Concord City Council
February 24, 2026

1 COUNCILMEMBERS
Laura M. Nakamura, Mayor
Dominic D. Aliano, Vice Mayor
Pablo Benavente
Laura M. Hoffmeister
Carlyn S. Obringer
Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org
Regular Meeting of the
Concord City Council
Tuesday
February 24, 2026
6:30 p.m. - Open Session Council Chamber
1950 Parkside Drive
and/or various
telephonic/electronic
locations
*IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEETING PARTICIPATION* Members of the public are invited to attend and participate at: Council Chamber, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA.

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

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

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

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

2 2. REMOTE: Remote public comment will not be accepted, except when a Councilmember participates remotely. At the time of the posting of this agenda, none of the Councilmembers have notified the City Clerk’s Office that they intend to participate remotely, and therefore no remote public comment will be accepted at the meeting. If, after publication of this agenda and before the meeting begins, any Councilmember determines that they will need to participate remotely, their remote participation will be announced at the outset of the meeting in connection with the Roll Call item. If a Councilmember participates in the meeting remotely, the public may participate and provide public comment remotely, as follows:
a. Zoom:
https://cityofconcord.zoom.us/j/83815163064?pwd=ncMxyMDjnje_IWUTwc2my7wV9zJp KQ.hjD_ih4NjsQrdEBO or Zoom Webinar ID: 838 1516 3064 and Passcode: 239309 b.Zoom Phone Numbers. Dial Toll Free: (669) 900-6833 or (346) 348-7799 or (253) 215- 8782.
c.During the meeting, each period for public comment will be announced, and participants may use the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom to request to speak. If calling in via Zoom use *9 to raise and lower your hand. The meeting host will call on you, by name, and promote you to panelist in the webinar so you can be seen via your camera. Please enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak. In order to ensure the orderly administration of the meeting using this method, providing your name is encouraged, but is not required. (If you need instructions on how to use this feature, please contact the City Clerk by 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date at [email protected]).

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

1. distributed to the Council before the meeting,

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

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

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

OPEN SESSION

1. OPENING
Roll Call - Councilmember Announcements of "Just Cause" Remote Participation
Pledge of Allegiance - Councilmember Benavente

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

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

3. PRESENTATION
a. Presentation – by Guy Bjerke, Director of Economic Development and Base Reuse, on implementation of the recently adopted Economic Development Strategic Plan. Introduction by Mayor Nakamura.

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

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

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

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

Use sus auriculares para escuchar el audio o leer la transcipción en el dispositivo.
4 4. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the Consent Calendar before or during the City Council’s consideration of the Consent Calendar. Adoption of the Consent Calendar may be made by one motion of the City Council, provided that any Councilmember, individual or organization may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.

If a request for removal of an item from the Consent Calendar has been received, the Mayor may defer action on the particular item and place the same on the regular agenda for consideration in any order s/he deems appropriate. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Considering – approval of minutes from the February 10, 2026, Special and Regular Meetings. Recommended by the City Clerk.

5. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM
The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda before or during the City Council’s consideration of that item. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Considering – a Preliminary Application to provide preliminary and informal feedback on plans to redevelop the 59-acre former Coast Guard site (a.k.a.

Victory Village and Quinault Village) with an estimated 800 to 900 primary dwelling units at 3295 Haleakala Street (APN: 111-010-023; PRE25029).

Report by Frank Abejo, Principal Planner.

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

6. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
Persons who wish to speak on Public Hearings listed on the agenda will be heard when the public hearing is opened, except on public hearing items previously heard and closed to public comment.

After the public has commented, the item is closed to further public comment and brought to the Council level for discussion and action. Further comment from the audience will not be received unless requested by the Council. No public hearing shall commence after 10 p.m. unless approved by majority vote of the City Council. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Considering – the following actions to implement state law and Objective 8.6 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) of the 2023-2031 Housing Element:

1. Adoption of a Resolution amending the City’s General Plan Land Use Element; and

2. Introduction of an Ordinance amending the Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapters 18.15 (Zoning Districts and Zoning Map), 18.25 (Development and Land Use Approvals),

18.30 (Residential Districts), 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts), and 18.410 (Zoning Clearance), and adding Chapter 18.120 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District) and rezoning approximately 20 acres to apply the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. Report by Aaron Sage, Planning Manager.
5 CEQA: Statutorily exempt from CEQA Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.085, enacted by Senate Bill 131 (2025); and/or not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378.

7. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence received at the City Council meeting will be listed here on the Annotated Agenda. a. Letter to California Delegation re: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District - Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor (MABR) and Densified Activated Sludge (DAS) Bay Area Regional Wastewater Demonstration Site, FY2027 Community Project Funding Request - 2/10/2026

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

9. ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Regular Meeting
Date: 3/10/2026 6:30 PM

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

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

Economic Development
Strategic Plan Update

GUY BJERKE

DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & BASE REUSE
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
1 3.a3.a

Process for Developing EDSP
➢Technical Analyses
➢Stakeholder Focus Groups & Interviews
➢Housing & Economic Development Committee Meetings
➢2026-2029 Action Plan
➢Adopted by City Council of December 2, 2025
Plan can be found here: www.cityofconcord.org/EDBR
2

Overarching Goals

1. Provide exceptional services through expanded
partnership and capacity.

2. Enhance Concord’s business environment.

3. Establish a brand identity for Concord.
3

High Priority Issues

1. Office Vacancies and Reinvestment Needs

2. Activate Todos Santos Plaza and Surrounding Downtown Area

3. Improve Retail Occupancy and Performance

4. Identify and Target Specific Industry Sectors and Business Types
4

Target Industries
➢Health Care
➢Construction and Related Professional Services
➢Finance and Insurance
➢Innovation-Oriented Sectors
5

Priorities for
2026
• Create Economic Advisory Group (EAG)
• Explore Property Business Improvement District (PBID) in Downtown Concord • Establish Planning-Economic Development Working Group • Improve Gateways Ahead of Marketing
• Improve Class A Office Occupancy and Performance
• Improve Retail Occupancy and Performance
• Conduct Events Survey of Downtown Businesses and Stakeholders • Increase Collaboration with Visit Concord and Concord Chamber 6

Economic Advisory Group (EAG)
➢High-ranking members of tax generators, large employers and target industries
➢First meeting to be held in April
➢Seek feedback on ways to improve the local economy and input on City’s unfunded infrastructure needs.
7

Property-Based Business Improvement District
(PBID) for Downtown
➢Reviewing consulting team proposals
➢Work to begin April
8

Planning-Economic Development Working
Group
➢Internal staff coordination to address issues private sector identified as hurdles to locating businesses in Concord. ➢High-priority topics: industrial zoning, medical zoning, potential reuse of office buildings
➢First meeting scheduled in March
9

Gateways
10

Retail Occupancy and Performance
➢Prioritizing Bel Air, Vineyard, and Terminal Shopping
Centers
➢Will receive updates from brokers at ICSC@Monterey in
March
11

Class A Occupancy and Performance
➢In the process of visiting class A office buildings
➢Majority of new tenants are law and engineering firms
(smaller requirements)
➢Feedback – market strengths (freeway access, good
parking options, affordability)
➢Seek construction HQ’s and Back Office
➢Homeless-related issues/trespassing decreased in recent years.
12

Special Events Update
➢Downtown Events Business Survey currently in distribution ➢Music & Market is in it’s 38th year and attracting
sponsorship support and visitors to Todos Santos Plaza. ➢Very desirable booking for bands – season schedule to be released in mid-April.
➢SF Opera Bohème Out of the Box – April 25 & 26, 2026
13

Marketing Collaboration with Visit Concord and
Concord Chamber
➢Social media campaign and special event to highlight
Concord’s international dining scene is in the works!
14

Questions
15

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 2:23 PM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Robinson, Monique <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; O'Brien, Margaret <Margaret.O'[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Economic Impact Questions: Emerging Digital Payment Infrastructure

Hi Valerie

Just spoke to Monique, I’ve advised that it be placed on tonight’s meeting.

Let me know what else you need.

Thanks,

Jeanette Green
THINK SUCCESS!

Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 3.a
February 24, 2026

From: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:46 PM
To: Press Log Contact Jeanette Green <[email protected]> Cc: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Robinson, Monique <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; O'Brien, Margaret <Margaret.O'[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Economic Impact Questions: Emerging Digital Payment Infrastructure

Jeanette,
Thanks for writing in.

Is this e-mail in relation to the Economic Development Strategic Plan update that is on the Council agenda for tonight? If so, please respond that it is and our Clerk’s office will bench this e-mail chain to the agenda for this item so all Councilmembers and the public have access to it.

Yes, the City is monitoring the emerging digital financial infrastructure, in relation to our City operations and the business/economic development world. That being said, there is still a lot of unknowns on the topics you raise, so at this point a lot of this is about monitoring state and federal law and the marketplace.

Hope to see you tonight.

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

Subscribe to our City News e-newsletter to stay informed about what's happening in your community!

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 5:07 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie
<[email protected]>
Subject: Economic Impact Questions: Emerging Digital Payment Infrastructure Importance: High

Hello City Representatives,
I hope this message finds you well.

As the Concord Special Housing and Economic Development Committee continues to explore the expansion of the city growth/support small businesses and evaluate long-term economic competitiveness, I wanted to raise a few forward-looking questions regarding digital payment infrastructure and emerging financial technologies.

1. Is the City currently evaluating emerging digital financial infrastructure — such as digital identity systems or blockchain-based payment rails — and their potential impact on local commerce(local mom/pops business)?

2. If digital assets or stablecoin payments become more common among merchants, does the city have a plan to educate and protect small businesses regarding regulatory, tax, and cybersecurity considerations?

3. Has the City modeled the potential fiscal impact — positive or negative — that increased digital payment adoption could have on local tax revenue streams such as sales tax, business license fees, or transaction-based revenue?

4. Given that sales tax reporting and transaction visibility are core to municipal revenue, has the City evaluated how emerging digital payment systems might affect reporting accuracy, compliance, or collection efficiency?

5. If a material shift in payment methods were to occur over time, does Concord have an assessment of our revenue model exposure and what level of impact could be absorbed without affecting public services?

I would appreciate being included in any future discussions, workshops, or advisory conversations related to this topic. I believe early evaluation can help Concord remain both competitive and fiscally resilient.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thanks,

Jeanette Green
THINK SUCCESS!

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

CONCORD CITY COUNCIL

CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
1950 PARKSIDE DRIVE, WING A

CONCORD, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026
The Concord City Council met in a special meeting in the City Council Conference Room, located at 1950 Parkside Drive, Wing A, Concord, California at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, with Mayor Nakamura presiding and all Councilmembers present. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

No public comment was received.

A closed session was held on CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 2 Agency designated representatives: Valerie Barone, City Manager; Jasmin Loi, Director of Human Resources; Lisa Charbonneau, Esq., Liebert Cassidy Whitmore; Employee organizations: Peace Officer Representation Unit of Concord Police Officers Association and Police Managerial Representation Unit of Police Manager's Association and CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 Agency designated representatives: Valerie Barone, City Manager; Jasmin Loi, Director of Human Resources; Lisa Charbonneau, Esq., Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Employee organizations: Administrative, Technical & Clerical Representation Unit and Field & Operations Representation Unit of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 856 and Professional Representation Unit of OPEIU Local 29.

ADJOURNMENT
By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned on February 10, 2026, at 6:31 p.m.

LAURA M. NAKAMURA
MAYOR

JOELLE FOCKLER, MMC

CITY CLERK

4.a4.a

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

CONCORD CITY COUNCIL

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
1950 PARKSIDE DRIVE

CONCORD, CALIFORNIA AND VARIOUS

TELEPHONIC/ELECTRONIC LOCATIONS
TUESDAY, February 10, 2026
The Concord City Council met in a regular meeting in the Council Chamber, located at 1950 Parkside Drive and via various telephonic/electronic locations at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, with Mayor Nakamura presiding. The pledge of allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Aliano. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Dominic Aliano, Pablo Benavente, Laura Hoffmeister, Carlyn Obringer, Laura Nakamura
STAFF PRESENT: Valerie Barone, City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager; Joelle Fockler, City Clerk; Monique Robinson, Deputy City Clerk; Mark Bustillos, Chief of Police; Greg Taylor, Director of Information Technology; Margaret O’Brien, Director of Finance; Guy Bjerke, Director of Economic Development & Base Reuse; Mindy Gentry, Director of Community Development; James Nakayama, Police Captain; Kit Jory, Director of Public Works; Colleen Awad, Community Relations Manager; Suzanne McDonald, Financial Operations Manager; Ken Yee, Facilities Maintenance Manager; Jeff Rayos, Administrative Services Manager; Lisa Agustin, Budget Treasury Officer; Kylie Hicks-Carrera, Budget Analyst; Himmat Bains, Senior Financial Analyst; Jesse Crawford, Maintenance
Superintendent; James Thompson, Heavy Equipment Operator

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WHO ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL: Rai Diaz, Clayton Valley Charter High School; Sarah Sinclair, Clayton Valley Charter High School; Stephanie Vasquez,
Clayton Valley Charter High School; Kellan O’Connor, Devil Mountain Disc Golf Club; Jen Cazanov-Diggs, Devil Mountain Disc Golf Club; Elias Mitchell, Concord; Hunter Steven Plumley, Concord; Josh Sonneneld, Port Chicago Alliance; Smitty Ardrey, Bike Concord

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Rai Diaz, Sarah Sinclair, and Stephanie Vasquez, Clayton Valley Charter High School, shared details about the Wood Duck Boxes located at Newhall Park built by Clayton Valley Charter High School students.

Kellan O’Conner and Jenn Cazanov-Diggs, Devil Mountain Disc Golf Club, provided statistics on the usage of the Disc Golf course at Hillcrest Park.

Elias Mitchell, Concord, asked the City for one acre of land to build bike jumps for the children of the community.

Hunter Steven Plumley, Concord, expressed interest in having a community bike park.

City Council Minutes February 10, 2026
2 PRESENTATIONS
JAPANESE AMERICAN INCARCERATION DURING WORLD WAR II DAY – February 19, 2026 No public comment was received.

CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
No public comment was received.

APPROVE MINUTES – January 13, 2026, Regular Meeting
A motion was made by Benavente and seconded by Obringer to approve the minutes from the January 13, 2026, Regular Meeting. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 26-1 – Amending Title 18 (Development Code) to Increase Maximum Residential and Mixed-Use Building Heights
A motion was made by Benavente and seconded by Obringer to adopt Ordinance No. 26-1 entitled, “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).” Ordinance No. 26-1 was introduced on January 13, 2026, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

APPOINTMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY IRON HORSE CORRIDOR (IHC) MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Michael Maestas
A motion was made by Benavente and seconded by Obringer to recommend the appointment of Michael Maestas to serve as Concord’s Representative on the Contra Costa County Iron Horse Corridor (IHC) Management Program Advisory Committee for a four-year term ending January 31, 2030. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ACCEPT ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT – Independent Auditors Report This item was pulled from consideration from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Hoffmeister.

No public comment was received.

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Benavente to accept the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report with the Independent Auditors’ Report and Required Communications Letter for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION CALENDAR
THURGOOD MARSHALL/HOME OF THE PORT CHICAGO 50 PARK PRESENTATION - East Bay Regional Park District
City Manager Barone introduced East Bay Regional Park District Ward 6 Board Member John Mercurio, who announced f the project and then turned the presentation over to Government & Legislative Affairs Division Lead Erich Pfuehlert, who presented on project background, timeline, and funding.

City Council Minutes February 10, 2026
3 Public comment was provided by:

Josh Sonnenfeld, Port Chicago Alliance
Smitty Ardrey, Bike Concord
A motion was made by Obringer and seconded by Aliano to sign onto an advocacy letter to Senator Grayson advocating for $8 million toward the Thurgood Marshall Regional Park Home of the Port Chicago 50 located south of Bailey Road. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

FISCAL YEARS 2025-26 AND 2026-2027 MID-YEAR BUDGET UPDATE Margaret O’Brien, Director of Finance, presented the staff report.

No public comment was received.

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Benavente to adopt Resolution No. 26-4 entitled, “A Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2025-26 and 2026-27 Municipal Budgets.” The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Benavente to adopt Resolution No. 26- 4735.1 entitled, “A Resolution Adopting the City of Concord’s Salary Schedule Effective January 1, 2026, in Accordance with the Requirements of California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) for a Publicly Available Pay Schedule.” The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council

CORRESPONDENCE
a. Agenda Item 2.a – Written Public Comment
b. Agenda Item 2.a – Hillcrest Park Disc Golf statistics provided by Jenn Cazanov-Diggs at the meeting
c. Agenda Item 2.a – Community Bike Park information provided by Hunter Plumley at the meeting d. Agenda Item 5.a – PowerPoint Presentation
e. Agenda Item 5.b – PowerPoint Presentation
f. Agenda Item 2.a – Community Bike Park information provided by Hunter Plumley at the meeting

COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmembers shared information on events and activities in which they had participated since the last meeting and commented on items of interest.

ADJOURNMENT
By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned on February 10, 2026, at 8:20 p.m.

LAURA M. NAKAMURA
MAYOR

JOELLE FOCKLER, MMC

CTY CLERK

Staff Report
Date: February 24, 2026
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Mindy Gentry, Director of Community Development Aaron Sage, Planning Manager
Prepared by: Frank Abejo, Principal Planner
[email protected]
(925) 671-3128
Subject: Considering a Preliminary Application to provide preliminary and informal feedback on plans to redevelop the 59-acre former Coast Guard site (a.k.a. Victory Village and Quinault Village) with an estimated 800 to 900 primary dwelling units at 3295 Haleakala Street (APN: 111-010-023; PRE25029).

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

Report in Brief
In June 2021 and January 2025, the City Council (“Council”) conducted Study Sessions on concepts to renovate or redevelop the 59-acre former Coast Guard property at 3295 Haleakala Street, hereafter referred to as the “Property.” The Property currently contains 366 vacant military housing units, including 286 apartment units and 80 duplex units configured as single-family residences.

On November 14, 2025, Eddie Haddad and Georges Maalouf (“Applicant”) submitted a Preliminary Application for a new development concept that would demolish the existing 366 units and construct an estimated 800 to 900 dwelling units (not including the proposed accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”)). The current concept plan shows 940 total dwelling units, comprised of 812 single-family homes (403 townhomes and 409 detached homes), 56 ADUs, and 72 deed-restricted affordable multifamily units (this concept plan

5.a5.a5.a5.a5.a5.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
is referred to herein as the “Project”). The unit count is anticipated to change prior to the formal application being submitted to account for further refinement of the Project design.

The purpose of this Study Session is to allow the Council the opportunity to provide the Applicant with information and input to consider before submitting a formal application for the Project. More specifically, the Applicant’s primary objective for this Study Session is to receive overall guidance from the City Council as to the broad land use vision of the Project, and regarding the following four topics:

1. Density;

2. Housing types and mix;

3. Affordable housing strategy; and

4. Community benefits.

Council is not making any decisions on the Project during this study session. Council’s feedback only indicates how the application should move forward, is not a declaration of Council’s position on the Project, and is in no way indicative of Council’s future deliberation on or approval, modification, or denial of the Project. Additional information, including the complete formal application, environmental analyses, and Design Review Board and Planning Commission recommendations, and a public hearing process are necessary for the Council to make an informed and final decision on the Project.

Recommended Action
Consider the Preliminary Application and provide preliminary and informal feedback on plans to redevelop the 59-acre former Coast Guard site with an estimated 800 to 900 primary dwelling units at 3295 Haleakala Street (APN: 111-010-023; PRE25029).

Background
Please refer to Attachment 1 for relevant Property information and the history of proposals prior to the current Preliminary Application.

The Applicant has submitted a project narrative (Attachment 2) and conceptual site plan (Attachment 3 and Figure 1) for the Council’s review, and is seeking feedback on the four topics mentioned above, which are discussed in greater detail in the “Project Description and Analysis” section below.

On January 7, 2026, the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) provided the Applicant with comments on formal application requirements and Project design issues. These comments are provided in Attachment 4 and summarized in the Project Description and Analysis section below. The Applicant acknowledges that detailed site planning work -- including responses to staff's January 7, 2026, preliminary comment letter -- will be addressed as part of the formal application package and therefore, the Project is likely to evolve before returning to the Council for a formal decision.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
Unlike most housing developments, the Council has significant discretion over the Project because it requires legislative approvals for a general plan amendment, rezoning, and a development agreement. Through a development agreement, the Council is allowed greater latitude to advance planning policies and may agree to varied standards for the site than otherwise applicable zoning and land use standards. This could include alternative compliance methods for certain requirements, such as inclusionary housing. The development agreement also provides the opportunity for Council to require community benefits or additional design concepts for the Project.

Additionally, the Project would require a tentative subdivision map, planned development use permit, design and site review, and tree removal permit, and may require other approvals, depending on the scope of the formal proposal. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an environmental impact report is anticipated as the appropriate level of environmental review for the Project but will not occur until a formal application is submitted.

Project Description and Analysis
While previous proposals submitted by the Applicant maintained the two existing village concepts (the northern “Quinault Village” and the southern “Victory Village”) and had separately designed areas with different development timelines, the current Project concept proposes to redevelop the entire site as a single, integrated development to be constructed in phases. The site plan (see Figure 1 below) is organized around a north- south road “spine” bisected by a network of smaller streets and alleys that access homes and open space amenities. Access is provided via the Property’s three existing driveways: two in the southern portion on East Olivera Road (where Victory Village1 is currently located) and one in the northern portion at Hamilton Avenue (where Quinault Village2 is currently located).
1 “Victory Village” refers to the 286-unit (multifamily) former Coast Guard housing occupying the southern portion of the site. This report occasionally uses this term to refer to the southern portion of the Project site. 2 “Quinault Village” refers to the 80-unit (duplexes) former Coast Guard housing occupying the northern portion of the site. This report occasionally uses this term to refer to the northern portion of the Project site.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
Figure 1: Conceptual Master Plan
The Applicant proposes four major open spaces throughout the Project: an elliptical park at the southern end, rectangular and triangular parks near the middle, and a long, linear park along the northern “panhandle” of the Property. Numbers and locations of the various housing types are discussed under “Housing Types and Mix” below.

The following discussion is organized around the four key topics on which the Applicant has requested Council feedback.

The first two topics, density and housing type and mix, are discussed separately, but are inherently connected because housing type largely determines the number of units on a given site. For example, if a developer constructs single-family detached homes, each unit typically requires a larger lot size, resulting in a lower overall density. If the same site instead uses townhomes or small-lot detached units, the land can accommodate more homes, increasing the achievable density. Any changes to the overall density could impact the Project’s housing type/mix and vice versa.

A. Density
The current General Plan land use designation is Military (M), and the zoning designations are Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) and Study (S). Residential development of the site requires a general plan amendment and rezoning to accommodate civilian housing.

N

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
The Project, as currently proposed, would have an estimated density of at least 15 dwelling units3 per acre (du/ac).4 It is important to note this would be consistent with the Medium Density Residential (MDR) General Plan designation and Residential Medium Density (RM) zoning district, which permit a range of 11 to 32 du/ac. The proposed housing types are also consistent with the MDR designation and RM district. The MDR designation and RM district are the only existing options that would allow both the density and housing types proposed by the Project.

Density Considerations

1. Traffic
Density is a primary driver of traffic, and approximately 900 new dwelling units will increase traffic on Olivera Road5. Anticipated traffic levels and necessary improvements will be studied as part of the formal application review.

Improvements will likely include signalization at the Project entry on Olivera Road and downstream intersections and the widening of Olivera Road.

2. Regional Transportation Funding
The Project site is located adjacent to the North Concord/Martinez Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, within an area subject to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) Transit Oriented Communities Policy (TOC Policy). The TOC Policy establishes various eligibility criteria for future regional transportation funds, including the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program. Among these criteria is an average minimum required density of 50 du/ac for properties zoned for residential or mixed uses within one-half mile of a BART station (referred to below as “TOC Properties”), excluding properties already developed with residential uses.

Although the proposed Project density would not meet the above criterion, under MTC’s current draft TOC Policy/OBAG scoring rubric, Concord is still anticipated to score in the highest overall compliance level due to meeting other components of the TOC Policy, including work that is in progress which requires Council approval. However, MTC’s scoring rubric has not been finalized and is subject to future changes for each funding cycle. For the Project to help increase the City’s TOC Policy score further (e.g., to provide a 3 The Development Code calculates density based on net lot area (excluding roads, easements, etc.). This calculation is based on the gross site area because the Applicant has not yet provided the net lot area. The proposed density will likely increase substantially after calculating the net lot area and making other design modifications, as discussed in “Other Issues to be Addressed with the Formal Application.” 4 Pursuant to state law, the ADUs have been excluded from the density calculation. 5 Although the site contains existing military residential units, they have been vacant and have not generated traffic for over five years. Accordingly, to provide an accurate comparison between proposed and existing traffic conditions, the City’s traffic analysis guidelines do not allow trip generation credit for the existing units and all Project traffic would be evaluated as net new.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
buffer in case MTC’s final scoring rubric reduces the City’s score), the Project site would need to be rezoned to at least 60-70 du/ac. This is because TOC Properties near the North Concord/Martinez BART station generally have land use designations with minimum densities well below the 50 du/ac minimum, and therefore the Project site would need to be well over that threshold to bring the average minimum density for these TOC Properties up to 50 du/ac or greater.

The following questions are offered for Council consideration and discussion on density during the study session:

1. Does the Council support the overall concept of developing the site with up to 900 units (not including ADUs) and the housing types proposed (discussed further in the next section)?

2. Does Council support the proposed density of approximately 15 du/ac given that the TOC Policy encourages a higher density of transit-oriented development for the Property?
B. Housing Types and Mix
As noted above, the current Project contemplates 800 to 900 dwelling units, plus ADUs. The current concept shows 940 total dwelling units, comprised of the following housing types:
• 403 three-story townhomes, generally located around or near the elliptical park, along the east side of the linear park, and along East Olivera Road. • 409 two- and three-story detached homes, generally located along the Property’s perimeter and near the elliptical park. Most of these homes would be three stories on 1,700 square-foot lots; the remainder would be two stories on 2,500 square-foot lots. The 2,500 square-foot lots with the two-story units would primarily be located adjacent to the Holbrook Heights neighborhood and at the southeast boundary of the Property adjacent to the former Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) site.
• 56 “studio-type” ADUs ranging in size from 400 to 600 square feet with 48 of the ADUs to be located on the bottom story of the two-story homes on 2,500 square-foot lots. The remaining eight ADUs would be offered as an option to buyers of other detached homes and scattered throughout the Project.
• 72 deed-restricted affordable multifamily units within three buildings at the southern end of the site along East Olivera Road. The Applicant has not specified heights or configurations for these buildings.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
Housing Types and Mix Consideration
As required by state law, ADUs are allowed to be added to any of the Project’s units, including the multifamily units. As noted above, ADUs are not counted toward density, and they may be constructed by the individual property owners after the Project is built. As a result, the total number of units on the site could ultimately exceed what the Applicant is currently proposing.

The majority of the housing types would provide for ownership opportunities while also expanding the variety of housing types within Concord (which primarily consists of detached single family homes and apartments).

The following questions are offered for Council consideration and discussion on housing types and unit mix during the study session:

1. Is the Council satisfied with the proposed housing types and mix, or does it wish to add other housing types such as more “missing middle” (i.e., duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and bungalows) housing6?

2. Should the apartments include units with a higher bedroom count (i.e., three or four bedrooms) to provide increased rental housing opportunities for families?
C. Affordable Housing
The Applicant’s affordable housing proposal consists of 72 deed-restricted rental apartment units and 56 non-deed-restricted ADUs, that may be rented. This proposal does not meet the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance (“Ordinance”) as discussed below.

The required percentage of inclusionary units is based on the number of market- rate rental and/or ownership units proposed by the Project. Because all of the proposed market-rate units are ownership units, only the following inclusionary percentage requirement applies:
• Fifteen percent of the total ownership units shall be inclusionary ownership units distributed evenly between low- and moderate-income households (i.e., 7.5 percent of total units for each income category7). 6 Missing middle housing refers to housing alternatives to lower density detached single-family homes and higher density apartments that provide housing options along the spectrum of affordability. Housing types commonly associated with middle missing housing include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and bungalows. 7 CMC 18.185.040

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
Additionally, the Ordinance requires inclusionary units to be:
• Deed restricted to ensure long-term affordability at the specified household income levels;
• Dispersed throughout a project with access to all on-site amenities for market-rate units;
• Constructed with the same quality and exterior design as the market-rate units8;
• The same average number of bedrooms as the market-rate units; and • Constructed and occupied prior to or concurrently with the market-rate units. For phased projects, inclusionary units at each affordability level must be constructed and occupied in proportion to the total number of units in each phase.

Based on the City’s adopted inclusionary requirements, 122 (15 percent) of the proposed 812 ownership units are required to be deed-restricted ownership units, thereby reducing the number of market-rate units to 690. The Applicant’s proposal does not comply with the Ordinance in a number of ways:
• The apartment units are rental rather than ownership. • The Ordinance does not allow for ADUs to be utilized to meet the inclusionary requirements. Additionally, because the ADUs are not deed- restricted, long-term affordability cannot be guaranteed or enforced. • While unit sizes have not been specified, based on recent development trends, the apartment units and ADUs would almost certainly be smaller on average than the Project’s ownership units.
• Other than the eight “optional” ADUs dispersed throughout the Project, the apartment units and ADUs would be concentrated in specific locations rather than dispersed throughout the Project.
• Rather than setting aside 122 (15 percent) of the 812 ownership units as inclusionary units and providing 690 market-rate units, the Applicant is proposing an alternative affordable housing plan that adds 72 apartments and 56 ADUs (128 units) to the 812 market-rate homes, thereby increasing the total units in the project and decreasing the effective percentage of inclusionary units below what is normally required by the Ordinance. It is also important to keep in mind that the 128 proposed units are rental units that would typically be smaller in size than the 122 ownership units called 8 Inclusionary units may be smaller in unit and lot size by 15 percent of the average square footage of the market-rate units and lot and have alternative interior finishes.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
for by the Ordinance. This project proposes selling a parcel to a multifamily affordable housing provider, who can make use of government-subsidized financing to buy the property, as a means for providing restricted affordable housing as an alternative to complying with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. However, it is within the Council’s purview to allow the proposed alternative approach through a development agreement.

Affordable Housing Considerations

1. Alternative Inclusionary Housing Proposal
As discussed above, no deed-restricted ownership units are proposed to meet the Project’s inclusionary requirements, which does not advance the Council’s goal of providing more affordable ownership housing in the City. Additionally, the proposed rental apartments and ADUs deviate from several requirements necessary to qualify as inclusionary units under the City’s Ordinance including location, deed-restriction, and likely size. The Applicant has not yet provided information on depth of affordability, unit sizes, and design to fully evaluate the proposal.

The Ordinance does allow for an off-site inclusionary housing alternative at a ratio of two units for each inclusionary unit that is not provided on-site, for a total of 244 off-site units if the Project does not have any on-site inclusionary units.

The Ordinance also allows for an in-lieu fee to be paid for fractional ownership units on smaller projects consisting of five to nine homes. While the in-lieu fee doesn’t apply to this Project per the Ordinance, staff has provided an estimated range of the inclusionary fee amounts, as determined using the City’s adopted ordinance, for reference to assist the Council with evaluating the Applicant’s proposal. The in-lieu fee could range from $40,000 to $60,000 per market-rate unit or $32.5 million to $48.7 million in total if the Project contains no ownership on-site inclusionary units9.

As noted earlier, through a development agreement, the Council can, but is not compelled to, allow an alternative affordable housing plan that deviates from the Ordinance. For example, the Council could determine that due to the scale and nature of the Project, the strict application of the Ordinance is not appropriate and instead consider alternative solutions, such as:
9Due to limited Project information on unit sizes, staff approximated unit sizes to range between 2,000 to 3,000 square feet gross floor area (including garage) based on comparable completed or approved projects (e.g., Villa De La Vista, Penny Lane, Villas at Walters Way, Buttonwood, etc.). Multiplying the ownership in- lieu fee of $20 per gross square foot amounts to approximately $40K-$60K per unit or $32.5M-$48.7M total.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
a) Accept the 72 deed-restricted rental units and 56 non-deed-restricted ADUs proposed by the Applicant;
b) Require a portion of the ownership units less than the Ordinance mandated 15 percent requirement be deed-restricted inclusionary units; c) Require an in-lieu fee in an amount equal to or less than the Ordinance’s established value;
d) Require construction of off-site affordable units in an amount less than the Ordinance requirement; and
e) Replace the 72-unit multifamily project with ownership inclusionary units.

2. ADU Affordability
The Applicant has indicated that the proposed ADUs will provide their owners with rental income to help offset their mortgages, thereby helping make these properties more affordable to their future owners. However, the ADU option could also result in higher sales prices and non-rented ADUs by providing a desirable separate unit for extended family, guests, home offices, etc. Both outcomes are feasible and staff is unaware of any studies that indicate which outcome is more likely.

3. Timing of Multifamily Project
As mentioned above, the Applicant has not provided information on the depth of affordability, sizes, and design of the deed-restricted rental units. This information will not likely be known until an affordable housing developer is identified to construct the multifamily project after the Project has been entitled and the development agreement finalized. Therefore, the Council may want to consider addressing its expectations and timeframe for the deed-restricted units as part of a future development agreement.

4. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Based on current guidance from the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), a portion of non-deed-restricted ADUs may be counted toward the RHNA on cities’ annual progress reports to HCD10.

However, HCD’s guidance on this matter has shifted several times in recent years, and state ADU law continues to evolve due to frequent legislative actions. Therefore, as a conservative approach, staff recommends that ADUs in the Project be assumed not to count toward the City’s RHNA. 10 If a jurisdiction doesn’t have its own methodology for determining the level of affordability for ADUs, the current guidance is 30-30-30-10, respectively, for very low, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income households.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
The following questions are offered for Council consideration and discussion on affordability during the study session:

1. Is the Applicant’s affordable housing plan of 72 deed-restricted rentals and 56 non-deed-restricted ADUs an acceptable alternative to providing 122 of the 812 single-family homes as ownership inclusionary units? Or does the Council desire another alternative?

2. What are the Council’s expectations and timeframe for the deed-restricted units?
D. Community Benefits
The Applicant understands the Council’s previously provided feedback regarding the need for community benefits and is seeking confirmation that the focus of their financial support for community benefits should be located within the immediate vicinity of the Property. After the Applicant develops a pro forma based on a more detailed plan on the housing type mix and the inclusionary housing component, staff will engage a consultant to provide real estate advisory services to the City to assist in evaluating the appropriate level of community benefits the Project can support while retaining financial feasibility.

The following question is offered for Council consideration and discussion on community benefits during the study session:

1. Where should community benefits be provided by the Project? E. Other Issues to be Addressed with the Formal Application Attachment 4 provides additional issues that were not included in the Preliminary Application and that the Applicant acknowledges needs to be addressed as part of the formal application for the Council’s eventual consideration. The Council is welcome to comment on any specific issues related to these items or any other items not discussed in this report.

Summary of Feedback Sought
To summarize, the Applicant and/or staff are requesting feedback from Council on the following questions:

1. Does the Council support the overall concept of developing the site with up to 900 units (not including ADUs) and the housing types proposed?

2. Does the Council support the proposed density of approximately 15 du/ac considering the TOC Policy encourages a higher density transit-oriented development for the Property?

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026

3. Is the Council satisfied with the proposed housing types and mix, or does it wish to add other housing types such as “missing middle” (i.e., duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and bungalows) housing?

4. Should the apartments include units with a higher bedroom count (i.e., three or four bedrooms) to provide increased rental housing opportunities for families?

5. Is the Applicant’s affordable housing plan of 72 deed-restricted rentals and 56 non-deed-restricted ADUs an acceptable alternative to providing 122 of the 812 single-family homes as ownership inclusionary units? Or does the Council desire another alternative?

6. What are the Council’s expectations and timeframe for the deed-restricted units?

7. Where should community benefits be provided by the Project?

8. Is there any other feedback the Council wants to provide on issues that were not discussed in this report?
Financial Impact
There is no fiscal impact for this Study Session. Fiscal impacts of any project ultimately proposed will be evaluated as part of the project review.

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 Study Session discussion does 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 does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment as it does not commit the City to a definite course of action nor are any decisions being made with respect to the 59-acre Property. Even if this activity did constitute a project under CEQA, it falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. 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….”. Appropriate CEQA analysis will occur in connection with formal applications for the Property. Therefore, this Study Session does not warrant further environmental review. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website. Notification was mailed to all owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the Property at least 10 days prior to the public hearing, and the item has been published in the East Bay Times. This item has also been posted at the subject site at least 10 days prior to

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.a
February 24, 2026
the public hearing. In addition, the notice was provided to the Holbrook Heights Homeowners Association and the CNWS interested party list via e-mail.

Attachments

1. Project History and Property Information

2. Project Narrative/Applicant’s Statement

3. Concept Plan

4. January 7, 2026, DAC Comment Letter

HISTORY AND PROPERTY INFORMATION
History
Transfer of Property to Coast Guard (2007)
As part of federal-to-federal agency transfers under the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC), the U.S. Navy transferred from the former Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). The USCG used the existing military housing units on this property to house enlisted personnel who worked on Coast Guard Island in Alameda until 2014 when they vacated the buildings. The existing housing had been constructed in two phases: Quinault Village (80 duplex units built in 1965 on the northern portion of the Property) and Victory Village (206 multifamily housing units built between 1988-89 on the southern portion of the Property).

Coast Guard Site Background (2017-2021)
The former Coast Guard site planning was developed (in coordination with the first master developer) with significant community oversight and input, and included key aspects designed to: 1) assist in alleviating the State’s housing crisis, 2) achieve an adequate number of housing units to accommodate the City’s RHNA numbers, 3) support a sustainable growth pattern, and 4) provide alternatives to single vehicle car trips by supporting BART ridership numbers within the one-half mile radius of the North Concord BART Station,1 and provide support for the adjacent BART site with the implementation of Assembly Bill 29232. Provisions were made for affordability and housing preferences (seniors and veterans), open space, parks, bicycle and pedestrian access, as well as offsite improvements.

The Coast Guard Property was included in the land use plans prepared by the former master developer (Lennar/FivePoint) of the Concord Naval Weapon Station. A land use diagram detailing the intended use of the Coast Guard Property and the former base was prepared based on the master developer’s assessment of market feasibility and reviewed by staff beginning in early 2017. The land use diagram was also vetted and revised based upon community input at numerous neighborhood and community meetings as well as the Community Advisory Committee meetings through 2018. On August 22, 2018, the City Council considered the land use diagram and directed that a Draft Specific Plan be prepared based on this land use diagram. The development contemplated by the Draft Specific Plan included:
• 800 new units on the Property
• High density nearest to the BART station gradually decreasing to medium density to the south with a green buffer along the western edge and between the villages.
1 The Station is referenced as “Long Term” for development within BART’s TOD Program Work Plan; 2024 Update, August 2024.
2 AB 2923 refers to state legislation that on September 30, 2018, Governor Brown signed, that affects zoning requirements on existing BART-owned property within ½ mile of BART. AB2923 includes provisions for TOD zoning standards and development streamlining.

Attachment 1

• Bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular access via a street and trail network that linked to BART and the Concord Reuse Project open space network.

On September 25, 2018, as part of the master developer selection process for the Coast Guard Property, the City Council reviewed and considered four proposals from interested developers. DeNova Homes was selected as the master developer and entered into negotiations with the City on an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for development of the site in coordination with offering a bid to the General Services Administration (GSA) to purchase the Property.

The development concept that was proposed by DeNova contemplated affordable housing units for seniors, veterans, and families with some units at or below 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). The conceptual unit breakdown, which ranged from a total of 745 to 800 units (density of 19.7-21 du/net acre), contemplated by DeNova included:
• 170-185 Affordable Multifamily rental housing units
• 270-280 Market Rate Multifamily units (ownership and rentals) • 130-150 Market Rate Townhome Row ownership houses
• 175-185 Small lot, market rate single-family detached ownership units with five units being dedicated to a non-profit, Home Aid Northern California/Contra Costa County Veterans (who would own and operate these five units).

Other public benefits stated in the submittal included a trail system, park/open space (15 acres) improvements (on and off site), bike trails, offsite improvements to Willow Pass Community Park, and exploration of Innovative Transportation Solutions and Technology 2 concepts.

Although the City provided an initial and revised offer to the GSA to purchase the Property, the GSA declined the City’s offer, in favor of pursuing a public sale. On September 10, 2020, to facilitate the sale of the Property, the GSA published an Invitation for Bids and commenced a public auction on October 15, 2020, with a starting minimum bid of $15 million. Prior to the publication of GSA’s Invitation for Bids, the City had posted a variety of information on the City’s website, specific to the Coast Guard site including the City’s goals for the property, existing General Plan and zoning designations, the anticipated entitlement path, prior redevelopment diagrams/analysis and ARUP and other technical memos regarding utilities which were available to all bidders and which was also linked to the GSA’s Invitation for Bids. In addition, similar information was provided to the new owners during the 5-month auction, via e-mail on December 9, 2020, and during a conference call requested with staff in December 2020/January 2021.

On March 3, 2021, after almost 5 months, a final bidder was successful in outbidding other interested parties for the Property with a final bid of $58.4 million. Following the conclusion of the auction, the GSA opened escrow and a 90-day closing period was established for the two parties to complete the necessary documents and close the transaction.

Prior Preliminary Applications (2021 – 2025)
In June 2021, the Applicant closed escrow on the Property and submitted a Preliminary Application to renovate the existing 286 on-site units. A City Council Study Session was held to provide direction to the Applicant on the following concepts to develop the Property: 1) renovate the existing 286 units at both Quinault and Victory Villages as rental units; 2) redevelopment of both Villages for up to 800 units through a variety of medium and high-density units as envisioned by the administrative draft of the Concord Reuse Project (CRP) Specific Plan (the Specific Plan was never adopted); and 3) phased development allowing for renovation of existing Victory Village units followed by subsequent phases to redevelop Quinault Village for an estimated project total of up to 1,180 units. The Council direction from the June 2021 study session indicated that they did not support a renovation of the entire project and were interested in seeing a phased redevelopment of both Villages, consistent with concept #3.

Between July 2021 – September 2024, Staff responded to a number of requests from the Applicant, including pre-submittal consultation meetings and a determination that the project did not qualify as an SB 330/Builders Remedy application.

In October 2024, Applicant submitted a revised Preliminary Application for a total of 708 units that included renovating the existing 206 units at Victory Village and redeveloping Quinault Village. Shortly thereafter, the Applicant modified the plans to increase the total unit count to 714 units, which includes 508 townhomes in Quinault Village, and submitted Development Agreement terms or negotiation points.

In January 2025, the City Council conducted a Study Session on the Preliminary Application where the Applicant presented new information on the project that was not analyzed in the staff report. The Council continued the meeting to allow staff to analyze this information and requested the Applicant develop a more concrete plan or approach to major issues such as community benefits and affordable housing. The City Council also received comments from the public primarily with respect to traffic and hiring a local workforce to construct the project.

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
Building Code Compliance
Because the military does not have to comply with local building code requirements, staff cannot determine if the units were built to California Building Code (CBC) standards at the time of their construction. In June 2021, the City’s Building Division conducted a site visit at which time a sampling of units was inspected for health and safety items under the current CBC and reviewed for any items considered substandard or dangerous, which the City can require to be corrected. The visit was conducted to assist the owners in understanding the scope of work of the renovation and prioritizing the work that will be necessary if approval is granted for renovating Victory Village.

Phase 1 Studies
The Property was inspected in 2014 in anticipation of its transfer, and Phase 1 studies were prepared by TetraTech evaluating the environmental conditions of each village.

Findings from the Phase 1 evaluation of note included the following:
• In Victory Village, asbestos was found in the building materials. • Possible munitions and unexploded ordinance of concern found at the southern boundary of the site (adjacent to the old airfield site). • In Quinault Village, asbestos and lead hazards were identified in both the interior and exterior of the buildings as well as pesticide contamination.

The study recommended that, upon transfer of the Property, the deed contain a restriction that would advise against children or pets disturbing the soil and that no digging or planting occur near foundations. Both reports recommend that subsequent owners search for contamination and coordinate these efforts with the Navy based upon the remediation of the CNWS.

Pipeline Easements
Easements accommodating three high-pressure oil pipelines run through the site, between the two villages from the CNWS to East Olivera Road. The easements were granted in 1956, 1957, and 1969 to Union Oil Company, Southern Pacific Pipelines, and Getty Oil Company. These pipelines are active and currently operated by Phillips 66 Pipeline, Kinder Morgan/SFPP, and Shell Pipeline. The pipelines are “intrastate pipeline facilities”, which pursuant to Government Code Section 51010, the State Fire Marshall exercises exclusive safety regulatory and enforcement authority. Federal law states that “no pipeline may be located within 50 feet of any private dwelling, any industrial building or place of public assembly in which persons work, congregate, or assemble, unless it is provided with at least 4 feet of cover.”
Victory Village and Quinault Village Housing
The Property consists of two villages on a total of approximately 59.4 acres, with approximately 33.6 acres for Quinault Village and approximately 25.8 acres for Victory Village. The properties were developed for housing as follows:

Quinault Village (northern village). 40 duplex buildings constructed in 1965 (80 housing units).
• 3 bedroom, 2 bath (64) and 4 bedroom, 2 bath (16) units. • Unit sizes ranging 1,059 to 1,245 square feet
• Each unit includes one single-car carport
• Community center and tot lot playground amenities
Victory Village (southern village). 42 apartment style buildings (206 units) including two- and four-bedroom units constructed in 1989. All apartments are configured in four-plex or six-plex buildings.
• 2 bedroom, 1 bath units (168)

• 4 bedroom, 2 bath units (38 total; 30 townhouse style and 8 side-by-side units).
• Units range from 968-992 square feet (2 BR) and 1,960 to 1,984 square feet (4 BR)
• Each unit includes one single car garage, the 4-bedroom units have two single-car garages.
• Small playground, basketball court, horseshoe pit, and RV storage amenities

Page | 1
November 14, 2025
City of Concord

Community & Economic Development Department
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Re: Concord Townsquare Development – Project Narrative
The following project narrative describes the proposed project located on the former Coast
Guard Property in Concord, California.

Narrative of Conceptual Land Use Vision
The project site is comprised of 2 parcels on the former Coast Guard Property, approximately 59 gross acres. The site is currently zoned Military and consists of 286 residential units across the two parcels, Quinault Village to the north and Victory Village to the south .

The overall conceptual land use vision for the contemplated Concord Townsquare Development Project (the “Project”) is envisioned as a cluster of high -quality, thoughtfully- designed housing units along with related improvements and amenities to be redeveloped on the former Coast Guard site (“Project Site”).

The proposed redevelopment of the Project Site is currently in the preliminary stage of overall “visioning”. At such time as the City Council indicates preliminary support for the land use vision, the applicant team will then proceed to the next stage of t he design and entitlement process: evaluating and preparing detailed site/building, circulation, infrastructure, park/open space/landscape plans and designs. The foregoing will be reflected in a tentative subdivision map and related materials to be submitt ed as part of the subsequent formal development application process for the City’s consideration. Accordingly, given the preliminary nature of these materials, the below description is intended to reflect the general parameters of the contemplated redevelo pment as shown in the attached Concept Plan, which will be further defined/refined as part of the tentative mapping and related entitlement process.

In summary, the Concept Plan for
the Project Site presents a thoughtful and evolving vision for a vibrant, inclusive community that blends diverse housing types with meaningful open space, all while respecting the surrounding neighborhood context. While still in early stages, the plan outlines a flexible yet intentional framework that prioritizes livability, environmental responsibility, and community connection.

At the heart of this 59 -acre redevelopment —formerly Quinault & Victory Villages— is a network of strategically integrated parks and green spaces designed as the social centerpiece of the community. This plan reflects Hamilton’s holistic approach to community design, with a central park and town square -like setting where residents can gather, celebrate, and connect. Central green spaces and secondary open space may serve multiple functions , as appropriate, while also integrating gathering areas, passive and active recreational amenities, and a shared bike and pedestrian trail connecting Olivera to BART, reinforcing walkability and everyday interaction. Additionally, a substantial landscaped linear green wall along the northwestern edge of the Project Site will serve as a natural buffer to the nearby residences Attachment 2

Page | 2

maintaining privacy and harmony with existing neighborhoods as well as serving as an acoustical buffer.

For a community of roughly 800 to 900 homes, consisting of a mix of three- story townhomes and detached small lot/zero lot line homes to apartments and duplexes, this Project is designed as a walkable, multi- generational community that supports a range of lifestyles and income levels. These gathering places play an essential role in shaping a shared identity. They encourage neighbors to meet naturally, children to play safely, and the community, as a whole , to grow together. This emphasis on open space, cultural sustainability, and thoughtful design ensures the project will contribute meaningfully to Concord’s continued growth — creating a welcoming, enduring neighborhood that feels both new and familiar from the moment it is built.

Along with the market-rate single-family detached, duplex and townhome units,1 the land use vision contemplates an innovative approach to affordable housing, wherein the Project would include deed-restricted rental units in an apartment complex along Olivera (to be reserved for eligible lower income households) as well as non -deed restricted duplex units to provide “missing middle” housing.

Project Benefits

The Project would result in numerous benefits for the City and its residents. These benefits would include, among others:

 The thoughtful and comprehensive redevelopment of a long -vacant, urban infill site near BART, major transportation corridors, and the adjacent Naval Weapons Station site.

 The provision of a substantial amount of high -quality, diverse, and affordable housing options within the City, which would help the City achieve its RHNA obligations to serve a wide range of economic segments in the Concord community.

 The development, operation and maintenance of substantial parks, open spaces, playgrounds, and picnic areas for active and passive recreational and social activities.

1 The Concept Plan currently reflects an approximately 50-50 split between the market rate single-family detached units and townhomes, although that mix will likely ultimately be further modified/refined as part of the tentative map process, taking into appropriate account market and other considerations.

E O L I V E R A R D
L o r e m I p s u m
5 9 . 4 0 G R O S S A C R E S
1 4 . 8 8 D U / G R . A C
- T O W N H O M E S / D U P L E X E S / S I N G L E F A M I L Y H O M E S : M I X O F 2 A N D 3 L E V E L S , A L L E Y L O A D E D R E S I D E N C E S . - A F F O R D B A L E H O U S I N G , E S T I M A T E D T O B E 1 2 8 U N I T S I N T O T A L , W I L L B E P R O V I D E D T H R O U G H 7 2 A P A R T M E N T U N I T S A N D 5 6 D U P L E X U N I T S W I T H I N T H E O V E R A L L P R O J E C T .

A L L C O U N T S A N D A R E A S A R E A P P R O X I M A T E .

C O N C E P T P L A N I N T E N D E D T O R E F L E C T T H E P R E L I M I N A R Y V I S I O N O F

T H E O V E R A L L P R O J E C T L A Y O U T F R O M A L O T T I N G / D E N S I T Y S T A N D P O I N T ,

A N D I S A N T I C I P A T E D T O B E R E F I N E D F U R T H E R A S P A R T O F T H E E N T I T L E M E N T P R O C E S S .

Attachment 3

E O L I V E R A R D

P A R K S Q U A R E S E C T I O N

S I G H T - L I N E

E N V E L O P E
6 5
1 0 0
1 5 0

R E S I D E N C E S
7 9

R E S I D E N C E S
1 7 5

R E S I D E N C E S
1 1 9

R E S I D E N C E S
7 2

A P A R T M E N T U N I T S
1 2 4
8 . 0 1 A C R E S
5 . 8 4 A C R E S
1 0 . 2 3 A C R E S
7 . 3 2 A C R E S
2 . 1 9 A C R E S
7 . 8 4 A C R E S
M A I N R O A D S + P A R K S
A L L C O U N T S A N D A R E A S A R E A P P R O X I M A T E .

C O N C E P T P L A N I N T E N D E D T O R E F L E C T T H E P R E L I M I N A R Y V I S I O N O F T H E O V E R A L L P R O J E C T L A Y O U T F R O M A L O T T I N G / D E N S I T Y S T A N D P O I N T , A N D I S A N T I C I P A T E D T O B E R E F I N E D F U R T H E R A S P A R T O F T H E E N T I T L E M E N T P R O C E S S . 3 . 3 8 A C R E S
4 . 7 8 A C R E S
1 5 . 0 8 D U / A C
1 3 . 5 3 D U / A C
1 7 . 1 1 D U / A C
1 6 . 2 6 D U / A C
3 2 . 8 8 D U / A C
1 9 . 1 3 D U / A C
2 0 . 9 2 D U / A C
1 9 . 2 3 D U / A C

R E S I D E N C E S

R E S I D E N C E S

R E S I D E N C E S

January 7, 2026
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Eddie Haddad
900 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Unit 810
Las Vegas, NV 89107
Subject: Preliminary Application for Townsquare Development at former Coast Guard site (PRE25027); APN: 111-010-023.

Dear Mr. Haddad:

On November 17, 2025, the City of Concord received your Preliminary Application to redevelop the former 59-acre Coast Guard site at 3295 Haleakala Street (a.k.a. Victory Village and Quinault Village) with 884 dwelling units comprised of 403 townhomes, 409 single-family homes, and 72 multifamily units. The Preliminary Application consisted of the following information:
• Signed application form;
• Concept plans prepared by EJA Design Studios; and
• Cover Letter and Project Narrative prepared by EV&A Architects.

The above information was referred to the City’s Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and outside agencies for review. The review comments from the DAC, which consists of staff from various City departments, are provided herein. Comments from outside agencies are attached.

The proposed project does not meet all applicable objective standards and requires legislative actions including a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Agreement. As such, the Preliminary Application does not qualify for review under Senate Bill 330, and the City is not required to identify all ordinances and requirements applicable to the project or address how the project must be corrected to comply with all applicable requirements. These comments are intended to identify information and project concerns to address in the formal application and to request preliminary information for the City Council’s consideration of the project at a study session. Additional issues and information needs may be identified as part of the formal application review and the City Council’s study session feedback.

The project is tentatively scheduled for a City Council study session on March 10, 2025. The following comments include recommendations on information that should be included for the study session that were not provided in the current submittal. Additionally, the DAC has concerns related to circulation and stormwater that could require significant site plan revisions. If you would like to address these items for the study session, please provide the information and/or site plan revisions no later than January 27, 2025.

Attachment 4

Planning Division
For questions on the below comments, contact Frank Abejo, Principal Planner, at (925) 671-3128 or [email protected].

PL-1: The formal application will need to include all applicable information listed in the following checklists:

• General Plan Amendment Application Checklist;
• Rezoning Application Checklist;
• Planned Development Use Permit Application Checklist; • Major Subdivision Application Checklist;
• Design and Site Review Application Checklist; and
• Protected Tree Removal Application Checklist

PL-2: Without the more detailed information required by these checklists, staff is unable to identify where the project does not comply with applicable requirements such as parking, public/private open space, and inclusionary housing that would require variances or exceptions through the Development Agreement.

PL-3: An environmental impact report (EIR) is required for the project. The full scope of the EIR cannot be determined at this time, however the following special studies will likely be required:

• Traffic study with vehicle miles traveled analysis (see comment TR-4 below); • Water supply assessment due to the project totaling more than 500 dwelling units (additional comments from Contra Costa Water District are attached); and • Sewer capacity study.

As a reminder, the full costs of the City’s consultants to prepare the studies and EIR required for the project, and staff’s administrative fees to manage its consultants shall be borne by the applicant.

PL-4: The density of 14.88 dwelling units per acre assumes development will occur on a single parcel. Please confirm if the two parcels will be merged. If not, show the existing property line between the two parcels, calculate net density for each parcel1, and confirm if a lot line adjustment is needed to avoid property line and building conflicts.

1 Density shall be based on the number of units divided by the site area remaining after dedication of all areas for public rights-of-way, private streets, common areas, etc.

PL-5: The plans suggest a master planned community developed in phases. Provide a phasing plan and estimated timeframes for each phase.

PL-6: Provide proposed development agreement terms and community benefits, including benefits responsive to the City Council’s previous feedback. The development agreement should also address how its implementation will coincide with project phases. We recommend providing this information for the study session.

PL-7: As part of the previous proposal, staff initiated discussions with ALH Urban and Regional Economics to provide real estate consulting and advisory services to assist staff and the City Council on negotiations regarding community benefits. Because the project scope has changed considerably, additional information will likely be required for ALH to provide a scope and budget of its review of the project. This will not be completed in time for the planned study session.

PL-8: Clarify how the project will support implementation of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Please ensure the information addresses conformance based on the project site(s) and phases proposed by the master plan. We recommend providing this information for the study session.

PL-9: Preliminary application reviews typically include a conceptual review by the Design Review Board. However, there is not enough information provided on building architecture and landscaping to conduct this review. If you would like to conduct this review prior to a formal application, provide the architectural and landscape information listed on the Preliminary Application Checklist.

PL-10: In addition to the pipeline information requested in comment EN-2 below, please provide documentation from the pipeline operators/easement holders of their agreement with the proposed relocation of the pipelines and that the relocation will be completed within the project’s timeframe.

PL-11: Note if the roadway connecting to Hamilton Way will be restricted to emergency access only, consistent with the City Council’s feedback.

PL-12: The project narrative includes language related to the previous proposal to renovate Victory Village that needs to be corrected.

Engineering Division
For questions on the below comments, contact Mitra Abkenari, Associate Engineer, at (925) 671-3439 or [email protected].

EN-1: The street design must comply with public street standards in conformance with the City of Concord’s standards plan and details.

EN-2: Indicate the location of all proposed and existing oil pipelines, on-site and off-site on a utility plan or exhibit with the proposed layout screened back over the top to give staff the ability to evaluate potential impacts to site design if utility relocation is infeasible.

EN-3: Provide a preliminary rough grading plan showing how the large pad, street and exterior grading interfaces with the existing boundary. The submitted plan exhibit indicates a minimal buffer at the boundary without context of surrounding grades.

EN-4: The proposed site layout shows landscaping areas; however, there is no context for how large the areas are to determine if they are adequate or appropriately located and configured for community use.

EN-5: Street trees are required on all streets. Provide typical sections for all streets and show where street trees will be placed in relation to the street drive lanes, curb, sidewalk, structures (poles and buildings) and underground utilities. For each street provide plan view with typical spacing for street trees along the street also showing driveway locations, distances to curbs, structures and underground utilities. Additionally, provide a list of tree species being considered for each street.

EN-6: The project will be subject to Regional Clean Water requirements which may include hydromodification as well as clean water aspects. Clearly identify the locations of required bio- retention areas, assuming four percent of the impervious area shown in the proposal. Provide a calculation exhibit showing the exhibits meets that requirement. We recommend providing this information for the study session.

EN-7: The proposed buildings appear to be located over the existing drainage detention basin along Olivera Road. Provide an alternative location including sizing for the replaced version or remove the units that would impact the detention basin. This is an existing requirement for drainage of the site and the surrounding base that is pre-existing and appears to be missed in the site design. We recommend providing this information for the study session.

EN-8: Existing overhead utility lines along Olivera Road must be placed underground with the project as well as all new utility connections inside the project.

EN-9: The two existing connections to Olivera Road require study for size and if there are additional off-site impacts that the project would be subject to install, including widening of Olivera Road and signalization at the project or at other intersections. (Also see comment TR-4.)

EN-10: Currently, the project does not provide access to the BART property as previously requested.

The City will require such access to be studied as part of the formal application for this project (see also comment TR-3 and attached County Connection letter). We recommend providing this information for the study session.

EN-11: Provide an on-site truck template based on the largest truck expected to access the site.

EN-12: There are a significant number of units proposed within the site, and each unit will require three disposal bins. This will result in a large number of bins overall, and appropriate waste- management provisions need to be incorporated into the site design.

Transportation Division
For questions on the below comments, contact Aaron Elias, Transportation Program Manager II, at (925) 671-3276 or [email protected].

TR-1: The proposed development plan no longer shows a vehicle access path between the Coast Guard property and the future redevelopment of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Please provide sufficient space to facilitate vehicle access between the two projects. This will facilitate future circulation, emergency access, and connectivity between the two developments.

TR-2: Provide additional details regarding circulation, roadway widths, location of on-street parking, one-way facilities, traffic control at intersections both internal and on East Olivera Road, crosswalk locations, etc. Please also note that the site plan cross sections shows 8-foot parking lanes but City code requires on-street parking to be 9 feet in width.

TR-3: Given the proximity of the site to BART, a central bikeway/walkway shall be provided connecting the residences to the BART station on the site's northern frontage, including alignment to the existing pathway bisecting the BART parking lot to enable direct and readily apparent connection between the site and BART (also see comment EN-10 and attached County Connection letter). We recommend providing this information for the study session.

TR-4: A traffic study will be required including site plan review, assessment for all travel modes, vehicle miles traveled, collision assessment, and intersection level of service, queue, and control warrant evaluation. Analysis scenarios are to include existing, near-term, near-term plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project, and shall recommend whether the improvements mentioned in comment EN-9 are necessary. The City will solicit bids from at least two consultants from the City’s on-call bench. Applicant shall be responsible for providing payment to cover the cost of the consultant and a 20% administrative fee. Given the complexity with the adjacent Naval Weapons Station property and the size of the proposed development, the traffic study could take 12-16 weeks to complete and generally require two weeks to solicit the quotes. Transportation will work with the Planning Division and the applicant to determine the best time to begin this process which is generally when the design of the site plan is near completion.

TR-5: Consider replacing the roadway on the north side of the linear park with additional park space.

This would increase green space, decrease impervious roadway area, and present a more inviting park with traffic on only one side instead of both sides, including direct pedestrian connection to the housing along the north side of the site (see graphic below).

As part of your formal application, please include an annotated copy of this letter and the application checklists indicating how you responded to each of the comments and checklist items. If you need clarification on these comments or the checklist items before your formal application, please contact me to schedule a meeting with staff.

Upon receipt of your formal application and additional deposit, the plans will be routed to DAC members and agencies who will review them for completeness. Your formal application shall be submitted through the City’s Virtual Permit Center by following these instructions.

Sincerely,

Frank Abejo
Principal Planner

Encl. (3)

Cc via-e-mail:

Susanne Brown, City Attorney
Tom Capriola, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Mindy Gentry, Community Development Director
Carlton Thompson, City Engineer
Aaron Sage, Planning Manager
Bernard Enrile, Senior Civil Engineer
Mitra Abkenari, Assistant Engineer
Aaron Elias, Transportation Program Manager II

Georges Maalouf
Ed Vance, Ed Vance and Associates
Erik Swendseid, Ed Vance and Associates
Geoff Coleman, BKF Engineers
Amy Christopherson Bolten, Christopherson Homes
David Bowlby
Nadia Costa

December 10, 2025

Frank Abejo, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive,
Concord, CA 94519

Subject: Concord Townsquare Development, Concord – APN 111-010-023 (File Number: PRE25029)

Dear Frank Abejo:

The following are comments from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) on this proposed project, which is to redevelop the former 59-acre Coast Guard site (Victory Village and Quinault Village) with 884 dwelling units comprised of 403 townhomes, 409 single-family homes, and 72 multifamily units. The site is located at 3295 Haleakala Street, Concord. The project site’s APN is 111-010-023. The project site is within an area where CCWD serves treated water.

CCWD has reviewed the project plans and has the following comments:

1. Existing water infrastructure will need to be evaluated, and any modifications will need to be designed and constructed at the Developer’s/Owner’s expense. a) The existing private water system serving the parcel will likely need to be replaced with a new, public water system that will be owned and maintained by CCWD.

2. Each premise to be provided with domestic service will require its own service connection. Each individual unit will require its own separate meter.

3. A separate meter for landscape irrigation and separate fire service will be required for each building or premise.

4. Relocation and/or abandonment of CCWD facilities may be required which will require a quitclaim of the existing easements. Easements for proposed facilities may also be required.

Frank Abejo, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Concord
December 10, 2025

5. The water main in the street or right of way shall be located opposite the proposed meter locations, with sufficient capacity and pressure as determined by CCWD. The Project/Property may require a main extension or addition of other infrastructure.
a) A main extension is likely to be required. However, further evaluation is needed to determine the appropriate pipe to extend from. CCWD needs to review the project’s grading plans and highest fixture elevations.

6. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) mandates certain separation requirements for water mains that are parallel to and/or crossing sewer and storm drains. Grading and/or utility plans should be developed to comply with all separation criteria mandated in SWRCB Section 64572.

7. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requires all water services to have above-ground backflow prevention devices, which, in some cases could reduce water pressure to below standard.

Proper planning is necessary to ensure backflow prevention devices are located outside the footprint of the building either in the “right of way” or in an easement provided by applicant. A minimum of three-foot clearance is required around all backflow devices with no vertical impediment.

8. Relocation of public facilities must be performed by CCWD forces.

9. The California Residential Code requires installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in all new residential structures that are submitted to the Building Department after December 31, 2010.

Appropriate backflow prevention is required for all services where sprinkler systems are installed.

10. The California Water Code Section 537 requires sub-metering of individual units within all new multi- unit or mixed-use residential developments after January 1, 2018. Water service will be conditioned upon compliance with this regulation.

11. There are three high priority oil and gas lines running through the proposed development. Will these lines be relocated and have the pipeline owners been notified? Installing potable water pipelines near these lines requires separate approval by the SWRCB.

12. CCWD recommend submitting the project for a conceptual cost estimate and evaluation, so that CCWD can provide a more detailed analysis and review

The applicant should work with CCWD’s Engineering Services Coordinator, Cindy Sweeney, for more details.

She can be reached at 925-688-8014 or at [email protected].

Frank Abejo, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Concord
December 10, 2025

Sincerely,

Cody Ericksen
Associate Planner

CE:ck

Proudly serving Central Contra Costa County since 1980.

County Connection, 2477 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, CA 94520 countyconnection.com | 925-676-7500
November 28, 2025

Frank Abejo
Principal Planner
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive, M/S 53
Concord, CA 94519-2578

Re: Concord Townsquare

Dear Mr. Abejo,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Concord Townsquare project proposed on East Olivera Road. The project site abuts the North Concord BART station, which is served by the BART Yellow Line and County Connection Routes 17 and 99X, and will likely see increased service in the future with the buildout of the Concord Community Reuse Plan.

Though the developer describes this as an “urban infill site near BART” in the first bullet of their list of project benefits, the proposed plans do not appear to include a pedestrian connection to the adjacent BART station, despite there being an opportunity to connect the proposed development to the BART station’s central walkway, providing a straight-line path to the bus boarding area and BART fare gates. Without this connection, the nearest pedestrian route (Esperanza Drive to the BART Linear Park) requires more than a quarter mile of additional travel on foot. In order to provide improved access to the BART station and bus terminal, both for the residents of the proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood, County Connection respectfully requests the following:

1. Revise the site plan to provide a direct and preferably straight-line pedestrian and bicycle pathway from the project’s internal street network to the North Concord BART station’s central walkway.

2. Locate the aforementioned pedestrian and bicycle pathway within a public access easement or right-of-way in order to allow its use by the general public.

3. Direct the developer to work with BART to build an accessible path of travel connecting the central walkway located in the lower BART parking lot with the covered walkway located adjacent to the bus terminal in the upper BART parking lot.

As emphasized by the developer’s project narrative, a key feature of this site is its proximity to the North Concord BART station. To not include a direct pedestrian connection would squander a rare opportunity to build a large number of homes within walking distance of a station served by regional heavy rail transit, and both local and express bus service.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any follow-up questions or would like to discuss this further.

Sincerely,

Andrew M. Smith
Director of Planning & Marketing

Concord Townsquare
(former Coast Guard Property)
City Council Study Session
February 24, 2026
Project Planner: Frank Abejo, Principal Planner
(925) 671-3128
[email protected]

Presentation Outline
I. Preliminary Application
II. Study Session
III. Background – Property and History
IV. Project Overview
V. Discussion
• Density
• Housing Type & Mix
• Inclusionary Housing
• Location of Community Benefit
VI. Feedback Sought
2

I. Preliminary Application
• Informal but required review
• Streamline overall review process
• Formal application and environmental review required
3

II. Study Session
• Provide direction to applicant
• Receive public comments
4

III. Background – Property
5 BART

III. Background - History
June 2021 – January 2025. Property transfer and previous plans to develop site (Attachment 1)
November 14, 2025. Current Preliminary Application filed by Eddie Haddad and Georges Maalouf
6

IV. Project Overview – Concept Plan
• Redevelop site with 800 - 900 dwelling units
• Current concept is for 940 dwelling units comprised of:
➢403 Townhomes
➢409 Single-family Homes (plus 56 ADUs)
➢72 Deed-restricted affordable multifamily units
7

IV. Project Overview - Site Plan Concept
8 B
A
R
T
W.P. Park
CNWS

IV. Project Overview – Entitlements Required
9 Legislative Approvals
• General Plan
Amendment
• Rezoning
• Development
Agreement
Entitlements
• PDUP
• Tentative Map
• Tree Removal
• Design and Site Review
*CEQA Review/Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

V. Discussion - Density
• Estimated density of at least 15 du/ac (dwelling units per net acre)
• Medium Density Residential (MDR) General Plan
designation and Residential Medium Density (RM) zoning
permit 11 to 32 du/ac
• MDR and RM permit housing types
10

V. Discussion – Density
• Traffic from approximately 900 new dwelling units
➢Analyzed through traffic study/EIR
➢Traffic mitigation may be required
• Transit Oriented Communities Policy requires minimum
50 du/ac for new housing developments within one-half
mile of BART
➢May impact City’s ability to secure transportation funding 11

V. Discussion – Housing Type & Mix
• 403 Townhomes
• 409 Single-family homes (plus 56 ADUs)
• 72 deed-restricted affordable multifamily rental units 12

V. Discussion – Inclusionary Housing
• Inclusionary Ordinance requires 15 percent (122) of the 812 ownership units as affordable units that are:
➢deed-restricted for long-term affordability;
➢dispersed throughout the project;
➢constructed of the same quality as market-rate units; and ➢same average bedroom count as market-rate units.
13

V. Discussion – Inclusionary Housing
• Inclusionary Ordinance allows off-site ownership units at 2:1 ratio (244 units)
• Development agreement allows deviation from the
Ordinance
14

V. Discussion – Inclusionary Housing
• Applicant’s proposal does not comply with the Ordinance ➢No ownership inclusionary units
➢ADUs are not deed-restricted
➢Multifamily and ADU units will be smaller than ownership units ➢Mostly concentrated vs. dispersed throughout project
15

V. Discussion – Location of Community Benefit
• Staff will peer review the project’s pro forma based on the formal application to assist Council in evaluating
appropriate level of community benefits.
16

VI. Feedback Sought

1. Overall concept

2. Density

3. Housing types & mix

4. Larger deed-restricted rental units

5. Inclusionary housing plan

6. Expectations and timeframe for rental units

7. Community benefit location

8. Other concerns
17

Questions ?
18

Staff Report
Date: February 24, 2026
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
Mindy Gentry, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Aaron Sage, Planning Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3465
Subject: Considering the following actions to implement state law and Objective 8.6 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) of the 2023-2031 Housing Element:

1. Adoption of a Resolution amending the City’s General Plan Land Use Element; and

2. Introduction of an Ordinance amending the Concord
Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapters

18.15 (Zoning Districts and Zoning Map), 18.25
(Development and Land Use Approvals), 18.30 (Residential Districts), 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts), and

18.410 (Zoning Clearance), and adding Chapter 18.120
(Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District) and rezoning approximately 20 acres to apply the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District by reading of the title only and waiving further reading.

CEQA: Statutorily exempt from CEQA Pursuant to Public
Resources Code 21080.085, enacted by Senate Bill 131 (2025); and/or not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections
15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378.

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

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Report in Brief
On January 27, the City Council directed staff to complete the required amendments to establish an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Overlay District and return to the Council on February 24, 2025, with those amendments to implement commitments in the City of Concord’s 2023–2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”). State law, including Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686), and the Housing Element require the City to affirmatively further fair housing by addressing disparities in access to opportunities and promoting equitable housing distribution. Objective 8.6 of the Housing Element commits the City to rezoning (proposed as an overlay zone which retains the underlying zoning district) a minimum of 20 acres in moderate- and high-resource areas at a density of 60 units per acre to accommodate at least 1,000 housing units.

Following extensive community engagement, including workshops (both virtual and in- person), surveys, stakeholder interviews, and property owner outreach, staff identified potential sites for inclusion in a new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Overlay District. These sites were refined based on feedback, feasibility analyses, and alignment with state requirements. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Development Code would establish the AFFH Overlay District on identified sites allowing for residential development up to 60 units per acre, establish development standards, and facilitate by-right approvals for qualifying housing projects, while retaining the existing underlying zoning district.

At the January 27 meeting, staff presented a proposal that was recommended by the Planning Commission. After reviewing the staff presented proposal, and taking public comment, the Council proposed modifications and directed staff to return as soon as feasible with the necessary documents to allow the Council to consider and act on the revised overlay district.

Recommended Action

1. Adopt a Resolution amending the City’s General Plan Land Use Element (Attachment 1); and

2. Introduce an Ordinance amending the Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapters 18.15 (Zoning Districts and Zoning Map), 18.25 (Development and Land Use Approvals), 18.30 (Residential Districts), 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts), and 18.410 (Zoning Clearance), and adding Chapter 18.120 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District); and rezoning approximately 20 acres to apply the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District to implement state law and Objective 8.6 of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element by reading of the title only and waiving further reading (Attachment 2).

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Background
Since 1969, state law has required local governments to adopt a housing element to adequately plan for the housing needs of all segments of the community. The housing element, one of seven required components of a general plan, serves as a key planning tool for California's local jurisdictions to address housing needs at all income levels and is required to be updated every eight years.

Each housing element must address the local government’s share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, a statewide process carried out every eight years by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and by the councils of governments (COGs) at the regional level. After HCD projects the number of housing units needed for each region based on factors such as projected growth and housing needs it then allocates these projections to each region’s COG, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in the Bay Area. The COG then develops a methodology to assign housing needs to each local government within their region, which is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

The RHNA process considers various factors to ensure housing needs are distributed in a manner consistent with the following statutory objectives: 1) increase housing supply and mix of housing types; 2) promote infill development and socioeconomic equity; 3) improve the jobs and housing balance; 4) balance disproportionate household income distributions; and 5) affirmatively further fair housing.

The City began work on its 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing Element) in June 2021 with a presentation to the City Council, introducing the update process and launching an extensive community engagement initiative. This initiative utilized a multipronged, layered approach to connect with a wide range of community members.

Through these efforts, the Housing Element project team engaged nearly 1,500 individual community members and partnered with over 25 community organizations.

Engagement activities included 14 events–both virtual and in-person–and an online survey, fostering broad participation and input.

On August 22, 2023, Council adopted the Housing Element, which was subsequently certified by HCD on October 23, 2023, confirming its compliance with state law.

Completion of this milestone ensured the City is well-positioned to address its housing needs over the next eight years.

Housing Element Policies and Programs
California law requires housing elements to include a comprehensive set of policies and programs to address housing needs and comply with state mandates. While there is no fixed number of required programs, jurisdictions must address key areas such as identifying adequate housing sites to accommodate their RHNA, promoting affordable housing development, removing governmental constraints, conserving existing housing, affirmatively furthering fair housing, preserving at-risk affordable units, and meeting the

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
needs of special populations. Each program must have clear objectives, timelines, and responsible entities to ensure accountability and effectiveness, with the number and scope of programs tailored to the jurisdiction’s unique housing challenges and priorities.

Concord’s Housing Element includes 26 distinct programs, each designed to address specific housing needs and goals. Within these programs are over 100 detailed "objectives," which outline the individual actions and strategies to be implemented to achieve the goals of each program.

Housing Element Program 8 – Fair Housing
The Fair Housing program focuses on expanding housing opportunities and ensuring equitable access to housing for all segments of the community, including low-income residents, older adults, people with disabilities, and others facing housing challenges.

Key objectives include ongoing participation in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice; contracting with service providers for fair housing counseling, education, and outreach services; and conducting place-based programs aimed at increasing upward mobility for low-income residents. The City will also coordinate with Contra Costa County and the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority to explore funding opportunities for affordable housing projects, support regional housing initiatives, and advocate for additional resources. Additionally, the City will focus on rezoning sites to increase multifamily residential options in moderate- and high-resource areas and work towards creating community land trusts. Regular training and testing will also be conducted to ensure compliance with fair housing laws.

Housing Element Objective 8.6
Objective 8.6 is the City’s primary strategy for complying with AB 686, a 2018 law intended to strengthen the State’s commitment to fair housing. The law requires jurisdictions to actively promote fair housing practices and address patterns of segregation. It mandates that local governments incorporate policies to "Affirmatively Further Fair Housing" (AFFH) in their housing plans, ensuring that all communities have equal access to affordable housing opportunities.

More specifically, AB 686 modified state housing element law to include the following requirements for housing element updates:
“…an assessment of fair housing practices, an analysis of the relationship between available sites and areas of high or low resources, and concrete actions in the form of programs to affirmatively further fair housing. The purpose of this assessment and analysis is to replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns and to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) into areas of opportunity.”

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
As part of the Housing Element and to demonstrate compliance with AB 686, the City was required to prepare an analysis on AFFH1. The analysis identified disparities in access to opportunities between the central/western portion of the City. Particularly, disparities in income and disproportionate housing needs, correlated with areas populated predominantly by Hispanic/Latinx residents, were identified. Pursuant to AB 686 the City is required to address these disparities. Furthermore, the Housing Element analyzed available housing sites throughout the City and found that sites meeting the state’s criteria for lower-income housing sites2 are located entirely in low-resource3 areas of Concord, a condition at odds with the state’s AFFH goals.

To fulfill the City's AFFH obligations under state law and ensure compliance with AB 686 due to the identified disparities in access and the concentration of lower-income housing sites in low resource areas, Housing Element Objective 8.6 was included in the Housing Element, as follows:
“Rezone sites to increase multifamily residential options in moderate- and high- resource areas (as shown in the most recent CTCAC [California Tax Credit Allocation Committee]/HCD Opportunity Maps) with a majority white population.

Rezoned sites must meet the following criteria:
a) located in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence or other moderate- or high-resource areas (as shown in the most recent CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps) with a majority white population;
b) combined area of at least 20 acres;
c) maximum density of at least 60 dwelling units per acre; d) accommodate at least 1,000 total dwelling units;
e) adequate access to infrastructure;
f) strong development potential; and
g) low potential for displacement of lower-income households.

Begin the rezone process by December 2023 by conducting outreach, analyzing opportunities, and completing a CEQA analysis to finalize the rezone by December 2024. Within 6 months of completion of the rezone, work with property 1 cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/11386/HEU-D-Affirmatively-Furthering-Fair-Housing 2 State housing element law includes minimum criteria for sites designated to satisfy the lower-income component of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, including a minimum size of 0.5 acres and a minimum density of at least 30 units per acre.
3 In housing element law, low-resource areas are locations with limited access to opportunities such as quality schools, jobs, transportation, and essential services, often marked by higher poverty and reduced economic mobility. These areas are identified using tools like the TCAC Opportunity Maps, guiding jurisdictions to address inequities by improving conditions and increasing housing opportunities. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
owners to proactively identify prime sites, notify affordable housing developers, and provide technical assistance and priority processing for affordable projects without assessing an additional charge, and include the information in the Affordable Housing Toolkit.”
Why Objective 8.6 Focuses on Rezoning in “High Resource Areas” As previously stated, AB 686 expanded jurisdictional requirements by mandating that communities conduct a comprehensive assessment of fair housing issues, identify contributing factors, and develop specific policies and actions to actively promote housing integration, address disparities in access to opportunity, and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. These assessments guide jurisdictions in determining necessary actions to AFFH, such as addressing fair housing barriers, promoting integration, and reducing disparities in access to opportunities. Key strategies for achieving AFFH goals include: 1) investing in lower-resource areas to revitalize communities, 2) preventing displacement, 3) enhancing mobility, and 4) increasing affordable housing in high-resource areas.

Mobility, in this context, refers to enabling disadvantaged individuals to access housing in areas with greater opportunities, such as quality schools and jobs (“High Resource Areas”).

The City’s AFFH analysis revealed key findings about Concord’s evolving demographics and disparities. Over time, Concord has become increasingly diverse, with noticeable integration and rising racial and ethnic diversity, particularly in the central and western areas (i.e., Monument and North Concord). These areas, however, face higher poverty rates. In contrast, the south and eastern portions of the City (i.e., Treat/Oak Grove to Concord Pavilion) demonstrate stronger economic, educational, and environmental outcomes and have a higher concentration of white, higher-income residents. Although the City’s western area provides good access to jobs and public transportation, higher- resource neighborhoods provide other valuable opportunities. However, these higher- resource areas primarily permit low density, single-family development that requires a higher household income, therefore are likely unaffordable for many lower-income households, effectively excluding them from higher-resource neighborhoods.

Furthermore, most lower income housing sites identified in the City’s Sites Inventory are located in the central and western areas, with none in the southeastern, higher-resource neighborhoods.

To meet the revitalization and anti-displacement requirements of AB 686, the City implemented increased tenant protections and place-based programs in lower-resource areas. These include public infrastructure investments, economic development initiatives, workforce support, grant-funded urban greening projects, and community events to support local businesses4.
4 https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/11826/Programs-Document

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
To address mobility challenges and the disparities highlighted in the AFFH analysis, the City identified a need to create greater opportunities for affordable housing in higher- resource neighborhoods. Community feedback further shaped this direction, particularly the call to remove certain sites from the Sites Inventory due to their concentration in lower-resource areas. This feedback aligns with the City’s 2022 Community Survey, where the majority of respondents (58.3%) supported prioritizing redevelopment of vacant or underutilized commercial properties for new housing. Additionally, 43.4% of respondents favored locating new housing throughout the City rather than concentrating it in lower-income areas.

These considerations culminated in the proposed rezoning of sites in moderate- and high-resource areas with predominantly white populations. This action, outlined in Objective 8.6, will address the identified challenges and promote more equitable housing opportunities citywide. Staff evaluated alternative programs but ultimately recommended rezoning 20 acres at a density of 60 dwelling units per acre, creating the potential for 1,000 new housing units in higher-resource neighborhoods. Seven alternative programs were considered but not further explored due to constraints or potentially greater impacts compared to the selected approach. The alternatives included programs such as subsidizing housing units for lower income households, which was determined to not be financially feasible for the City, and inclusion of development planned for the Concord Naval Weapons Station, which does not achieve program goals because housing units would not become available during this housing element cycle. The alternative programs are summarized in Attachment 9.

Study Area
The geographic scope of this rezoning project has been defined in Housing Element Objective 8.6, which states that AFFH sites should be ‘located in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence or other moderate- or high-resource areas (as shown in the most recent CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps) with a majority white population.’ Based on staff and community input, the study area boundary includes both the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) opportunity map5 and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA)6 data and has been expanded to include additional neighboring parcels that offer similar advantages as those in high-opportunity areas. 5 In 2025, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) updated this CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map to guide policies enhancing access to opportunity-rich areas for affordable housing residents funded by Low Income Housing Tax Credits and state programs, addressing residential segregation, unequal opportunity access, and historical housing concentrations in resource-limited, high-poverty, racially concentrated areas. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp
6 In 2022, HCD developed this updated version of the RCAA map to more accurately represent California's diversity and regional conditions, assisting local jurisdictions in analyzing racially concentrated areas of poverty and affluence in accordance with AB 686 and AB 1304.
https://gis.hcd.ca.gov/portal/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=15da571536064ddaa1f9be78a842e580

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Combined, these two geographic areas cover portions of the City that include the southern leg of Clayton Road, neighborhoods along Treat Boulevard, and areas around Ygnacio Valley Road. Generally, these cover the Clayton Valley, Lime Ridge, and Ygnacio Valley neighborhoods7 within Concord (see Attachment 5 – Map of Study Area).

Residential Feasibility Study (Attachment 6)
The City retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to evaluate the physical and financial feasibility of different housing product types with varying densities within the study area. To accomplish this task, EPS developed proformas for different residential prototypes incorporating City requirements for development standards (e.g. parking, open space) and then applied them to sites to assess development feasibility.

Key findings from the study include:
• Multifamily development feasibility is currently limited by high construction and financing costs, making it difficult to achieve competitive financial returns and get projects started. Improvements to market conditions – including cost reductions and/or rent increases – will enhance project feasibility, but it is not certain when such conditions will prevail.
• The type and quantity of parking plays a key role in overall development costs due to the high cost of structured parking. Structured parking, whether in a “wrap” or podium style8, costs $40,000 to $50,000 per space compared to surface parking at $5,000 per space.
• The financial feasibility of developing at the maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre, as outlined in Housing Element Objective 8.6, is currently very low. At present, townhomes and garden-style apartments (typically from 20 to 30 units per acre) represent the most financially viable residential development options. • The value of existing commercial uses exceeds the estimated value of residential redevelopment options. For a property to be viable for residential redevelopment, a residential developer would need to be willing to invest more to both acquire the site and demolish existing uses to allow for new construction than an investor would be willing to pay to retain the existing buildings and lease them to tenants. • Below-market-rate multifamily housing presently is more feasible than market- rate multifamily housing. The average land value that affordable projects have paid in Concord and neighboring jurisdictions has been higher than what market- rate multifamily projects would be able to feasibly achieve under current market 7 https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/12211/neighborhood-map 8 A “wrap” refers to a development where housing units that surround (or predominantly surround) a parking structure, such that parking is not substantially visible from the street, whereas a podium refers to a development where housing units are located above a parking structure, often with commercial space located in front of the structure.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
conditions. These projects have relied on subsidies such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits9 to achieve feasibility and have been able to support higher land acquisition costs despite having lower rents than market-rate projects and comparable construction costs.

Fiscal Impact Analysis (Attachment 7)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was also retained to evaluate the fiscal impacts of rezoning commercially zoned properties as part of the AFFH program.

Drawing on the Residential Feasibility Study, which modeled building and parking configurations to achieve target residential densities, EPS analyzed the fiscal implications of the proposed redevelopments. The analysis focused on three case study sites:
• Kmart at 5100 Clayton Road;
• Dental offices at 2975 Treat Boulevard; and
• Part of Clayton Faire Shopping Center.

The analysis suggests that converting commercial properties to residential uses is likely to increase demand for City services, particularly from the Police and Public Works Departments. Although redevelopment may generate additional property taxes and other revenues, these gains are generally insufficient to offset the higher costs associated with serving a larger residential population. Consequently, the net fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund is projected to be negative under current market conditions.

The study notes that actual fiscal outcomes will depend on factors that cannot be predicted with certainty, including future changes in City or state budgeting practices, departmental service efficiencies, and other external conditions. Additionally, the findings offer that while residential development may have a negative impact on the City’s fiscal position it is not a recommendation that the City retain the current zoning on these sites as there are numerous other reasons to consider allowing residential uses.

These reasons include the need to provide housing at all income levels, and the need to meet the state’s mandates in order to retain funding and land use discretion.

Transportation Analyses
As discussed below, two separate transportation analyses were prepared for the proposed amendments: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS). 9 The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit is the largest source of affordable housing financing and offers developers nonrefundable and transferable tax credits to subsidize the construction and rehabilitation of housing developments that have strict income limits for eligible tenants and their cost of housing.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Vehicle Miles Traveled (Attachment 3)
A VMT analysis is a tool used to evaluate the transportation impacts of a project by measuring the total miles driven by vehicles within a specific area over a defined period.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), VMT serves as the primary metric for determining significant transportation impacts. Although the AFFH project is now exempt from CEQA, a VMT analysis was conducted to ensure compliance to maintain eligibility for funding as part of Measure J.10 The analysis is used to forecast and mitigate potential environmental impacts of future development, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The VMT analysis, prepared by Fehr & Peers, assumed a scenario of 2,412 additional multifamily residential units. While the goal of the AFFH program is to accommodate at least 1,000 new housing units, this higher number was based on City Council direction provided on January 7, 2025. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to advance the program by analyzing seven final sites at their maximum potential buildout of 2,412 units.

In contrast, the January 27, 2026 City Council direction for the AFFH Overlay District as presented in this report reduced the number of additional housing units to 1,000, less than half of what was evaluated in the VMT analysis. The analysis concluded that adding 2,412 units would exceed the City’s established thresholds of significance for residential development. Due to VMT exceeding the threshold and based on public feedback, staff is recommending implementation measures for housing projects to reduce VMT, which are described in the Analysis section below.

Level of Service (Attachment 4)
Fehr & Peers also conducted a LOS analysis to evaluate how efficiently roadways and intersections operate under existing and projected traffic conditions. The analysis measures factors such as vehicle delay, speed, and congestion, assigning each intersection a letter grade to represent the quality of traffic operations.

Similar to the VMT analysis described above, the LOS analysis was based on a scenario assuming 2,412 additional multifamily residential units, consistent with City Council direction provided on January 7, 2025, which has now been reduced to 1,000 additional housing units presented by staff in this report. Consistent with the VMT findings, the LOS analysis determined that traffic generated by 2,412 additional units would result in significant impacts, in the form of four intersections operating below the City’s performance standards:
• Ygnacio Valley Road & Cowell Road
• Ygnacio Valley Road & Ayers Road
10 Measure J is Contra Costa County’s 25 year half-cent sales tax for transportation projects and established a Growth Management Program to coordinate development with infrastructure needs.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
• Bailey Road & Concord Boulevard
• Treat Boulevard & Cowell Road
The LOS analysis concludes there will be impacts to the four intersections above and to address those impacts, housing projects producing more than 110 new daily vehicle trips will be required to do a project specific analysis to determine appropriate implementation measures to reduce the project’s impacts.

Community Engagement Summary
In total, the City and project team facilitated seven community workshops (including one conducted entirely in Spanish), 14 stakeholder and community partner meetings, numerous ad hoc meetings, three City Council meetings, two Planning Commission meetings, one joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, and three online community surveys, resulting in more than 3,200 community touchpoints. Additionally, the project team created a dedicated webpage11 with meeting dates, meeting materials, FAQs, links to maps, and other project information. Finally, the project team compiled an interested parties list of more than 1,400 email contacts, used to distribute project updates, including announcements about upcoming meetings, events, and key project milestones.

Planning Commission Hearing
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 19, 2025 to consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed amendments. Written comments submitted in advance of the hearing primarily expressed concerns regarding potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed rezoning and the decision not to complete an Environmental Impact Report for the project. One property owner also reiterated that they are not interested in rezoning the two properties they own on Clayton Road, which include the Dollar Tree Store and the Hospice Foundation site.

Nine community members spoke during the public hearing, with a majority expressing general support for the AFFH overlay zoning with some speakers expressing concerns with the increase in density and traffic, amongst other potential impacts. Prior to their vote, some Commissioners expressed concerns about the density being too high for this area of Concord given California’s density bonus law but also understood the need to accommodate additional housing within Concord as outlined in the City’s Housing Element.

The Planning Commission reviewed a proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map, and Development Code amendments, and voted 3-1 (Ayes: Mizutani, Laub, Patel; Noes: Barbour; Recused: Corio) to adopt Resolution 25-15 PC recommending the City 11 https://www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Council approval of the amendments and apply the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District to three sites proposed by staff.

January 27, 2026 City Council Meeting
The City Council held a public hearing on January 27, 2026 to consider recommendations from staff and the Planning Commission on establishing the AFFH Overlay District.

Following public comment and deliberation, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the necessary actions to apply the AFFH Overlay District to five sites, which are discussed in greater detail below. In summary, Council moved to proceed with the AFFH Overlay District with the following adjustments to the Planning Commission recommendation:
• Included the Kmart and Clayton Faire sites as recommended; • Included the Palm Lake Apartment site but reduced the total potential for new units from 300 to 165;
• Included the alternative site at 5390 Myrtle with the assumption that 60 units could be developed on the site; and
• Included the alternative site at 1539 Kirker Pass.

Analysis
Housing Overlay Approach
Based on input from the City Council and the public, a housing overlay approach is proposed to allow higher-density residential uses in addition to the uses already permitted on the affected parcels. This means the existing zoning district will remain unchanged, except for the increase in allowable residential density. Under this approach, each parcel and its existing uses may continue as they do today. If a property changes ownership, the new owner may continue operating the same permitted uses, including existing commercial uses, without those uses becoming nonconforming. The overlay is designed to encourage and provide incentives (but not requirements) for property owners to redevelop their sites with housing. Property owners would have the option, but not the obligation, to construct residential units in the overlay district.

Application of AFFH Overlay Zoning District to Five Sites (Attachment 8) The five sites selected by the Council to enable development capacity for up to 1,000 housing units are as follows:
• Site 1: Kmart. The Kmart site is located in a high resource area. The parcel where Kmart is located is approximately thirteen acres and would have a capacity of 780 units with rezoning; however, the Overlay District will be placed on approximately eight acres, creating a capacity of 471 units. The existing General Plan designation

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
is Neighborhood Commercial, and the zoning district is Neighborhood Commercial (NC).
• Site 2: Clayton Faire. The Clayton Faire site is located in a high resource area.

The area of this site included in the Overlay District is approximately 4 acres.

Centre Concord, the gym, bowling alley, and parking areas are being excluded from the Overlay District. With rezoning, it will have a capacity of 248 units. The existing General Plan designation is Neighborhood Commercial, and the zoning district is Neighborhood Commercial (NC).
• Site 8: Palm Lake Apartment Homes Infill. This property is located in a high resource area and an RCAA. It has a total area of almost 13 acres and the owner has already been exploring the addition of units to the site. The site currently contains 300 units and if the entire site were rezoned, it would accommodate an additional 480 dwelling units; however, with the Overlay District applied it will have a cap of 165 additional units (combined total of 465 units). The existing General Plan designation is Medium Density Residential, and the zoning district Planned District (PD).
• Site 16: 5390 Myrtle. This vacant parcel is located within a high resource area and encompasses slightly more than two acres. With the application of the Overlay District it would accommodate a maximum of 142 dwelling units; however, due to the presence of overhead power lines, staff estimates the realistic potential for development is 60 units. The existing General Plan designation is Low Density Residential, and the zoning district is Residential, Low Density (RL). • Site 18: 1539 Kirker Pass. This site is located within a high resource area. It has an area of about an acre and with the application of the Overlay District it would accommodate a maximum of 56 dwelling units. The existing General Plan designation is Medium Density Residential, and the zoning district is Residential, Medium Density (RM).

Following a significant amount of community engagement, these sites were selected by staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council because they have minimal site constraints and / or property owner interest and are underutilized. Each site is located near amenities and schools, and together meet the criteria of Objective 8.6 by: 1) being situated within a TCAC-designated high resource area, 2) greater than 20 acres, 3) add up to at least 1,000 units, 4) have adequate infrastructure, 5) strong development potential, and 6) low to no potential for displacement of lower-income households.

As discussed previously, the Overlay District will cap the total number of units at Palm Lake Apartments at 465, allowing 165 new units to the existing 300, to reduce impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and lessen traffic congestion at Treat Boulevard and Oak Grove Road. This approach aligns with community feedback expressing concerns about the effects of rezoning the Palm Lakes site for additional housing.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Table 1: Sites for Inclusion in the AFFH Overlay District Site Acreage Total Unit Capacity
Site 1: Kmart 7.85 471
Site 2: Clayton Faire 4.14 248
Site 8: Palm Lake Apartments 12.86 16512
Site 16: 5390 Myrtle 2.37 6013
Site 18: 1539 Kirker Pass 0.94 56
TOTAL 28 1,000

Proposed Amendments
The proposed General Plan, Development Code, and Zoning Map amendments are provided in Attachment 1, Exhibit A, and Attachment 2, Exhibits A-H. New text is shown in red underline while proposed deletions are shown red strikethrough.

General Plan Amendment
To ensure the City’s General Plan is consistent with the City’s zoning, an amendment is necessary to incorporate language to increase the allowable density up to 60 dwelling units per acre and to allow residential uses on the ground floor to affirmatively further fair housing. This language is proposed to be added to the Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial General Plan designations for consistency with the selected sites for rezoning (Attachment 1, Exhibit A).

Concord Municipal Code Amendments
The following discusses the Concord Municipal Code (CMC) amendments proposed to create the AFFH Overlay District, its development standards, and to address related changes to implement Objective 8.6.

CMC Section 18.15.020 (Zoning Map and Districts) (Attachment 2, Exhibits A and G) This section of the Code establishes the City’s zoning districts as well as its map. The proposed amendments would add not only the Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Overlay, but also the Affordable Housing and Commercial Cannabis overlay districts, which were inadvertently omitted from this section when they were established.

CMC Section 18.25.040 (Planned District (PD) Zoning) (Attachment 2, Exhibit B) This section of the Code covers the requirements for when a property is zoned Planned District (PD) and requires any existing residential uses with PD zoning to be retained until and unless the property is redeveloped. This requirement exists because developments were approved with varied setbacks, diverse lot sizes, and other variations of residential development standards. The proposed amendments exempt 12 Palm Lakes currently contains 300 existing housing units. While the proposed density of 60 units per acre could accommodate up to 480 additional units (780 total), the overlay zoning will cap total development at 465 units, allowing for 165 new units beyond those existing today. 13 Due to the presence of overhead power lines, staff estimates the realistic potential for development is 60 units.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
housing development projects located within the AFFH Overlay District because the new district establishes development and design standards in the same manner as a zoning district.

CMC Section 18.30.020 (Residential Districts (RR, RS, RL, RM, and RH) (Attachment 2, Exhibit C)
This section establishes which residential, public, commercial, and related land uses are permitted or prohibited within the residential zoning districts and identifies the required permit type for each use. The proposed amendments add multiple cross references to Chapter 18.120 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District) for applicable housing types, including single-family attached units and multifamily development, indicating that additional AFFH requirements apply to these projects. The amendments also clarify that multifamily residential uses are only allowed on parcels located within the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District, reinforcing that higher-density housing opportunities are limited to the Overlay District areas.

CMC Section 18.40.020 (Office and Commercial Districts (CO, CMX, NC, SC, and RC) (Attachment 2, Exhibit D)
This section of the Code indicates which land uses are prohibited and permitted as well as the required permit type. This section covers only the impacted zoning districts in which the overlay would apply. The proposed amendments cross reference the proposed new CMC Chapter 18.120 governing the AFFH Overlay District, indicating additional information and requirements for applicable properties.

CMC Section 18.410.030 (Zoning Clearance) (Attachment 2, Exhibit E) This chapter establishes the procedures and requirements for projects subject to a zoning clearance, a ministerial approval certifying compliance with applicable Code requirements. The proposed language would codify staff’s existing practice of applying conditions of approval to bring zoning clearance projects into compliance with objective standards and regulations.

New CMC Chapter 18.120 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District) (Attachment 2, Exhibit F)
This new chapter to the CMC will establish the AFFH Overlay District, the location, allowed uses and permit requirements, development standards, and the review authority.

Location
As discussed above, the AFFH Overlay District is proposed to apply to five sites.

This is reflected in the AFFH Overlay District map and Table 18.120.030(A).

Uses and Permit Requirements
All commercial land use classifications of the underlying zoning district would still apply; however, the allowable residential uses would be limited to Single-Family,

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Attached and Multifamily, and residential units would be allowed on the ground floor. These residential land use classifications are representative of the achievable density given the range of 20 to 60 units per acre. A housing development project would be subject to a zoning clearance and by-right development review (e.g. no public hearing) if it is located entirely on property located in the AFFH Overlay District and is in conformance with all objective development and design standards. Small lot subdivision projects would still be required to go through the public hearing process and would not be eligible for by-right development review, unless required by state law. If a housing development project does not meet all objective standards or is not located entirely within the AFFH Overlay District, a use permit can be requested.

Development Standards
Table 2 shows the proposed development standards for the AFFH Overlay District.

Table 2: Development Standards(1)(2)
Standard AFFH Overlay District Additional Standards
Density (du/net acre)
minimum/maximum
20 – 60
Floor Area Ratio, Non-
Residential and Mixed-Use
Projects
As allowed in the
underlying zoning district

Lot coverage 70%
Lot Area (square feet)
minimum
5,000
Lot Width (feet) minimum 50
Lot Depth (feet) minimum 100
Building Height (feet)
maximum
40 Setbacks (feet) minimum
Front 10
Corner Side 10
Interior Side, Rear 10 See CMC 18.150.180
(Transitional requirements).

Open Space/Unit (square
feet) minimum
200 See CMC 18.150.100, Open
space and recreational
facilities for residential
developments.
(1)    Chapter 18.152 CMC, Objective Design Standards.
(2) Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Chapter 18.155 CMC (Standards for Small Lot and Medium Density Development) and Division V of this title (Standards for

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Standard AFFH Overlay District Additional Standards
Specific Uses).  Lot area, width, depth, and setback limits listed here do not apply if a site is subdivided into multifamily fee simple/condominium units or small residential lots.

To reduce traffic impacts, all new housing development projects would be required to submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program containing the following:
• New Resident Welcome Packet. Provide a packet to new residents or owners that includes transit maps, bike routes, transit pass information, and TDM information.
• Enhanced Pedestrian Access. Ensure direct, ADA-compliant sidewalk connectivity to the two closest transit stops.

Review Authority
Due to state law limiting a jurisdiction’s review to only objective standards, housing development projects – with the exception of small lot subdivisions – would be reviewed by the Planning Division with the ability to refer the project to another hearing body. (i.e.

Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council).

Findings
Pursuant to CMC Section 18.455.070, amendments to the City’s General Plan, Development Code (Title 18 of the City’s Municipal Code) and Zoning Map may be approved only if all applicable findings are made. Staff’s analysis on how the project meets each finding is provided below:

1. The proposed amendment[s are] consistent with the general plan [including internal consistency with all other provisions of the general plan].

All of the proposed amendments are necessary to implement Objective 8.6 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 proposed Zoning Map amendment would include the sites in the AFFH Overlay District while retaining the underlying zoning of the sites. The AFFH Overlay District is consistent with the site’s General Plan Neighborhood Commercial designation, which is intended to support a mix of residential, commercial, and office development as well as the Residential designations, which are intended for a variety of housing types including townhomes and other forms of multifamily housing.

Furthermore, Objective 8.6 requires the City to rezone approximately 20 acres of land at 60 dwelling units per acre to create capacity for up to 1,000 housing units.

For these reasons, the proposed Zoning Map amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026

2. The proposed amendment[s] would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.

As stated in Finding 1, the proposed amendments implement Objective 8.6 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. On the contrary, they serve the public interest by ensuring compliance with state law and encouraging a wider variety of housing types to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community.

If the City exercises discretion over a development project facilitated by the proposed Zoning Map amendment, the project will be evaluated against applicable policies to ensure it does not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare.

3. 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.

The sites are physically suitable for inclusion in the AFFH Overlay District. They are served by existing utilities and have adequate access. There are no physical constraints that preclude the sites from inclusion in the AFFH Overlay District.

The parcels proposed for inclusion in the AFFH Overlay District are compatible with surrounding land uses given that they are adjacent to residential, mixed-use, and commercial areas, the current General Plan and zoning designations already permit various forms of residential and mixed-use development, and the AFFH Overlay District will facilitate residential development at densities consistent with the City’s Housing Element goals. Development under the AFFH Overlay District will incorporate design measures such as setbacks, height limits, and landscaping buffers where adjacent to lower-density neighborhoods, ensuring an appropriate scale transition.

Consequences of Not Completing the AFFH Program
The process of working with HCD, which has responsibility at a state level to ensure local jurisdictions comply with their certified housing elements, often involves multiple rounds of communication and is not straightforward. Consequently, while staff cannot predict the exact outcomes if the City fails to fulfill the programs in its Housing Element, several potential consequences could arise and are described below. Further, if this program were removed from the Housing Element or altered significantly, HCD might consider it a substantial amendment to the City’s certified Housing Element and trigger the need for additional HCD review and approval, which will take a significant amount of staff time and resources. Through that process, the City would still be required to address the disparities identified in the AFFH analysis performed as part of the Housing

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Element and require the City to provide an alternative program that creates housing opportunities in higher resource areas.

Some possible risks are:

Housing Element Decertification and "Builder's Remedy"
If HCD decertifies the City’s Housing Element for non-compliance, developers would be able to bypass the City’s land use regulations, including zoning, and submit residential projects above and beyond current development standards (e.g., density, height, etc.) or in locations where residential uses are not allowed, and the City would be required to process those applications under the "builder's remedy" provision. Portola Valley, Saint Helena, and Norwalk have had their housing elements decertified by HCD. Portola Valley and Saint Helena had their housing elements decertified due to a failure to complete required zoning by state deadlines and Norwalk was in response to passing an illegal ban of homeless shelters.

Legal and Financial Risks
The City could face the loss of and access to essential local, state, and federal funding for affordable housing, transportation, and infrastructure. For jurisdictions to be eligible for this critical funding, a certified housing element is required. In 2019, HCD sued Huntington Beach for failing to comply with housing element law, putting millions in state funding for Huntington Beach at risk. For more information on HCD enforcement, please review their website, here14.

Senate Bill (SB) 1037
Signed into law on September 19, 2024, SB 1037, authorizes the Attorney General or HCD to fine jurisdictions up to $50,000 per month for not having a certified housing element. The law stipulates that these penalties apply when a local agency's actions or omissions are deemed arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, contrary to established public policy, unlawful, or procedurally unfair. In cases where a jurisdiction fails to pay the imposed penalties, the court may direct the Controller to intercept available state and local funds, redirecting them to the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund to address the noncompliance. This law went into effect on January 1, 2025.

Recent Legal Precedents
Artesia15: In September 2025 the Attorney General's Office and the Department of Housing and Community Development reached a settlement that will bring the Los Angeles County city of Artesia into 14 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/accountability-and-enforcement 15 https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-newsom-administration-reach-agreement-city- artesia

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
compliance with housing element law. In 2023, HCD found Artesia to be out of compliance with housing element law. In May 2023, HCD issued a letter of inquiry, inviting Artesia to explain its non-compliance. The city responded with a proposed timeline for compliance but then failed to meet its own deadline. HCD issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) in October 2024. The agreement, which is in the form of a proposed stipulated judgment and must be approved by the court, lays out deadlines for the city to revise its housing element. Under the settlement, Artesia will take several required actions to adopt a compliant housing element no later than January 2026. The housing element will plan for 1,069 new homes, including 608 that will be affordable for very low-, low-, and moderate- income Californians. Artesia will face civil penalties of at least $10,000 per month from January 1, 2025 to the compliance deadline of January 2026.

Artesia must acknowledge that the “Builder’s Remedy”— a provision in the Housing Accountability Act that requires local permitting authorities to process certain housing project development applications, regardless of zoning or general plan consistency — is in effect until the city has updated its housing element.

Elk Grove16: In September 2024, HCD filed a lawsuit against the City of Elk Grove for rejecting an affordable housing project. Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized the state's stance on enforcement, stating, “California’s housing laws are not optional. Local governments that violate our laws to deny affordable housing opportunities to Californians will be held accountable.” This case highlights how the state may respond to non- compliance with housing element requirements. Not only is the State of California holding jurisdictions accountable, but third parties have sued and will likely continue to file suit against jurisdictions that have missed deadlines and failed to implement the programs of their housing elements.

The Contra Costa County jurisdictions of Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, Pinole, and eight others within the Bay Area have all been the subject of lawsuits claiming they were not in compliance with housing element law.

Loss of Authority to Issue Permits
The City could lose its ability to issue any new building permits for construction, not just housing permits. The Los Angeles County Superior Court found the City of Beverly Hills17 lacked compliance with housing element law and prohibited 16 https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/09/04/governor-newsom-and-attorney-general-bonta-announce-settlement- resolving-elk-groves-unlawful-denial-of-housing-
project/#:~:text=The%20state%20filed%20the%20lawsuit%20after%20the,approved%20a%20similar%20project% 20for%20market%2Drate%20housing.
17 https://www.cp-dr.com/custom/2023-12-21%20-%20Judgment.pdf

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Beverly Hills from issuing permits for any new residential renovations, commercial development, or any other construction projects. The ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed against Beverly Hills accusing that city of skirting state housing laws.

In summary, non-compliance with the approved Housing Element could expose the City to significant risks, including legal actions, loss of funding, fines, and reduced control over local development. The state has shown a commitment to holding jurisdictions accountable for meeting housing obligations.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act 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 City Council finds this action is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.085 (enacted by SB 131, 2025) as it involves rezoning actions to implement the City’s adopted and certified Housing Element. The City Council further finds that the action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Sections 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 this action did constitute a “project” under CEQA, it falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), 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….” Accordingly, no further environmental review is warranted. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Public Contact
The City Council agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website. A written notice was mailed to all owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the five subject parcels (2,599 addresses) at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. In addition, a notice of the hearing was published in the East Bay Times as required by state law and the Concord Municipal Code. The meeting notice was also emailed to approximately 1,400 subscribers on the project’s interested parties list, advertised via social media, and posted on the City’s website.

Attachments

1. Resolution No. 26-XX
Exhibit A –General Plan Land Use Element Amendments

2. Ordinance No. 26-XX
Exhibit A – CMC Chapter 18.15 (Zoning Districts and Zoning Map) Exhibit B – CMC Chapter 18.25 (Development and Land Use Approvals) Exhibit C – CMC Chapter 18.30 (Residential Districts)

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Exhibit D – CMC Chapter 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts) Exhibit E – CMC Chapter 18.410 (Zoning Clearance)
Exhibit F – CMC Chapter 18.120 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District)
Exhibit G – Zoning Map with Enlarged Areas18
Exhibit H – Legal Description of 780 Oak Grove Road

3. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis

4. Level of Service Traffic Analysis

5. Map of Study Area

6. Residential Feasibility Study

7. Fiscal Impact Analysis

8. Map of Rezoning Sites

9. Alternative Programs to the AFFH Overlay District Considered 18 cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/14255/Zoning-Map-with-Enlarged-Areas-combined-maps

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Finding the Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Overlay District Statutorily Exempt from
CEQA Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.085,
Enacted by Senate Bill 131 (2025); and/or not a
Project/Exempt Pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections
15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378; and Approving an
Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element
Resolution No. 26-XX
__/
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65350 et seq. provides for the adoption and amendment of general plans and elements of those general plans by local jurisdictions, and Government Code Section 65800 et seq. provides for the amendment of adopted City of Concord (“City”) zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2007, the City adopted the 2030 Urban Area General Plan (“General Plan”); and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2012, the City amended the 2030 Urban Area General Plan to incorporate and achieve consistency with the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan, and redesignated the 2030 Urban Area General Plan as the 2030 General Plan (“General Plan”), and has since amended the General Plan several times; and
WHEREAS, the California legislature has found and declared the availability of housing to be a matter of 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, California Assembly Bill 686 of 2018 (“AB 686”) amended state housing element law to require that local jurisdictions affirmatively further fair housing by addressing disparities in access to opportunity and promoting equitable housing distribution through their Attachment 1

Res. No. 26-XX 2
housing elements, and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2023, the City adopted the 2023–2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”) of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, to meet the requirements of AB 686, the Housing Element includes Objective 8.6, which requires the City to rezone at least 20 acres in moderate- and high-resource areas to allow a residential density of at least 60 dwelling units per acre to accommodate at least 1,000 housing units; 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, to implement Objective 8.6, the City conducted extensive community engagement, feasibility analyses, and property owner outreach over approximately 21 months, and, as a result, identified approximately 40 acres across seven sites for potential inclusion in a new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (“AFFH”) Overlay District; and WHEREAS, to further implement Objective 8.6, the City must amend its General Plan Land Use Element; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2025, the Planning Commission, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Concord Development Code (“CDC”), held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District, including proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, at such public hearing the Planning Commission considered all oral testimony and written comments received during the public review process, the testimony and information received at the public hearing and the oral and written reports from City staff dated November 19, 2025, exhibits presented, pertinent plans and documents, ordinances, and other documents contained in the record of proceedings relating to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Concord Planning Division (hereinafter referred to as “Planning Commission Project Information”); and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2025, the Planning Commission, after consideration of

Res. No. 26-XX 3
the pertinent plans, documents and testimony, adopted Resolution No. 25-15 PC recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan amendment to the Land Use Element and find the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.085 (enacted by SB 131, 2025) as it involves rezoning actions to implement the City’s adopted and certified Housing Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Concord Development Code (“CDC”) Section 18.455.050(B) and Government Code Section 65857, after consideration of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District at its November 19, 2025 meeting, the Planning Commission forwarded its recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Municipal Code , held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation for the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District, including proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, at such meeting after considering the Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council directed staff to return with the necessary documents and actions to implement the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District on five selected sites encompassing approximately 28 acres of land; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element; and
WHEREAS, at such meeting, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments and at the public hearing, the oral report from City staff, the written report from City staff dated February 24, 2026, attached materials, exhibits presented, the Planning Commission Information, and all other information that constitutes the record of proceedings relating to the proposed Resolution, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Concord City Clerk (collectively, “City Council Information”) and declared its intent to approve the Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

Res. No. 26-XX 4
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

The recitals constitute findings in this matter, and together with the Planning Commission Project Information, serve as an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution.

Section 2. CEQA

1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act 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 City Council finds this action is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.085 (enacted by SB 131, 2025) as it involves rezoning actions to implement the City’s adopted and certified Housing Element. The City Council further finds that the action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal. Code Regs.

Sections 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 this action did constitute a “project” under CEQA, it falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), 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….”

2. Accordingly, no further environmental review is warranted. This determination reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

Section 3. The City Council has reviewed, considered, and evaluated all of the Planning Commission Project Information, City Council Information, and all other pertinent plans, documents and testimony.

Section 4. Findings

1. The proposed amendment[s are] consistent with the general plan [including internal consistency with all other provisions of the general plan].

All of the proposed amendments are necessary to implement Objective 8.6 of the 2023-

Res. No. 26-XX 5
2031 Housing Element of the City’s General Plan and are not inconsistent with any other provisions of the General Plan. The proposed Zoning Map amendment would include the sites in the AFFH Overlay District while retaining the underlying zoning of the sites. The AFFH Overlay District is consistent with the site’s General Plan Neighborhood Commercial designation, which is intended to support a mix of residential, commercial, and office development as well as Residential designations, which are intended for a variety of housing types including townhomes and other forms of multifamily housing. Furthermore, Objective 8.6 requires the City to rezone approximately 20 acres of land at 60 dwelling units per acre to create capacity for up to 1,000 housing units. For these reasons, the proposed Zoning Map amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.

2. The proposed amendment[s] would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.

As stated in Finding 1, the proposed amendments implement Objective 8.6 of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element and would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. On the contrary, they serve the public interest by ensuring compliance with state law and encouraging a wider variety of housing types to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community. If the City exercises discretion over a development project facilitated by the proposed Zoning Map amendment, the project will be evaluated against applicable policies to ensure it does not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare.

3. 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.

The sites are physically suitable for inclusion in the AFFH Overlay District. They are served by existing utilities and have adequate access. There are no physical constraints that preclude the sites from inclusion in the AFFH Overlay District. The parcels proposed for inclusion in the AFFH Overlay District are compatible with surrounding land uses given that they are adjacent to residential, mixed-use, and commercial areas, the current General Plan and zoning designations already permit various forms of residential and mixed-use development, and

Res. No. 26-XX 6
the AFFH Overlay District will facilitate residential development at densities consistent with the City’s Housing Element goals. Development under the AFFH Overlay District will incorporate design measures such as setbacks, height limits, and landscaping buffers where adjacent to lower-density neighborhoods, ensuring an appropriate scale transition.

Section 5. The City Council does hereby approve that amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element attached as Exhibit A.

Section 6. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on February 24, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 26-XX was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord February 24, 2026.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A – General Plan Land Use Element Amendments

3-13

Land Use
Designations
The following descriptions apply to land uses indicated on the General Plan Land Use Map. Land use designations are organized into the following categories: Residential, Commercial and Mixed Use, Business Park/Industrial, and Community Land. Acreage by land use designation is summarized in Table 3-2. The land use designations are as follows:

Residential
Rural Residential (RR)
This designation is intended for very low density residential development, at densities less than 2.5 units per net acre. Clustered development is preferred to maximize open space.

Low Density Residential (LDR)
This designation is intended for residential development at densities from 2.5 to 10 units per net acre with an exception for parcels designated for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). These AFFH parcels allow densities ranging from a minimum of 20 units per net acre to a maximum of 60 units per net acre. Theis density range of 2.5 to 10 units per acre is typical of a single -family residential neighborhood, such as Sun Terrace or Turtle Creek.

Medium Density Residential (MDR)
This designation is intended for residential development at densities ranging from a minimum of 11 units per net acre to a maximum of 32 units per net acre with an exception for parcels designated for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). These AFFH parcels allow densities ranging from a minimum of 20 units per net acre to a maximum of 60 units per net acre. This density range accommodates a variety of housing types, from small -lot single -family homes to townhomes and other forms of multi -family development. It is applied along major streets and transit corridors, including Monument Boulevard, Willow Pass Road, and Clayton Road.

High Density Residential (HDR)
This designation is intended for residential development at densities ranging from a minimum of 33 units per net acre to a maximum of 100 units per net acre. This density range would accommodate attached homes, two- to four-plexes, and apartment buildings. This designation is intended for areas in and adjacent to central Concord and near BART stations, where higher densities may be appropriate.

Residential design standards will ensure land use compatibility.

North Todos Santos (NTS)
The designation is applied to the North Todos Santos neighborhood, an area characterized by pre -World War II development, including historic buildings. The designation allows a mix of offices, single- Exhibit A to Attachment 1

3-14
family homes, and multifamily residences. Residential densities range from 2.5 to 32 units per net acre and the maximum FAR is

0.5. Because of the area’s historic fabric, it is especially important that new uses are compatible with prevailing neighborhood character and maintain and enhance the neighborhood environment.

CRP Neighborhood and Village Districts (CRP-NV)
This designation applies within the Concord Reuse Project (CRP) Area only. It is primarily intended for residential development at densities ranging from 6 to 50 units per net acre. Residential areas are focused around village centers containing a mix of residential, commercial, public, and open space uses. The text box below provides additional detail on allowable uses and intensities within these areas.

Commercial and Mixed Use
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
This designation is intended for neighborhood commercial centers that provide convenience and comparison goods and services to the local community. The maximum FAR is 0.35. Residential uses are allowed above the ground level at densities from a minimum of 11 units per net acre to a maximum of 24 units per net acre with an exception for parcels designated for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) . These AFFH parcels allow residential uses at ground level and densities ranging from a minimum of 20 unit s per net acre to a maximum of 60 units per net acre. Examples include neighborhood shopping centers, supermarkets, dry cleaners, video stores, and small restaurants. This designation is distributed throughout the City in order to locate commercial services within close proximity to all of Concord’s residents.

Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
This designation allows for a mix of commercial uses, offices, multi- family uses, and mixed use development. The maximum FAR is 1.0.

Densities range from a minimum of 11 units per net acre to a maximum of 40 units per net acre. The designation is intended for use along commercial corridors such as Clayton Road, Monument Boulevard, and Willow Pass Road.

West Concord Mixed Use (WCMU)
This designation is intended for use in the area generally located between the I -680 and Highway 242 freeways, south of Concord Avenue. It allows for a mix of office and commercial development, including such uses as new auto dealers, hotels, restaurants, and showroom/warehouses. Public/ quasi-public uses also are allowed.

Residential development is not allowed in this mixed- use category, as it is intended to create a campus -like office environment. The maximum FAR is 4.0.

3-15

Downtown Pedestrian District (DTPD)
This designation is intended for low - to high-rise commercial and residential development around Todos Santos Plaza, with restrictions in height around the Plaza to preserve sunlight access. Residential densities range from a minimum of 33 units per acre to a maximum of 100 units per net acre. FARs range from a minimum of 1.0 to a maximum of 4.0. The designation is intended to maintain the pedestrian-oriented environment in this portion of Central Concord, with a focus on ground-level commercial uses and development that encourages walkability. Pedestrian -oriented design standards and use limitations apply.

Downtown Mixed Use (DTMU)
This designation is intended for a high density and intensity mix of residential, commercial and office development in Central Concord.

It allows for a mix of uses that balances jobs and housing opportunities, including offices, commercial development, hotels, public/quasi public, and residential uses. Residential densities range from a minimum of 33 units per acre to a maximum of 100 units per net acre. The FAR ranges from a minimum of 1.0 to a maximum of

6.0. Concord Reuse Project Transit Oriented Development Districts (CRP-TOD)
This designation applies to those parts of the Concord Reuse Project (CRP) planned for high density residential and commercial development in a transit -oriented setting. The CRP -TOD area is envisioned as a major employment center, shopping district, and urban residential area. CRP-TOD areas also may include civic facilities, active parks, plazas, and other public spaces. More detail on this category is provided in the text box above and in the CRP Area Plan.

Community Office (CO)
This designation is intended for small-scale office uses that serve the community, as well as other uses that are compatible with local- serving offices. These uses are typically low-rise development of not more than three stories. The maximum FAR is 1.0.

3-16

Concord Reuse Project Area Development Districts
Future land uses in the Concord Reuse Project (CRP) Area are depicted on Figure 3-3. Ten “districts” are shown on the map, including eight “development districts” and two “open space districts”. The development districts have been grouped into three categories on Figure 3-2, the General Plan Land Use Map, as described below.

Full descriptions of the categories on Figure 3-3 may be found in the CRP Area Plan,2 Figure 3-2
Category
Figure 3-3 District
CRP Neighborhood and Village
Districts
Village Neighborhoods. These areas will have a mix of detached and attached housing. Densities generally range from 6 to 45 units per net acre, although most of these areas will be developed at the lower end of this range (6 to 24 units per acre). Densities will be lowest near the established neighborhoods on the southern edge of the site.

Village Center. At the heart of each Village Neighborhood is a mixed use center containing retail/ service uses, multi-unit housing, civic facilities such as schools, and a public space such as a park or plaza. Additional uses that would contribute to the function of these areas as gathering places for the surrounding neighborhood could be considered. FARs range from 0.5 to 2.0 and net residential densities range from 18 to 50 units per net acre.

Central Neighborhoods. This is a mixed use residential district with a variety of housing types.

The character is predominantly residential, although some of the multi-unit buildings could have ground floor retail and service uses. Community services and open spaces, including neighborhood parks, also will be located in these areas. FARs range from 0.5 to 2.0 and net residential densities range from 14 to 50 units per net acre.

CRP TOD Districts
North Concord TOD Core. This district is envisioned as a high-intensity mixed use employment center adjacent to BART. It will include offices, retail, services, and open space. Multi-unit housing, dining and entertainment, community and cultural/ civic facilities, and hotels are also appropriate here. FARs range from 2.0 to 4.0 and net residential densities range from 60 to150 units per net acre.

North Concord TOD Neighborhoods. This is a mostly residential mixed use district within easy walking distance of BART. It will include multi-unit housing, retail stores and services, community facilities, and open space. Other uses, such as dining and entertainment, live-work units, and offices may be appropriate. FARs range from 1.0 to 3.0 and net residential densities range from 18 to 100 units per net acre.

CRP Non-residential
Development Districts
Commercial Flex. The Commercial Flex area is planned to accommodate light industrial, research and development, retail, hospitality, and office uses. The specific mix of uses in the Commercial-Flex district will be determined through future market and design studies. Activities which take advantage of this area’s proximity to Willow Pass Road and Highway 4 are encouraged. FARs in the Commercial-Flex area may range from 0.2 to 1.0.

Campus. The Campus district will provide a master planned campus environment for a major educational, health care, research and development, or comparable use. One prototype use for this site would be a university with up to 10,000 students and 1,700 employees.

First Responder Training Facility. This site will include training grounds and other facilities required to serve regional first responders, including the Contra Costa County Sheriff and Fire Departments.

2 To ensure the efficient use of land, the districts are subject to minimum density standards as well as maximum density standards. They are also subject to “convenience standards” which indicate the minimum distance from future parcels in each area to transit stops, bike lanes, open space, and other facilities. The CRP Area Plan should be should be consulted for further detail and the additional provisions which apply in each district.

3-17

Regional Commercial (RC)
This designation
is intended for large-scale commercial development
(greater than 80,000 square feet) that serves both local residents and residents from the surrounding region. A broad range of retail uses and personal services are envisioned, including regional shopping centers, big box retail, home improvement sales and service, and warehouse membership clubs, as well as new auto sales and services, and travel -related services such as hotels, gas stations, and restaurants. The maximum FAR is 0.5.

Service Commercial (SC)
This designation is intended to provide sites for commercial businesses that are not appropriate in other areas because of high volumes of vehicle traffic and potential adverse impacts on other uses. This designation allows small scale commercial uses that provide goods and services to employees, residents and visitors. It includes automotive sales and services, building materials, warehousing, distribution and personal storage located on major arterial streets, as well as retail uses, services, and small offices. The maximum FAR is 0.8.

Concord Reuse Project Non-Residential Development
District (CRP-NR)
The CRP-NR designation is mapped on the Concord Reuse Project (CRP) site only. It includes three contiguous areas, as shown on Figure 3-3. These include: (a) a Commercial-Flex district south of Highway 4; (b) a Campus district on the west side of Willow Pass Road south of Mt. Diablo Creek; and (c) a First Responder Training Facility north of Highway 4. Additional information on this category is provided in the text box above.

Business Park/ Industrial
Business Park (BP)
This designation is intended for campus-like office complexes as well as industrial parks, including single and multi -story office, flex- space, and industrial buildings for single and multiple users, light industrial and warehouse uses, and research and development activities. Other uses may include mini- storage, wholesale, bulk retail, and business with limited customer access, commer cial recreation, and other uses that require large, warehouse -style buildings. Small-scale retail and service uses serving employees and visitors may be permitted as secondary and accessory uses. This designation may also allow small restaurants, support s ervices, and convenience retail activities at appropriate locations, subject to

3-18

standards to minimize impacts on industrial users. Where permitted, storage uses in areas with this designation must be screened by vegetation and other means to maintain community aesthetics. The maximum FAR is 0.8.

Industrial Mixed Use (IMU)
This land use designation is intended for a mix of light industrial, secondary office, service uses (excluding auto- oriented retail services) and live/work facilities. Typical uses include warehouse, research and development, wholesale, bulk retail, office space with limited customer access, and artists’ studios. Small-scale retail and service uses serving employees, residents, and visitors may be permitted as secondary uses. This designation would allow for live/work facilities where appropriate, such as the North Hillcrest area and the southern portion of the Detroit Avenue/Shary Circle area. The maximum FAR is 1.0.

Heavy Industrial (HI)
This designation allows primary manufacturing, refining, and similar heavy industrial activities. It also accommodates warehousing, distribution and port-related uses, with support commercial services and ancillary office space. No retail uses are allowed. This designation is applied primarily to facilities north of SR 4. The maximum FAR is 0.6.

Community Land
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
This designation is applied to property owned by governmental entities and to semi- public facilities. It includes Buchanan Field Airport, hospitals, schools, government offices, corporation yards, and public facilities such as recycling centers, sewage treatment facilities, and fire stations. Smaller governmental offices, places of religious assembly not occupying extensive land areas, and similar smaller public facilities are not shown on the General Plan Land Use Map. New public/quasi public facilities may be appropriate in any land use designation based on need, subject to environmental review.

The maximum FAR is 1.5.

Hospital/Medical Center (H/MC)
The H/MC -designator on the Land Use Map denotes hospital, medical center and related medical uses including ‘specialty hospitals’. This designation is intended for full service hospitals and medical facilities that provide in -patient services for cardiac, orthopedic, and cancer related diseases, and/or similar illnesses and disorders.

3-19

Military (MIL)
This designation applies to the Tidal portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station, the Military Ocean Terminal Center, and the Coast Guard housing area adjacent to the CRP site. The Tidal Area contains port and industrial buildings, and additional land for support uses and facilities, which will continue to be used by the Army for an undetermined period of time.

Open Space (OS)
This designation is intended for large areas that are necessary for natural resource protection, the managed production of natural resources, the provision of natural resources, outdoor recreation (including trails), scenic value, and the assurance of public health and safety. This designation includes private recreation facilities and larger privately -owned areas dedicated as permanent open space within residential subdivisions.

Concord Reuse Project Open Space (CRP-OS)
This designation includes the portions of the Concord Reuse Project identified for long-term preservation as open space. It is comprised of two “districts” (see Figure 3 -3). The Conservation Open Space District includes environmentally sensitive lands and other natural areas in the Los Medanos Hills and along Mount Diablo Creek. Most of this area is planned to become part of a new regional park. The Greenways and Citywide Parks District includes a “frame” of open space and linear parks around future neighborhoods, as well as large areas planned for active recreation.

Active Parks (P)
This designation is intended for improved public park facilities. It includes neighborhood and community parks; public golf courses; and recreational facilities that provide visual open space and serve the outdoor recreational needs of the community. Active parks are also permitted in the other designations on the General Plan Map, and a General Plan Map Amendment is not required if a new park is created.

Wetlands/Resource Conservation (WRC)
This designation applies to wetlands and resource conservation lands.

It is intended to protect the wildlife, hydrological, and biological resources in these areas. It allows only very low intensity open space uses that are compatible with and do not disturb the resources to be protected.

3-20

Rural Conservation (RCON)
This designation provides for protection of rural hillside areas. Single family residential development of up to 1 unit per 20 developable net acres would be allowed, with clustering encouraged to minimize impacts on views of the area.

Other
Unclassified (U)
This designation is intended for canals and rights-of-way and reflects no prescribed land use designation.

Summary of Density and Intensity
The density and intensity (FAR) standards used in the General Plan are shown in Table 3-3. The table is based on net density (based on net acreage), rather than gross density (based on gross acreage). A gross acre is a measure of total land area of any lot including future streets, parks, and other land dedications. In comparison, a net acre excludes land to be dedicated for required easements for vehicles and right-of-ways, land determined to be hazardous and/or unbuildable, or land to be dedicated for schools and parks or other facilities dedicated for public use. Formulas based on net density or net acreage exclude such areas from the calculation.

In a few instances, the net density in existing neighborhoods is higher than the range shown on the General Plan Map. In other words, the lot sizes are smaller than those typically found in the corresponding General Plan Map category. This may be due to the dedication of areas as private open space within larger subdivisions, with housing clustered on the flatter portions of a site. This was historically encouraged as a way to preserve hillsides and creeks, and create neighborhood parks and greenbelts. Future development will be required to adhere to the density standards established in the General Plan. Creative approaches to site planning and open space dedication will continue to be encouraged to protect natural features.

3-21

Table 3-3: Standards for Density and Develop ment Intensity

Land Use Category
Residential Density
Range (Housing
Units/Net Acre)*
Maximum Non-
Residential Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Rural Residential/Conservation <2.5 n/a
Low Density Residential3 2.5 – 10 n/a
Medium Density Residential1,3 11 – 32 n/a
High Density Residential1 33 – 100 n/a
North Todos Santos 2.5 – 32 0.5
CRP Neighborhood and Village Districts2 6-50 2.0*
Neighborhood Commercial1,3 11 to 24 0.35
Commercial Mixed Use1 11 to 40 1.0
Industrial Mixed Use n/a 1.0
West Concord Mixed Use n/a 4.0
Downtown Pedestrian District1 33 to 100 1.0-4.0
CRP Transit Oriented Development Districts2 Up to 150* 4.0 Downtown Mixed Use1 33 to 100 1.0-6.0
Service Commercial n/a 0.8
Regional Commercial n/a 0.5
CRP Non-Residential Development Districts2 n/a 1.0*
Community Office n/a 1.0
Business Park n/a 0.8
Heavy Industrial n/a 0.6
Public/Quasi Public n/a 1.5
Notes: (1) These areas are subject to minimum residential density requirements as well as maximum density requirements. and (2) These designations include multiple subdistricts, each with unique density and/or intensity ranges. Minimum densities and FARs also apply. See CRP Area Plan for more detail. (3) Parcels designated for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing have a density ranging from 20 to 60 units per net acre.

Ord. No. 26-XX 1
ORDINANCE NO. 26-XX

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CONCORD MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE
18 (DEVELOPMENT CODE), CHAPTERS 18.15 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND ZONING MAP), 18.25 (DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE
APPROVALS), 18.30 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS), 18.40 (OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS), AND 18.410 (ZONING CLEARANCE);
ADDING CHAPTER 18.120 (AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR
HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT); AND REZONING APPROXIMATELY
28 ACRES TO APPLY THE AFFIRMATIVELY FAIR HOUSING
OVERLAY DISTRICT (PL25166 – MC)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65800 et seq. provides for the amendment of adopted 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 matter of 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, California Assembly Bill 686 of 2018 (“AB 686”) amended state housing element law to require that local jurisdictions affirmatively further fair housing by addressing disparities in access to opportunity and promoting equitable housing distribution through their housing elements, and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2023, the City adopted its 2023–2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”); and
WHEREAS, to meet the requirements of AB 686, the Housing Element includes Objective 8.6, which requires the City to rezone at least 20 acres in moderate- and high-resource areas to allow a residential density of at least 60 dwelling units per acre to accommodate at least 1,000 housing units; 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
//
Attachment 2

Ord. No. 26-XX
WHEREAS, to implement Objective 8.6, the City conducted extensive community engagement, feasibility analyses, and property owner outreach over approximately 21 months, and, as a result, identified approximately 40 acres across seven sites for potential inclusion in a new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (“AFFH”) Overlay District; and
WHEREAS, to complete implementation of Objective 8.6, this Ordinance was prepared amending the Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapters 18.15 (Zoning Districts and Zoning Map), 18.25 (Development and Land Use Approvals), 18.30 (Residential Districts), 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts), and 18.410 (Zoning Clearance); adding Chapter 18.120 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District); and rezoning approximately 28 acres to apply the AFFH Overlay District; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2025, the Planning Commission, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, at such public hearing the Planning Commission considered all oral testimony and written comments received during the public review process, the testimony and information received at the public hearing and the oral and written reports from City staff dated November 19, 2025, exhibits presented, pertinent plans and documents, ordinances, and other documents contained in the record of proceedings relating to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Concord Planning Division (hereinafter referred to as “Planning Commission Project Information”); and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2025, the Planning Commission, after consideration of all pertinent plans, documents, and testimony, adopted Resolution No. 25-15 PC recommending City Council approval of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation for the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District,; and //

Ord. No. 26-XX
WHEREAS, at such meeting after considering the Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council directed staff to return with the necessary documents and actions to implement the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District on five selected sites encompassing approximately 28 acres of land; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing 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 February 24, 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 adopt the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 26-XX finding the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.085, which was enacted by Senate Bill 131 (2025); and/or it not a project or exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378 and amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan incorporating amendments to include provisions for properties designated for affirmatively furthering fair housing.

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.

Ord. No. 26-XX
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 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 City Council finds this ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.085 (enacted by SB 131, 2025) as it involves rezoning actions to implement the City’s adopted and certified Housing Element.

The City Council further finds that this ordinance does 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 this ordinance did constitute a “project” under CEQA, it falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment….” Accordingly, no further environmental review is warranted. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Section 5. Development Code Amendment Findings
1) The proposed amendment[s are] consistent with the General Plan.

All the proposed amendments are necessary to implement Objective 8.6 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 proposed Zoning Map amendment would include the sites in the AFFH Overlay District while retaining the underlying zoning of the sites. The AFFH Overlay District is consistent with the site’s General Plan Neighborhood Commercial designation, which is intended to support a mix of residential, commercial, and office development as well as the Residential designations, which are intended for a variety of housing types including townhomes and other forms of multifamily housing.

Ord. No. 26-XX
Furthermore, Objective 8.6 requires the City to rezone approximately 20 acres of land at 60 dwelling units per acre to create capacity for up to 1,000 housing units. For these reasons, the proposed Zoning Map amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
2) The proposed amendment[s] would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.

As stated in Finding 1, the proposed amendments implement Objective 8.6 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. On the contrary, they serve the public interest by ensuring compliance with state law and encouraging a wider variety of housing types to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community. If the City exercises discretion over a development project facilitated by the proposed Zoning Map amendment, the project will be evaluated against applicable policies to ensure it does not adversely affect public health, safety, or 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.

The sites are physically suitable for inclusion in the AFFH Overlay District. They are served by existing utilities and have adequate access. There are no physical constraints that preclude the sites from inclusion in the AFFH Overlay District. The parcels proposed for inclusion in the AFFH Overlay District are compatible with surrounding land uses given that they are adjacent to residential, mixed-use, and commercial areas, the current General Plan and zoning designations already permit various forms of residential and mixed-use development, and the AFFH Overlay District will facilitate residential development at densities consistent with the City’s Housing Element goals. Development under the AFFH Overlay District will incorporate design measures such as setbacks, height limits, and landscaping buffers where adjacent to lower-density neighborhoods, ensuring an appropriate scale transition.

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 18.15 (Zoning

Ord. No. 26-XX
Districts and Zoning Map), is hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibit A and attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Section 8. Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.25 (Development and Land Use Approvals), is hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibit B and attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Section 9. Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.30 (Residential Districts), is hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibit C and attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Section 10. Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts), is hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibit D and attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Section 11. Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.410 (Zoning Clearance), is hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibit E and attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Section 12. Concord Municipal Code, Title 18 (Development Code), Chapter 18.120 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District), is hereby added, as set forth in Exhibit F and attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Section 13. The City zoning map is hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibit G and attached hereto and made a part hereof, which includes the following properties:
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//

Ord. No. 26-XX
Address Assessor’s Parcel Number Acreage
5100 Clayton Road 133-111-010 7.850
5280 Clayton Road 120-081-057 0.495
5288 Clayton Road 120-081-078 0.757
5350 Clayton Road 120-081-018 0.575
5354 Clayton Road 120-081-075 0.546
5356 Clayton Road 120-081-076 1.261
5358 Clayton Road 120-081-058 0.504
780 Oak Grove Road 134-400-002 12.871, 2
1539 Kirker Pas Road 117-170-017 0.937
5390 Myrtle Drive 117-090-040 2.368
1 Limited to a total of 465 units for the purposes of AFFH Overlay District regardless of the net developable acreage.
2 This property is further described in Exhibit G.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//

Ord. No. 26-XX
Section 13. 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)
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//

9 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 February 24, 2026, and was thereafter duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on MONTH DAY, 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 18.15 (Zoning Districts and Zoning Map) Exhibit B – CMC Chapter 18.25 (Development and Land Use Approvals) Exhibit C – CMC Chapter 18.30 (Residential Districts)
Exhibit D – CMC Chapter 18.40 (Office and Commercial Districts) Exhibit E – CMC Chapter 18.410 (Zoning Clearance)
Exhibit F – CMC Chapter 18.120 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District) Exhibit G – Zoning Map
Exhibit H – Legal Description of 780 Oak Grove Road

A. Zones Established. The city of Concord shall be divided into zoning districts that implement the Concord general plan, as shown on Table 18.15.020.

B. Zoning District Symbols. The districts established by this section are shown as symbols on the zoning map and consist of letters and numbers, organized as follows:

1. General Land Use Indicator. Each district includes a letter or letters that indicate the primary land use type within the district. For example, “RS” means that the primary land use type is residential single-family.

2. Residential Density or Subdistricts Indicator. The land use symbol for a particular district may include a number that identifies a subdistrict indicating a type of dwelling or use or minimum lot size. For example, “RS-10” identifies a single- family residential district where the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet.

3. Overlay Zone Indicator. One or more overlay district indicators may be appended to the primary district to identify an overlay district that applies to a site. For example, “RS-12-H” would identify a single-family residential district where the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet that is subject to the hillside overlay district requirements.

Table 18.15.020
Zoning Districts
District Symbol Name of District General Plan Designation Residential Districts – dwelling units (du) per net acre (1) RR-40, RR-20, RR-15 Rural Residential Rural Residential (< 2.5 du/net acre)
RS-12, RS-10, RS-8, RS-

7.5, RS-7, RS-6, RS-5
Single-Family Residential Low Density (2.5 – 10 du/net
acre)
RL Low Density Residential Low Density (2.5 – 10 du/net acre)

18.15.020 Zoning map and districts.

The city council hereby adopts the “city of Concord zoning map” (hereinafter referred to as the “zoning map”) on file with the city. The zoning map is hereby incorporated into the development code by reference.

Exhibit A to Attachment 2

Table 18.15.020
Zoning Districts
District Symbol Name of District General Plan Designation RM Medium Density Residential Medium Density (11 – 32 du/net acre)
RH High Density Residential High Density (33 – 100 du/net acre)
North Todos Santos District
NTS North Todos Santos District North Todos Santos
OƯice and Commercial Districts – FAR (Floor Area Ratio) CO Community OƯice Community OƯice (FAR 1.0)
CMX Commercial Mixed-Use Commercial Mixed-Use (FAR 1.0; 11 – 40 du/net acre)
NC Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (FAR

0.35; 11 – 24 du/net acre)
RC Regional Commercial Regional Commercial (FAR 0.5)
SC Service Commercial Service Commercial (FAR 0.8)
Downtown Districts
DP Downtown Pedestrian Downtown Pedestrian (FAR 4.0;
33 – 100 du/net acre)
DMX Downtown Mixed-Use Downtown Mixed-Use (FAR min.

1.0, max 6.0; 33 – 100 du/net
acre)

Table 18.15.020
Zoning Districts
District Symbol Name of District General Plan Designation WMX West Concord Mixed-Use West Concord Mixed-Use (FAR

4.0)
Business Park and Industrial Districts
OBP OƯice Business Park Business Park (FAR 0.8)
IBP Industrial Business Park Business Park (FAR 0.8)
IMX Industrial Mixed-Use Industrial Mixed-Use (FAR 1.0) HI Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial (FAR 0.6)
Public/Quasi Public Districts
PQP Public/Quasi Public Public/Quasi Public (FAR 1.5)
Community Land Districts
OS Open Space Open Space
PR Parks and Recreation Parks
RLC Rural Land Rural Conservation
WRC Wetlands and Resource
Conservation
Wetlands/Resource
Conservation
Study District
S Study District Reuse Area
Overlay Districts

Table 18.15.020
Zoning Districts
District Symbol Name of District General Plan Designation A Airport Overlay Buchanan Field Airport
TS Transit Station Overlay NA
NA Commercial Cannabis
Overlay District
NA
NA AƯordable Housing Overlay
District
NA
AFFH AƯirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Overlay
NA
(1) A net acre is the portion of a site that can be built on. Typically it is the gross lot area minus any land used for access, public or private streets, trails, open space, floodways or utility easements, except for high density residential, which assumes that sites identified in the housing element are net acres with existing improvements. A net acre is typically 20 to 25 percent less than the gross area.

18.25.040 Planned district (PD) zoning district.

As of the eƯective date of the ordinance codified in this title, no development shall be approved using the planned district (PD) zoning district with the exception of housing development projects located within the AƯirmatively Further Fair Housing Overlay District as identified in CMC Chapter 18.120, which may retain the underlying base planned district zoning district. Existing residential development approved in the planned district zoning district shall retain the (PD) zoning designation until and unless the property is redeveloped. The purpose of the planned district designation was to provide for development and site design which better responded to unique environmental conditions in furtherance of the general plan by permitting varied setbacks, diverse lot sizes, and other variations to the residential development standards. The development standards were established with the approval of a preliminary development plan by the city council.

However, many of the preliminary development plans for residential planned district development and/or their subsequent use permit approval did not provide a suƯicient written record to document the development standards and guide the approval of changes to properties over time. Where no record of development standards exists for a specific residential planned district, Table 18.30.030, RR and RS Districts Development Standards, and Table 18.30.040, RL, RM, RH Districts Development Standards, shall be used to determine lot coverage, setbacks, and building height by using the area of the subject lot to determine the equivalent zoning category. For those residential planned districts which do include a written record of development standards, those conditions of approval shall remain in eƯect. [Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-55].

Exhibit B to Attachment 2

Exhibit C to Attachment 2

18.30.020 Table 18.30.020 – Residential districts – Allowed uses and permit requirements.

Table 18.30.020 identifies the uses allowed by the development code in each residential zoning district and the type of permit required to establish each use. See CDC 18.25.030(B) or Division VII of this title (Permits and Permit Procedures). Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title.

Table 18.30.020
Residential Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications RR RS RL RM RH Additional Requirements Residential Uses
Bed and Breakfast Inn UP UP UP UP UP
Dwelling, Dwelling Units, Housing Units
Single-Family, Detached ZC ZC ZC(2) – –
Single-Family, Detached –
Small Lot Subdivision
– UP UP(2) UP(2) –
Single-Family, Attached – UP ZC ZC ZC Chapter 18.152 CDC, Objective Design Standards; Chapter 18.120,
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Duplex – – AP(2) ZC(2) – Chapter 18.152 CDC, Objective
Design Standards
Multifamily – – –
ZC(3)
ZC ZC Chapter 18.152 CDC, Objective
Design Standards; Chapter 18.120,
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Family Day Care Home (14 or
fewer children)

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Group Housing – – – UP UP
Home-Based Business ZC,A
P
ZC,A
P
ZC,
AP
ZC,
AP
ZC,
AP
CDC 18.200.100, Home-based
businesses
Live/Work Unit – – UP UP UP CDC 18.200.110, Live/work or work/live units
Mixed-Use Project – – – – – Chapter 18.152 CDC, Objective Design Standards
CDC 18.200.140, Mixed-use projects
Mobile Home Park – – – UP UP
Residential Care Facility, Small ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
Table 18.30.020
Residential Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications RR RS RL RM RH Additional Requirements Residential Care Facility, Large AP UP AP MP MP
Residential Facility for Seniors,
Assisted Living
– UP UP MP MP
Supportive Housing – – – ZC,
UP(1)
ZC,
UP(1)
California Government Code
Section 65650 et seq.

Transitional Housing, Multifamily – – – ZC ZC
Transitional Housing, Single-
Family

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Work/Live Unit – – – – – CDC 18.200.110, Live/work or
work/live units

Public/Quasi-Public and Recreational Uses
Airport – – – – –
Ambulance Service – – – – –
Cannabis Uses
Commercial Cultivation – – – – –
Distribution (Type 11) – – – – –
Distribution Transport Only
(Type 13)
– – – – –
Indoor
Personal Cannabis Cultivation
ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Up to six plants per residence,
pursuant to state law
Industrial Hemp Cultivation – – – – –
Manufacturing – – – – –
Microbusiness – – – – –
Non-Storefront Retail – – – – –
Storefront Retail – – – – –
Testing Laboratory – – – – –
Cemetery, Columbarium,
Mausoleum
– – – – –
Conference, Convention Facility – – – – –
Cultural Institution – – – – UP
Emergency, Homeless Shelter – – – – – CDC 18.200.070, Emergency shelter and homeless shelters

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
Table 18.30.020
Residential Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications RR RS RL RM RH Additional Requirements Low Barrier Navigation Center – – – – – California Government Code Section 65660 et seq.

Farmers’ Market – – – – –
Funeral Parlor, Mortuary – – – – –
Government Office ZC
Heliport – – – – –
Library – – – – UP
Medical
Hospital, Medical Center – – – – –
Medical Services Facility – – – – –
Nursing Facility/Extended Care – – – UP MP
Urgent Care Facility – – – – –
Meeting Facility, Public/Private UP UP UP UP UP
Military – – – – –
Parking Facility – – – – MP
Public Maintenance and Service
Facility
– – – – –
Recreational Facilities
Bingo Hall – – – – –
Commercial Recreation, Indoor – – – – –
Golf Course, Country Club UP UP UP UP – CDC 18.200.130, Mechanical and electronic games
Park and Recreation Facility ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Residential Recreation Facility ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Sports and Entertainment,
Assembly
– – – – – CDC 18.200.080, Entertainment uses
Sports and Recreation Facility – – – – – CDC 18.200.130, Mechanical and electronic games
Recycling Facilities
Small Collection Facility – – – – – CDC 18.200.170 (Recycling facilities) Large Collection Facility – – – – – CDC 18.200.170 (Recycling facilities) Processing Facility – – – – – CDC 18.200.170 (Recycling facilities) Religious Facility UP UP UP UP UP

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
Table 18.30.020
Residential Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications RR RS RL RM RH Additional Requirements Schools
Elementary, Middle, Secondary UP UP UP UP UP
College, University – – – – –
Trade School, Vocational
Training
– – – – –
Social Services Facility – – – – –
Theater, Auditorium – – – – – CDC 18.200.130, Mechanical and electronic games
Utility Facility, Transmission
Towers

UP UP UP UP UP
Wireless Communications Facility AP,
MP or
6409
AP,
MP or
6409
AP,
MP
or
6409
AP,
MP
or
6409
AP,
MP
or
6409
Chapters 18.205 and 18.207 CDC

Open Space and Agricultural Uses
Community Garden AP AP AP AP AP
Companion Animal, Horses, Fowl AP AP – – – CMC 6.10.040, standards for keeping noncommercial livestock, animals, and
fowl
Crop Production, Orchard,
Vineyard

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Livestock, Grazing ZC – – – –

Office, Commercial, and Retail Services
Mining, Quarrying – – – – –
Adult Day Care Center – – UP UP UP
Adult-Oriented Business – – – – – Chapter 18.210 CDC, Adult-Oriented Businesses
Animal Services
Boarding Kennel MP – – – –
Dog Day Care, Training AP – – – –
Grooming AP – – – –
Hospital, Veterinary Clinic – – – – –
Antique, Collectible Stores – – – – –

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
Table 18.30.020
Residential Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications RR RS RL RM RH Additional Requirements Automobile Sales and Rental/Leasing
Auction – – – – –
Brokers – Office Only – – – – –
Brokers – Office with Vehicle
Display
– – – – –
Dealership – New – – – – –
Dealership – Used – – – – –
Dealership – Motorcycles – – – – –
Rental – – – – –
Automobile Services and Repair
Car Wash, Attended – – – – – CDC 18.200.090, Gas stations and car washes
Car Wash, Unattended – – – – – CDC 18.200.090, Gas stations and car washes
Gas Station – – – – – CDC 18.200.090, Gas stations and car washes
Maintenance Services – – – – –
Major Repair/Body Work – – – – –
Minor Repair – – – – –
Banks and Financial Services
Bank, Credit Union – – – – –
Bank with Drive-Through
Service
– – – – – CDC 18.200.060, Drive-through
facilities
Check Cashing Business – – – – –
Building Materials Sales and Services
No Outdoor Storage – – – – –
With Outdoor Storage – – – – – CDC 18.200.160, Outdoor sales and displays
Business Support Services – – – – –
Catering Service – – – – –
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Bar, Night Club, Lounge – – – – – CDC 18.200.080, Entertainment uses

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
Table 18.30.020
Residential Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications RR RS RL RM RH Additional Requirements Food Vendor Group Site – – – – – CDC 18.200.210,
Food vendor group sites
Micro-Brewery/Distillery – – – – – CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic beverage sales
Micro-Brewery/Distillery, Large – – – – – CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic beverage sales
Restaurant, Full Service – – – – –
Restaurant, Limited Service – – – – –
Restaurant, with Drive-Through – – – – – CDC 18.200.060, Drive-through facilities
Restaurant, with Live
Entertainment
– – – – – CDC 18.200.080, Entertainment uses
Tasting Room – – – – – CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic beverage sales
Fitness Facility, Health Club – – – – –
Food, Beverage Sales
Convenience Store, no Alcohol
Sales
– – – – –
Convenience Store, with
Alcohol Sales
– – – – – CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic beverage
sales
Grocery Store – – – – –
Liquor Store – – – – – CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic beverage sales
Hotel, Motel – – – – UP
Maintenance Services
Office with No Outdoor
Storage or Activities
– – – – –
Office with Outdoor Storage or
Activities
– – – – –
Nursery, Preschool, Childcare UP UP UP UP UP CDC 18.200.050, Child day care facilities
Offices
Administrative,
Information Processing
– – – – –
Professional – – – UP UP
Personal Services

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
Table 18.30.020
Residential Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications RR RS RL RM RH Additional Requirements General – – – – UP
Improvement, Instructional – – – – –
Restricted – – – – –
Repair Service, Appliance and
Small Equipment
– – – – –
Retail Sales
Big Box – – – – –
General – – – – –
Nursery, Garden Center – – – – – CDC 18.200.160, Outdoor sales and displays
Restricted – – – – –
With Drive-Through – – – – – CDC 18.200.060, Drive-through facilities
Secondhand Sales – – – – –

Business Park and Industrial Uses
Auto Wrecking, Dismantling Yard – – – – –
Contractors, Special Trade
Cabinet Shop – – – – –
Contractor Office, No Outdoor
Storage
– – – – –
Contractor Yard, with Outdoor
Storage
– – – – –
Fleet-Based Service – – – – –
Freight and Truck Terminal – – – – –
Heavy Vehicle and Large Equipment, Sales/Rental, Service, and Repair Commercial Vehicles and
Equipment
– – – – –
Recreational Vehicles – – – – –
Laboratory, Research,
and Development
– – – – –
Manufacturing, Processing
Artisan/Custom Product – – – – –

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
Table 18.30.020
Residential Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications RR RS RL RM RH Additional Requirements Industry, Heavy – – – – –
With No Outdoor
Storage/Activities
– – – – –
With Outdoor Storage/Activities – – – – –
Warehouse Show Room with
Assembly and Sales
– – – – –
Media Production Facility – – – – –
Storage
Hazardous Materials – – – – –
Self-Storage Facility, Mini-
Storage
– – – – –
Vehicle – – – – –
Towing Services – – – – –
Warehouse, with No Outdoor
Storage
– – – – –
Warehouse, with Outdoor Storage – – – – –
Wholesaling, Distribution – – – – –
(1) Use permit required for any facility that does not meet the requirements outlined in the applicable California Government Code sections.
(2) Prohibited in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District. (3) Multifamily is only allowed on parcels in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District. [Ord. 24-7 § 7 (Exh. B); Ord. 24-6 § 8 (Exh. B); Ord. 24-5 § 7 (Exh. B); Ord. 21-2 § 5 (Exh. C); Ord. 20-4 (Exh. B); Ord. 19-5 § 1 (Exh. B); Ord. 18-3 § 7 (Exh. A); Ord. 17-13 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 17-11 § 3 (Exh. 10); Ord. 17-5 § 2 (Exh.

I); Ord. 17-2 § 2 (Exh. D); Ord. 14-6 § 1; Ord. 13-5; Ord. 12-5; Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-78].

18.30.030 Table 18.30.030 – RR and RS districts – Development standards.

Subdivisions, new uses and structures, and alterations to existing uses and structures shall be designed, constructed, and established in compliance with the requirements specified in Table

18.30.030. Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title.

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
Table 18.30.030
RR and RS Districts
Development Standards (1, 2)
Standards RR-20 RR-40 RR-15 RS-6 RS-7 RS-7.5 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 Density (du/net acre) minimum/maximum
0 – 2.5 du/net acre 0 – 10 du/net acre
Lot Area (square feet) minimum
Single-Family 20,000 40,000 15,000 6,000 7,000 7,500 8,000 10,000 12,000 Nonresidential 20,000 40,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 12,000 Lot Width (feet) minimum
Single-Family 100 150 100 60 70 75 80 100 100
Nonresidential 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Lot Depth (feet) minimum
Single-Family 100 100 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Nonresidential 100 100 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Lot Coverage (percent) maximum
Single-Family 25 20 25 35 35 35 35 30 25
Nonresidential Lot coverage 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.

Building Height (feet) maximum
Single-Family 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
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.

Setbacks (feet) minimum(1, 3, 4)
Single-Family
Front 25 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Interior
Side(5)
10 10 10 min 5, 10 5, 10 5, 10 5, 10 5, 10 10 min
Aggregate 25 50 25 15 15 15 15 15 20
Corner Side 15 25 15 10 10 10 10 15 15
Rear 30 50 30 15 20 20 20 25 25
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.

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
(1) Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title.
(2) Unless otherwise approved through a planned unit development (PUD) use permit. (3) Measured from property line or back of sidewalk (whichever is less) to the face of building or structure. (4) In no case shall any structure be erected closer than 45 feet (50 feet in RR-40) from the centerline of any street; provided, that where four or more lots in a block on the same side of the street have been improved with buildings, the minimum requirement shall be the average of improved lots if less than 20 feet, or less than 25 feet in RR-20, or less than 30 feet in RR-40.
(5) Minimum for each side.
[Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-79].

18.30.040 Table 18.30.040 – RL, RM, and RH districts –
Development standards.

Subdivisions, new uses and structures, and alterations to existing uses and structures shall be designed, constructed, and established in compliance with the requirements specified in Table

18.30.040. Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title.

Table 18.30.040
RL, RM, RH Districts
Development Standards(1)
Standards RL(5) RM(4)(5) 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 (percent) maximum

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
Table 18.30.040
RL, RM, RH Districts
Development Standards(1)
Standards RL(5) RM(4)(5) RH(4) Additional Standards
Residential 50 80 attached
60 detached
75 Nonresidential 50 60 75
Building Height (feet) maximum
Single-Family 30 40 60 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.

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)
Additional setback standards may apply in
small lot subdivisions pursuant to
Chapter 18.155 CDC.

Garage, Street Access 20 20 – Note: Minimum five feet behind primary building facade.

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.

Exhibit C to Attachment 2
(4) Standard does not apply to small, independent parcels corresponding to individual dwellings within a larger multifamily residential, mixed-use, or townhome development. (5) Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Chapter 18.120 CDC (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District).

Exhibit D to Attachment 2
Chapter 18.40

OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (CO, CMX, NC, SC, AND RC)

18.40.020 Table 18.40.020 – Office and commercial districts – Allowed uses and permit requirements.

A. Applicability. Table 18.40.020 identifies the uses allowed by the development code in each office and commercial zoning district and the type of permit required to establish each use. See CDC 18.25.030(B) or Division VII of this title (Permits and Permit Procedures). Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title.

Table 18.40.020
Office and Commercial Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning
Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications CO CMX NC SC RC Additional Requirements Office, Commercial, and Retail Uses
Adult Day Care Center – ZC(5) ZC(5) ZC ZC
Adult-Oriented Business – – – – – Chapter 18.210 CDC, Adult- Oriented Businesses
Animal Services
Boarding, Kennel – UP UP MP MP
Dog Day Care, Training – ZC ZC(2) ZC ZC
Grooming – ZC ZC(2) ZC ZC
Hospital, Veterinary Clinic ZC ZC ZC(2) ZC ZC
Antique, Collectible Store – ZC(4) ZC ZC ZC
Automobile Sales and Rental/Leasing
Auction – – – ZC –
Brokers, Office Only ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Brokers, Office with Vehicle
Display
AP AP – ZC ZC
Dealership, New – – – UP ZC
Dealership, Used – – – ZC –
Dealership, Motorcycles – – – ZC ZC
Rental – – – AP MP
Automobile Services and Repair
Car Wash, Attended – – UP AP UP CDC 18.200.090, Gas stations and car washes

Exhibit D to Attachment 2
Table 18.40.020
Office and Commercial Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning
Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications CO CMX NC SC RC Additional Requirements Car Wash, Unattended – – – UP – CDC 18.200.090, Gas stations and car washes
Gas Station – – UP UP UP CDC 18.200.090, Gas stations and car washes
Maintenance Services – UP UP ZC ZC
Major Repair/Body Work – – – ZC –
Minor Repair – – UP ZC AP
Banks and Financial Services
Bank, Credit Union – ZC(4) ZC(2) ZC(2) ZC
Bank with Drive-Through
Service
– UP UP UP MP CDC 18.200.060, Drive-through
facilities
Check Cashing Business – – – – –
Building Materials Sales and Services
No Outdoor Storage – – ZC ZC ZC
With Outdoor Storage – – – AP UP CDC 18.200.160, Outdoor sales and displays
Business Support Services ZC ZC(3) ZC(2, 3) ZC(3) ZC(3) Catering Service – ZC(4) ZC(2) ZC ZC
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Bar, Night Club, Lounge – UP UP UP UP CDC 18.200.080,
Entertainment uses
Food Vendor Group Site – MP MP MP MP CDC 18.200.210,
Food vendor group sites
Micro-Brewery/Distillery – – – MP MP CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic beverage sales
Micro-Brewery/Distillery,
Large(6)
– – – UP UP CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic
beverage sales
Restaurant, Full Service – AP AP UP ZC CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic beverage sales
Restaurant, Limited Service – ZC(4) ZC AP ZC
Restaurant, with Drive-Through – UP UP UP UP CDC 18.200.060, Drive-through facilities
Restaurant, with Live
Entertainment
– – UP UP UP CDC 18.200.080,
Entertainment uses

Exhibit D to Attachment 2
Table 18.40.020
Office and Commercial Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning
Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications CO CMX NC SC RC Additional Requirements Tasting Room – – – AP AP CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic
beverage sales
Fitness Facility, Health Club – AP AP(2) AP(2) AP
Food, Beverage Sales
Convenience Store, no Alcohol
Sales
– ZC(4) ZC ZC ZC
Convenience Store, with
Alcohol Sales
– UP UP – UP CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic
beverage sales
Grocery Store – ZC(4) ZC ZC ZC
Liquor Store – – UP – UP CDC 18.200.040, Alcoholic
beverage sales
Hotel, Motel – UP UP UP UP
Maintenance Services
Office with No Outdoor
Storage or Activities
– – – ZC –
Office with Outdoor Storage or
Activities
– – – AP –
Nursery, Preschool, Childcare UP UP UP AP AP CDC 18.200.050, Child day care facilities
Offices
Administrative,
Information Processing
ZC ZC – ZC ZC
Professional ZC ZC ZC(2) ZC(2) ZC
Personal Services
General ZC ZC ZC(2) ZC(2) ZC(2)
Improvement, Instructional – ZC ZC(2) ZC ZC
Restricted – – MP MP MP
Repair Service, Appliance and
Small Equipment
– – UP ZC –
Retail Sales
Big Box – UP UP UP UP
General – ZC(4) ZC ZC ZC
Nursery, Garden Center – UP ZC ZC ZC CDC 18.200.160, Outdoor sales and displays

Exhibit D to Attachment 2
Table 18.40.020
Office and Commercial Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning
Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications CO CMX NC SC RC Additional Requirements Restricted – – MP MP MP
Retail Sales with Drive-
Through
– UP UP UP UP CDC 18.200.060, Drive-through
facilities
Secondhand Sales – AP AP AP –

Business Park and Industrial Uses
Auto Wrecking, Dismantling Yard – – – – –
Contractors, Special Trade
Cabinet Shop – – – ZC –
Contractor Office, No Outdoor
Storage
ZC ZC – ZC –
Contractor Yard, with Outdoor
Storage
– – – ZC –
Fleet-Based Service – – – ZC UP
Freight and Truck Terminal – – – – –
Heavy Vehicle and Large Equipment, Sales/Rental, Service, and Repair Commercial Vehicles and
Equipment
– – – AP –
Recreational Vehicle – – – AP –
Laboratory, Research,
and Development
ZC AP – ZC –
Manufacturing, Processing
Artisan/Custom Product – – – ZC –
Industry, Heavy – – – – –
With No Outdoor Storage or
Activities
– – – ZC –
With Outdoor Storage or
Activities
– – AP –
Warehouse Show Room with
Assembly and Sales
– – – ZC –
Media Production Facility ZC ZC – ZC –
Storage
Hazardous Materials – – – – –

Exhibit D to Attachment 2
Table 18.40.020
Office and Commercial Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning
Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications CO CMX NC SC RC Additional Requirements Self-Storage Facility, Mini-
Storage
– – – UP –
Vehicle – – – UP –
Towing Services – – – UP –
Warehouse, No Outdoor Storage – – – ZC –
Warehouse, with Outdoor Storage – – – ZC –
Wholesaling, Distribution – – – AP –

Public/Quasi-Public and Recreational Uses
Airport – – – – –
Ambulance Service – UP – AP –
Cannabis Uses
Commercial Cultivation – – – – –
Distribution (Type 11) – – – – –
Distribution Transport Only
(Type 13)
– – – – –
Indoor
Personal Cannabis Cultivation
ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Up to six plants per residence,
pursuant to state law
Industrial Hemp Cultivation – – – – –
Manufacturing – – – – –
Microbusiness – – – – –
Non-Storefront Retail – – – – –
Storefront Retail – – – – –
Testing Laboratory – – – – –
Cemetery, Columbarium,
Mausoleum
– – – – –
Conference, Convention Facility UP – – – UP
Cultural Institution – UP UP UP UP
Emergency and Homeless Shelter – – – – – CDC 18.200.070, Emergency shelter and homeless shelters
Low Barrier Navigation Center ZC,
UP(7)
ZC,
UP(7)
ZC, UP(7) – – California Government Code
Section 65660 et seq.

Exhibit D to Attachment 2
Table 18.40.020
Office and Commercial Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning
Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications CO CMX NC SC RC Additional Requirements Farmers’ Market – – UP UP UP
Funeral Parlor, Mortuary – – UP UP UP
Government Office ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Heliport – – – – –
Library ZC ZC(2) ZC(2) ZC(2) ZC
Medical
Hospital, Medical Center – – – – –
Medical Services Facility AP – AP(2) AP(2) –
Nursing Facility/Extended Care – UP UP UP –
Urgent Care Facility AP AP(4) AP(2) AP AP
Meeting Facility, Public/Private UP UP UP UP UP
Military – – – – –
Parking Facility AP – AP AP AP
Public Maintenance and Service
Facility
– – – AP –
Recreational Facilities
Bingo Hall – – – – UP
Commercial Recreation, Indoor – AP(4) AP UP ZC
Golf Course, Country Club – – – – – CDC 18.200.130, Mechanical and electronic games
Park and Recreation Facility – – – – –
Residential Recreation Facility – AP(5) – – –
Sports and Entertainment,
Assembly
– – UP – UP CDC 18.200.080,
Entertainment uses
Sports and Recreation Facility – – UP – UP CDC 18.200.130, Mechanical and electronic games
Recycling Facilities
Small Collection Facility – – AP AP AP CDC 18.200.170, Recycling facilities
Large Collection Facility – – – UP – CDC 18.200.170, Recycling facilities
Processing Facility – – – – – CDC 18.200.170, Recycling facilities

Exhibit D to Attachment 2
Table 18.40.020
Office and Commercial Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning
Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications CO CMX NC SC RC Additional Requirements Religious Facility UP UP UP – –
Schools
Elementary, Middle, Secondary – MP – – –
College, University – MP – – –
Trade School, Vocational
Training

AP AP AP AP AP
Social Services Facility UP UP UP UP –
Theater, Auditorium – UP UP – UP CDC 18.200.130, Mechanical and electronic games
Utility Facility, Transmission
Towers
– – ZC ZC ZC
Wireless Communications Facility AP,
MP or
6409
AP,
MP or
6409
AP, MP
or 6409
AP,
MP
or
6409
AP,
MP
or
6409
Chapters 18.205 and 18.207 CDC
Residential Uses
Bed and Breakfast Inn – UP – – –
Dwelling, Dwelling Unit, Housing Unit
Single-Family, Detached ZC – – – –
Single-Family, Detached –
Small Lot Subdivision
UP UP – – –
Single-Family, Attached ZC ZC – – – Chapter 18.152 CDC, Objective Design Standards; Chapter 18.120,
Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Overlay District
Duplex ZC ZC – – – Chapter 18.152 CDC, Objective
Design Standards
Multifamily ZC(8),U
P
ZC(8),U
P
ZC(8),UP(
1)
– – Chapter 18.152 CDC, Objective
Design Standards; Chapter 18.120,
Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Overlay District
Family Day Care Home (14 or
fewer children)
ZC(5) ZC(5) ZC(5) – –
Group Housing UP UP – – –
Home-Based Business – ZC(5), AP ZC(2), AP – – CDC 18.200.100, Home-based businesses

Exhibit D to Attachment 2
Table 18.40.020
Office and Commercial Districts
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning
Clearance
AP = Administrative Permit Required
MP = Minor Use Permit Required
UP = Use Permit Required
6409 = Section 6409 Application
– = Use Not Allowed
Permit Required by DistrictLand Use Classifications CO CMX NC SC RC Additional Requirements Live/Work Unit – ZC(5) – – – CDC 18.200.110, Live/work or work/live units
Mixed-Use Projects ZC(9),U
P
ZC(9),U
P
ZC(9),UP – – Chapter 18.152 CDC, Objective
Design Standards
CDC 18.200.140, Mixed-use
projects; Chapter 18.120,
Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Overlay District
Mobile Home Park – – – – –
Residential Care Facility, Small ZC(5) ZC(5) – – –
Residential Care Facility, Large – MP – – –
Residential Facility for Seniors,
Assisted Living
– UP UP – –
Supportive Housing ZC,
UP(7)
ZC,
UP(7)
ZC(1),
UP(7)
– – California Government Code
Section 65650 et seq.

Transitional Housing, Multifamily UP UP UP(1) – –
Transitional Housing, Single-
Family
ZC ZC – – –
Work/Live Unit – – – AP – CDC 18.200.110, Live/work or
work/live units

Open Space and Agricultural Uses
Companion Animal, Horses, Fowl – – – – –
Community Garden AP AP AP AP AP
Crop Production, Orchard,
Vineyard

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Livestock, Grazing – – – – –
Mining and Quarrying – – – – –
(1) Not allowed on ground floor.
(2) Allowed to occupy up to 20 percent gross area of shopping center or multi-tenant building or 20 percent street frontage of one building.
(3) No outdoor facilities, storage, or activities are allowed. (4) Requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

Exhibit D to Attachment 2
(5) Allowed with residential use only.
(6) A facility which exceeds 3,000 square feet.
(7) Use permit required for any facility that does not meet the requirements of the referenced article of the California Government Code.
(8) Zoning clearance required for multifamily projects when a project is located entirely on a parcel or parcels listed in the current housing element sites inventory that conform to objective development standards and Chapter 18.152 CDC (Objective Design Standards).
(9) Zoning clearance required for mixed-use projects when a project is located entirely on a parcel or parcels listed in the current housing element sites inventory, with at least two-thirds of the total square footage designed for residential use, and that conform to objective development standards and Chapter 18.152 CDC (Objective Design Standards).
[Ord. 24-7 § 7 (Exh. D); Ord. 24-6 § 8 (Exh. D); Ord. 24-5 § 7 (Exh. D); Ord. 21-2 § 5 (Exh. E); Ord. 20-4 (Exh. B); Ord. 19-5 § 1 (Exh. D); Ord. 18-3 § 7 (Exh. A); Ord. 17-13 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 17-11 § 3 (Exh. 8); Ord. 17-5 § 2 (Exh.

I); Ord. 17-2 § 2 (Exh. F); Ord. 15-8 § 3 (Exh. B); Ord. 14-6 §§ 3, 4; Ord. 13-5; Ord. 12-5; Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122- 131].

18.40.030 Table 18.40.030 – Office and commercial districts – Development standards.

Subdivisions, new uses and structures, and alterations to existing uses and structures shall be designed, constructed, and established in compliance with the requirements specified in Table

18.40.030. Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title..

Table 18.40.030
Office and Commercial Districts
Development Standards(1)
Standards CO(4) CMX(4) NC(4)(5) RC SC Additional Standards Density (du/net acre)
minimum/maximum
11 –
40 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
Lot Depth (feet)
minimum
100 100 100 200 100
Reduced dimensions may be allowed
subject to use permit approval
Building Height (feet)
maximum (3)
30 30 40 50 35 Additional height may be allowed with
a use permit
Setbacks (feet) minimum (1, 2)
Front 10 5 5 15 15

Exhibit D to Attachment 2
Table 18.40.030
Office and Commercial Districts
Development Standards(1)
Standards CO(4) CMX(4) NC(4)(5) RC SC Additional Standards Corner Side 10 10 10 10 10 Reduced setbacks may be allowed subject to use permit approval
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 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) Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Chapter 18.120 CDC (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District).
[Ord. 12-5; Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-132].

18.410.030 Review and decision.

A. A zoning clearance will only be determined when the planning division has received all information required to find that the request complies with all development code provisions applicable to the proposed use or structure.

B. When the planning division determines that a new or expanded proposed structure is in conformance with applicable standards, the zoning clearance determination may be documented by a stamp, city staƯ signature, or other oƯicial notation on approved plans, or other certification. If there is no business license or other permit required, no additional documentation is required for a zoning clearance determination.

C. The Planning Division may attach to any zoning clearance for any proposed use or structure generally applicable conditions of approval which are set by the Planning Manager eƯective at the time of project application or required to bring the project into compliance with objective standards.

DC. A zoning clearance determination may be requested in writing in accordance with Chapter 18.10 CDC (Title, Purpose, Applicability, and Interpretation) and appealable in accordance with Chapter 18.510 (Appeals and Calls for Review). [Ord. 24-7 § 7 (Exh. M); Ord. 13-5; Ord. 12-4. DC 2012 § 122-889].

Exhibit E to Attachment 2

Exhibit F to Attachment 2
Chapter 18.120
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District
Sections:

18.120.010 Purpose.

18.120.020 Definitions.

18.120.030 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District created.

18.120.040 Applicability.

18.120.050 Allowed uses and permit requirements.

18.120.060 Development standards.

18.120.070 Review authority.

18.120.080 Relationship with Density Bonus Law and other laws.

18.120.010 Purpose.

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay District (AFFH Overlay District) implements Objective 8.6 of Program 8, Fair Housing, from the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element. In response to California Assembly Bill 686 (Housing discrimination:
affirmatively furthering fair housing, 2018), the program aims to increase housing supply, choices, and affordability in higher-resource neighborhoods of the City.

This chapter establishes the properties subject to the AFFH Overlay District, permitted land uses, permit requirements, and development and design standards.

The AFFH Overlay District is applied to specific properties within the City’s higher resource areas appropriate for a variety of residential housing types, with a density ranging from 20 to 60 units per net acre, such as small lot single-family dwellings, townhomes, row houses, cluster housing, apartments, and condominiums.

18.120.020 Definitions.
“By-right development review” shall mean that the City’s review of the housing development project does not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the

California Public Resources Code. Any subdivision of sites shall be subject to the Subdivision Map Act, CMC Title 17, and all provisions in this title pertaining to minor and major subdivisions.
“Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(h), or successor statue, and as may be amended.

18.120.030 AFFH Overlay District created.

The following AFFH Overlay District is hereby created, which shall overlay any underlying zoning district or districts as depicted in Figure 18.120.030(A) and further described in Table 18.120.030(A).

Figure 18.120.030(A) – AFFH Overlay District
The properties, or portions of properties, that shall be subject to the AFFH Overlay District are limited to their acreage, configuration, and boundaries as set forth in Figure

18.120.030(A) and Table 18.120.030(A) as of the effective date hereof.

Table 18.120.030(A) - Properties Subject to AFFH Overlay District Address Assessor’s Parcel Number Acreage
5100 Clayton Road 133-111-010 7.8508.0
5280 Clayton Road 120-081-057 0.4950
5288 Clayton Road 120-081-078 0.75769
5350 Clayton Road 120-081-018 0.57546
5354 Clayton Road 120-081-075 0.5461
5356 Clayton Road 120-081-076 1.261
5358 Clayton Road 120-081-058 0.5047
780 Oak Grove Road 134-400-002 12.8637*
1539 Kirker Pass Road 117-170-017 0.937
5390 Myrtle Drive 117-090-040 2.368
* Limited to a total of 600 465 units for the purposes of AFFH Overlay District regardless of the net developable acreage.

18.120.040 Applicability.

This chapter shall apply only to housing development projects on properties or portions of a property located in the AFFH Overlay District (Figure 18.120.030(A) and Table

18.120.030(A)).

18.120.050 Allowed uses and permit requirements.

The AFFH Overlay District land use classifications shall be those of the underlying zoning district, except for housing development projects as noted in this section.

A. Allowed Uses.

1. Single-Family, Attached.

2. Multifamily.

B. Prohibited Uses. The following uses shall be prohibited:

1. Single Family, Detached

2. Single-Family, Detached - Small Lot Subdivision

3. Duplex
C. Zoning Clearance and by-right development review.

1. To qualify for zoning clearance and by-right development review, a proposed housing development project shall satisfy the following conditions:
a. Located entirely on a property or properties within the AFFH Overlay District as shown on the map in Figure 18.120.030(A) and in Table

18.120.030(A).

b. Comply with the City’s Objective Design Standards set forth in Chapter

18.152 Objective Design Standards.
c. Comply with all applicable standards and other provisions of the CMC. d. Is not a small-lot subdivision pursuant to CMC Chapter 18.155.

D. Ground floor. Residential uses meeting the standards of this chapter shall be allowed on the ground floor.

E. Exceptions. Housing development projects shall be subject to a use permit when any of the following apply:

1. The project is not located entirely within the AFFH Overlay District;

2. The project is not in conformance with all objective design standards; or

3. The applicant requests a deviation or exception from any objective development standard as allowed by the Concord Municipal Code.

18.120.060 Development standards.

Housing development projects shall be designed, constructed, and established in compliance with the following development standards.

A. Minimum and maximum density.

1. Minimum density. All housing development projects shall comply with the minimum residential density requirements described in this section regardless of the density in the underlying zoning district. Any housing development project not providing the minimum required residential density shall be prohibited.

2. Density range. All housing development projects shall provide a density of at least twenty (20) units per net acre, and not more than sixty (60) units per net acre.

3. Transportation Demand Management (TDM). All housing development projects shall submit, with their development application, a TDM plan to reduce vehicle miles traveled which must include all of the following:
a. New Resident Welcome Packet. Provide new residents or owners with packet including transit maps, bike routes, transit pass information, and TDM information.
b. Enhanced Pedestrian Access. Ensure direct, ADA-compliance sidewalk connectivity to the two closest transit stops. c. Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure. Install EV-ready conduit for at least 25% of the required parking and provide EV chargers for at least 10% of the required parking.

4. Exceptions.

a. The property defined in Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 25-XX, which has an address at the time of adoption of 780 Oak Grove Road, is limited to a total of 600 465 units for the purposes of the AFFH Overlay District regardless of the net developable acreage.
b. Property divided by AFFH Overlay District boundaries. The provisions of CMC Section 18.15.040, but not including subsection C, shall apply to any housing development project located partially within the AFFH Overlay District. The following standard shall apply in lieu of CMC Section 18.15.040(C):

If a housing development project is not entirely located within the AFFH Overlay District, then the total number of dwelling units and maximum floor area may be distributed to portions of the area located outside of the AFFH Overlay District, but not vice versa. In no event shall the density and intensity exceed those set forth in this chapter.

Table 18.120.060(A). AFFH Overlay District Development Standards(1)(2) Standard AFFH Overlay District Additional Standards
Density (du/net acre)
minimum/maximum
20 – 60
Floor Area Ratio, Non-
Residential and Mixed-
Use Projects
As allowed in the underlying zoning
district
Lot coverage 70%
Lot Area (square feet)
minimum
5,000
Lot Width (feet) minimum 50
Lot Depth (feet) minimum 100
Building Height (feet)
maximum
40 Setbacks (feet) minimum
Front 10
Corner Side 10
Interior Side, Rear 10 See CMC 18.150.180 (Transitional requirements).

Open Space/Unit (square
feet) minimum
200 See CMC 18.150.100, Open space and
recreational facilities for
residential developments.
(1) Chapter 18.152 CMC, Objective Design Standards.
(2) Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Chapter 18.155 CMC (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 do not apply if a site is subdivided into multifamily fee simple/condominium units or small residential lots.

18.120.070 Review authority.

The planning division shall be the review authority for housing development projects pursuant to this chapter, except for small lot housing development projects, which shall be processed pursuant to CMC Chapter 18.155.

The planning division may deny or approve housing development projects with generally applicable conditions of approval which are set by the planning manager effective at the time of project application or required to bring the project into compliance with objective standards. The planning division may refer the application to the design review board, zoning administrator, or planning commission for review on compliance with objective standards.

18.120.080 Relationship with Density Bonus Law and other laws.

A. Eligibility for Density Bonus Law waivers, incentives and concessions, the City’s Affordable Housing Incentive Program and the Affordable Housing Overlay District shall not be limited by the applicability of this chapter.

B. Subdivision Regulations. CMC Title 17 establishes regulations for the subdivision of land. Where conflict exists between the AFFH Overlay District and the provisions of CMC Title 17, the provisions of CMC Title 17 shall control.

C. In the event of a conflict between the standards set forth in the AFFH Overlay District and the underlying zoning district, the provisions in this chapter shall control for a housing development project.

Exhibit G
Zoning Map
Follow link:
https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/14255/Zoning-Map-with-Enlarged- Areas-combined-maps

72307 ALTA Loan Policy (6/17/06) 2
Copyright American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 134-400-002

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF CONCORD, IN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL ONE:

PARCEL "B", AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP, M.S. #33-69, FILED DECEMBER 23, 1969, IN BOOK 11 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 28, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TREAT LANE, (100 FEET WIDE) SAID POINT ALSO BEING A COMMON CORNER OF PARCEL "A" AND PARCEL "B" AS SAID PARCELS ARE SHOWN ON THE AFORESAID PARCEL MAP.

THENCE, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TREAT LANE, NORTH 50°21'53"EAST, 531.33 FEET.

THENCE, SOUTH 39°37'59"EAST, 764.82 FEET.

THENCE, SOUTH 50°25'23"WEST, 818.89 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF OAK GROVE ROAD (84 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON AFORESAID PARCEL MAP.

THENCE, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF OAK GROVE ROAD, NORTH 35°10'07"WEST, 302.05 FEET.

THENCE, NORTH 33°15'34"WEST, 231.31 FEET TO A COMMON CORNER AT PARCEL "A" AND PARCEL "B".

THENCE, ALONG A CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING THE COMMON BOUNDARY OF PARCEL "A" AND PARCEL "B", DEFLECTING TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 248.50 FEET FROM A TANGENT BEARING, NORTH 48°08'17"EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 84°14'07", AND ARC DISTANCE OF 365.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL TWO:

A RIGHT OF WAY (NOT TO BE EXCLUSIVE) AS AN APPURTENANCE TO PARCEL ONE ABOVE, FOR USE

AS A ROADWAY FOR VEHICLES OF ALL KINDS, PEDESTRIANS AND ANIMALS, FOR WATER, GAS, OIL,

AND SEWER PIPE LINES, AND FOR TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER LINES, TOGETHER WITH

THE NECESSARY POLES OR CONDUITS, TO CARRY SAID LINE OVER, UNDER AND UPON A STRIP OF LAND 8.5 FEET IN WIDTH, THE SOUTHEASTERLY, EASTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF WHICH IS

THE ENTIRE SOUTHEASTERLY, EASTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND

FIRSTLY DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM FIRST TREAT LANE INVESTORS TO HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY, RECORDED NOVEMBER 17, 1969, IN BOOK 6005 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 245.

APN: 134-400-002
Exhibit H to Attachment 2

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: October 24, 2025
To: Aaron Elias, City of Concord
Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Karly Kaufman, Rincon Consultants
From: Bill Burton, PE, and Grace Chen, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Concord AFFH Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
WC24-4067
This technical memorandum presents vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis results for the preferred Concord Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rezoning Project (AFFH) rezoning alternative in Concord, California. This memorandum documents the results of the project’s VMT assessment. A separate intersection level of service analysis was also prepared to document potential project effects on local traffic delay.

Project Description
The project would develop 2,412 additional multi-family residential units on 20 parcels comprising seven unique sites in the City of Concord. For VMT analysis purposes, parcels in the same traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within the CCTA travel demand model were aggregated into one site. Table 1 shows the maximum number of potential new multi-family dwelling units on each site, and Figure 1 illustrates the housing site’s locations.

VMT Analysis Method
Concord’s City Council adopted VMT screening criteria and thresholds on July 14, 2020. In addition, the City Guidelines state that projects not screened out are required to complete a VMT analysis using the CCTA travel demand model to determine if there would be a VMT impact. The impact analysis includes two types of VMT, depending on the land use:

Attachment 3

ARBORETUM
AND

NATURE PARK

MARKHAM
PARK

COMMUNITY

NEWHALL

OPEN SPACE

L I M E R I D G E

S C H O O L

VALLEY HIGH

YGNACIO

S C H O O L

CHARTER HIGH
VALLEY

C L AY T O N

EAST BAY

UNIVERSITY
STATE

CALIFORNIA
Clayton
6 8
2 1
3 18
16 Project Sites
Figure 1
Site Number
...\Graphics\Figures\WC24-4067_1_AFFH Sites
#

Aaron Elias, City of Concord
Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Karly Kaufman, Rincon Consultants
October 24, 2025

Table 1: Dwelling Units Per Site
Site ID APN Multi-Family
Dwelling Units
Site 1 133-111-010 471
Site 2 120-081-018, 120-081-057, 120-081-058, 120-081-075, 120-081-076, 120-081-078 248
Site 3 133-150-009, 133-150-108, 133-150-118,133-150-119, 133-150-120, 133-150-121, 133-150-122, 133-150-123, 133-150-124 617
Site 6 145-070-030 180
Site 8 134-400-002 780
Site 16 117-090-040 60
Site 18 117-170-017 56
Total 2,412
Source: Raimi + Associates, 2025

1. Project-generated VMT, expressed in per capita terms. This tracks the total number and distance of each trip related to the project divided by the relevant metric. For residential projects, this would be per resident.

2. Project effect on VMT looks at how the project would change the total VMT within the study area. This VMT applies the “boundary method,” which captures all VMT within a defined geographic boundary. This VMT captures the project’s overall influence on the VMT generation of surrounding land uses.

The VMT analysis should be conducted for the following scenarios:
• Baseline Year Conditions typically reflects the year when the project Notice of Preparation (NOP) is issued
• Cumulative Conditions evaluates the project’s long-term effect on VMT The City Guidelines provide the following threshold of significance relative to VMT for residential projects:
• 15% below the regional baseline Bay Area average for home-based VMT per resident VMT Results
To conduct the VMT assessment, the CCTA travel demand model was used to estimate average daily VMT for the following scenarios:
• Baseline (2024) Plus Project Conditions

Aaron Elias, City of Concord
Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Karly Kaufman, Rincon Consultants
October 24, 2025

• Cumulative (2040) Plus Project Conditions
This section evaluates the project’s VMT impact on the surrounding transportation system.

Baseline VMT Results
Per City Guidelines, daily home-based VMT per resident was used to evaluate project-generated VMT. The baseline weekday daily average home-based VMT per resident for the project sites and the Bay Area Region are presented in Table 2. The average VMT per resident of the project sites ranges from 12.6 to 15.9, with an all sites combined result of 14.6. The baseline VMT for each of the sites and for all sites combined is above the applicable standard of 11.2 miles of travel per resident (which represents 85% of the regional average).

Table 2: Baseline Home-Based VMT per Resident
Site Number Home-Based VMT/Resident
(2024) Versus Threshold
Site 1 15.1 +3.9 (35%)
Site 2 15.4 +4.2 (38%)
Site 3 14.2 +3.0 (27%)
Site 6 12.8 +1.6 (14%)
Site 8 12.6 +1.4 (13%)
Site 16 15.8 +4.6 (41%)
Site 18 15.9 +4.7 (42%)
All Sites Combined 14.6 +3.4 (30%)
Bay Area Region 13.1
Threshold
(85% Bay Area Region) 11.2
Source: CCTA Travel Demand Model, Fehr & Peers, 2025.

Table 3 presents the results of the project’s effect on total Citywide VMT in the baseline scenario.

The VMT per service population at the citywide level was calculated to be 10.3 under the Baseline No Project scenario and 10.1 under the Baseline Plus Project scenario.

Aaron Elias, City of Concord
Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Karly Kaufman, Rincon Consultants
October 24, 2025

Table 3: Baseline Citywide Total VMT per Service Population Scenario Total VMT Service Population1 Total VMT/Service Population
2024 No Project 1,969,348 191,315 10.3
2024 Plus Project 1,991,380 196,232 10.1
1 Service population includes all residents and employees within the city.

Source: CCTA Travel Demand Model, Fehr & Peers, 202

5. Cumulative VMT Results
The cumulative weekday daily average home-based VMT per resident for the project sites and the Bay Area Region are presented in Table 4. Similar to the baseline year results, the cumulative VMT for each of the sites and for all of the sites combined exceeds the 10.8 home-based VMT per resident threshold.

Table 4: Cumulative Home-Based VMT per Resident
Site Number Home-Based VMT/Resident
(2040) Versus Threshold
Site 1 14.3 +3.5 (32%)
Site 2 14.7 +3.9 (36%)
Site 3 13.4 +2.6 (24%)
Site 6 12.2 +1.4 (13%)
Site 8 12.0 +1.2 (11%)
Site 16 14.5 +3.7 (34%)
Site 18 14.5 +3.7 (34%)
All Sites Combined 13.7 +2.9 (27%)
Bay Area Region 12.7
Threshold
(85% Bay Area Region) 10.8
Source: CCTA Travel Demand Model, Fehr & Peers, 2025.

Table 5 presents the results of the project effect on cumulative Citywide VMT. The VMT per service population at the citywide level was calculated to be 9.4 under the Cumulative No Project scenario and 9.3 under the Cumulative Plus Project scenario.

Aaron Elias, City of Concord
Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Karly Kaufman, Rincon Consultants
October 24, 2025

Table 4: Cumulative Citywide Total VMT per Service Population Scenario Total VMT Service Population1 Total VMT/Service Population
2040 No Project 2,418,375 256,545 9.4
2040 Plus Project 2,440,857 261,462 9.3
1 Service population includes all residents and employees within the city.

Source: CCTA Travel Demand Model, Fehr & Peers, 202

5.

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: October 24, 2025
To: Aaron Elias, City of Concord
Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Karly Kaufman, Rincon Consultants
From: Bill Burton, PE, RSP, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Concord AFFH – Intersection Level of Service Analysis WC24-4067.00
This technical memorandum presents the intersection level of service (LOS) analysis results for the preferred Concord Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project in the City of Concord, California. This memorandum documents the project’s potential effects on local intersection delays and operations. A separate assessment of the project’s potential effects related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has been prepared and submitted under separate cover.

Project Description
The project rezones select properties in higher resource neighborhoods to allow multi-family development. The project would allow the development of up to 2,412 additional multi-family residential units on 20 parcels comprising seven unique sites in the City of Concord. Table 1 shows the maximum number of potential new multi-family dwelling units on each site, and Figure 1 illustrates the housing site locations.

Attachment 4

ARBORETUM
AND

NATURE PARK

MARKHAM
PARK

COMMUNITY

NEWHALL

OPEN SPACE

L I M E R I D G E

S C H O O L

VALLEY HIGH

YGNACIO

S C H O O L

CHARTER HIGH
VALLEY

C L AY T O N

EAST BAY

UNIVERSITY
STATE

CALIFORNIA
Clayton
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
Site 6Site 6 Site 8Site 8
Site 3Site 3
Site 1Site 1 Site 18Site 18
Site 16Site 16
Site 2Site 2
...\Graphics\Figures\WC24-4067_1_StudyArea
Project Study Area
Study Intersection
Concord AFFH Project Site Number
Figure 1
#
Site #Site #

Aaron Elias, City of Concord
Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Karly Kaufman, Rincon Consultants
October 24, 2025

Table 1: Dwelling Units Per Site
Site ID Assessor’s Parcel Number Multi-Family
Dwelling Units
Site 1 133-111-010 471
Site 2 120-081-018, 120-081-057, 120-081-058, 120-081-075, 120-081-076, 120-081-078 248
Site 3 133-150-009, 133-150-108, 133-150-118,133-150-119, 133-150-120, 133-150-121, 133-150-122, 133-150-123, 133-150-124 617
Site 6 145-070-030 180
Site 8 134-400-002 7801
Site 16 117-090-040 60
Site 18 117-170-017 56
Total 2,412

1. 300 multi-family residential units currently exist on this site. With the project’s proposed rezoning a total of 780 units could be developed on the site. Thus, the analysis focuses on the amount of additional traffic that would be added by 480 units.

Source: Raimi + Associates, 2025.

Study Locations and Data Collection
The following study intersections, shown in Figure 1, were selected based on a review of the project location, estimates of the added project traffic, and locations of planned roadways in the area:

1. Treat Boulevard/Oak Grove Road

2. Ygnacio Valley Road/Cowell Road/Montecito Drive

3. Ygnacio Valley Road/Ayers Road/Campus Drive

4. Ygnacio Valley Road/Kirker Pass Road/Clayton Road

5. Ayers Road/Clayton Road

6. Ayers Road/Concord Boulevard

7. Bailey Road/Concord Boulevard

8. Bailey Road/Clayton Road

9. Treat Boulevard/Denkinger Road/Clayton Road

10. Treat Boulevard/Cowell Road
Weekday morning (7 to 9 AM) and evening (4 to 6 PM) peak period intersection turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections during February 2025 when schools were in session. Appendix A provides traffic count data collection worksheets.

Signal timing data was provided by the City of Concord. Field observations took place to confirm existing signal timing, traffic patterns, queue lengths, lane geometries, bicycle facilities, and

Aaron Elias, City of Concord
Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Karly Kaufman, Rincon Consultants
October 24, 2025

pedestrian facilities at the study locations to inform the existing baseline conditions. All study intersections are controlled by traffic signals.

Analysis Methods and Parameters
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term “level of service” (LOS), a qualitative description of traffic flow from a vehicle driver’s perspective based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Traffic operations at signalized intersections were evaluated for vehicles using methods developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), as documented in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM 6th Edition), using the analysis software Synchro 12.0. The HCM method calculates control delay at an intersection based on inputs such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, signal phasing and timing, pedestrian crossing times, and peak hour factors. Control delay is defined as the delay directly associated with the traffic control device (i.e., a stop sign or a traffic signal) and specifically includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The relationship between LOS and control delay is summarized in Table 2 for signalized intersections.

Table 2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
LOS Description Delay in
Seconds
A
Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
< 10.0
B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. > 10.0 to 20.0 C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both.

Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to 35.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0
E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55.0 to 80.0
F
This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. > 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board).

Aaron Elias, City of Concord
Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Karly Kaufman, Rincon Consultants
October 24, 2025

Level of Service Policies
The study incorporates level of service thresholds outlined in the 2030 Concord General Plan .

Additional specifics regarding violations of the city’s intersection levels of service policies are provided in the City of Concord Interim Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (November 2020). The guidelines include the following thresholds:
“Addition of project traffic causes a signalized intersection to 1) operate beyond the LOS Standard identified in the General Plan; or 2) adds five or more second of delay to intersections already operating beyond the level of service standard under the comparable ‘no project’ scenario.”
As described in the 2030 Concord General Plan, LOS D is identified as the acceptable operations threshold for roadway segments. For roadways that include the city’s transit routes, defined as having two or more bus transit lines, the acceptable operation is LOS E.

Study Scenarios
The following scenarios were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours:
• Existing – Existing conditions based on traffic counts at the study locations. • Existing plus Project – Existing conditions with the addition of traffic expected to be generated by the project.
• Cumulative – Forecasts for the cumulative scenario are based on forecasts from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) regional travel demand model, which has a horizon year of 2040. The model reflects traffic conditions expected to prevail on buildout of the City’s General Plan.
• Cumulative plus Project – Cumulative forecasts plus traffic expected to be generated by the project.

Project Trip-Making Characteristics
Trip Generation
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a project would add to the surrounding roadway system. Estimates are created for the daily condition and for the peak one-hour period during the morning and evening commute period when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically the highest. Project trip generation was estimated using rates and equations from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition).

The ITE land use code for Multifamily Mid-Rise Housing (code 221) was used to calculate the project’s anticipated trip generation. These estimates are presented in Table 3. Based on these

Aaron Elias, City of Concord
Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Karly Kaufman, Rincon Consultants
October 24, 2025

assumptions, the project is expected to generate approximately 9,748 daily vehicle trips, including 848 morning peak hour trips and 825 evening peak hours trips spread across the seven sites as outlined in Table 3.

Table 3: Project Trip Generation
Site
ID Land Use ITE Code
Quantity
(Dwelling
Units)
Daily
Weekday Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
1 Multifamily
Mid-Rise
Housing
221
471 2,200 45 151 196 112 72 184
2 248 1,136 22 75 97 59 38 97
3 617 2,896 60 200 260 147 94 241
6 180 812 16 52 68 43 27 70
8 4801 2,243 46 154 200 114 73 187
16 60 240 3 11 14 14 9 23
18 56 221 3 10 13 14 9 23
Total 9,748 195 653 848 503 322 825
Notes:

1. 300 multi-family residential units currently exist on this site. With the project’s proposed rezoning a total of 780 units could be developed on the site. Thus, the analysis focuses on the amount of additional traffic that would be added by 480 units.

Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Fehr & Peers, 2025.

It should be noted that Sites 1, 2, 3 and 6 are currently occupied by various commercial businesses at varying levels of occupancy. The intersection analysis does not include any credits or trip reductions associated with the potential removal of these establishments. The proposed project rezoning would allow for the replacement or retention of retail businesses on the sites at similar sizes to those that currently exist. Site 8 is currently occupied by 300 multi-family residential units. With the project’s proposed rezoning a total of 780 units could be developed on the site. The intersection LOS analysis focuses on the amount of additional traffic that would be added by 480 units. Sites 16 and 18 are currently vacant.

Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure vehicles would take to access and leave the sites. Estimates of project trip distribution were developed based on existing travel patterns in the area, select zone analyses using the CCTA travel demand model, and the location of complementary land uses. Unique trip distributions were developed and used for each site. These are generally summarized in Table 4.