Concord City Council
January 13, 2026

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
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.

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: Christie Beeman, PE Name: Valerie J. Barone Title: Director Title City Manager
Address: 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1050 Address: 1950 Parkside Drive Oakland,California 94612 Concord, CA 94519
Telephone: (510)839-5066 Telephone: (925) 671-3150
Email: [email protected]
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Susanne Meyer Brown Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Attorney City Clerk

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
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION:

Concord, California
Date:

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS EXIST OR WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 25/26 TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.

THE SUM OF $250,750.00. Account Code 402-9500-C999-74500, 402-2805-113-74500.

Finance Director's Signature

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
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.

10/2022 13
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.

MGE Cinquini & Passarino
Task # Task Name/Description Total ($) Amount Total ($) Amount 1 Project Management and Coordination 90.00 26,340$ -$ -$ -$ 26,340$ 2 Topographic Mapping, Survey and Field Reconnaissance 8.00 2,496$ -$ 61,326$ 61,326$ 63,822$ 3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling and Tabletop Exercise 252.00 57,788$ 30,900$ -$ 30,900$ 88,688$ 4 Hydrology and Hydraulics Report, Draft Study and Cost Estimates 110.00 28,758$ -$ -$ -$ 28,758$ 5 Final Study, 30% design plan, and executive summary 122.00 31,512$ -$ -$ -$ 31,512$ 6 Final Review and Community Engagement 42.00 11,630$ -$ -$ -$ 11,630$ Total Hours 624.00 158,524$ 30,900$ 61,326$ 92,226$ 250,750$ Total ($) Amount 158,524$ 92,226$ 250,750$

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY TABLE
ESA Labor Amount $158,524
Subconsultant Costs $92,226
PROJECT TOTAL $250,750

SUBCONSULTANT & EXPENSES
Total Subconsultant
($ Amount)
TOTAL

PROJECT COST
Lower Mount Diablo Creek Restoration Study
(PJ2805)
Total ESA Labor CostESA Total Hours

ESA LABOR COST
Confidential Page 1
Exhibit A to Attachment 2Scope of Services

Staff Report
Date: January 13, 2026
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mindy Gentry, Director of Community Development Carlton Thompson, PE, City Engineer
Prepared by: Bernard Enrile, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
[email protected]
(925) 671-3031
Subject: Considering approval of Task Order #3 with Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $100,700 for a new total not- to-exceed amount of $291,356 to provide design engineering and related services for the Storm Drain Master Plan Project (Project No. 2732) and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Task Order in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (Measure V Projects Funds, Storm Water Management Fund) CEQA: Not a project/exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15262, 15273, 15306, 15378, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

Report in Brief
The Storm Drain Master Plan Project (Project No. 2732) consists of developing a comprehensive Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP) to evaluate storm drainage, and storm water quality infrastructure, guiding capital improvement projects (CIPs), and program needs over the next 20 years (Project). The goal of the Project is to create a roadmap to address storm water drainage infrastructure deficiencies, update the City’s storm drain system data, and support the City’s compliance with State clean water requirements.

On March 25, 2025, staff approved a Task Order with Geosyntec Consultants, Inc (Geosyntec) under their current Master Services Agreement (MSA) in the amount of $190,656 to provide design and related services for the first phase of the Project, which began in April 2025. The agreement was titled Task Order #1. During the first phase of

4.l4.l4.l4.l

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.l
January 13, 2026
the development of the Master Plan, Geosyntec collected and reviewed existing data, outlined a field data collection process and storm model strategies, and conducted GIS database analysis in support of the master planning efforts.

To complete the first phase, staff solicited a proposal from Geosyntec to include a survey of select storm drain infrastructure in Drainage Area 7 (See Attachment1), and a comprehensive review of the drainage fees associated with Drainage Area 7 to determine if the fees are commensurate with necessary improvements. Drainage Area 7 consists of East Concord, Dana Estates, Monte Gardens, San Vicente, and portions of Wren Avenue and Silverwood neighborhoods. With the approval of the proposed Task Order No. 31, the new not-to-exceed contract total for this project will be $291,356.

If the Task Order is approved by the City Council (Council), survey of Drainage Area 7 is expected to begin in February 2026, and the first phase of the Storm Drain Master Plan Project completed by June 2026.

Recommended Action
Approve Task Order #3 with Geosyntec Consultants Inc. in the amount of $100,700 for a new total not-to-exceed amount of $291,356 to provide design engineering and related services for the Storm Drain Master Plan Project (Project No. 2732); authorize the City Manager to execute the Task Order in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; and make the CEQA determinations as provided in this staff report.

Background
The Project consists of developing a comprehensive Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP) to evaluate storm drainage, and storm water quality infrastructure, guiding capital improvement projects (CIPs) and program needs over the next 20 years. The goal of the Project is to create a roadmap to address drainage infrastructure deficiencies, update the City’s storm drain infrastructure system data, and support the City’s compliance with State clean water requirements. The SDMP will identify how to most effectively invest the storm drainage funds collected by the City and help prioritize storm water capital investment projects over the next 20 years.

On June 25, 2025, the Council adopted the Two-Year Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2024-25 and 2025-26, which included an appropriation of $500,000 of Measure V Projects Funds, and $1,000,000 of Storm Water Management Funds (Fund 270) to fund the design of the Storm Drain Master Plan Project, which is expected to be completed in multiple phases over X years due to size of the work effort.

Geosyntec is on the City’s Master Service Agreement (MSA) as a consultant for design engineering and related services. On March 25, 2025, staff approved a Task Order with 1 Task Order #2 with Geosyntec Consultants Inc was not related to the Storm Drain Master Plan Project.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.l
January 13, 2026
Geosyntec under the current MSA in the not-to-exceed amount of $190,656 for the first phase of this multi-phased project.

Data collection and cost are the biggest challenges in developing the Storm Drain Master Plan. The City’s storm drain system does not have a have a sufficient dedicated source of funding for needed studies and improvements2, unlike the City’s sewer system, which is funded by rate payers to the Sewer Enterprise Fund. The Therefore a phased approach was necessary for this project.

The first phase of developing the SDMP includes a comprehensive collection and review of the City’s existing storm drain infrastructure data and identifying data gaps, and development of a work plan for the future phases of the Master Plan development, including outlining field data collection needs, development of modeling strategies, and finally GIS database development. Geosyntec identified data gaps and developed a strategy to fill those data gaps by conducting field surveys. Drainage Area 7 (See Attachment1) was identified as a good candidate for the initial field survey data collection as it contains a good mix of available and missing data and can serve as a data collection model for all the other drainage areas in the City. Drainage Area 7 consists of East Concord, Dana Estates, Monte Gardens, San Vicente, and portions of Wren Avenue, and Silverwood neighborhoods.

The second phase of developing the SDMP will include executing the data collection plan developed in the first phase within the priority drainage areas. Priority drainage areas will be identified as part of the first phase. For each drainage area, there will be drainage modeling, an update to the GIS data, identification of capital improvement projects, preparation of project fact sheets and conceptual cost estimates, and a review of drainage fees.

The third and subsequent phases of developing the SDMP will continue the implementation of the data collection plan in the remaining drainage areas. For each drainage area, there will be drainage modeling, an update to the GIS data, identification of capital improvement projects, preparation of project fact sheets and conceptual cost estimates, and a review of drainage fees. A comprehensive storm drain Master Plan document will be prepared including clear and actionable implementation strategies and a monitoring framework.

Analysis
To complete the development of the data collection model, survey data would be collected in Drainage Area 7, which was identified as an area of the City to begin this effort based on available and missing data. Staff solicited a proposal from Geosyntec for survey services, and to conduct a developer impact fee analysis. Geosyntec completed 2 The only dedicated funding source for the storm drain system is one-time impact fees collected on new development and limited to the area they are collected for.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.l
January 13, 2026
data collection from existing records that the City has provided and has identified drainage infrastructures which will need to be surveyed. The proposed survey will include collecting data at least 60 drainage access holes and four culverts within Drainage Area 7. The results of the survey will be compiled with existing data to provide a comprehensive model of Drainage Area 7. In conjunction with the survey, Geosyntec will perform analysis on the Drainage Developer Impact Fees associated with Drainage Area 7. Drainage Developer Impact Fees are one-time charges imposed on new developments to fund public drainage infrastructure improvements within the City’s drainage areas. Completing the survey, compiling all the data to model the drainage area, and analyzing the fees associated with the drainage area will help complete a work plan for the rest of the drainage areas in the City and complete the first phase of the Project. Note that any changes to the Drainage Developer Impact Fees as part of this analysis will need to go to Council for consideration.

With the approval of the proposed Task Order No. 3 for $100,700 , the new total not-to- exceed amount will be $291,356. If the Task Order is approved by the Council, the survey is expected to start in February 2026 with the first phase of the Project being completed in June 2026.

It is worth noting that staff anticipates the master plan will identify significant investment needs within our storm drain system and funding to address these needs does not currently exist within the City’s budget. However, the SDMP will assist staff in planning how to most effectively invest the storm drainage funds that are available and will assist staff in working to identify additional funding opportunities.

Financial Impact
There are sufficient funds in the project to award Task Order #3 for design engineering and related 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 approval of the Task Order does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Sections 15060(c), 15306, 15378, as it has no potential for resulting in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and/or the activities involve information collection. Even if the award of the Task Order did not 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” and is statutorily exempt pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15262 since the activity involves feasibility and planning for possible future actions, and Section 15273 as the activity consists of the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.l
January 13, 2026
fiscal activities which to not constitute a “project”. Accordingly, no further environmental review is necessary. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Drainage Area Map

2. Task Order #3 for Geosyntec with Exhibit A, Fee Proposal Exhibit A to Task Order

Attachment 1
Drainage Area Fee
Area 5 Ci ty
Area 7 Ci ty
Area 23/24 Ci ty
Area 50 Ci ty
Area 90 Ci ty
Area 92 Ci ty
Area 128 Co u n ty
Area 22 Co u n ty
Area 33B Co u n ty
Area 33C Co u n ty
Area 48B Co u n ty
Area 6 No
Area 80 No

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 TASK ORDER
TASK ORDER NO: 3
PROJECT NAME: Storm Drain Master Plan, PJ 2732
RELATED TO MASTER AGREEMENT WITH: Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., MSA 6776 This Task Order is made and entered into this January 13, 2026, the City of Concord, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., hereinafter referred to as CONSULTANT.

Whereas, the parties hereto entered into a Master Agreement dated July 1, 2024 for a not-to-exceed total amount of $1,000,000.00 per fiscal year from the effective date of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2026, to provide professional services as needed for various capital improvement projects; and Whereas, CITY desires CONSULTANT to perform certain tasks as hereinafter described for: Storm Drain Master Plan, PJ 2732.

Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTANT will provide Design Civil Services for Storm Drain Master Plan, PJ 2732 per Exhibit A, a proposal from Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., dated November 9, 2025, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

SECTION 2 – STAFFING AND ORGANIZATION
CONSULTANT will provide staff technically appropriate for this project.

SECTION 3 - COMPENSATION
CONSULTANT shall be compensated on a time-and-materials basis for construction management, inspection, and materials testing services not to exceed $100,700.00 as rendered under Section 1 of this Agreement. Compensation shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions indicated therein.

CONSULTANT may submit monthly statements for basic and additional services rendered. It is intended that payments to CONSULTANT will be made by CITY within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice.

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 SECTION 4 – TASK ORDER SUMMARY
In Witness whereof, the parties have executed this Task Order No. 3 the day and year written above.

CONSULTANT CITY OF CONCORD
By: ____________________________________ By: ____________________________________ Name: Michael J. Rudd
Title: Senior Principal
Email: [email protected]
Name: Carlton Thompson
Title: City Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
City Attorney City Clerk
Task Order
No.

Date
Approved
Purchase
Order
No.
$ Amount
Fiscal Year
24/25
$ Amount
Fiscal Year
25/26
Account Code
1 3/25/25 21234 $190,656.00 490-9500-C999-74500
490-2732-113-74500
2 5/20/25 TBD $8,391.00 490-9500-C999-74500
490-2664-113-74500
3 1/13/26 TBD $100,700.00 270-9500-C999-74500
270-2732-113-74500
Grand total, all task orders including this task
order #3
$199,047.00 $100,700.00
Master Agreement dated 7/1/2024, term
through 6/30/2026.
$1,000,000.00
per fiscal year

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: _______________________, 2025

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS EXIST OR WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 25/26 TO PAY ANTICIPATED EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT TO THE SUM OF UP TO $100,700.00.

ACCOUNT CODE:
270-9500-C999-74500
270-2732-113-74500

_________________________________

FINANCE DIRECTOR'S SIGNATURE

1 Geosyntec proposes to perform the Drainage Fee Study work on a time-and-materials basis, with a cost estimate not to exceed $38,400, without approval, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Master Agreement with the City of Concord. A summary of the costs per task is detailed in the following table.

Tasks Professional
Labor Expenses Total
Task 1 – Project Initiation & Data Collection $2,200 $2,200 Task 2 – Growth & Demand Forecasts $3,100 $3,100
Task 3 – Cost Allocation and Nexus Analysis $11,000 $11,000 Task 4 – Fee Calculation & Credits $11,000 $11,000
Task 5 – Stakeholder Engagement $4,200 $4,200
Task 6 – Final Reports & Council Action $3,700 $3,700
Task 7– Project Management $2,700 $500 $3,200
Total $38,400
Exhibit A

2 A cost estimate for surveying all 60 manholes that lack as-built documentation is also provided for the City’s consideration.

Task Professional Labor Expenses Total
Field Data Collection, Review, and Update
for Drainage Area 7
$52,300 $3,300 $55,600

1. Planning and Selection $6,100

2. Field survey - Non-entry MHs $27,000

3. Field survey - Culverts $2,200

4. Data processing and QA/QC $12,900

5. Deliverables & Closeout $1,500

6. Project Management $2,600
Field Map Set up - One time cost for City
wide survey
$6,700 $6,700

7. Field map and work flow set up $4,800

8. Deploy Esri Utility Network
(ArcGIS Pro)
$1,900
Total $62,300

Subtotal for Fee Study: $38,400
Subtotal for Survey: $62,300
TOTAL Task Order 3: $100,700

Staff Report
Date: January 13, 2026
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Jasmin Loi, Director of Human Resources
Prepared by: Sara Castro, Senior Human Resources Analyst [email protected]
(925) 671-3312
Subject: Considering approval of the City Manager candidate profile.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, California Code of Regulations Title 14 Sections 15061(b), 15273 and/or 15378.

Report in Brief
Bob Murray & Associates is the Executive Recruitment Firm that has been hired to work with the Council to recruit and hire Concord’s next City Manager. To support this effort, the recruiter has prepared a proposed City Manager candidate profile for review and approval by the Council.

Recommended Action
Approve the City Manager candidate profile.

Background/Analysis
Concord’s City Manager is retiring in June 2026. The City Council Ad Hoc Committee (Hoffmeister and Aliano) was formed to assist with that transition by advising staff and the Council in two areas: (1) the process to identify and select a recruiting firm to assist the City in the recruitment process, and (2) the process for recruiting a new City Manager. The Ad Hoc Committee has been fulfilling this assignment. The Council Ad Hoc Committee reviewed six proposals from recruitment firms, and interviewed three of the firms, ultimately recommending to the City Manager the hiring of Bob Murray & Associates to provide City Manager recruitment services. On December 16, 2025, the City Manager executed the agreement with Bob Murray & Associates.

5.a5.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
January 13, 2026
The Concord City Manager is appointed by the City Council to serve as the chief executive officer responsible for the operations of the city and for achieving the goals and implementing the policies of the elected City Council. The City Manager is one of two positions directly appointed by the Concord City Council, the other is the City Attorney.

The City Manager candidate profile is before City Council for approval to ensure the Executive Recruiter has captured the collective input of Council. The candidate profile provides candidates pertinent information concerning what the Council desires in the person to next hold the position of City Manager in Concord, thereby attracting the most competitive candidates.

To develop the City Manager candidate profile language, the Executive Recruiter met with each Councilmember and with the City’s Executive Team to solicit input on the most important characteristics, attributes, and experience of the candidate for City Manager. Using this input, the Executive Recruiter developed a proposed candidate profile (Attachment 1) which, once approved by Council, will be incorporated into the recruitment brochure. The profile identifies the type of career experience and personal attributes that Council feels are most critical in their next City Manager.

On the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Executive Recruitment Firm will also be conducting an employee survey to gather input from City employees to identify desired City Manager characteristics from the staff perspective; the results of that survey will be shared with the Council prior to the Council conducting interviews with candidates.

The City Manager recruitment is scheduled to open in late January, with Council interviews of candidates tentatively planned for April and approval of an employment contract with a new City Manager anticipated to occur at a Council meeting in May.

Financial Impact
There is no additional fiscal impact associated with this action as necessary funding was appropriated in the Human Resources Department’s FY2025/2026 approved budget.

Environmental Determination
None of the actions herein constitutes a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15273, and/or 15378 because the activities consist of continuing administrative or maintenance activities, creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities, and/or organizational or administrative activities of government, and none of the activities has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; even if any activity was a project under CEQA, each is

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
January 13, 2026
exempt under 14 Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15061(b)(2), 15061(b)(3), and/or 15378(b)(4).

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

1. City Manager Candidate Profile

CITY MANAGER CANDIDATE PROFILE
The City of Concord is seeking a strategic, action-oriented, and forward-thinking City Manager who values collaboration and consensus-building while maintaining the discipline to move initiatives from vision to execution. Highly adaptable and comfortable navigating complex and dynamic environments, this leader will establish clear priorities and help keep the City Council focused on agreed-upon goals, outcomes, and community values. With a proven ability to build strong working relationships and maintain open, transparent communication across all levels of the organization, the City Manager will work closely with the City Council and Executive Team to advance the City’s strategic agenda.

A visible and engaged leader, the successful candidate will appreciate and understand the work of staff, remain present in the field, and model integrity, responsiveness, and accountability. A strong foundation in municipal administration is essential, including deep expertise in public finance and budgeting. Experience with development, economic revitalization, and public-private partnerships will be critical as Concord continues to position itself for sustainable growth and reinvestment.

The ideal candidate will be a politically astute and resourceful professional who can effectively tell Concord’s story, align policy direction with operational capacity, and anticipate the long-term implications of decisions. This individual will critically assess municipal operations, think creatively in problem-solving, and bring a solutions-driven mindset to addressing challenges. They will support department heads, encourage interdepartmental collaboration, and ensure progress remains measurable and results focused.

Leadership style is paramount. The City Manager must be a trusted advisor to the City Council, a mentor to staff, and a steady organizational leader who listens well and leads with empathy, clarity, and accountability. This individual will set high expectations, provide the tools and support needed for success, and confidently make timely, well- reasoned decisions. By balancing decisiveness with approachability, the ideal candidate will foster a cohesive, high-performing organization and guide the City of Concord with focus, momentum, and purpose into the future.

Attachment 1

Staff Report
Date: January 13, 2026
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mindy Gentry, Director of Community Development Aaron Sage, Planning Manager
Meredith Rupp, Principal Planner
Prepared by: Benjamin Ulrey, Associate Planner
[email protected]
(925) 671-3058
Subject: Considering introduction of an Ordinance amending Concord Municipal Code Title 18 (Development Code), Chapters 18.30 (Residential Districts) and 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts) to increase maximum residential and mixed-use building heights in the Community Office (CO), Commercial Mixed Use (CMX), and Residential High Density (RH) zoning districts to implement state law and Objective 2.6 of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. (PL25200 – MC)
CEQA: Statutorily exempt pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 21080.085, enacted by Senate Bill 131 (2025); and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065 and
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) or 15378.

Report in Brief
Pursuant to Objective 2.6 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element of the City’s General Plan (“Housing Element”), staff is proposing amendments to Concord Municipal Code (CMC) Chapters 18.30 and 18.40 to increase maximum residential and mixed-use building heights in the Community Office (CO), Commercial Mixed Use (CMX), and Residential

6.a6.a6.a6.a6.a6.a6.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 13, 2026
High Density (RH) zoning districts by seven feet. Objective 2.6 is intended to remove constraints to achieving the maximum allowable residential density in these districts, which is a typical requirement imposed by the state through the housing element review process.

Recommended Action
Introduce an Ordinance amending Concord Municipal Code Title 18 (Development Code), Chapters 18.30 (Residential Districts) and 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts) to increase maximum residential and mixed-use building heights in the Community Office (CO), Commercial Mixed Use (CMX), and Residential High Density (RH) zoning districts to implement state law and Objective 2.6 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. (PL25200 – MC)
Background
On August 22, 2023, the Council adopted the Housing Element, which was subsequently certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 23, 2023, confirming its compliance with state law. The Housing Element included Objective 2.6 to address comments from HCD about maximum building heights not being tall enough to accommodate the maximum residential densities in the RH, CO, and CMX zoning districts.

If the alignment of maximum building heights with maximum densities does not appropriately correspond, then HCD recognizes that as a constraint. Building height and density (defined as dwelling units per net acre) are closely related: a taller building will typically accommodate more dwelling units than a shorter building on the same site. If the maximum building height is not tall enough to accommodate the maximum density, then a building may reach the height limit before the density limit and contain fewer units than otherwise allowed. Within the City’s published Housing Element’s Constraints and Zoning Analysis, the City’s building heights and densities were identified as not in alignment; therefore, the City included Objective 2.6, which states the following:

Within one year of certification of the Housing Element, the City will increase the maximum permitted heights in the RH, CO, and CMX zones to achieve maximum densities and remove any potential constraints. As part of implementing this action, the City will conduct outreach with the development community and revise these heights based on the feedback received, up to a maximum of 12 feet of height for every 10 dwelling units per acre permitted by the zone.

HCD has indicated that height increases allowed under state density bonus law will not meet the intent of Objective 2.6. Instead, projects must be allowed to reach the maximum density without using density bonus law.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 13, 2026
The above ratio of 12 feet of height for every 10 dwelling units per acre is an HCD “rule of thumb” (“HCD Ratio”) and was included at HCD’s direction. Staff requested on multiple occasions that HCD provide the data to back up the HCD Ratio, but no data was ever provided. Consequently, the “HCD Ratio” was included as the maximum potential height increase under this Objective, with additional language allowing the City to utilize local data to determine if lower heights would accommodate maximum densities in these districts.

According to the stated purposes for each district, the CO and CMX zones are intended for small-scale, low-rise buildings with a mix of commercial and residential uses. As shown in the Zoning Map in Attachment 2, these districts are located along key thoroughfares and are typically adjacent to low- and medium-density residential districts. Mixed-use and 100 percent residential uses are allowed in both districts at medium densities (11 to 40 units per acre). The RH district is intended for “compact, high density, multifamily residential development including apartments, townhomes, and condominiums….”
Table 1 illustrates the maximum densities and heights (both existing and based on the HCD Ratio) for the CO, CMX, and RH districts.

Table 1: Existing and Possible Maximum Heights and Densities CO* CMX* RH**
Max. Density
(d/u per net acre) 40 40 100
Max. Height
(current) 30’ 30’ 60’
Max. Height Using
HCD Ratio
48’
[(40 d/u per net acre / 10)
* 12’]
48’
[(40 d/u per net acre / 10) *
12’]
120’
[(100 d/u per net acre / 10)
* 12’]
*Floor-area-ratio (FAR) does not apply to residential buildings in these districts. There is no lot coverage. **Residential buildings in RH have a lot coverage maximum of 75 percent.

Planning Commission Recommendation
Pursuant to CMC Chapter 18.455, the Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding any amendment to the Development Code. On December 3, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 25-18 PC recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments.

Analysis
In order to ascertain an appropriate height increase consistent with Objective 2.6, staff conducted outreach with development stakeholders, analyzed recent multifamily development in Concord, and obtained feasibility studies from a consultant provided by

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 13, 2026
the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG’s) Regional Housing Technical Assistance (RHTA) program.

Developer Outreach
In fall 2024, staff conducted four outreach meetings with market-rate and affordable housing developers and architects around the Bay Area, including the RMG Affordable Housing and Rick Judd Commons projects in Concord. Planning staff also interviewed the Chief Building Official, Ryan Pursley.

Interviewees commented that there is no single “rule of thumb” (such as the HCD Ratio) to determine adequate building heights, and instead cited construction and operating costs, site characteristics, and bedroom count as more critical factors. Interviewees also shared that taller buildings are not necessarily more financially viable due to additional design requirements (e.g., elevators and fireproof materials such as steel and concrete), but that overall, taller height limits provide increased flexibility to make projects feasible.

Test Fit Methodology
In July 2025, the ABAG-provided consultant, MIG, conducted a set of feasibility “test fits” to provide the City with recommendations for potential height increases to reach maximum densities in the CO, CMX, and RH districts. See Attachment 3 for the full analysis.

To understand how current development standards in the above districts, including height limits, might affect a project’s ability to reach maximum densities, MIG modeled various development scenarios (i.e., “test fits”) by applying the current standards to three different parcel sizes (0.25 acre, 0.5 acre, and 1 acre) in each district. Data from the City’s Residential Rent Registry Report1 on unit size, building type, and other features were used to capture recent development trends.

Test Fit Results
MIG found that maximum densities in all three districts could generally be reached under the current standards, but only by sacrificing design quality through relatively low eight-foot ceilings on all floors, minimal parapets or roof pitches, and minimal allowance for ground slope and/or raised foundations. While hypothetically possible, developers may choose not to move forward with such projects, nor would such projects generally meet the City’s design preferences. Therefore, the consultant recommended increasing the current height limits by seven feet. This amount would allow projects greater flexibility to implement some or all of the following best practices and address constraints in building design:
1 Residential Rent Registry Report 2023-2024

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 13, 2026
• A taller ground floor, to provide increased ceiling height for residential amenities and/or commercial spaces, and enhanced architectural proportions (through a more substantial “base” to the building);
• Industry-standard nine-foot residential ceiling heights; • Elevated porches on ground floor units, to provide more privacy and an enhanced sense of entry;
• Steeper and varied roof pitches, to improve drainage and allow more traditional architectural styles;
• Screening for roof-mounted equipment that is incorporated into the building’s architectural style;
• Greater ability to meet the height limit on sloped sites, since height is measured from the lowest finished grade; and
• Greater capacity for modular construction techniques, which typically require greater floor-to-floor heights since ceilings are structurally independent of the floor above.

Table 2 below illustrates the differences between the current maximum heights, the recommended heights per the above analysis, and the maximum potential heights under the HCD Ratio.

Table 2: Existing and Potential Maximum Heights
Maximum Height Limit
Under… CO CMX RH
Current Zoning 30’ 30’ 60’
Staff Recommendation2 37’ 37’ 67’
HCD Ratio 48’ 48’ 120’
Notably, a seven-foot height increase would essentially match the heights approved for two recent projects in Concord: Concord Village at 2400 Salvio Street (67 feet, 6 inches)3, and Penny Lane at 3512 Clayton Road (37 feet). Images of these projects are provided below for reference (Figures 1 through 4).
2 These proposed changes are reflected in Exhibit A and B of the Ordinance (Attachment 1). 3 Concord Village is 67 feet, 6 inches only at its tallest point, an architectural feature (slanted parapet) at the northwest corner (Salvio St. and East St.). A 67-foot height limit would not have substantially altered the appearance or function of this project.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 13, 2026

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 13, 2026
Figure 1. Concord Village Rendering (Example of 67-Foot-Tall Building) Figure 2. Concord Village Elevation (Example of 67-Foot-Tall Building) Figure 3. Penny Lane Photo (Example of 37-Foot-Tall Building)

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 13, 2026
Figure 4. Penny Lane Elevation (Example of 37-Foot-Tall Building) Development Code Amendment Findings
Pursuant to CMC Section 18.455.070, the Development Code may only be amended if the following findings are made. Staff’s analysis on how the project meets each finding is provided below:

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan; All of the proposed amendments are necessary to implement Objective 2.6 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element of the City’s General Plan and are not inconsistent with any other provisions of the General Plan. The amendment only increases heights by seven feet in the CO, CMX, and RH zoning districts for residential and mixed-use projects; it does not change the underlying uses or any other development standard. The proposed height increases are compatible with the residential development allowed in, or adjacent to, each zoning district.

Additionally, increasing heights will help reduce or remove constraints to housing production in compliance with Policy 1.84 of the Housing Element.

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city;
As noted in Finding 1, the proposed amendment only increases heights for residential and mixed-use projects by seven feet in the CO, CMX, and RH zoning districts, which will not substantially increase impacts beyond that of development allowed under the current height limits. Therefore, there will be no negative impact on the public health, convenience, or the welfare of the City. To the contrary, the proposed height increases will facilitate new housing development that is of a higher quality than might occur under the existing standards, which will benefit the public interest, convenience, and welfare. 4 City of Concord 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 13, 2026

3. Zoning map amendments shall also find that the affected site is physically suitable, including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities, for the requested zoning designation and proposed or anticipated uses and/or development.

This finding is not applicable as no zoning map amendments are proposed.

Financial Impact
Adoption and implementation of the Ordinance will have no fiscal impact to the City.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the proposed Development Code height amendments do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Section 15060(c)(2) or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if the proposed Development Code height amendments did constitute a project under CEQA, the amendment 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….” and is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.085, enacted by Senate Bill 131 (2025). Therefore, the Development Code height amendments do not warrant further environmental review. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website and shared with the Housing Element interested parties list. Notification has been published in the East Bay Times, as required by state law and the Concord Municipal Code.

Attachments

1. Ordinance Amending Concord Municipal Code Title 18
Exhibit A: CMC Chapter 18.30 (Residential Districts)
Exhibit B: CMC Chapter 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts)

2. Zoning Map: CO, CMX, and RH Districts

3. Feasibility Tests

Ord. No. 26-XX 1
ORDINANCE NO. 26-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 18 (DEVELOPMENT CODE),
CHAPTERS 18.30 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) AND 18.40 (OFFICE AND

COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS) TO INCREASE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL

AND MIXED-USED BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE COMMUNITY

OFFICE (CO), COMMERCIAL MIXED USE (CMX), AND RESIDENTIAL

HIGH DENSITY (RH) ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT STATE
LAW AND OBJECTIVE 2.6 OF THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
(PL25200 – MC)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65800 et seq. provides for the amendment of City of Concord (“City”) zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations; and WHEREAS, the California legislature has found and declared the availability of housing to be a statewide concern and priority; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. (“state housing element law”) requires that the City adopt a housing element for the eight-year period 2023–2031 to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 5,073 housing units, including units for very low-, low-, moderate-, and above-moderate-income households; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2023, the City adopted its 2023–2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”); and
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development certified the Housing Element, confirming that it complies with state housing element law; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element includes Objective 2.6 which states “within one year of certification of the Housing Element, the City will increase the maximum permitted heights in the Residential Hight Density (RH), Community Office (CO), and Commercial Mixed Use (CMX) zones to achieve maximum densities and remove any potential constraints. As part of implementing this action, the City will conduct outreach with the development community and revise these heights based on the feedback received, up to a maximum of 12 feet of height for every 10 dwelling units per acre permitted by the zone;” and
WHEREAS, to implement Objective 2.6, the City conducted interviews with housing Attachment 1

Ord. No. 26-XX
development stakeholders and City staff to understand constraints and opportunities to achieving maximum densities and its relationship with building height; and WHEREAS, to further implement Objective 2.6, the Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Housing Technical Assistance program’s consultant, in consultation with City of Concord staff, produced a set of feasibility tests using Concord’s development standards to assess the height increases necessary to maximize density in the CO, CMX, and RH zones; and WHEREAS, to complete implementation of Objective 2.6, this Ordinance was prepared amending the Concord Municipal Code Title 18 (Development Code), Chapters 18.30 (Residential Districts) and 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts) to increase maximum residential and mixed-use building heights; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2025, on the proposed Ordinance, received the staff report, staff presentation, and comments from the public and interested parties, and, after closing the public hearing, discussed the matter; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2025, the Planning Commission, after consideration of all pertinent plans, documents, and testimony (hereafter referred to as “Planning Commission Information”), adopted Resolution No. 25-18 PC recommending City Council approval of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on January 13, 2026, to consider this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, at such public hearing, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments and at the public hearing, the oral report from City staff, the written report from City staff dated January 13, 2026, attached materials, exhibits presented, the Planning Commission Information, and all other information that constitutes the record of proceedings relating to the proposed Ordinance, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Concord City Clerk (collectively, “City Council Information”), and declared its intent to approve and

Ord. No. 26-XX
adopt the Ordinance.

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

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

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

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

Section 4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the proposed Development Code height amendments do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Section 15060(c)(2) or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if the proposed Development Code height amendments did constitute a project under CEQA, the amendment 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….” and is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.085, enacted by Senate Bill 131 (2025). Therefore, the Development Code height amendments do not warrant further environmental review. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.

Ord. No. 26-XX
Section 5. Development Code Amendment Findings
1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan.

All of the proposed amendments are necessary to implement Objective 2.6 of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element of the City’s General Plan and are not inconsistent with any other provisions of the General Plan. The amendment only increases heights by seven feet in the CO, CMX, and RH zoning districts for residential and mixed-use projects; it does not change the underlying uses or any other development standard. The proposed height increases are compatible with the residential development allowed in, or adjacent to, each zoning district. Additionally, increasing heights will help reduce or remove constraints to housing production in compliance with Policy 1.8 of the Housing Element. 2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.

As noted in Finding 1, the proposed amendment only increases heights for residential and mixed-use projects by seven feet in the CO, CMX, and RH zoning districts, which will not substantially increase impacts beyond that of development allowed under the current height limits. Therefore, there will be no negative impact on the public health, convenience, or the welfare of the City. To the contrary, the proposed height increases will facilitate new housing development that is of a higher quality than might occur under the existing standards, which will benefit the public interest, convenience, and welfare. 3) Zoning map amendments shall also find that the affected site is physically suitable, including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities, for the requested zoning designation and proposed or anticipated uses and/or development.

Not applicable; no zoning map amendments are proposed.

Section 6. The City Council does hereby pass and adopt this Ordinance No. 26-XX.

Section 7. Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.30 (Residential Districts), specifically Table 18.30.040, is hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibit A and attached

Ord. No. 26-XX
hereto and made a part hereof.

Section 8. Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts), specifically Table 18.40.030, is hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibit B and attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Section 9. This Ordinance No. 26-XX shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption. In the event a summary of said Ordinance is published in lieu of the entire Ordinance, a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to its adoption and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers. Additionally, a summary prepared by the City Attorney’s Office shall be published once at least five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance and once within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers, in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Concord.

Laura M. Nakamura
Mayor
ATTEST:

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
(Seal)

6 Ord. No. 26-XX
Ordinance No. 26-XX was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord held on January 13, 2026, and was thereafter duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on January 13, 2026, by the following vote:

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

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – CMC Chapter 18.30 (Residential Districts)
Exhibit B – CMC Chapter 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts)

Chapter 18.30
Table 18.030.40
RL, RM and RH Districts
Development Standards(1)
Standards RL RM (4) RH (4) Additional Standards
Density (du/net acre)
minimum/maximum 2.5 – 10 11 – 32 33 – 100
Lot Area (square feet) minimum
Residential 1,920 1,440 5,000
Nonresidential 5,000 5,000 5,000
Lot Width (feet) minimum
Residential 24 18 attached
24 detached 50
Nonresidential 50 50 50
Lot depth (feet) minimum
Residential 80 60 attached
80 detached 100
Nonresidential 100 100 100
Lot Coverage (precent) maximum
Residential 50 80 attached
60 detached 75
Nonresidential 50 60 75
Building Height (feet) maximum
ResidentialSingle-Family 30 40 6 70 Additional height may be approved with a use permit.

Nonresidential
Building height shall be established in compliance with the requirements specified by the permit; except that if the permit does not regulate a development feature that is regulated by an abutting district, or if a permit is not required, the regulations of the abutting district shall apply to each adjacent portion of the property, as applicable.

Exhibit A

Setbacks (feet)(2) The area between the street improvements and street setback line shall be landscaped in compliance with Chapter 18.165 CDC (Landscaping).

Residential(1)
Front, minimum 5 5 0
Interior Side, minimum 5 5 5 (3)
Corner Side, minimum 10 10 10 (3)
Rear, minimum 5 6 6 (3)
Garage, Street Access 20 20 -
Garage, Alley Access,
minimum 4 4 4
Nonresidential
Setbacks shall be established in compliance with the requirements specified by the permit; except that if the permit does not regulate a development feature that is regulated by an abutting district, or if a permit is not required, the regulations of the abutting district shall apply to each adjacent portion of the property, as applicable.

Open space/unit (square
feet) minimum 200(1) 200 (1) 200
See CDC 18.150.100, Open
space and recreational facilities
for residential development, and
Chapter 18.155 CDC for small
lot subdivisions
(1) Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Chapter 18.155 CDC (Standards for Small Lot and Medium Density Development) and Division V of this title (Standards for Specific Uses). Standards for RH apply to aggregate sites only and not to individual fee simple/condominium units which may be created on a subdivided RH site. (2) Unless otherwise approved through a planned unit development (PUD). (3) Minimum for each side.
(4) Standard does not apply to small, independent parcels corresponding to individual dwellings within a larger multifamily residential, mixed-use, or townhome development.

Chapter 18.40
Table 18.040.30
Office and Commercial Districts
Development Standards(1)
Standards CO (4) CMX (4) NC(4) RC SC Additional Standards Density (du/net acre)
minimum/maximum 11 – 24 11 – 40 24
max** NA NA **Residential uses not allowed on
ground floor
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
(maximum) 1.0 1.0 0.35 0.5 0.8
Lot Area (square feet)
minimum 10,000 10,000 10,000 80,000* 10,000 *Smaller lots may be approved with a use permit
Lot Width (feet)
minimum 100 100 100 100 100
Reduced dimensions may be
allowed subject to use permit
approval
Lot Depth (feet)
minimum 100 100 100 200 100
Building Height (feet) maximum(3)
Building Height (feet)
maximum(3)Residential
and Mixed-Use(5)
370 370 40 50NA 35NA
Additional height may be allowed
with a use permit.

Nonresidential 30 30 40 50 35
Setbacks (feet) minimum(1) (2)
Front 10 5 5 15 15
Corner Side 10 10 10 10 10
Interior Side, Rear 5
None required unless adjacent to an R district or residential use in CMX. See CDC 18.150.180 (Transitional requirements) for buildings up to 30 feet in height.

Open space/unit (square
feet) minimum
See CDC 18.150.100, Open space and recreational facilities for residential developments, and Chapter 18.155 CDC, Standards for Small Lot and Exhibit B

Medium Density Development
(1) Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Chapter 18.155 CDC (Standards for Small Lot and Medium Density Development) and Division V of this title (Standards for Specific Uses). Lot area, width, depth and setback limits listed here may not apply if a site in CO, CMX, or NC is subdivided into multifamily fee simple/condominium units or small residential lots. (2) Measured from property line to the face of building or to a structure. (3) Consistent with transitional requirements (See CDC 18.150.180). (4) Standard does not apply to small, independent parcels corresponding to individual dwellings within a larger multifamily residential, mixed-use, or townhome development.
(5) Mixed-use projects shall meet the definition of a “housing development project” in California Government Code Section 65589.5(h) to qualify for the Residential and Mixed-Use height standard; all other mixed-use projects shall be subject to the Nnonresidential height standard.

RH
CMX
CO
City of Concord Zoning Map, Selected Districts:

Community Office (CO), Commercial Mixed Use (CMX), Residential High Density (RH) Attachment 2

C4-Concord | Zoning Standards Analysis
Attachment 3

C4-Concord | Selected Districts
RH
CMX
CO

C4-Concord | Common Design Assumptions
Building Types
• Townhomes (attached or detached) usually work
for minimum density requirements for CO and
CMX
• Multifamily development over podium parking
usually work for RH, and maximum density
requirements for CO and CMX
• Maximum density scenarios are illustrated in
plan graphics
Unit Sizes
• Average unit size for townhomes is about 1000-
1200 sq ft. This assumption allows for 2 to 3
bedrooms.
• Average unit size in multi-family development is
about 750 sq ft for a one bedroom. This
assumption allows for most proposed
developments to have a majority of
1 bedroom
units with the remaining a mix of studio, 2 and 3
bedroom unit
Open Spaces
• Dedicated open spaces for townhomes is about
200 to 300 sq ft and included in the front or
backyard. Shared open space is minimal.
• Open space requirements in multi-family
developments is usually achieved by a mix of
following:
• Balconies that are usually 60 sq ft in upper floor
unit
• Common open space usually on top of podium
parking (with some exceptions for RH)
• Space created by required and designed setbacks

C4-Concord | RH: EXISTING STANDARDS
RH- High Density- Existing MU-35/30 - Proposed
Dwelling Unit
Standards
• Maximum Average Unit Size: None
• Minimum Average Unit Size: None
• No changes
Lot Area • Minimum: 5,000 sq ft
• No changes
Lot Depth • Minimum: 100 ft • No minimum.

Lot Width • Minimum: 50 ft • No minimum.

Density • Maximum: 100 du/ acre
• Minimum: 33 du/ acre
• No changes
Lot Coverage • Maximum Lot Coverage: 75% • 1.5 maximum?? Setbacks: FRONT • Minimum: 0 ft
• If no ground floor retail, 10% of lot depth
• For mixed-use buildings with ground-floor retail, 5 ft minimum Setbacks: REAR • Minimum: 6 ft • 20% of lot depth, 20’ ft minimum, whichever is greater Setbacks: SIDES • Minimum: 5 ft (interior), 10 ft (corner) • Combined 20% of lot width on two sides, no less than 5’ on any side Other Setback Regs:

Garages with Alley
Access

• Minimum: 4 ft
• For development sites that abut a single-family residential neighborhood, side yard and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet to any second story building elements.

RH- High Density- Existing
Height Limit • Maximum: 60 ft
• 3
Open Space
• All usable open areas not occupied by decks and patios or 20 percent, whichever is greater, must be landscaped
• 200 sf/ unit for 3 or more units; Requirement can be met through a combination of private and common space. In all cases, at least 60 square feet of private open space required per unit. • N

C4-Concord | RH: EXISTING PARCELS
RH

C4-Concord | RH: PROTOTYPICAL LOT SIZES
• 10,400 sq ft Lot Size
• 20,800 sq ft Lot Size
• 41,600 sq ft Lot Size
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre

C4-Concord | RH: SETBACKS
• 0’ Front Setback
• 5’(interior) Side Setbacks
• 6’ Rear Setback
Setback Standards
Analysis
• Setback standards, in general,
do not impact development
• Setback standards could be
customized, especially for
narrow constrained lots,
especially if along an adjoining
blank wall
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre

C4-Concord | RH: LOT COVERAGE
• 75%
Lot Coverage Standards
Analysis
• The lot coverage standards
minimize development
capacity and affect the ability
of developments meeting the
parking requirements (see next
few slides).
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre

C4-Concord | RH: DENSITY
• 100 du/ac maximum
• 33 du/ac minimum
Density Standards
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre

C4-Concord | RH: BUILDING TYPE
• Minimum density
achieved :
• 9 units; 2 floors of
multi-family over
ground floor podium
parking
• Maximum density
(shown above) achieved:
• 25 units; 4 floors of
multi-family over
ground floor podium
parking
• Minimum density achieved:
• 17 units; 2 floors of
multi-family over ground
floor podium parking
• Maximum density (shown
above) achieved:
• 50 units, 4 floors of
multi-family over ground
floor podium parking
• Minimum density achieved:
• 33 units; 2 floors of multi-
family over ground floor
podium parking
• Maximum density (shown
left) achieved:
• 100 units, 5 floors of
multi-family over ground
floor podium parking
(total 3 floors)
1/4 acre 1 acre 1/2 acre

C4-Concord | RH: OPEN SPACE
• Total 200 sq ft/unit with
minimum 60 sq ft/unit
Open Space Standards
• Minimum density open
space achieved:
• 60 sq ft balcony / unit +
8750 sq ft common space
• Maximum density open
space (shown left) achieved:
• 60 sq ft balcony / unit +
8750 sq ft common space
+ 7500 sq ft setback open
space
Analysis
• Open space standards are
achieved due to 75% lot
coverage standard
• Minimum density open
space achieved:
• 60 sq ft balcony / unit
+ 2060 sq ft common
space
• Maximum density open
space (shown above):
• 60 sq ft balcony / unit
+ 2060 sq ft common
space + 1500 setback
open space
• Minimum density open
space achieved:
• 60 sq ft balcony / unit +
4400 sq ft common space
• Maximum density open
space(shown above)
achieved:
• 60 sq ft balcony / unit +
4400 sq ft common space
+ 4300 sq ft setback open
space
1/4 acre 1 acre 1/2 acre

C4-Concord | RH: HEIGHT
Analysis
• Height should be
increased to about 65’
to allow for a six-story
building with 10’ floor to
floor heights with a mix
of architectural
elements including:
• Roof (parapet,
pitched roofs, etc.)
• Major and minor
entry ways fronting
the street
(porches, elevated
entryway, etc.)
• 60’ maximum
Height Standards
65’

C4-Concord | CMX: EXISTING STANDARDS
CMX- Community Mixed-Use- Existing MU-35/30 - Proposed
Dwelling Unit
Standards
• Maximum Average Unit Size: None
• Minimum Average Unit Size: None
• No changes
Lot Area • Minimum: 10,000 sq ft
• No changes
Lot Depth • Minimum: 100 ft • No minimum.

Lot Width • Minimum: 100 ft • No minimum.

Density • Maximum: 40 du/ acre
• Minimum: 11 du/ acre
• No changes
Lot Coverage • Maximum Lot Coverage: N/A
• 1.5 maximum??
Setbacks: FRONT • Minimum: 5 ft
• If no ground floor retail, 10% of lot depth
• For mixed-use buildings with ground-floor retail, 5 ft minimum Setbacks: REAR • Minimum: 0 ft • 20% of lot depth, 20’ ft minimum, whichever is greater Setbacks: SIDES • Minimum: 0 ft (interior), 10 ft (corner) • Combined 20% of lot width on two sides, no less than 5’ on any side Other Setback Regs:

Garages with Alley
Access

• Minimum: N/A
• For development sites that abut a single-family residential neighborhood, side yard and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet to any second story building elements.

CMX- Community Mixed-Use- Existing
Height Limit • Maximum: 30 ft (additional height may be allowed with a use permit)
• 3
Open Space
• 200 sf/ unit for 3 or more units; Requirement can be met through a combination of private and common space.
• In all cases, at least 60 square feet of private open space required per unit.
• N

C4-Concord| CMX: EXISTING PARCELS
CMX

C4-Concord | CMX: PROTOTYPICAL LOT SIZES
• 10,625 sq ft
Lot Size
(0.25 ac)
• 21,875 sq ft Lot Size (0.50
ac)
• 43,750 sq ft Lot Size (1.0 ac)
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre

C4-Concord | CMX: SETBACKS
43,750 SQ.FT

LOT SIZE
21,875 SQ.FT

LOT SIZE
10,937 SQ.FT

LOT SIZE
• 5’ Front Setback
• 0’(interior) Side Setbacks
• 0’ Rear Setback
Analysis
• Setback standards, in general, do not impact development • The lack of side and rear setbacks helps maximize development opportunities Setback Standards
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre

C4-Concord | CMX: LOT COVERAGE
• Not applicable
Analysis
• The lack of lot coverage standards allow for development flexibility Lot Coverage
Standards
1 acre
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre

• 40 du/ac maximum
• 11 du/ac minimum
C4-Concord | CMX: DENSITY
1 acre
Density Standards
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre

C4-Concord | CMX: BUILDING TYPE
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre
• Minimum density achieved:
• 11 units; 3 story attached townhomes with tandem
parking, double loaded over a central shared driveway
• Maximum density (shown above) achieved:
• 40 units, 2 floors of multi-family over ground floor
podium parking (total 3 floors)
• Minimum density achieved:
• 6 units; 2-3 story attached townhomes
with tandem parking
• Maximum density (shown above)
achieved:
• 20 units; 2 floors of multi-family
development over podium parking
• Minimum density achieved :
• 3 units; 2-3 story attached
townhomes with tandem parking
• Maximum density (shown above)
achieved:
• 10 units; 2 floors of multi-family
over ground floor podium parking

1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre
C4-Concord | CMX: OPEN SPACE • Total 200 sq ft/unit with min. 60 sq ft/unit of private open space
Open Space Standards
Analysis
• Open space standards can usually be achieved
• Minimum density open space
achieved:
• 300+ sq ft for each unit
• Maximum density open space (shown
above) achieved:
• 60 sq ft balcony / unit + 1125sq ft
common space + 620sq ft rear yard
• Minimum density open space achieved:
• 300+ sq ft for each unit
• Maximum density open space(shown
above) achieved:
• 60 sq ft balcony/ upper floor units +
5175 sq ft common space + 2075 sq.
ft. gr. fl. yards
• Minimum density open space achieved:
• 300+ sq ft for each unit
• Maximum density open space (shown above) achieved:
• 60 sq ft balcony/ unit + 8,050 sq ft common space + 4,750 sq. ft. gr. fl. yards

C4-Concord | CMX: HEIGHT
Analysis
• Height should be increased to about 35’ to allow for a three-story building, at the minimum, to achieve the maximum density. with a mix of architectural elements including:
• Roof (parapet, pitched roofs, etc.)
• Major and minor entry ways fronting the street (porches, elevated entryway, etc.) 34’-35’
• 30 ft maximum
Height Standards

C4-Concord | CO: EXISTING PARCELS
CO

C4-Concord | CO: EXISTING STANDARDS
CO- Community Office- Existing MU-35/30 - Proposed
Dwelling Unit
Standards
• Maximum Average Unit Size: None
• Minimum Average Unit Size: None
• No changes
Lot Area • Minimum: 10,000 sq ft
• No changes
Lot Depth • Minimum: 100 ft • No minimum.

Lot Width • Minimum: 100 ft • No minimum.

Density • Maximum: 40 du/ acre
• Minimum: 11 du/ acre
• No changes
Lot Coverage • Maximum Lot Coverage: N/A
• 1.5 maximum??
Setbacks: FRONT • Minimum: 10 ft
• If no ground floor retail, 10% of lot depth
• For mixed-use buildings with ground-floor retail, 5 ft minimum Setbacks: REAR • Minimum: 5 ft • 20% of lot depth, 20’ ft minimum, whichever is greater Setbacks: SIDES • Minimum: 5 ft (interior), 10 ft (corner) • Combined 20% of lot width on two sides, no less than 5’ on any side Other Setback Regs:

Garages with Alley
Access

• Minimum: N/A
• For development sites that abut a single-family residential neighborhood, side yard and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet to any second story building elements.

CO- Community Office- Existing
Height Limit
• Maximum: Maximum: 30 ft (additional height may be allowed with a use permit) • 3
Open Space
• 200 sf/ unit for 3 or more units; Requirement can be met through a combination of private and common space.
• In all cases, at least 60 square feet of private open space required per unit.
• N

C4-Concord | CO: PROTOTYPICAL LOT SIZES
• 10,400 sq ft Lot Size
• 20,800 sq ft Lot Size
• 41,600 sq ft Lot Size
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre

C4-Concord | CO: SETBACKS
• 10’ Front Setback
• 5’(interior) Side Setbacks
• 5’ Rear Setback
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre
Setback Standards
Analysis
• Setback standards, in general, do not impact development • Setback standards could be customized, especially for narrow constrained lots, especially if along an adjoining blank wall

C4-Concord | CO: LOT COVERAGE
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre
• Not applicable
Lot Coverage Standards
Analysis
• The lack of lot coverage standards allow for development flexibility

C4-Concord | CO: DENSITY
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre
• 40 du/ac maximum
• 11 du/ac minimum
Density Standards

C4-Concord | CO: BUILDING TYPE
• Minimum density achieved :
• 3 units; 2-3 story
attached or detached
townhomes with tandem
parking
• Maximum density (shown
above) achieved:
• 10 units
• 2 floors of multi-family
over ground floor
podium parking
• Minimum density achieved:
• 6 units; 2-3 story attached
townhomes with tandem
parking, double loaded
over a central driveway
• Maximum density (shown
above) achieved:
• 20 units, 3 floors of multi-
family development with
rear surface parking
• Minimum density achieved:
• 11 units; 3 story attached
townhomes with tandem
parking, double loaded
over a central shared
driveway
• Maximum density (shown
left) achieved:
• 40 units, 2 floors of multi-
family over ground floor
podium parking (total 3
floors)
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre

C4-Concord | CO: OPEN SPACE
• Minimum density open space
achieved:
• 300+ sq ft for each unit
• Maximum density open space
(shown above) achieved:
• 60 sq ft balcony / unit +
1500sq ft common space
• Minimum density open
space achieved:
• 300 sq ft for each unit
• Maximum density open
space(shown above):
• 300 sq ft/ gr. fl units + 60
sq ft balcony/ upper floor
units + 1300 sq ft
common space
• Total 200 sq ft/unit of open
space with minimum 60 sq
ft/unit of private open space
Open Space Standards
• Minimum density open
space achieved:
• 300 sq ft for each unit
• Maximum density open
space (shown left):
• 60 sq ft balcony/ unit +
7000 sq ft common
space
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre
Analysis
• Open space standards
can usually be achieved

C4-Concord | CO: HEIGHT
• 30 ft
Height Standards
Analysis
• Height should be increased to about 35’ to allow for a three-story building to fulfill both minimum and maximum density requirements with a mix of architectural elements including:
• Roof (parapet, pitched roofs, etc.)
• Major and minor entry ways fronting the street (porches, elevated entryway, etc.) 34’-35’

Housing Element
Update: Objective 2.6

BENJAMIN ULREY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
JANUARY 13, 2026
1

Background – Objective 2.6
• The Housing Element includes Objective 2.6: increase building heights in certain zones to allow maximum densities to be achieved. • Objective 2.6 addresses comments from HCD about building heights not allowing maximum densities to be achieved in Residential High Density (RH), Community Office (CO), Commercial Mixed Use (CMX). • If maximum building heights can’t accommodate maximum allowable density, a development will have fewer units than otherwise allowed. 2

Background – Objective 2.6
• Objective 2.6
o …the City will increase the maximum permitted heights in the RH, CO, and CMX zones to achieve maximum densities and remove any potential constraints. As part of implementing this action, the City will conduct outreach with the development community and revise these heights based on the feedback received, up to a maximum of 12 feet of height for every 10 dwelling units per acre permitted by the zone.
3

4 Existing and Possible Maximum Heights and Densities
Development
Standard CO* CMX* RH**
Max. Density
(current)
40 (d/u per net acre)
40 (d/u per net acre)
100
(d/u per net acre)
Max. Height
(current) 30 ft 30 ft 60 ft
Max. Height Using
HCD Ratio*
48 ft
[(40 d/u per net acre / 10) * 12’]
48 ft
[(40 d/u per net acre / 10) * 12’]
120 ft
[(100 d/u per net acre / 10) * 12’]
*The “HCD Ratio” = an increase of 12 ft in height for every 10 dwelling units permitted in the zoning district

5 RH
CMX
CO

The HCD Ratio
• The HCD ratio is a maximum potential height increase. • The City can utilize local data to determine if lower heights could allow maximum densities to be achieved.
• In 2024 and 2025, the City conducted our own research and analysis.
6

Developer Outreach
• Fall 2024: City staff held four interviews with developers, as well as the City’s Chief Building Official, Ryan Pursley.
• Conclusions
o No “rules of thumb” to determining adequate building heights. o Critical factors = costs (construction/operating) and site constraints. o Overall, taller height limits provide increased flexibility and allow for a more feasible project.
7

Feasibility Tests
• July 2025: Begin work with MIG on set of “feasibility tests”. • Goal: Demonstrate how/if maximum density can be achieved under current regulations.
• Feasibility Tests

1. Create “prototypical lot size” of RH, CO, and CMX zones.

2. Apply local standards (setbacks, height limits, FAR, open space).

3. Apply average unit size, building type, and number of bedrooms. 8

Analysis – Residential
High Density
9

RH: PROTOTYPICAL LOT SIZES
10,400 sq ft
1/4 acre
20,800 sq ft
1/2 acre
41,600 sq ft
1 acre
10

RH: SETBACKS
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre
Setbacks - RH
Front 0 feet
Side 5 feet
Rear 6 feet
11

RH: LOT COVERAGE
1/4 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre
Lot Coverage - RH
Maximum 75%
12

RH: BUILDING TYPE
1/4 acre
1 acre
1/2 acre
Density - RH
Lot
Size
Max Density
Achieved? Density Floors

0.25 acre Yes 25 units 4

0.5 acres Yes 50 units 4
1 acre Yes 100 units 5
Maximum Density
100 dwelling units per net acre
13

RH: OPEN SPACE
Open Space Minium
- 200 sq ft/unit (common)
- 60 sq ft/unit (private)
1/4 acre
1 acre
1/2 acre
Open Space - RH
Lot
Size
Open
Space
Minimum
Achieved?
Open
Space
(common)
Open
Space
(private)

0.25 acre Yes 2,060 sq ft 60 sq ft /
unit

0.5 acres Yes 4,400 sq ft 60 sq ft /
unit
1 acre Yes 8,750 sq ft 60 sq ft /
unit
14

Results
• Even accounting for development standards, maximum densities can be reached in each district.
• Building design quality is sacrificed.
• Recommendation: increase heights by 7 feet in each zoning district to accommodate higher-quality designs and other building constraints. 15

Design Opportunities at 7 ft
• Taller ground floor for enhanced architecture and ceiling height. • Elevated porches on ground floor units for privacy.
• 10 ft floor-to-floor heights which allow for 9 ft ceiling in unit. • Flexibility for roof equipment screening.
• Flexibility to meet height limit on sloped sites.
• Greater capacity for modular construction techniques
16

17 Example 1: Penny Lane Townhomes

18 Example 1: Penny Lane Townhomes

19 Example 2: Concord Village Apartments

20 Example 2: Concord Village Apartments

Recommended Maximum Heights
21 Maximum Height Limit
Under… CO CMX RH
Current Zoning 30 ft 30 ft 60 ft
HCD Ratio 48 ft 48 ft 120 ft
Staff Recommendation 37 ft 37 ft 67 ft

Recommended Actions
• Increase maximum heights in the RH, CO,
and CMX districts by 7 feet.
22

Questions?
23

24 Example 1: Penny Lane Townhomes
RM District Penny Lane*
Density 11 – 32 d/u 25 d/u
(70 units total)
Height 40 ft (max) 37 ft
Lot coverage 80% (max) 70-79%
Setbacks
Front N/A** 5 ft
Side (interior) N/A** 15 ft***
Side (street) N/A** 2 – 4 ft
Rear N/A** 3 – 4 ft
Open Space
(common) 200 sq ft per unit 168 – 260 sq ft
Open Space
(private) 60 sq ft per unit 9,575 sq ft
*Penny Lane is located mostly in the RM zone
but also in CMX.
**Standard allowed through Small-Lot
Subdivisions. Interior side requires 15 ft if near
residential.
***Transitional setbacks for buildings over 30 ft.

25 Example 2: Concord Village Apartments
DMX Concord Village
Density 33 – 100 d/u 100 d/u
(230 units total)
Height 200 ft (max) 67 ft 6 in
Height, First Floor 15 ft (min) 15 ft
Setbacks
Front 10 0 ft – 12 ft 9 in
Side (interior) 0 1 ft 6 in – 6 ft 9 in
Side (street) 10 3 in – 14 ft 9 in
Rear 0 10 in – 6 ft 3 in
Open Space
(common) 175 sq ft per unit 85 sq ft per unit*
Open Space
(private) 60 sq ft per unit 52 sq ft per unit *Exemption was granted for Open Space requirements.

Background – Housing Element
• August 22, 2023: Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element. • October 23, 2023: the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) certified the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element. • The Housing Element includes Objective 2.6, to increase building heights in certain zones to allow maximum densities to be achieved. 26

November 10, 2025

Melanie Koslow
Executive Director, Maintenance, Operations and Facilities Mt. Diablo Unified School District
1936 Carlotta Dr
Concord, CA 94519

Re: Letter of Support for Mt. Diablo USD’s CEC GFO-25-301 (EPIC) DRIVES Grant Application, including School Bus Charging Infrastructure Storage + Solar Microgrid integration.

Dear Ms. Koslow:

We are writing in support of Mt. Diablo Unified School District’s (MDUSD) grant application for the California Energy Commission GFO-25-301 (EPIC) DRIVES grant. MDUSD has demonstrated community leadership in reducing its fleet air-emissions by introducing nineteen (19) electric school buses to replace diesel school buses from 2020-2023.

MDUSD’s current plans to introduce an additional twenty-four (24) electric school buses over the next four years, from 2025-2029, underscores its unwavering commitment to reducing community air-emissions. In order to accomplish this, it needs the CEC innovation funding support to round out its Level-3 charging infrastructure depot, and to integrate a solar microgrid energy storage system, putting in place adequate vehicle charging resources, automated utility demand-response assets, charge- and fleet- management software, and a robust reporting system, to meet its current and future needs.

We urge the California Energy Commission to support MDUSD, and the communities it serves.

Sincerely,

Carlyn S. Obringer
Mayor

Cc: Concord City Council
City Manager Valerie Barone
Assistant City Manager Justin Ezell
Concord City Clerk Joelle Fockler

7.a

December 17, 2025

Chabad of Concord
Attn: Rabbi Berel Kesselman
1801 Andrea Court
Concord, CA, 94519

Dear Rabbi Kesselman,
The City Council of Concord, California, extends its deepest and most heartfelt condolences to the families, friends, and communities of the victims of the horrific antisemitic violence at Bondi Beach in Australia. We are profoundly saddened by this senseless tragedy, and our thoughts are with the survivors and all those around the world whose lives have been forever altered by this act of brutality.

We stand in unwavering solidarity with the Jewish communities in Concord and throughout Contra Costa County. We recognize that this event is not an isolated occurrence in a distant land, but a source of excruciating fear and grief for our neighbors here at home. To our Jewish friends and neighbors: we see you, we value you, and we offer you our boundless love and support during this dark time.

The City of Concord unequivocally condemns resorting to personal violence for any reason. We believe that no form of physical violence is ever the right answer, and it is most especially abhorrent when it is born of bigotry, intolerance, and hate.

Originally passed in 2017 and reaffirmed in 2021, this Council passed our Inclusive City Resolution, reaffirming our commitment to being a "welcoming, inclusive, tolerant, and supportive community for all. " In that resolution, we collectively pledged that Concord would remain a "community that is welcoming, inclusive, just, law-abiding, and safe for all individuals regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation... or any other characteristic. " Today, our Inclusive City Resolution continues to shape our community that "diversity enriches our lives and the entire community for the betterment of all, " and that we "value the contributions and traditions of all cultures. " However, we recognize that it is not enough to simply condemn violence after it occurs. True progress requires a proactive and persistent commitment to addressing and healing the hatred that can take root in human hearts. We must work together to dismantle the prejudices that lead to such tragedies and foster a culture where every person is treated with the "dignity, equality, and respect" they deserve.

7.b

As we move through this Hanukkah season in solidarity with our Jewish neighbors, we invoke the themes of their celebration: the spirit of hope and the enduring power of light to overcome darkness. May people of all faiths and perspectives find inspiration in the miracle of perseverance and the strength of resilience against oppression and violence that is central to the Hanukkah story. Just as the Maccabees rededicated their temple, let us, as common communities of diversity and varied traditions, jointly rededicate ourselves to the pursuit of peace and the protection of all people. And let the lights of the season serve as a reminder that even in the deepest shadows, a single flame can illuminate the path toward a more just and compassionate world.

To that end, I am encouraging our community to join you and their neighbors at the Chanukah Celebration on Thursday, December 18, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. at the Veranda. The Concord Police Department will be on hand to ensure a safe celebration. My hope is that it will be a safe place to celebrate the season with the Jewish community and to heal.

Sincerely,

Laura M. Nakamura
Mayor

cc: Concord City Council
Valerie Barone, City Manager
Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
Joelle Fockler, City Clerk

Staff Report
Date: January 13, 2026
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Joelle Fockler, MMC, City Clerk
Prepared by: Monique Robinson, Deputy City Clerk
[email protected]
(925) 671-3295
Subject: Considering appointing Councilmembers to represent the City Council on Council committees and regional bodies and
boards of various external organizations of which the City is a member.

Report in Brief
These proposed appointments, which will be considered during the January 13, 2026, City Council meeting, establish Council representation on the Council committees shown on Attachment 1, and Council representation on regional bodies and the boards of various external organizations of which the City is a member, as shown on Attachment 2. Newly appointed representatives will be seated effective January 13, 2026. Attachment 3 represents the liaisons and interview functions between standing Council committees and the City’s appointed citizen boards, commissions, and committees.

Recommended Action

1. Mayor to appoint Councilmembers to represent the City Council on Council committees. (Attachment 1)

2. Mayor to appoint Councilmembers to regional bodies on the boards of various external organizations of which the City is a member. (Attachment 2)

3. Council as a whole to ratify by a vote of the membership composition of its standing committees and confirm representation on external agencies.

8.a8.a8.a8.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.a
January 13, 2026
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Council Committees

2. External Council Appointments

3. Function of Existing Boards, Commissions, and Committees

Attachment 1
2026 Standing Committees
Effective January 13, 2026
Each Councilmember is a chair of one committee and a member of a second committee. City Council Standing Committees meet as needed. Note: The Policy Development and Internal Operations Committee is chaired by the Mayor and its member is the Vice Mayor by adopted Council policy.

APPOINTEES

CHAIR MEMBER
Standing Committees
Policy Development and Internal Operations Nakamura Aliano Housing and Economic Development
Infrastructure and Franchise
Recreation, Cultural Affairs & Community Services
Youth and Education
2025 Committees

Committees Chair Member
Policy Development & Internal Operations Obringer Nakamura Housing & Economic Development Hoffmeister Obringer
Infrastructure & Franchise Aliano Hoffmeister
Recreation, Cultural Affairs & Community Services Nakamura Benavente Youth & Education Benavente Aliano

Attachment 2
2026 EXTERNAL COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Effective January 13, 2026

ORGANIZATION MEETING SCHEDULE MEMBER
SECOND

MEMBER OR

ALTERNATE
Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG)
General Assembly
The General Assembly must be held
by April 1 of each year, the Spring
Meeting is usually held in March,
and the Fall General Assembly is
held in October or November.

Central Contra Costa Transit
Authority (The County
Connection)
3rd Thursday of each month, 9 a.m.

Contra Costa Mayors
Conference
1st Thursday of each month, 6:30
p.m.

League of CA Cities Board of
Directors (East Bay Division) 3rd Thursday of each month, 6 p.m.

Transportation Partnership
and Cooperation Regional
Committee (TRANSPAC)
2nd Thursday of each month, 9 a.m.

Marin Clean Energy Board 3rd Thursday of the month, 7 p.m. quarterly or as needed
Green Empowerment Zone
Innovate 680 PAC
Other Appointments Appointing Entity Appointee Term Expires Airport Land Use Commission Mayors Conference Obringer 5/4/26 Airport Land Use Commission Mayors Conference Hoffmeister 5/1/28 Contra Costa Countywide
Redevelopment Successor
Agency Oversight Board
Mayors Conference Hoffmeister 6/30/26
East Bay Regional Parks
District Advisory Commission Mayors Conference Obringer 12/31/26 East Bay Economic
Development Alliance
Executive Committee
Mayors Conference Obringer 6/30/27
Local Agency Formation
Commission Mayors Conference Nakamura 5/4/27

Attachment 2
2025 EXTERNAL COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

ORGANIZATION MEETING SCHEDULE MEMBER
SECOND

MEMBER OR

ALTERNATE
Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG)
General Assembly
The General Assembly must be held
by April 1 of each year, the Spring
Meeting is usually held in March,
and the Fall General Assembly is
held in October or November.

Benavente Nakamura
Central Contra Costa Transit
Authority (The County
Connection)
3rd Thursday of each month, 9 a.m. Hoffmeister Nakamura Contra Costa Mayors
Conference
1st Thursday of each month, 6:30
p.m. Obringer Nakamura
League of CA Cities Board of
Directors (East Bay Division) 3rd Thursday of each month, 6 p.m. Aliano Hoffmeister Transportation Partnership
and Cooperation Regional
Committee (TRANSPAC)
2nd Thursday of each month, 9 a.m. Obringer Nakamura
Marin Clean Energy Board 3rd Thursday of the month, at 7 p.m. quarterly or as needed Nakamura Benavente
Green Empowerment Zone Obringer Nakamura
Innovate 680 PAC Obringer Hoffmeister

2026
Standing Boards/Commissions/Committees
Standing
Council
Committees
Example
of Issues
Reviewed
Board of Appeals
Commission on Aging
Community Services
Commission
Concord Pavilion
Community Outreach
Committee
Concord Pleasant Hill
Health Care Dist.

Grant Committee
Design Review Board
Parks, Recreation &
Open Space
Commission
Personnel Board
Planning
Commission1
Measure V Oversight
Committee
Community Health
Fund
Bike, Pedestrian &
Safe Route Plan
Policy Development and
Internal Operations
Nakamura, Chair
Aliano, Committee member
Council budget, policy
development, facilities use,
community relations, Concord
Community Reuse Project
• •
Housing and Economic
Development
, Chair
, Committee member
Downtown, housing, mobile
homes, development
permitting •
Infrastructure and
Franchise
, Chair
, Committee member
Transportation, cable,
communications/technologies,
solid waste, public works,
sewer; franchises • •
Recreation, Cultural
Affairs & Community
Services
, Chair
, Committee member
Neighborhoods, social
services, ADA, programs for
elderly, Arts, special events,
parks, golf course, trails, youth
programs, Sister City • • • •
Youth and Education
, Chair
, Committee member
Education and Youth matters
• •
• Primary Relationship: Council Committee to act as liaison to Council and to conduct interviews of applicants for designated board/commission membership. 1 City Council conducts interviews for Planning Commission.

Attachment 3