcoming AFFH meetings:
• Direct Mailings: Notices will be sent to property owners, businesses, and residents within and near proposed sites, including all properties within 500 feet.
Notices will be mailed to both the property address and the property owner’s address when different, ensuring tenants and owners are both informed. • Digital Communications: Updates shared via the City’s website, social media channels, and e-news publications.
• Email Notifications: Sent to more than 1,000 individuals and organizations on the City’s “interested parties” list.
Financial Impact
There are no financial impacts associated with this update.
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and the implementing CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code or Regulations (CEQA), Council direction to staff on this item does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and/or 15378, because there is no potential that the action will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect or direct physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if such direction did comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it would fall within the “common sense” exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which excludes projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” No unusual circumstances exist. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted, and an informational e-mail and notification of this meeting was sent to approximately 1,000 contacts on the interested parties list.
From: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 2:20 PM
To: kasperprado <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Proposed Rezoning
Thank you for contacting us about the AFFH rezoning program. Please be advised that the update scheduled for Tuesday, October 14 will not cover the selection of sites for rezoning.
Instead, the staff presentation will focus on recent changes in law, their impact on the program, and an updated timeline.
Your email and this response will be shared with all Councilmembers.
Wendy McAuley, Executive Assistant
Office of the City Manager & City Council
City of Concord | www.cityofconcord.org
(925) 671-3038 | [email protected]
From: kasperprado <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 7:51 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Rezoning
October 10, 2025
Dear Councilmembers,
The proposed rezoning of Palm Lake should not proceed due to its potential negative impacts on the existing community and the area's current challenges. Here is why:
1. Preservation of a community: The roughly 300 affordable homes at Palm Lake represent an established community providing crucial housing for low-income and fixed-income families. Densifying it further would be excessive and would degrade the quality of life for us and future residents.
2. Exacerbation of existing problems: The community is already heavily populated, and we already face issues with parking, noise, safety, and vehicular traffic. Rezoning and increasing density would only amplify these problems. The safety and health of current residents should be prioritized over densification efforts.
3. Unequal burden on the community: We should not be forced to bear the brunt of densification when other sites under consideration are more appropriate.
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 6.a
October 14, 2025
Instead of rezoning Palm Lake, city planners should consider the other sites. Protecting the current and diverse residents of Palm Lake should be the priority, rather than pursuing further densification that could harm an already heavily populated community.
Sincerely,
Palm Lake Resident
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
From: azita berloui <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 4:22 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concerns Regarding Environmental and Community Impacts of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project – Request for Comprehensive Review Under CEQA Reform
Dear Justin,
I would like Joelle to make my letter as the public record for tomorrow night’s session.
Thank you,
Azita Berloui
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 13, 2025, at 3:21 PM, Ezell, Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
Ms. Berloui,
Copied on this thread is our City Clerk Joelle Fockler. Please let her know if you would like this email thread to be made part of the public record for tomorrow night’s discussion on the AFFH program.
Thank you,
-Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
City of Concord
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
Sign up for our e-newsletter here.
From: azita berloui <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:32 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn
<[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concerns Regarding Environmental and Community Impacts of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project – Request for Comprehensive Review Under CEQA Reform
Dear Laura,
Thank you for your feedback. Glad Contra Costa County is exempt from SB 79 for now . I hope every single council members and the Mayor is supporting the voice of their constituents who voted for them . They should not allow the state to Mandate their political agenda to our community . After all , if the community is unhealthy due to environmental , congestion impacts , increased in crimes , fire then there is no community to thrive.
Thank you for your support and thoughts.
Best,
Azita Berloui
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2025, at 11:07 PM, Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> wrote:
Azita
Contra costa co and the cities in contra costa were specifically exempted from sn 79, along with Marin co and its cities… the city did take an opposed position and mayor sent our position to the author of bill , co sponsors and our state reps etc.. the law that expanded the list of ceqa exemptions was different bill, it was done within 72 hours and no one knew if it until after it passed. Unfortunately Ceqa is fully within state authority as ceqa is state law and state has full legal authority to make exemptions as they see fit.. sometimes they make good changes but this one not so good from my perspective, although some cities are not happy with this change to crews, some are ok, some officials not happy, other officials are ok with it..,
I am not, but as I previously mentioned the state is legally within their right to make changes to ceqa,
councilmember hoffmeister
Get Outlook for iOS
From: azita berloui <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 3:34:11 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn
<[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Concerns Regarding Environmental and Community Impacts of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project – Request for Comprehensive Review Under CEQA Reform
Dear Laura,
Council members must be very careful as we the people voted for them to hear our voices! State control Cities and county is unconstitutional and does NOT serve the citizens!
In a move decried as a blatant power grab, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 79 into law on October 10, 2025, unleashing a sweeping mandate that overrides local zoning to force denser housing near transit hubs across California. Touted as a “historic” fix for the housing crisis, this bill—authored by Sen. Scott Wiener—empowers metropolitan planning organizations to designate “transit-oriented development” zones, preempting city and county land-use authority to allow multifamily projects up to 85 feet tall, regardless of local opposition. Yet, as the Los Angeles City Council astutely voted 8-5 to oppose it in August 2025, labeling it an assault on municipal sovereignty, SB 79 is not progress—it’s a constitutional overreach that endangers public health, ignores demographic realities, and assumes a transit infrastructure that simply doesn’t exist in much of the state. We must rally to challenge this law in court before it fractures communities and undermines the very principles of federalism embedded in California’s constitution.
At its core, SB 79 exemplifies Sacramento’s dangerous trend of centralizing control, stripping cities and counties of their home-rule powers under Article XI of the California Constitution. Charter cities like Los Angeles, which derive authority directly from the state constitution rather than the legislature, have long enjoyed protections against conflicting state laws on municipal affairs—such as zoning and land use. The bill’s blanket preemption of local zoning for “transit-oriented” density flouts this, treating elected local
officials as mere rubber stamps for state edicts. As LA Councilmember Nithya Raman argued during the opposition vote, “This is Sacramento dictating to Los Angeles how to manage our neighborhoods, ” a sentiment echoed by eight councilmembers who saw it as eroding democratic accountability. Proponents claim the state’s compelling interest in housing justifies the override, citing precedents like the Court of Appeal’s affirmation that housing needs can trump local rules. But this reasoning crumbles under scrutiny: A 2024 appellate ruling explicitly held that state laws cannot broadly override local zoning without clear constitutional footing, particularly when they infringe on a city’s police powers to protect health, safety, and welfare. SB 79’s one-size-fits-all approach invites Takings Clause challenges under the Fifth Amendment, as it could devalue properties by upending single-family zoning without just compensation—much like the debates swirling around similar reforms that courts have scrutinized for violating deed restrictions and vested rights. If the state truly prioritizes housing, let it fund incentives, not impose mandates that courts may soon dismantle as unconstitutional overreach.
Worse still, SB 79’s health impacts are a ticking time bomb, prioritizing density over livability in ways that could exacerbate respiratory illnesses, traffic fatalities, and environmental degradation. By mandating high-rises near “transit, ” the bill assumes these developments will reduce car dependency—but California’s public transportation remains woefully inadequate outside urban cores. In remote and rural areas, which comprise over 90% of the state’s landmass, transit access is a myth: Zero-car households in places like the Central Valley or Sierra foothills face insurmountable barriers, with studies showing that rural residents travel twice as far for basic services without reliable buses or rail. Forcing density here won’t spur transit; it’ll flood inadequate roads, spiking vehicle miles traveled, emissions, and collisions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District already warns of non-attainment risks from such sprawl, where increased PM2.5 and NOx could worsen asthma rates—already 10% higher in low-income communities targeted for these projects. LA’s opposition vote highlighted this: Councilmembers decried how overriding local plans ignores neighborhood-specific health data, like wildfire smoke corridors or flood zones, turning “transit-oriented” into a euphemism for unchecked pollution. True equity demands holistic planning—integrating health impact assessments, not steamrolling local expertise.
Compounding this folly is California’s stagnant population growth, which SB 79’s proponents inflate to justify their urgency. Far from a booming state demanding endless units, California’s population rose a modest 0.3% in 2024—to 39.5 million as of January 2025—marking just the second year of gains after pandemic outflows. Projections from the Department of Finance peg us at 39.7 million by 2030, a crawl driven more by immigration than organic expansion. This isn’t a crisis of numbers but of affordability and
distribution—exacerbated by state policies that chase phantom demand. Building for ghosts risks oversupply, crashing values in stable neighborhoods and displacing longtime residents, all while ignoring that most growth clusters in already-dense metros where transit does work. For remote counties, where population dips persist, SB 79’s density hammer is a misfit nail, prioritizing Sacramento’s agenda over local realities.
The LA City Council’s prescient stand against SB 79 isn’t NIMBYism—it’s a defense of subsidiarity, the principle that decisions fare best at the most local level capable of making them. As charter cities test exemptions in court, as seen in recent challenges to similar laws, we have a window to amplify this resistance. Join advocacy groups like California YIMBY’s critics or the League of California Cities in lawsuits; urge your council to file amicus briefs; demand Newsom veto future overrides. California’s constitution isn’t a suggestion—it’s a bulwark against centralized tyranny. By challenging SB 79 now, we protect not just our homes, but our health, our democracy, and a future where growth serves people, not the other way around. The state doesn’t own our cities; we do. Let’s remind them.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2025, at 2:41 PM, Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> wrote:
Azita, thank you for sharing your comments, I too would like to have studies and analysts done, Unfortunately The state law does not allow us to do environmental review CEQA – including certain traffic studies, they specifically stated that the AFFAH sites it is exempt and that is the law now.
If we were to do something different than what the law requires we will be sued and a judge would immediately cite the state law provision and we would loose and have to pay the other sides legal fees/damages if applicable etc. (damages from delay of being able to timely move forward with a development application) and sometime judges issue punitive penalties that we would have to pay …
However we may be able to do limited administrative review traffic analysis when an actual project is proposed. However it could be that the state will take away , exempt them
further is a possibility in future with additional legislation.. Senator Weiner this session had indicated he would be proposing additional laws next session to further expedite housing development.
I am not al all happy about the state again taking away more local control. There were several bills that did not pass this year that are likely to continue into next year that further take away local control, such as related to requiring parking – we did get contra costa exempted from the right to build multistory residential within a half mile of transit that would not require any city review as it would be automictic and just need building permit. Contra Costa and Marin were exempted, but I expect over time that will be changed to include us.. but for now a small victory
SB 79 tackles the root causes of California’s affordability crisis by allowing more homes to be built near major public transportation stops and on land owned by transit agencies in the most sustainable areas. The new law establishes state zoning standards around train stations and major bus stops to allow for midrise homes within a half mile of major transit stops, and allows local transit agencies to develop on land they own. “By signing SB 79, Governor Newsom took decisive action to fight our housing shortage and climate crisis, ” said Brian Hanlon, CEO of California YIMBY. "There is still more work to be done, but Governor Newsom just sent a clear message that California is ready to build a more affordable, sustainable, and prosperous future for everyone.For too long, our biggest regions have banned the type of dense housing that we desperately need We thank Governor Newsom for his leadership, the legislature for passing SB 79, and Senator Wiener for his tireless work as California’s strongest housing champion. ”
Councilmember Hoffmeister
Get Outlook for iOS
From: azita berloui <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 10:13:11 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie
<[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura
<[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo
<[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Environmental and Community Impacts of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project – Request for Comprehensive Review Under CEQA Reform
City of Concord
Attn: Planning Manager Justin Ezell
Community Development Department
2485 Clayton Road
Concord, CA 94520
Re: Urgent Call to Protect Concord’s Health, Environment, and Wildlife Amid AFFH Rezoning
Dear Planning Manager Justin Ezell, City Manager Valerie Barone, Mayor Carlyn Obringer, Vice Mayor Laura Nakamura, and Esteemed Councilmembers Dominic Aliano, Laura Hoffmeister, and Pablo Benavente,
As a devoted Concord resident, I wholeheartedly support the city’s mission to address California’s housing crisis through the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project. However, I am deeply alarmed by the potential for this initiative to worsen our community’s already strained traffic, air quality, environment, and wildlife—challenges that threaten the health and well-being of our families. The July 2025 CEQA reforms, signed by Governor Newsom, may streamline rezoning, but they do not erase our responsibility to safeguard Concord’s future. I implore you to prioritize comprehensive initial studies and robust mitigation measures for the seven shortlisted sites, including the former Kmart property on Clayton Road, as you move toward the critical October 14, 2025, City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Our city’s legacy depends on your leadership to balance housing equity with the urgent need to protect our community’s health and natural heritage.
The traffic crisis gripping Concord demands immediate attention. Over 1,000 residents, through surveys in September 2024 and January 2025, voiced fears that gridlock on Clayton Road, Concord Boulevard, and Ygnacio Valley Road—already rated F (failure) in the city’s General Plan—will spiral out of control with the addition of over 1,000 multifamily units at 60 units per acre. This influx, per Senate Bill 743 metrics, risks paralyzing commutes, delaying emergency services, and endangering lives through increased accidents. The CEQA exemption under Public Resources Code § 21080.66 is no excuse to sidestep responsibility. I urge you to mandate developer-funded solutions—synchronized traffic signals, expanded bike and pedestrian paths, and robust transit links to the Clayton Road bus corridor—to prevent a congestion catastrophe that could choke our city for generations.
Air quality, a life-and-death issue for Concord’s children, seniors, and those with respiratory conditions, hangs in the balance. More vehicles from new housing will spike emissions of particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), worsening smog and our region’s non-attainment under federal Clean Air Act standards. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District already flags Concord as a high-risk zone, and recent industrial disasters amplify this threat. The 2015 Phillips 66 Rodeo refinery fire forced shelter-in-place orders across Contra Costa County, blanketing us in toxic smoke and reminding us of the refinery’s status as a top polluter. Even more alarming, the October 2, 2025, Chevron El Segundo refinery explosion sent towering flames and thick smoke plumes across Southern California, raising fears of water and air contamination from chemical residues. These incidents prove our air basin’s vulnerability—additional traffic emissions could push our community past a tipping point, fueling asthma, heart disease, and premature deaths. CEQA’s “unusual circumstances” clause demands action: I call for air quality modeling (e.g., CALINE4 dispersion models) in your initial study and mitigations like low-emission construction standards and expanded tree canopies to shield our lungs and our future.
Our natural environment and wildlife are equally at risk. The Diablo Foothills and nearby habitat corridors sustain precious species like the California red-legged frog, burrowing owl, and vital pollinators, yet construction on urban infill sites could fragment habitats, disrupt migration, and amplify light and noise pollution. The CEQA exemption does not apply to sensitive habitats, and Concord’s General Plan commits to biodiversity. I beseech you to conduct a biological resources inventory and wetland delineation, in partnership with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and implement wildlife-friendly fencing, native landscaping buffers, and no-net-loss open space policies. These measures are not optional—they are essential to preserving the ecological balance that defines Concord’s character.
The March 2025 Notice of Preparation showed your commitment to community input, but the stakes are too high for half-measures. The October 14 meeting is a pivotal moment to prove Concord values its residents over expediency. I will attend, joined by neighbors who share these fears, and we expect transparency on how these concerns will shape the initial study and rezoning decisions. Please confirm receipt of this letter and provide a clear plan to address these impacts. I am ready to engage further at ([email protected]).Lead with courage—ensure Concord’s housing solutions do not sacrifice our health, environment, or wildlife.
Sincerely,
Azita Berloui
Representing City of Concord concerned residents
cc: Concord City Council Members (Dominic Aliano, Laura Hoffmeister, Pablo Benavente) Concord Planning Commission
California Department of Housing and Community Development
Update on the Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH) Program
Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
October 14, 2025
1
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Program
• State-mandated initiative (Assembly Bill 686)
• Included in Concord’s certified Housing Element
• Will apply to 20 acres of land in “high resource areas” • Involves increasing density to 60 units per acre
• Create capacity for 1,000 housing units
2
Overlay Zoning
• Existing zoning stays intact
• Preserves existing allowable non-residential uses
• No mandate – optional for property owners to build housing 3
Work Completed to Date
• Surveys and stakeholder meetings
• Numerous workshops on initial site selection
• City Council / Planning Commission direction (January 2025) • EIR Scoping Meeting (February 2025)
4
City Council / Planning Commission Direction
January 7, 2025
5 Site # Name Total Units
1 Kmart 471
2 Clayton Faire 248
3 CVS/Staples/Service Station/Burger King 617
6 Dental Offices at Treat / Oak Grove 180
8 Palm Lakes Apartments Infill 780
16 Vacant Site at Kirker and Myrtle 60
18 1539 Kirker Pass 56
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
• CEQA requires evaluation of environmental impacts:
• Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
• February 19, 2025 “Scoping Session” kicked off EIR process • Next phases involved:
• Preparation a draft EIR for public review and comment • Preparation of a final EIR
• Planning Commission review overlay district and development standards and recommend City Council adoption
• City Council adoption
6
Senate Bill 131
• Introduced as a placeholder bill in January 2025
• Amended with relevant provisions on June 27, 2025
• Signed into law on June 30, 2025
• Budget-related trailer bill, so took effect immediately Makes rezoning for a Housing Element program statutorily exempt from CEQA requirements
7
Studies Available for Public Review
• Feasibility Analysis (complete)
• Level of Service Analysis (finalizing)
• Fiscal Analysis (finalizing)
8
Next Steps
• Outreach to community regarding upcoming meetings
• Planning Commission review on November 5
• City Council Public Hearing on January 27
• Final adoption on February 24
Excludes: completion of an Environmental Impact Report
9
Implications of Pursuing EIR After SB 131
• Project delays
• Increased litigation risk
• Potential scrutiny from HCD
10
Questions and
Public
Comment
11
September 22, 2025
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 707 (Durazo) Open Meetings: Meeting and Teleconference Requirements Request for Veto
Dear Governor Newsom,
The City of Concord respectfully requests your Veto on SB 707 (Durazo). Our city strongly supports public transparency and accessibility, but SB 707, as currently drafted, would impose costly and inequitable new mandates on cities like ours without providing the resources or flexibility needed for implementation.
SB 707 would create significant fiscal and operational challenges for our city, including:
• Providing two-way telephonic or audiovisual access for council meetings, halting proceedings during any service disruption.
• Translating agendas into all “applicable languages” spoken jointly by 20 percent or more of the applicable population, provided that 20 percent or more of the population that speaks that language in that city speaks English less than “very well.”
• Designating a public space for community-submitted translations, even if inaccurate or misleading.
• Creating and maintaining multi-language webpages for agendas, instructions, and meeting procedures.
• Expanding outreach efforts and electronic systems for agenda access.
For the City of Concord, these obligations would result in significant overtime expenses for audiovisual staff to provide meeting coverage, along with additional administrative costs that divert limited resources from other important community needs. Because of Proposition 42 (2014), none of these requirements would be reimbursable, forcing our city to absorb the costs.
The bill applies unevenly across California, treating cities of similar size differently based solely on county population, while the State itself is exempt from these rules.
7.a
Although the recent amendment moved the implementation deadline to July 1, 2026, this deadline still does not provide sufficient time for cities to fully budget, procure, and train for compliance. Additional time is necessary to ensure responsible and effective implementation.
For these reasons, the City of Concord respectfully requests you to Veto SB 707 (Durazo).
Sincerely,
Carlyn S. Obringer
City of Concord Mayor
cc: Senator Timothy S. Grayson
Assemblymember Ávila Farías
Concord City Council
City Manager Valerie Barone
Assistant City Manager Justin Ezell
Concord City Clerk Joelle Fockler
League of CA Cities, East Bay Division Sam Brightman
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, [email protected]
October 3, 2025
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Sue Noack, MTC Chair
Sent via email ([email protected])
Subject: Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy
Dear Ms. Noack,
On behalf of the City of Concord (City), I am writing to express concerns with the implementation of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy. The City understands the importance of aligning transportation investments and more intensive land uses and is supportive of the overall TOC goals; however, we are experiencing challenges with the TOC Policy that are worth sharing. We have two key concerns explained below. It is my hope that I can set up a meeting with you along with key City staff to review these concerns in person.
1. Designing the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) 4 program in parallel with determining jurisdictional TOC Policy compliance scoring is creating uncertainty and is forcing decision makers to make decisions without all the necessary information.
We appreciate the time and effort MTC staff have dedicated to meeting with City of Concord staff to work through TOC Policy questions. These discussions have helped to clarify several areas of ambiguity and fostered productive collaboration. That said, the concurrent rollout of the TOC Policy and development of the OBAG 4 criteria has created a challenging environment. The timing—while well-intentioned – has placed jurisdictional staff in the position of advising decision-makers amid evolving guidance, limited clarity on implementation outcomes, and a high degree of assumption. Simultaneously, MTC staff are tasked with launching a complex and comprehensive new program while navigating uncertainties around jurisdictional compliance implications.
We understand that TOC Policy compliance documents will be required to be submitted to MTC in January or February of 2026 to determine jurisdictional compliance and that OBAG
7.b
Ms. Noack | October 3, 2025 |Page 2 of 4
4 will be adopted in “early 2026.” In other words, this means that jurisdictions do not have ample time to understand how their compliance status will affect their competitiveness for OBAG 4; because both are being developed in parallel, jurisdictions are being forced to make policy decisions without fully understanding the implications. Moreover, Concord staff recently learned that TOC Planning grants will also be issued “early next year,” which means the consultant services that jurisdictions are relying on to achieve TOC Policy compliance will only just be starting at the same time jurisdictions must submit proof of TOC Policy compliance.
The above concerns are based on the following:
• MTC staff began outreach on how TOC Policy compliance might be assessed in April 2025. All outreach emphasized that the evaluation framework was a preliminary draft and subject to change.
• The TOC Policy Administrative Guidance was last updated as recently as May 2025. • Jurisdictions had to pass resolutions of local support to receive TOC Planning Grants by end of June 2025, in many cases committing them to multi-year planning processes. These decisions had to be made on the uncertain foundation of how jurisdictions may score based on preliminary, draft materials on a policy that had been further refined only a month prior.
• The OBAG 4 program’s draft release is anticipated in fall 2025, which is the same time the MTC Planning Committee will adopt a final scoring framework for the TOC Policy.
• Just a few months after learning the final scoring framework, jurisdictions will need to provide proof of TOC Policy compliance in January/February 2026. OBAG 4’s anticipated adoption is also in early 2026, meaning jurisdictions won’t understand the full implications of their compliance status until after they’ve locked in their scores. Jurisdictions like Concord that would like to be competitive for OBAG 4 will need to make decisions predicated on evolving policy interpretation and development and will not have ample time to course correct before the release of OBAG 4.
• Although originally anticipated to begin in early 2025, the work funded by TOC Planning Grants will now be kicked off in early 2026. Consultant work products that would substantiate TOC Policy compliance will be many months or even years away from the first compliance window given the delay of the TOC Planning Grant implementation, and it is unclear how MTC will treat TOC Policy compliance in this situation. This has big implications for jurisdictions like Concord that are relying on TOC Planning Grants as part of their TOC Policy compliance strategy.
One example of these complications borne out is the status of the TOC Policy’s applicability in the North Concord/Martinez BART Station TOC (North Concord TOC). The Concord Naval Weapons Station Reuse Project is in the Noth Concord TOC, but the land is currently owned by the US Navy and Concord does not currently have land use authority.
The City has been actively engaged in negotiations with the Navy and a Master Developer,
Ms. Noack | October 3, 2025 |Page 3 of 4
but the situation is complex, with multiple stakeholders, layers of regulations, and required planning processes. MTC staff have indicated that they are uncertain as to whether the TOC Policy should even apply in this situation given that the City does not have local control. This is something we are continuing to work through with MTC staff, but as you can imagine, it will greatly impact our TOC Policy compliance scoring. Due to the fluidity of the TOC Policy implementation, it is difficult to assess where we stand with such a large variable.
In summary, the current timing of TOC Policy compliance determinations relative to the OBAG 4 cycle presents a challenge. We strongly recommend extending the deadline for TOC Policy compliance and that decisions related to compliance status, evaluation criteria, and funding eligibility be finalized before major OBAG 4 program decisions are made.
2. The TOC Policy may not be feasible or effective for all jurisdictions, especially suburban jurisdictions like Concord, given local constraints, and economic conditions.
The City is in the middle of Housing Element implementation, including projects like our Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rezoning project and implementing our comprehensive rent registry program, which are consistent with the TOC Policy vision to create places where “Bay Area residents of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work, and access services.” Despite the common goals across the sixth cycle Housing Element and the TOC Policy, jurisdictions are having to comply with both sets of complicated regulations on set timelines and with limited staff capacity. The City appreciates the TOC Planning Grants and Technical Assistance MTC has provided, but jurisdictions would have been better served with a TOC Policy rollout that either: a) had plenty of lead time for jurisdictions to incorporate the requirements into their Housing Element or b) was far enough removed from the Housing Element to give staff more capacity to concentrate on the implementation of the TOC Policy. Instead, the TOC Policy’s Administrative Guidance was released during the peak of Housing Element work.
In addition to being ill-timed with the Housing Element cycle, the TOC Policy is not appropriately nuanced to the realities of suburban locations or market realities. A large share of the Parking Management category’s 25 points is tied to adopting maximum parking standards. While Concord does seek to facilitate multi-modal transportation, we must also be aware that we are a suburban jurisdiction with an average of 2 cars per household, an average household size of 2.68 persons, and very limited bus service. These conditions are not conducive to the aggressive parking caps in the TOC Policy, especially the residential maximum of 1 space per unit regardless of unit type (i.e., studios and three- bedroom units are subject to the same cap). Councilmembers have heard about and seen issues with spillover parking; when on-site parking does not meet the demand, residents park in surrounding neighborhoods, shopping center parking lots, and even restricted areas where it is illegal, creating code enforcement cases, access and circulation hazards, and upset residents. Moreover, lenders may not be willing to invest in housing development projects that they believe do not provide adequate parking to meet customer
Ms. Noack | October 3, 2025 |Page 4 of 4
demand. The TOC Policy’s aggressive parking maximum of one space per residential unit is divorced from the realities of Concord. The City urges MTC to reduce the weight assigned to parking caps or allow flexibility through locally supported market studies and feasibility analyses.
Finally, the prescriptive standards of the TOC Policy come at a time of great uncertainty given funding availability, construction costs, and interest rates. The City encourages MTC to provide greater flexibility, a longer timeline, and/or alternative compliance methods to meet the TOC Policy goals given these constraints. Instead, MTC has done the opposite with the May 2025 update to the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance by specifying that an inclusionary housing policy with “an income mix that does not meet [the TOC Policy’s prescriptive] standard will not be considered compliant, even if the policy was based on a financial feasibility analysis” [emphasis added]. This one-size-fits all approach is not sensitive to the economic realities of the Bay Area’s diverse communities.
Moreover, adoption of inclusionary policies that are not backed by economic studies tailored to local context will have the opposite effect of the intended goal by making housing development economically infeasible. We have previously communicated our disapproval of MTC’s updated inclusionary housing policy decision, which precludes our own data-driven inclusionary housing policy from obtaining TOC Policy credit.
Infusing greater flexibility into the process could include pushing out the compliance deadline, allowing jurisdictions to use feasibility studies to document limitations and the effectiveness of alternative approaches, and/or allowing Transportation Demand Management measures to be used for parking points instead of parking caps.
Thank you for your consideration. I have asked the Council Assistant, Wendy McAuley, to reach out in a few days and request an in-person meeting at a time and location that works for you.
Sincerely,
Laura Hoffmeister
City of Concord Councilmember
cc: Concord City Council
City Manager Valerie Barone
Assistant City Manager Justin Ezell
Concord City Clerk Joelle Fockler