Agenda packet — Concord City Council, January 27, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
3: Ygnacio Valley Rd & Ayers Rd/Campus Dr Cumulative+Project AM Peak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 80 491 150 250 0 124 695 50 10 1541 100 Future Volume (veh/h) 140 80 491 150 250 0 124 695 50 10 1541 100 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 146 83 511 156 260 0 129 724 52 10 1605 104 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 168 486 411 154 472 0 275 1779 794 40 1577 703 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.25 0.00 0.08 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1581 1781 1870 0 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 146 83 511 156 260 0 129 724 52 10 1605 104 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1581 1781 1870 0 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.1 5.2 39.0 13.0 18.1 0.0 5.4 19.2 2.5 0.8 66.6 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.1 5.2 39.0 13.0 18.1 0.0 5.4 19.2 2.5 0.8 66.6 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 168 486 411 154 472 0 275 1779 794 40 1577 703 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.17 1.24 1.01 0.55 0.00 0.47 0.41 0.07 0.25 1.02 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 190 486 411 154 472 0 276 1779 794 119 1577 703 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.0 43.0 55.5 68.5 48.7 0.0 66.0 23.5 19.3 72.0 41.7 24.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.9 0.1 128.3 75.2 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.2 1.2 27.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.8 2.4 30.3 9.2 8.7 0.0 2.3 8.0 1.0 0.4 33.8 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 94.9 43.0 183.8 143.7 49.5 0.0 66.5 24.2 19.5 73.2 69.0 25.0 LnGrp LOS F D F F D E C B E F C
Approach Vol, veh/h 740 416 905 1719
Approach Delay, s/veh 150.5 84.8 29.9 66.3
Approach LOS F F C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.4 81.1 17.0 44.5 15.9 72.6 18.1 43.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 68.5 13.0 39.0 12.0 66.5 16.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 21.2 15.0 41.0 7.4 68.6 14.1 20.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 76.1
HCM 6th LOS E

Page 206 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
4: Ygnacio Valley Rd/Kirker Pass Rd & Clayton Rd Cumulative+Project AM Peak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 374 472 116 290 659 120 132 493 170 252 1095 476 Future Volume (veh/h) 374 472 116 290 659 120 132 493 170 252 1095 476 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 398 502 123 309 701 128 140 524 181 268 1165 506 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 448 1445 552 357 1114 201 230 1869 577 315 1995 618 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.09 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1578 3456 4342 784 3456 5106 1577 3456 5106 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 398 502 123 309 548 281 140 524 181 268 1165 506 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1578 1728 1702 1722 1728 1702 1577 1728 1702 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 11.7 8.2 13.2 21.4 21.8 5.9 10.9 12.3 11.5 27.0 43.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 11.7 8.2 13.2 21.4 21.8 5.9 10.9 12.3 11.5 27.0 43.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 448 1445 552 357 874 442 230 1869 577 315 1995 618 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.35 0.22 0.87 0.63 0.64 0.61 0.28 0.31 0.85 0.58 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 576 1481 563 461 874 442 253 1869 577 415 1995 618 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.2 42.8 34.4 66.2 49.4 49.5 68.1 33.6 34.1 67.2 36.1 40.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 0.2 0.3 10.9 3.4 6.8 2.1 0.1 0.4 9.9 1.3 11.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.1 5.0 3.2 6.3 9.4 10.1 2.6 4.5 4.8 5.4 11.2 18.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 75.5 43.0 34.7 77.2 52.8 56.4 70.3 33.7 34.5 77.1 37.3 52.4 LnGrp LOS E D C E D E E C C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1023 1138 845 1939
Approach Delay, s/veh 54.6 60.3 39.9 46.8
Approach LOS D E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 65.6 24.4 45.0 18.7 61.9 20.5 49.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.5 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 52.0 25.0 38.5 18.0 45.0 20.0 43.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.9 45.0 19.0 23.8 13.5 14.3 15.2 13.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.6 0.4 6.0 0.2 6.1 0.3 5.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 50.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Page 207 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
5: Ayers Rd & Clayton Rd Cumulative+Project AM Peak
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 1024 240 142 1462 197 263 137 73 191 276 80 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 1024 240 142 1462 197 263 137 73 191 276 80 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 1113 261 154 1589 214 286 149 79 208 300 87 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 100 2269 697 178 1734 773 254 385 323 204 331 276 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.10 0.49 0.49 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1569 1781 3554 1583 1781 1870 1569 1781 1870 1561 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 1113 261 154 1589 214 286 149 79 208 300 87 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1569 1781 1777 1583 1781 1870 1569 1781 1870 1561 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 21.7 15.5 11.9 58.0 11.2 20.0 9.6 5.9 16.0 22.0 6.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 21.7 15.5 11.9 58.0 11.2 20.0 9.6 5.9 16.0 22.0 6.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 100 2269 697 178 1734 773 254 385 323 204 331 276 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.49 0.37 0.87 0.92 0.28 1.12 0.39 0.24 1.02 0.91 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 115 2269 697 254 1734 773 254 468 392 204 414 346 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.3 27.6 25.9 62.1 33.2 21.2 60.0 48.0 46.5 62.0 56.5 50.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.2 0.3 14.4 9.2 0.9 93.9 0.2 0.1 68.8 18.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 8.7 5.9 6.0 26.0 4.4 15.6 4.5 2.3 11.1 12.1 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 65.9 27.8 26.2 76.5 42.3 22.1 153.9 48.2 46.7 130.8 74.5 50.4 LnGrp LOS E C C E D C F D D F E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1428 1957 514 595
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.9 42.8 106.8 90.7
Approach LOS C D F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 73.8 20.0 34.3 18.0 67.7 24.0 30.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 61.0 16.0 35.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 60.0 18.0 11.6 13.9 23.7 22.0 24.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.1 9.6 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 52.1
HCM 6th LOS D

Page 208 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
6: Ayers Rd & Concord Blvd Cumulative+Project AM Peak
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 306 177 80 882 30 193 100 40 160 310 190 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 306 177 80 882 30 193 100 40 160 310 190 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 322 186 84 928 32 203 105 42 168 326 200 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 61 687 388 107 1190 41 235 443 177 200 357 219 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2188 1236 1781 3501 121 1781 1270 508 1781 1085 666 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 32 260 248 84 471 489 203 0 147 168 0 526 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1648 1781 1777 1845 1781 0 1778 1781 0 1751 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 12.5 12.9 4.9 25.3 25.3 11.9 0.0 6.2 9.8 0.0 30.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 12.5 12.9 4.9 25.3 25.3 11.9 0.0 6.2 9.8 0.0 30.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.38
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 61 558 518 107 604 627 235 0 620 200 0 576 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.47 0.48 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.86 0.00 0.24 0.84 0.00 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 712 660 218 829 861 352 0 863 386 0 882 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.4 29.2 29.4 49.2 31.5 31.5 45.2 0.0 24.5 46.2 0.0 34.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.9 1.0 4.6 4.1 3.9 9.4 0.0 0.1 3.7 0.0 7.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 5.3 5.1 2.3 11.2 11.6 5.8 0.0 2.6 4.5 0.0 13.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 52.9 30.1 30.4 53.8 35.6 35.4 54.5 0.0 24.6 49.9 0.0 41.3 LnGrp LOS D C C D D D D C D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 540 1044 350 694
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.6 37.0 42.0 43.4
Approach LOS C D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 38.3 18.0 39.4 7.7 41.1 15.9 41.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 42.5 21.0 53.5 6.0 49.5 23.0 51.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 14.9 13.9 32.6 3.9 27.3 11.8 8.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.2 2.3 0.0 8.8 0.2 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 38.2
HCM 6th LOS D

Page 209 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
7: Bailey Rd & Concord Blvd Cumulative+Project AM Peak
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 209 342 181 70 1010 56 63 120 20 121 371 768 Future Volume (veh/h) 209 342 181 70 1010 56 63 120 20 121 371 768 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 220 360 191 74 1063 59 66 126 21 127 391 808 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 221 853 445 90 1044 58 70 133 22 159 490 557 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 2273 1186 1795 3450 191 565 1079 180 457 1406 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 220 282 269 74 552 570 213 0 0 518 0 808 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1791 1668 1795 1791 1851 1825 0 0 1862 0 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 23.9 22.8 23.4 8.0 59.0 59.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 48.9 0.0 68.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.9 22.8 23.4 8.0 59.0 59.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 48.9 0.0 68.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.10 0.31 0.10 0.25 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 221 672 626 90 542 560 225 0 0 649 0 557 V/C Ratio(X) 1.00 0.42 0.43 0.82 1.02 1.02 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 221 672 626 138 542 560 225 0 0 649 0 557 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 85.4 45.2 45.3 91.7 68.0 68.0 84.9 0.0 0.0 57.3 0.0 63.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 59.2 0.6 0.7 11.6 43.3 42.8 45.3 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 212.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.8 10.4 10.0 4.0 33.4 34.5 13.5 0.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 60.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 144.6 45.8 46.0 103.3 111.3 110.8 130.2 0.0 0.0 63.7 0.0 276.1 LnGrp LOS F D D F F F F E F
Approach Vol, veh/h 771 1196 213 1326
Approach Delay, s/veh 74.1 110.6 130.2 193.1
Approach LOS E F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.8 78.2 29.0 29.0 64.0 73.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 68.0 24.0 24.0 59.0 68.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.0 25.4 24.6 25.9 61.0 70.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 134.9
HCM 6th LOS F

Page 210 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
8: Driveway/Bailey Rd & Clayton Rd Cumulative+Project AM Peak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 992 10 40 1620 90 30 10 10 242 20 550 Future Volume (veh/h) 160 992 10 40 1620 90 30 10 10 242 20 550 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 1078 11 43 1761 98 33 11 11 279 0 598 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 178 2285 23 103 1962 109 115 55 55 1056 0 467 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.44 0.44 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.30 0.00 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5212 53 1781 4948 275 1781 858 858 3563 0 1575 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 704 385 43 1211 648 33 0 22 279 0 598 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1861 1781 1702 1819 1781 0 1716 1781 0 1575 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.6 20.5 20.5 3.3 46.6 46.8 2.5 0.0 1.7 8.4 0.0 41.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.6 20.5 20.5 3.3 46.6 46.8 2.5 0.0 1.7 8.4 0.0 41.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 178 1492 816 103 1349 721 115 0 110 1056 0 467 V/C Ratio(X) 0.98 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.90 0.90 0.29 0.00 0.20 0.26 0.00 1.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 178 1492 816 127 1349 721 115 0 110 1056 0 467 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.57 0.57 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.8 27.8 27.8 63.7 39.6 39.6 62.4 0.0 62.1 37.6 0.0 49.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 44.3 0.2 0.3 1.0 9.6 16.3 6.2 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 141.9 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.3 8.2 9.1 1.5 20.7 23.6 1.3 0.0 0.9 3.7 0.0 34.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 107.1 28.0 28.2 64.6 49.2 56.0 68.7 0.0 66.1 37.6 0.0 191.1 LnGrp LOS F C C E D E E E D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1263 1902 55 877
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.0 51.9 67.7 142.3
Approach LOS D D E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.1 66.9 47.0 18.0 61.0 14.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 59.5 41.5 14.0 55.5 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 22.5 43.5 15.6 48.8 4.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 67.5
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Page 211 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
9: Treat Blvd/Denkinger Rd & Clayton Rd Cumulative+Project AM Peak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 771 222 646 1612 50 291 293 249 128 930 102 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 771 222 646 1612 50 291 293 249 128 930 102 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 838 241 702 1752 54 316 318 271 139 1011 111 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 107 961 275 714 1988 61 253 1087 808 161 1043 114 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.09 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3938 1125 3456 5089 157 3456 3554 1570 1781 3227 354 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 724 355 702 1172 634 316 318 271 139 557 565 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1660 1728 1702 1841 1728 1777 1570 1781 1777 1804 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.2 30.6 30.9 30.3 48.0 48.0 11.0 10.2 15.3 11.5 46.3 46.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.2 30.6 30.9 30.3 48.0 48.0 11.0 10.2 15.3 11.5 46.3 46.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 107 831 405 714 1330 719 253 1087 808 161 574 583 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.87 0.88 0.98 0.88 0.88 1.25 0.29 0.34 0.86 0.97 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 119 874 426 714 1350 730 253 1087 808 214 575 583 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.7 54.4 54.5 59.2 42.5 42.5 69.5 39.7 21.5 67.3 50.0 50.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 28.1 9.6 18.4 12.7 2.3 4.2 139.7 0.2 0.3 19.1 29.9 29.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 14.0 14.8 14.3 20.1 22.2 9.7 4.5 5.8 6.1 25.3 25.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 97.7 64.0 73.0 71.9 44.8 46.6 209.2 39.9 21.9 86.4 79.9 79.9 LnGrp LOS F E E E D D F D C F E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1166 2508 905 1261
Approach Delay, s/veh 69.3 52.8 93.6 80.6
Approach LOS E D F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.0 42.1 18.6 51.4 14.0 64.1 16.0 54.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 38.5 18.0 41.5 10.0 59.5 11.0 48.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 32.3 32.9 13.5 17.3 9.2 50.0 13.0 48.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.7 0.1 4.3 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 68.4
HCM 6th LOS E

Page 212 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
10: Treat Blvd & Cowell Rd Cumulative+Project AM Peak
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 152 381 370 508 454 80 90 456 133 90 1709 145 Future Volume (veh/h) 152 381 370 508 454 80 90 456 133 90 1709 145 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 155 389 378 518 463 82 92 465 136 92 1744 148 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 230 806 358 484 904 159 116 1569 699 116 1569 698 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.07 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1579 3456 3012 530 1781 3554 1584 1781 3554 1582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 155 389 378 518 272 273 92 465 136 92 1744 148 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1579 1728 1777 1766 1781 1777 1584 1781 1777 1582 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.6 14.3 34.0 21.0 19.0 19.2 7.6 12.6 7.9 7.6 66.2 8.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 14.3 34.0 21.0 19.0 19.2 7.6 12.6 7.9 7.6 66.2 8.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 230 806 358 484 533 530 116 1569 699 116 1569 698 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.48 1.06 1.07 0.51 0.52 0.79 0.30 0.19 0.79 1.11 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 806 358 484 533 530 119 1569 699 178 1569 698 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.4 50.4 58.0 64.5 43.4 43.5 69.1 26.9 25.6 69.1 41.9 25.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.5 0.2 63.2 61.1 0.3 0.4 26.8 0.5 0.6 6.1 59.9 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 6.4 19.7 13.3 8.4 8.5 4.3 5.4 3.1 3.7 41.0 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 72.9 50.5 121.2 125.6 43.7 43.9 95.9 27.4 26.2 75.2 101.8 26.5 LnGrp LOS E D F F D D F C C E F C
Approach Vol, veh/h 922 1063 693 1984
Approach Delay, s/veh 83.3 83.7 36.3 94.9
Approach LOS F F D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 71.7 14.0 50.5 13.8 71.7 25.0 39.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 66.0 11.0 44.0 15.0 61.0 21.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.6 68.2 8.6 21.2 9.6 14.6 23.0 36.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 81.3
HCM 6th LOS F

Page 213 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
1: Treat Blvd & Oak Grove Rd Cumulative+Project PM Peak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 428 549 159 307 608 391 227 1553 304 228 761 266 Future Volume (veh/h) 428 549 159 307 608 391 227 1553 304 228 761 266 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 441 566 164 316 627 403 234 1601 313 235 785 274 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 464 811 349 361 704 304 259 1726 335 251 1493 517 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.40 0.40 0.14 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3582 1542 3483 3582 1546 1795 4314 838 1795 3772 1305 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 441 566 164 316 627 403 234 1271 643 235 713 346 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1791 1542 1742 1791 1546 1795 1716 1721 1795 1716 1646 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.8 21.8 13.8 13.4 25.6 29.5 19.2 53.0 53.7 19.4 23.8 24.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.8 21.8 13.8 13.4 25.6 29.5 19.2 53.0 53.7 19.4 23.8 24.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 1.00 0.79
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 464 811 349 361 704 304 259 1372 688 251 1358 651 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.70 0.47 0.88 0.89 1.33 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.53 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 464 811 349 395 704 304 347 1372 688 251 1358 651 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.5 53.3 50.2 66.3 58.7 60.3 63.2 42.9 43.1 63.8 34.6 34.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 29.0 2.2 0.4 17.1 13.1 167.4 21.4 12.1 21.5 39.4 0.5 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 10.0 5.3 6.8 12.7 25.5 10.2 24.2 26.3 11.5 9.9 9.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 93.5 55.5 50.6 83.4 71.7 227.7 84.6 55.0 64.6 103.2 35.1 35.7 LnGrp LOS F E D F E F F D E F D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1171 1346 2148 1294
Approach Delay, s/veh 69.2 121.2 61.1 47.6
Approach LOS E F E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.6 65.4 19.5 39.5 25.0 66.0 24.0 35.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 52.0 17.0 32.5 21.0 60.0 20.0 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.2 26.1 15.4 23.8 21.4 55.7 20.8 31.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 10.5 0.1 1.9 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 73.3
HCM 6th LOS E

Page 214 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
2: Ygnacio Valley Rd & Cowell Rd/Montecito Dr Cumulative+Project PM Peak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 649 40 210 20 20 20 290 2320 40 30 765 376 Future Volume (veh/h) 649 40 210 20 20 20 290 2320 40 30 765 376 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 669 41 0 21 21 21 299 2392 41 31 789 388 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 738 415 84 48 48 322 1969 878 95 1517 677
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.18 0.55 0.55 0.05 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 1885 1598 1795 865 865 1795 3582 1598 1795 3582 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 669 41 0 21 0 42 299 2392 41 31 789 388 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1885 1598 1795 0 1730 1795 1791 1598 1795 1791 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 28.1 2.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.5 24.6 82.5 1.8 2.5 24.4 27.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.1 2.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.5 24.6 82.5 1.8 2.5 24.4 27.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 738 415 84 0 95 322 1969 878 95 1517 677 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.10 0.25 0.00 0.44 0.93 1.21 0.05 0.32 0.52 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 882 452 144 0 115 443 1969 878 132 1517 677 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.7 46.6 0.0 69.0 0.0 68.6 60.6 33.8 15.6 68.4 32.0 32.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.5 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.2 18.5 101.5 0.0 0.7 1.3 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.5 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.7 12.6 61.0 0.7 1.2 10.6 11.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 69.2 46.7 0.0 70.5 0.0 71.8 79.1 135.3 15.6 69.1 33.2 36.4 LnGrp LOS E D E E E F B E C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 710 63 2732 1208
Approach Delay, s/veh 67.9 71.4 127.3 35.2
Approach LOS E E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.9 69.5 11.0 38.6 12.0 88.5 35.8 13.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.0 45.5 12.0 36.0 11.0 71.5 38.0 10.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 26.6 29.7 3.7 4.6 4.5 84.5 30.1 5.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 7.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 94.0
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Page 215 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
3: Ygnacio Valley Rd & Ayers Rd/Campus Dr Cumulative+Project PM Peak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 10 229 10 10 10 484 2415 50 10 852 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 10 229 10 10 10 484 2415 50 10 852 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 71 10 234 10 10 10 494 2464 51 10 869 112 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 113 302 256 41 103 103 541 2380 1048 41 1905 850 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.66 0.66 0.02 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1885 1598 1795 865 865 3483 3582 1577 1795 3582 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 10 234 10 0 20 494 2464 51 10 869 112 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1885 1598 1795 0 1730 1742 1791 1577 1795 1791 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 0.7 21.6 0.8 0.0 1.5 20.9 99.7 1.7 0.8 22.5 5.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 0.7 21.6 0.8 0.0 1.5 20.9 99.7 1.7 0.8 22.5 5.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 302 256 41 0 207 541 2380 1048 41 1905 850 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.03 0.92 0.25 0.00 0.10 0.91 1.04 0.05 0.25 0.46 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 180 522 442 144 0 444 604 2380 1048 144 1905 850 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.5 53.2 62.0 72.0 0.0 58.8 62.4 25.2 8.7 72.0 21.7 17.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 8.4 1.1 0.0 0.1 16.4 28.3 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.3 9.5 0.4 0.0 0.7 10.3 46.3 0.6 0.4 9.2 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 70.6 53.2 70.4 73.2 0.0 58.9 78.8 53.5 8.8 73.2 21.9 17.8 LnGrp LOS E D E E E E F A E C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 315 30 3009 991
Approach Delay, s/veh 69.9 63.7 56.9 22.0
Approach LOS E E E C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.4 105.7 7.4 29.5 27.3 85.8 13.5 23.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 65.0 12.0 41.5 26.0 51.0 15.0 38.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 101.7 2.8 23.6 22.9 24.5 7.8 3.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 9.2 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 49.9
HCM 6th LOS D

Page 216 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
4: Ygnacio Valley Rd/Kirker Pass Rd & Clayton Rd Cumulative+Project PM Peak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 725 595 109 190 494 131 197 1658 230 191 454 342 Future Volume (veh/h) 725 595 109 190 494 131 197 1658 230 191 454 342 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 755 620 114 198 515 136 205 1727 240 199 473 356 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 720 1569 597 279 725 186 251 2016 620 232 1988 614 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 5147 1580 3483 4069 1045 3483 5147 1583 3483 5147 1589 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 755 620 114 198 432 219 205 1727 240 199 473 356 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1716 1580 1742 1716 1682 1742 1716 1583 1742 1716 1589 Q Serve(g_s), s 31.0 14.3 7.3 8.3 17.8 18.5 8.7 46.1 16.3 8.5 9.3 26.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.0 14.3 7.3 8.3 17.8 18.5 8.7 46.1 16.3 8.5 9.3 26.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 720 1569 597 279 611 300 251 2016 620 232 1988 614 V/C Ratio(X) 1.05 0.40 0.19 0.71 0.71 0.73 0.82 0.86 0.39 0.86 0.24 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 720 1818 674 325 823 404 325 2016 620 232 1988 614 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.5 41.2 31.4 67.3 57.9 58.2 68.6 41.8 32.7 69.3 31.1 36.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.1 0.2 0.2 4.3 2.4 5.7 9.2 4.9 1.8 24.7 0.3 4.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 18.2 6.0 2.8 3.8 7.8 8.3 4.1 19.8 6.5 4.5 3.9 10.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 106.6 41.4 31.6 71.6 60.3 63.9 77.8 46.7 34.5 94.0 31.4 40.4 LnGrp LOS F D C E E E E D C F C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1489 849 2172 1028
Approach Delay, s/veh 73.7 63.9 48.3 46.6
Approach LOS E E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.8 65.0 36.0 33.2 15.0 65.8 17.0 52.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.5 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 45.5 31.0 36.0 10.0 49.5 14.0 53.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.7 28.6 33.0 20.5 10.5 48.1 10.3 16.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.5 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.3 0.1 7.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 57.2
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Page 217 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
5: Ayers Rd & Clayton Rd Cumulative+Project PM Peak
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 1478 160 91 894 224 196 388 147 143 95 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 170 1478 160 91 894 224 196 388 147 143 95 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 177 1540 167 95 931 233 204 404 153 149 99 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 201 2409 737 117 1509 671 228 443 365 173 385 326 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.47 0.47 0.07 0.42 0.42 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 5147 1574 1795 3582 1594 1795 1885 1553 1795 1885 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 177 1540 167 95 931 233 204 404 153 149 99 73 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1716 1574 1795 1791 1594 1795 1885 1553 1795 1885 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.6 31.8 8.8 7.3 28.5 13.9 15.7 29.2 11.7 11.5 6.2 5.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.6 31.8 8.8 7.3 28.5 13.9 15.7 29.2 11.7 11.5 6.2 5.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 201 2409 737 117 1509 671 228 443 365 173 385 326 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.64 0.23 0.81 0.62 0.35 0.90 0.91 0.42 0.86 0.26 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 256 2409 737 167 1509 671 269 518 427 218 465 394 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.2 28.3 22.2 64.6 31.7 27.5 60.2 52.1 45.4 62.4 46.8 46.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.6 0.6 0.2 12.2 1.9 1.4 24.7 17.4 0.3 20.5 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.3 12.8 3.4 3.7 12.5 5.6 8.7 15.8 4.6 6.2 2.9 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 81.8 28.8 22.3 76.8 33.6 28.9 84.9 69.6 45.7 82.8 46.9 46.6 LnGrp LOS F C C E C C F E D F D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1884 1259 761 321
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.2 36.0 68.9 63.5
Approach LOS C D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.7 64.5 17.5 38.4 13.1 71.0 21.8 34.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.5 17.0 38.5 13.0 52.5 21.0 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.6 30.5 13.5 31.2 9.3 33.8 17.7 8.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.2 0.1 1.2 0.0 10.9 0.1 0.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 42.8
HCM 6th LOS D

Page 218 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
6: Ayers Rd & Concord Blvd Cumulative+Project PM Peak
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 130 492 168 60 323 110 211 480 60 10 70 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 130 492 168 60 323 110 211 480 60 10 70 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 523 179 64 344 117 224 511 64 11 74 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 177 801 273 111 708 237 273 592 74 30 251 146 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.15 0.36 0.36 0.02 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 2621 893 1795 2635 882 1795 1642 206 1795 1118 650 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 357 345 64 232 229 224 0 575 11 0 117 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1791 1723 1795 1791 1726 1795 0 1848 1795 0 1768 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 11.8 11.9 2.4 7.4 7.6 8.3 0.0 19.8 0.4 0.0 3.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 11.8 11.9 2.4 7.4 7.6 8.3 0.0 19.8 0.4 0.0 3.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.37
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 177 547 526 111 481 464 273 0 666 30 0 397 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.65 0.66 0.58 0.48 0.49 0.82 0.00 0.86 0.37 0.00 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 578 1192 1146 289 904 871 814 0 1824 158 0 1099 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.1 20.6 20.6 31.2 21.0 21.1 28.1 0.0 20.3 33.3 0.0 22.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.1 1.2 2.3 0.0 1.3 2.8 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 4.8 4.6 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.6 0.0 8.0 0.2 0.0 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 32.9 22.5 22.6 33.0 22.1 22.2 30.4 0.0 21.7 36.1 0.0 22.2 LnGrp LOS C C C C C C C C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 840 525 799 128
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.2 23.5 24.1 23.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 25.9 14.4 19.9 10.7 23.4 5.1 29.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 45.5 31.0 42.5 22.0 34.5 6.0 67.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 13.9 10.3 5.8 7.1 9.6 2.4 21.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.9 0.3 0.4 0.1 3.9 0.0 2.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 24.0
HCM 6th LOS C

Page 219 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
7: Bailey Rd & Concord Blvd Cumulative+Project PM Peak
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 465 627 113 20 372 153 152 359 30 83 123 270 Future Volume (veh/h) 465 627 113 20 372 153 152 359 30 83 123 270 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 479 646 116 21 384 158 157 370 31 86 127 278 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 497 1291 231 38 424 172 163 384 32 97 143 207 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3032 544 1795 2486 1009 518 1221 102 746 1102 1590 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 479 381 381 21 275 267 558 0 0 213 0 278 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1791 1784 1795 1791 1704 1841 0 0 1848 0 1590 Q Serve(g_s), s 48.5 28.6 28.7 2.1 27.8 28.4 55.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 24.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 48.5 28.6 28.7 2.1 27.8 28.4 55.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 24.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.59 0.28 0.06 0.40 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 497 762 760 38 305 290 578 0 0 240 0 207 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.50 0.50 0.55 0.90 0.92 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 1.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 555 816 813 58 320 305 609 0 0 240 0 207 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.8 38.6 38.7 89.3 75.0 75.2 62.2 0.0 0.0 78.9 0.0 80.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.2 0.7 0.7 4.4 26.9 31.2 26.8 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 183.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 25.9 12.9 12.9 1.0 15.1 15.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 20.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 93.0 39.4 39.4 93.8 101.9 106.4 89.0 0.0 0.0 108.1 0.0 263.4 LnGrp LOS F D D F F F F F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1241 563 558 491
Approach Delay, s/veh 60.1 103.7 89.0 196.0
Approach LOS E F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 83.5 63.0 56.0 36.4 29.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 84.0 61.0 57.0 33.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 30.7 57.0 50.5 30.4 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.3 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 97.7
HCM 6th LOS F

Page 220 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
8: Driveway/Bailey Rd & Clayton Rd Cumulative+Project PM Peak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 380 1833 20 50 1050 110 40 20 20 175 10 181 Future Volume (veh/h) 380 1833 20 50 1050 110 40 20 20 175 10 181 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 396 1909 21 52 1094 115 42 21 21 189 0 189 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 419 2400 26 111 1351 142 115 56 56 537 0 235 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.00 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 5247 58 1795 4727 496 1795 865 865 3591 0 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 396 1248 682 52 794 415 42 0 42 189 0 189 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1716 1874 1795 1716 1793 1795 0 1730 1795 0 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 30.4 43.4 43.5 3.9 30.1 30.2 3.1 0.0 3.3 6.6 0.0 16.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 30.4 43.4 43.5 3.9 30.1 30.2 3.1 0.0 3.3 6.6 0.0 16.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 419 1569 857 111 980 512 115 0 111 537 0 235 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.80 0.80 0.47 0.81 0.81 0.36 0.00 0.38 0.35 0.00 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 487 1666 910 128 980 512 115 0 111 846 0 371 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.24 0.24 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 32.4 32.4 63.4 46.5 46.5 62.8 0.0 62.8 53.4 0.0 57.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.5 0.7 1.3 1.1 7.2 13.1 8.7 0.0 9.5 0.1 0.0 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.4 17.6 19.3 1.8 13.6 15.1 1.7 0.0 1.7 3.0 0.0 6.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 61.3 33.1 33.7 64.6 53.7 59.5 71.4 0.0 72.3 53.6 0.0 60.5 LnGrp LOS E C C E D E E E D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 2326 1261 84 378
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.1 56.1 71.9 57.1
Approach LOS D E E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.7 69.5 26.4 36.7 45.5 14.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 68.0 33.0 38.0 40.0 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 45.5 18.3 32.4 32.2 5.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 17.5 0.6 0.3 5.3 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 46.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Page 221 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
9: Treat Blvd/Denkinger Rd & Clayton Rd Cumulative+Project PM Peak Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 1457 210 365 947 86 358 645 570 181 354 112 Future Volume (veh/h) 140 1457 210 365 947 86 358 645 570 181 354 112 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 147 1534 221 384 997 91 377 679 600 191 373 118 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 170 1705 245 435 1946 177 372 907 602 192 680 212 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 4543 653 3483 4800 437 3483 3582 1588 1795 2683 837 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 147 1158 597 384 712 376 377 679 600 191 247 244 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1716 1765 1742 1716 1806 1742 1791 1588 1795 1791 1730 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.1 47.7 47.9 16.3 23.4 23.4 16.0 26.2 38.0 16.0 17.9 18.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.1 47.7 47.9 16.3 23.4 23.4 16.0 26.2 38.0 16.0 17.9 18.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 170 1287 662 435 1391 732 372 907 602 192 454 438 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.51 0.51 1.01 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 251 1287 662 581 1391 732 372 907 602 192 454 438 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.0 44.2 44.2 64.6 33.5 33.5 67.0 51.6 46.6 67.0 48.5 48.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.3 10.2 17.8 8.4 0.4 0.7 50.5 3.7 36.0 64.2 1.7 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.1 21.7 23.8 7.7 9.7 10.3 9.6 12.1 28.2 10.8 8.3 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 80.3 54.4 62.0 73.0 33.8 34.2 117.5 55.3 82.6 131.2 50.3 50.6 LnGrp LOS F D E E C C F E F F D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1902 1472 1656 682
Approach Delay, s/veh 58.8 44.1 79.3 73.1
Approach LOS E D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.7 61.8 21.0 43.5 19.2 66.3 21.0 43.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 50.0 16.0 38.0 21.0 54.0 16.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.3 49.9 18.0 40.0 14.1 25.4 18.0 20.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.1 0.0 3.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 62.7
HCM 6th LOS E

Page 222 of 397 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Concord AFFH
10: Treat Blvd & Cowell Rd Cumulative+Project PM Peak
Fehr & Peers Synchro 12 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 243 532 130 244 312 180 240 1446 337 130 636 162 Future Volume (veh/h) 243 532 130 244 312 180 240 1446 337 130 636 162 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 251 548 134 252 322 186 247 1491 347 134 656 167 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 294 631 278 295 387 218 270 1648 734 156 1420 633 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.46 0.46 0.09 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3582 1576 3483 2192 1235 1795 3582 1597 1795 3582 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 251 548 134 252 262 246 247 1491 347 134 656 167 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1791 1576 1742 1791 1635 1795 1791 1597 1795 1791 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.7 22.3 11.5 10.7 21.1 21.9 20.3 57.8 22.5 11.0 20.3 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.7 22.3 11.5 10.7 21.1 21.9 20.3 57.8 22.5 11.0 20.3 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 294 631 278 295 316 289 270 1648 734 156 1420 633 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.87 0.48 0.85 0.83 0.85 0.91 0.90 0.47 0.86 0.46 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 302 812 357 302 406 371 383 1648 734 180 1420 633 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.7 60.1 55.6 67.7 59.6 59.9 62.8 37.5 27.9 67.6 33.5 30.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.9 6.8 0.5 19.1 8.5 11.8 17.1 8.6 2.2 26.5 1.1 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.5 10.7 4.6 5.5 10.3 10.0 10.5 26.4 9.0 6.2 9.0 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 86.7 66.9 56.1 86.8 68.1 71.7 79.9 46.1 30.1 94.1 34.5 31.5 LnGrp LOS F E E F E E E D C F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 933 760 2085 957
Approach Delay, s/veh 70.7 75.5 47.5 42.3
Approach LOS E E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.6 65.0 16.7 32.0 17.0 74.5 16.7 31.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.0 52.0 13.0 34.0 15.0 69.0 13.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.3 22.3 12.7 23.9 13.0 59.8 12.7 24.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 7.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 7.8 0.0 1.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 55.5
HCM 6th LOS E

Page 223 of 397 ends

Detroit
Monument
Ygnacio
Valley
Diamond
Galindo
TreatOak Grove
Market
Clayton
Kirker
Pass
Port Chicago
Sunvalley
Meadow
Concord
Willow Pass
Cowell
City of
Pleasant Hill
City of
Walnut Creek
City of
Clayton
City of
Pittsburg
Mallard
Reservoir
0 1 20.5
Miles
Data Sources: City of Concord (2024), Esri (2024).

City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
County Islands
BART Yellow Line
Freeways
Project Boundary
City Parks
Context Parks and Open Space
Surrounding Cities
Water
North Concord/
Martinez Station
Concord Station
Pleasant Hill/Contra
Costa Centre Station
Attachment 5

Page 224 of 397 ends

M EMORANDUM
To: Eric Yurkovich and Antara Tandon
From: Megan Gregory and Darin Smith
Subject: Concord Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rezoning Project – Financial Feasibility Analysis; EPS #231077
Date: November 7, 2024
The City of Concord’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
includes Program 8.6 Fair Housing, which is focused on
increasing housing opportunities by allowing multifamily housing in higher-resource neighborhoods. These higher-resource neighborhoods are identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and are characterized by quality schools, safety, community amenities, and economic
opportunities. The City of Concord established the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project as a public planning process to rezone properties in higher-resource neighborhoods to allow for multifamily development.

The City engaged Raimi & Associates and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to evaluate the physical and financial feasibility of rezoning options. To accomplish this task, EPS developed proformas for different residential prototypes incorporating City requirements for affordability, and then applied them to sites serving as case studies to assess development feasibility.

This memorandum describes the current state of development feasibility for multifamily residential projects in Concord. The costs and market assumptions used in this analysis reflect a snapshot in time, and changes in the housing market would impact the feasibility of development.

Attachment 6

Page 225 of 397 ends

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 2
Key Findings
 Multifamily development feasibility is currently impacted by high construction and financing costs, making it difficult to achieve competitive financial returns and get projects started. Costs for labor and materials have escalated quickly in recent years, as have interest rates on construction loans. At the same time, achievable rents have escalated less quickly, and projects that may have been feasible a few years ago are not under current market conditions. Improvements to market conditions – including cost reductions and/or rent escalation – will enhance project feasibility, but it is not certain when such conditions will prevail.
 City goals for this effort involve rezoning at least 20 acres of land in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence and higher resource areas to have a maximum density of at least 60 dwelling units per acre to accommodate at least 1,000 total dwelling units. In addition to establishing new maximum densities, the City is interested in requiring a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre for the properties which will be upzoned through this program. These densities were reached through discussions with City staff and the Ad Hoc Committee.
 The type and quantity of parking plays a key role in overall development costs due to the high cost of structured parking. This analysis finds that constructing structured parking, whether in a wrap- or podium-style, costs $40,000 to $50,000 per space. In contrast, surface parking only costs $5,000 per space, resulting in significantly lower development costs for lower density, garden style apartments. However, surface parking takes up a large amount of space, and therefore it can be difficult to meet the density guidelines set out for this effort and also meet the City’s minimum parking requirements and development standards.
 At the densities identified in the Housing Element and by the Council Ad Hoc Committee, garden style apartments are the only financially feasible residential development prototype at this time. The City intends for this rezoning to achieve densities of no less than 30 dwelling units per acre. The multifamily development prototypes explored in this analysis are assumed to be able to achieve similar rents but will have different construction costs, largely but not wholly attributed to the cost of providing parking.  The value of existing commercial uses exceeds the estimated value of residential redevelopment options in most case study scenarios. For a property to be viable for residential redevelopment, a residential developer would need to be willing to pay more to 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. At this time, most residential redevelopment scenarios do not meet this threshold.
 Due to the availability of external subsidies and reduced parking requirements, 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 Page 226 of 397 Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 3
higher than what market rate multifamily projects would be able to feasibly achieve under current market conditions. These projects have relied on subsidies such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits 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.

Market Context
In recent years the San Francisco Bay Area housing market has experienced significant shifts, including significant increases to construction costs and interest rates. These increases in costs have made development feasibility more difficult. Figure 1 shows a price index of construction costs in California, multifamily rents in Concord, home sales values in Concord and the national mortgage rate. As shown, values are represented relative to a 2014 baseline. In the past decade, and especially the last four years, the costs of construction and mortgage rate increases have outpaced multifamily rents, although for-sale home prices have escalated more than construction costs over the 10- year period. These indicators represent the challenge faced by many developers currently, but also suggest that current circumstances do not reflect longer-term trends and feasibility may improve over the long term.

Figure 1 Housing Market Indicators (2014-2024)

Methodology and Assumptions
This study uses development cost assumptions and residential revenue estimates to find the “residual land value” for each development prototype. The residual land value is the estimated price that a developer may be willing to pay to acquire a site for the

Page 227 of 397 ends

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 4
development they have in mind and is calculated as the difference between what it costs to construct the project and what that project can be sold for once it has been constructed and is occupied. By comparing the calculated residual land value for the residential development prototypes to current commercial land values, this analysis determines whether developers and property owners are likely to convert existing commercial properties to residential developments.

It is important to note that the feasibility analyses contained in this memorandum are based on simplified, generic prototypes meant to represent a typical or average development project. A developer’s choice to ultimately pursue a residential development project in Concord will depend on many factors that are impacted by regional market forces as well as site-specific conditions. While our analysis accounts for some of these factors, the cost and revenue expectations for a particular project will vary based on the size, location, layout, condition, and history of a specific project site, as well as the capabilities, business goals, and proposed project design characteristics of a specific developer.

Prototypes
The prototype residential products used in the feasibility analysis were informed by review of recent developments within the City and surrounding jurisdictions as well as discussions with Raimi & Associates and City staff. City staff has indicated that the project’s advisory group identified 30 dwelling units per acre as the minimum for the properties that will be upzoned for the purposes of this program. This density can be achieved and exceeded with a mix of building types, ranging from for-sale townhomes to multifamily apartment buildings up to seven stories tall. The characteristics for the protype development products are summarized in Table 1. They include three different types of multifamily apartments (garden, wrap, and podium) and townhomes. While townhome projects alone do not achieve the density desired for this effort, there are sites large enough where a mix of townhomes and high density residential is achievable.

The critical differentiator between the multifamily apartment prototypes is the density at which they are built and how parking is provided. Garden apartments are assumed to be built at 40 units per acre, and are assumed to have surface parking, while the wrap project is built at 60 units per acre with wrap-around style parking and the podium apartments are built at 90 units per acre with podium style parking. Townhome units are assumed to be developed at the lowest density, 25 units per acre, with attached parking.

The parking ratios reflect the City’s current minimum parking standards. The feasibility analysis does not assume developers, investors, and tenants would accept less than the existing City-standard minimum parking ratios, due to the suburban environment and limited transit service in the area.

Page 228 of 397 ends

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 5

Table 1 Residential Development Prototypes
Item Townhomes Garden Apartments Wrap Apartments Podium Apartments Tenure Ownership Rental Rental Rental
Building Type Attached Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily Density (units/acre) 25 units/acre 40 units/acre 60 units/acre 90 units/acre Gross Square Feet / Unit 1,275 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft.

Rentable Square Feet / Unit 1,275 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft. 800 sq. ft.

Unit Bedrooms (1) 1.5 per unit 1.5 per unit 1.5 per unit 1.5 per unit Amount of Parking 1.75 per unit 1.75 per unit 1.75 per unit 1.75 per unit Parking Type Attached Garage Surface Wrap Podium
(1) Reflects 50-50 split between 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units.

Page 229 of 397 ends

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 6
Case Study Sites
Raimi & Associates identified three sites to serve as case studies (see Table 2), and modeled building and parking configurations to assess how to achieve the desired density levels. EPS collaborated with Raimi to ensure that the development prototypes used were consistent across modelling efforts. Raimi tested several densities and unit configurations at each site. EPS utilized the results of Raimi’s modelling to test the feasibility of residential redevelopment relative to the property owners’ option of retaining existing commercial use at the site level.

Table 2 Case Study Sites

Development Cost Assumptions
Housing development cost categories include site preparation, hard costs (e.g., construction labor and materials), and indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture, entitlement, marketing, etc.). EPS also includes the developer’s expected return on investment, expressed as a profit margin for townhomes and yield on cost for multifamily rental.

To estimate hard costs for the development prototypes, the analysis relied on a range of sources including real estate industry cost estimating reports1 and prior EPS experience in evaluating project feasibility. Table 3 below details the cost assumptions and estimated costs per unit for each prototype.

1 Marshall & Swift Cost Estimates. 2024
K-Mart Dental Offices Motel
Address 5100 Clayton Rd 2975 Treat Blvd 3510 Willow Pass Rd Land Area (acres) 6.89 2.06 0.89
Existing Building Sq. Ft. 90,274 26,344 19,820

Page 230 of 397 ends

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 7
Table 3 Development Costs per Unit
Cost Assumptions Townhomes Garden
Apartments
Wrap
Apartments
Podium
Apartments
Gross Sq. Ft. per Unit 1,275 1,000 1,000 1,000
Density Per Acre 25 40 60 75
Number of Bedrooms per Unit 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Number of Parking Spaces per Unit 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75
Direct Costs
Direct Construction Costs (per sq. ft.) $200 $200 $215 $220 Direct Construction Costs/Unit $255,000 $200,000 $215,000 $220,000 Parking Construction/Space (1) $0 $5,000 $40,000 $50,000 Parking Construction Cost/Unit $0 $8,750 $70,000 $87,500 Site Improvement Cost $30 per land sq. ft. $52,272 $32,670 $21,780 $17,424 Subtotal, Direct Costs $307,272 $241,420 $306,780 $324,924 Indirect and Other Costs 30% of direct costs $92,182 $72,426 $92,034 $97,477 Subtotal Direct and Indirect Costs $399,454 $313,846 $398,814 $422,401 Contingency 10% of direct and indirect costs $39,945 $31,385 $39,881 $42,240 Required Return on Investment
Ownership 15% of direct and indirect costs $59,918
Total Costs per Unit $499,317 $345,231 $438,695 $464,641 Sources: Marshall & Swift; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) Parking for townhomes is included in the construction costs for the unit.

Assumptions

Page 231 of 397 ends

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 8
Revenues
The following section details revenue assumptions related to the residential units across project types. These assumptions were based on EPS market research in Concord and data provided by City staff.

Market-Rate Residential Revenues
For the market-rate rental units in each scenario, the analysis considers data from CoStar Group on rental multifamily apartments built in Concord and neighboring jurisdictions in the past ten years. The average effective rent per square foot among recently constructed multifamily rental buildings is approximately $4.00. For the townhomes, EPS reviewed recent sales of townhomes constructed since 2010 in Contra Costa County via Redfin. EPS found an average price per square foot of approximately $500.

Affordable Residential Revenues
This analysis assumes all development projects will adhere to Concord’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by providing affordable housing on site. The City’s ordinance requires 15 percent of for-sale units to be offered at prices affordable to households earning low and moderate incomes, and 6 percent of rental units to be offered at prices affordable to households earning very low-, low-, and moderate incomes. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) publishes the maximum income for households occupying affordable housing units.

Appendix Table A-1 shows the values for the low- and moderate-income rates for affordable townhomes in Contra Costa County. Affordable values for BMR units assume that low-income households spend no more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on total housing costs, inclusive of property taxes, insurance, etc., while moderate income households are assumed to spend no more than 35 percent.

Appendix Table A-2 shows the calculation of rent per square foot for one- and two- bedroom inclusionary units. Affordable rents for BMR units assume that households should spend no more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on total housing costs, including utilities.

Table 4 synthesizes the calculation of market and affordable revenues, to find the net townhome revenue and net value per rental unit. For townhomes, the net revenue is based on the price at which the units could be sold, minus the cost of marketing and commissions on unit sales. For apartments, the value is determined based on the “yield on cost” calculation, which divides the annual net operating income (NOI) produced by the project once built and fully operational and occupied by a proportion reflecting what a developer would be willing to spend to construct a unit that produces that NOI. EPS

Page 232 of 397 ends

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 9
assumes the current “yield on cost” requirement is 6.25 percent, meaning the annual NOI would equal 6.25 percent of the supportable value of the unit.2

2 The “yield on cost” assumption (6.25 percent) used in these calculations differ from the

5.00 percent assumption EPS used in the 2023 inclusionary housing feasibility study for the City of Concord. The inclusionary housing study was published in 2023 but conducted based on 2022 market data and assumed lower interest rates for project financing as well. The housing market has changed in the subsequent years, with significant increases in interest rates for mortgages and construction loans as well as increases to capitalization rates for apartment buildings, suggesting developers would need to achieve a higher yield on cost. Bankrate.com shows the annual average mortgage rate increased from 5.53% in 2022 to 7.00% in 2023 and 6.98% through October 2024 (see Mortgage Rate History: 1970s To 2024 | Bankrate). CoStar indicates the average capitalization rate for apartment buildings in Contra Costa County has increased from 4.92% in 2022 to

6.19% through October 2024.

Page 233 of 397 ends

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 10
Table 4 Residential Revenues per Unit

Feasibility Results
Market-Rate Housing Developments
Table 5 shows the calculated residual land value per acre for all four development prototypes.

Total
Townhome Revenues
Average Unit Size 1,275
Gross Market Sale Revenue $500 per sq. ft. $637,500
Gross Affordable Sale Revenue $511,140
Average Gross Revenue Per Unit (1) $618,546
(Less) Cost of Marketing 3% of gross revenue -$18,556
Net Townhome Revenue $599,990
Multifamily Rental Revenues
Average Rentable Square Feet 800
Gross Market Rate Rental Revenue $4.00 per net sq. ft. per month $38,400 Gross Affordable Rental Revenue (2) $3.34 per net sq. ft. per month $32,029 Average Gross Revenue Per Unit (1) $38,018
(less) Operating Expenses -$10,000
(less) Vacancy 6% -$2,281
Residential NOI $25,737
Value per Unit 6.25% yield on cost $411,787
(2) See Table A-2 for detailed calculation of Affordable Rental Revenue.

Sources: Redfin; CoStar Group; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

See Table A-1
Assumption
(1) Assumes all development projects will adhere to Concord's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by providing affordable housing on site. The inclusionary requirement is 15% for ownership and 6% for rental projects.

Page 234 of 397 ends

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 11
Table 5 Residual Land Values

The most feasible multifamily development type appears to be garden style apartments at 40 dwelling units per acre. This outcome can primarily be attributed to costs related to parking. Structured parking, such as wrap and podium style projects, costs significantly more to construct per space than surface and/or covered parking. Townhome development results in a higher residual land value per unit than garden style apartments, however on their own townhomes will not achieve the minimum densities, and result in a lower residual land value per acre than garden style apartments. The wrap and podium apartments show a negative residual land value, meaning that their value as rental properties once completed falls short of their construction costs. Under near-term market conditions, EPS concludes that development at these higher densities is infeasible, though longer-term conditions with more favorable rent escalation relative to construction costs may enable such densities to be financed and constructed.

EPS applied these results to case study sites modeled by Raimi & Associates. These site plans can be found in Appendix B. Table 6 illustrates the distribution of unit types within each case study site, and the resulting land value calculations. As shown, the only scenario with a positive residual site value is the 40 du/ac scenario for the dental office site, which is also the only scenario entirely made up of garden apartments with surface parking. While a 40 du/ac scenario with only garden apartments would result in positive land values at the other two sites, Raimi indicates that it would be a struggle to achieve the City’s existing parking and open space requirements at a consistent 40 du/ac on those sites.

For market-rate developers to acquire land for a new project, they must be able to compete financially and offer the highest price to the landowner. The proformas described above suggest prices that market-rate developers would be able to pay for land for garden apartments, while still yielding adequate returns on their investment. These figures thus must be compared to the prices that other potential buyers may be willing to pay for the sites, whether they intend to use them for new construction or retain the existing uses.

Townhomes Garden Wrap Podium
Estimated Anticipated
Revenues/Values $599,990 $411,787 $411,787 $411,787
Development Costs $499,317 $345,231 $438,695 $464,641
Residual Land Value per Unit $100,673 $66,556 -$26,908 -$52,854 (Less) Return on Residual Land Value -$15,101
Net Residual Land Value Per Unit $85,572 $66,556 -$26,908 -$52,854 Density (Du/ac) 25 40 60 75
Residual Land Value per Acre $2,139,293 $2,662,258 -$1,614,501 -$3,964,070

Page 235 of 397 ends

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 12

Table 6 Case Study Value Estimates

Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2
Overall Density / Acre 60 du/ac 40 du/ac 60 du/ac 40 du/ac 60 du/ac 40 du/ac Number of Units
Townhomes 0 42 0 0 0 6
Garden 0 0 0 84 0 0
Wrap 416 255 0 0 0 0
Podium 0 0 127 0 56 32
Total Units 416 297 127 84 56 38
Residual Land Values
Townhomes $85,572 per unit $0 $3,594,012 $0 $0 $0 $513,430 Garden $66,556 per unit $0 $0 $0 $5,590,742 $0 $0
Wrap -$26,908 per unit -$11,193,872 -$6,861,628 $0 $0 $0 $0 Podium -$52,854 per unit $0 $0 -$6,712,492 $0 -$2,959,839 -$1,691,337 Total Site Value -$11,193,872 -$3,267,617 -$6,712,492 $5,590,742 -$2,959,839 -$1,177,906 Assumption K-Mart MotelDental Offices

Page 236 of 397 ends

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 13
100% Affordable Housing Developments
Affordable housing developers tend to have a different financing structure than market rate developers and can utilize tax credit programs and relaxed development requirements, like parking minimums, to achieve project feasibility.

One of the most common sources of funding is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program, administered in California by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). In 2023, 152 projects submitted applications to TCAC for the more competitive and lucrative federal “9 percent” tax credit allocation, and only 57 of those projects received the credit. For the less lucrative “4 percent” tax credits, 224 projects submitted applications, with 127 projects receiving an award. As indicated by these award rates, LIHTCs are competitive, and there are a number of hurdles affordable housing developers have to go through before they can achieve a feasible project.

When applying for tax credit funding from TCAC, developers report the costs associated with their projects, including land acquisition costs. A review of recent projects receiving tax credit funding in Concord and Walnut Creek indicates the average land and acquisition cost per acre is approximately $6.9 million (see Appendix Table A-3). This figure greatly exceeds the supportable residual land values that EPS has estimated for even the most feasible market-rate prototype – garden-style apartments at 40 units per acre – suggesting that affordable housing developers are able to out-compete market- rate developers for developable properties due to the subsidies that affordable housing builders receive. Thus, it is possible that the most feasible development on the three subject sites may actually be or include buildings that are 100% affordable housing, rather than the market-rate projects with inclusionary units that EPS and Raimi have modeled.

Commercial Land Values
Table 7 shows the average recent sale prices in Concord and nearby jurisdictions for existing properties under three commercial land uses: retail, office, and motel/hotel.

These uses reflect the typical zoning for commercial land in the project area. The values are based on property sales in the last 5 years sourced from CoStar Group. The sample of retail property sales is from Concord and includes sales to owner users as well as investments. It is unclear whether all the new owners of the investment properties intend to redevelop or retain the existing commercial. Notably one of the retail properties (2400 Willow Pass Rd) included in the sample was purchased by Meta Housing Corporation, an affordable housing developer, suggesting that this particular site may be redeveloped into affordable housing. The sample of office properties include recent medical office building sales in Concord which appear to have been retained as commercial uses. While there haven’t been recent motel or hotel sales in Concord, EPS reviewed recent sales in Martinez and Walnut Creek, both of which appear to have been retained as hospitality uses. As shown, hospitality uses have the highest average price per building square foot and price per acre, while retail uses have the lowest.

Page 237 of 397 ends

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 14
Table 7 Commercial Property Values based on Comparable Sales

Table 8 applies these values to the existing commercial property at each subject site and then compares those values to the calculated residential land values for both market rate and below market rate projects.

Table 8 Value Comparisons

Item Price Per
Building Sq. Ft.

Price Per
Acre
Retail $371.88 $4,269,495
Office $428.60 $5,576,653
Motel / Hotel $471.77 $9,009,302
Sources: CoStar Group; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

K-Mart Dental Offices Motel
Land Area (AC) 6.89 2.06 0.89
Building Size (SF) 90,274 26,344 19,820
Existing Value Estimate
Using Price per Acre $29,416,820 $11,487,904 $8,018,279 Using Price per Building SF $33,570,767 $11,291,062 $9,350,464 Market Rate Residential Land Value Estimates
Option 1 - 60 du/ac -$11,193,872 -$6,712,492 -$2,959,839 Option 2 - 40 du/ac -$3,267,617 $5,590,742 -$1,177,906
Below Market Rate Residential Land Value $47,365,471 $14,161,520 $6,118,326 Sources: Costar Group; California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; Raimi & Associates; Economic & Planing Sy stems, Inc.

Page 238 of 397 ends

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 15
Under these parameters, the estimated property values would be maximized by retaining the existing buildings for commercial uses (assuming the buildings could retain or attract viable tenants as necessary) rather than demolishing the buildings and developing a market rate residential project. This suggests that it is unlikely that property owners or prospective buyers would consider redeveloping these properties for market-rate residential development until market conditions improve through restrained construction costs and/or greater escalation of market residential rents and home values. The land purchase prices for 100% affordable residential development have been higher than the estimated residual land value for market rate development, suggesting that an affordable multifamily housing project is currently more feasible than a market rate one. This finding is consistent with observable trends; Table 9 indicates Concord currently has more affordable multifamily housing in the pipeline than market rate multifamily development, both in terms of numbers of projects and total units.

Table 9 Concord Development Pipeline

Projects Total Units
Market Rate Multifamily 2 262
Below Market Rate Multifamily 4 501
Townhomes 4 98
Single Family Subdivision 11 120
Rehabilitation 1 286
Assisted Living Facility 1 150
Total 23 1,417
Source: City of Concord

Page 239 of 397 ends

Appendix Tables

Page 240 of 397 ends

Appendix A:

Below Market Housing Values and
Costs

Page 241 of 397 ends

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 18
Table A-1 Below Market Value – Ownership

1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom
Income Limits
Low (< 80% AMI) $96,650 $108,750
Moderate (< 120% AMI) $149,500 $168,150
Maximum Supported Home Price
Income Available for Housing Costs/Year (1)
Low Income $28,995 $32,625
Moderate Income $52,325 $58,853
Weighted Average (2) $40,660 $45,739
Less Utilities $4,068 $4,068
Income Availably for Mortgage Payments $36,592 $41,671
Interest Rate 7.0% 7.0%
Total Supportable Mortgage Amount $454,072 $517,094
Down Payment % 5% 5%
Total Supportable Unit Value $477,970 $544,310
Average Affordable Sale Revenue
(2) The weighted average income is determined using the distribution of income levels detailed in Concord's Inclusionary Housing Policy. Out of the total number of units in a project,

7.5 percent must fall into the low income category, and 7.5 percent must fall into the moderate income category, for a total of 15 percent inclusionary units.

Sources: Contra Costa County HCD Income Limits, 2024; Contra Costa County Utility Allowance Schedule; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(1) Assumes low Income households spend up to 30% of their annual income on housing costs, and moderate income households spend 35 percent of their annual income on housing costs.
$511,140

Page 242 of 397 ends

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 19
Table A-2 Below Market Value- Rental
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom
Rentable Sq. Ft. per Unit 700 900
Income Limits
Very Low (< 50% AMI) $62,300 $70,100
Low (< 80% AMI) $96,650 $108,750
Moderate (< 100% AMI) $124,550 $140,150
Weighted Average (1) $109,525 $123,242
% of Income Spent on Rent 30% 30%
Annual Housing Costs Limit $32,858 $36,973
(Less) Annual Utilities -$2,856 -$3,480
Monthly Rent $2,500 $2,791
Rent per Sq. Ft. $3.57 $3.10
Average Affordable Rent per Sq. Ft.

Sources: Contra Costa County HCD Income Limits, 2024; Contra Costa County Utility Allowance Schedule; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) The weighted average income is determined using the distribution of income levels detailed in Concord's Inclusionary Housing Policy. Out of the total number of units in a project, 1 percent must fall into the v ery low income category, 1 percent must fall into the low income category, and 4 percent must fall into the moderate income category, for a total of 6 percent inclusionary units.
$3.34

Page 243 of 397 ends

Draft Memorandum: Concord AFFH Rezoning Financial Feasibility Analysis Page | 20

Appendix Table A-3 – TCAC Project Land Costs

Application
Number Project Address Application
Year
Land & Acquisition
Cost
Number
of Units
Number of
Acres
Land Cost
Per Unit
Land Cost
Per Acre
CA-2017-111 1860 Trinity Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 2017 $1,788,312 45 0.80 $39,740 $2,235,390 CA-2015-908 3073 North Main Street, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 2015 $5,278,369 34 1.02 $155,246 $5,174,872 CA-2016-812 1485 Montego, Walnut Creek, CA 94560 2016 $18,258,000 80 2.65 $228,225 $6,889,811 CA-2016-854 1515 Riviera Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 2016 $4,424,200 88 0.43 $50,275 $10,288,837 CA-2017-747 1265 Monument Blvd, Concord, CA 94520 2017 $33,746,123 198 5.79 $170,435 $5,828,346 CA-2018-025 4450 Melody Drive, Concord, CA 94521 2018 $28,500,000 80 2.63 $356,250 $10,836,502 CA-2022-451 2400 Willow Pass Concord CA, 94519 2022 $10,366,660 181 1.57 $57,274 $6,602,968 CA-2023-623 1650 Ashbury Drive, Concord, CA 94520 2023 $7,491,486 183 1.81 $40,937 $4,138,943 Weighted Average $144,988 $6,874,524
Sources: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Page 244 of 397 ends

Appendix B:

Case Study Site Plans

Page 245 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 1
Case Study / Site Tests
2024

Page 246 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 2
Tenure Ownership Rental Rental Rental
Building Type Attached Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily Typical Density 25 du/ac 40 du/ac 60 du/ac 90 du/ac
Unit Sq Feet 1,800 1,000 1,000 1,000
Parking Type Attached garage Surface Wrap Podium
Site Test Building Prototypes
Townhomes WrapGarden Style Podium

Page 247 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 3
Site Test Assumptions
Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed
Gross Area (sf) 625 875 1125 1375
Percentage of units 0% 50% 50% 0%
Parking Spaces 1 1.5 2 2
Open Space (sf) 200 200 200 200
Based on existing Concord zoning and trends Feasibility analysis assumes • 50% 1-bedroom & 50% 2-
bedroom units
• 1000 sf average gross area
per unit
• 1.75 average parking space
per unit
• 200 sf open space per unit

Page 248 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 4
Site 1 | K-mart Site
K-mart Site
Clayton Rd. / Ayers Rd.

Area: ~7 acres (of ~17 acres)
Current Zoning: Neighborhood
Commercial
Current General Plan:

Neighborhood Commercial

Page 249 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 5
Site Test 1 | K-mart Site (60 du/ac)
Site Test 1: Multifamily
Density 60.5 du/ac
Number of units 416
Height/Floors 40’/ 4
Parking spaces per unit 1.61
Open Space per unit 104 sf (+ 50
balcony)

Page 250 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 6
Site Test 2 | K-mart Site (40 du/ac)
Site Test 2: Multifamily + Rowhomes
Density 43 du/ac
Number of units 255 + 42
Height/Floors 40’/ 4
Parking spaces per unit 1.7
Open Space per unit 120 sf (+ 50
balcony)

Page 251 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 7
Site 2 | Medical/Dental Office
Medical/Dental Office Site
Treat Blvd.

Area: 2.05 acres
Current Zoning: Community Office
Current General Plan: Community
Office

Page 252 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 8
Site Test 1: Subgrade Parking
Density 61.75 du/ac
Number of units 127
Height/Floors 35’/ 3
Parking spaces per unit 1.5
Open Space per unit 150 sf (+ 50
balcony)
Site Test 1 | Medical/Dental Office (60 du/ac)

Page 253 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 9
Site Test 2: Surface Parking
Density 40.7 du/ac
Number of units 84
Height/Floors 45’/ 4
Parking spaces per unit 1.4
Open Space per unit 185 sf (+ 50
balcony)
Site Test 2 | Medical/Dental Office (40 du/ac)

Page 254 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 10
Site 3 | Motel
Motel
Willow Pass Road
Area: 0.88 acres
Current Zoning: Commercial Mixed
Use
Current General Plan: Commercial
Mixed Use

Page 255 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 11
Site Test 1: Subgrade Parking
Density 62.5 du/ac
Number of units 56
Height/Floors 35’/ 3
Parking spaces per unit 1.4
Open Space per unit 201 sf
Site Test 1 | Motel (60 du/ac)

Page 256 of 397 ends

City of Concord Rezoning Project | 12
Site Test 2: Subgrade Parking + Townhome
Density 42 du/ac
Number of units 32 + 6
Height/Floors 35’/ 3
Parking spaces per unit 1.6
Open Space per unit 210 sf
Site Test 2 | Motel (40 du/ac)

Page 257 of 397 ends

Memorandum
To: Eric Yurkovich and Michelle Hernandez
From: Megan Gregory and Darin Smith
Subject: Concord Rezoning Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #231077 Date: September 30, 2025
This memorandum describes the methodology and results of the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) of the potential rezoning and redevelopment of several commercial sites in the City of Concord. The City of Concord established the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rezoning Project as a public planning process to rezone properties in higher- resource neighborhoods to allow for multifamily development. The City engaged Raimi & Associates and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc (EPS) to evaluate the physical and financial feasibility of rezoning options, and EPS has drawn on that work to conduct this fiscal impact analysis.

Raimi & Associates identified three sites to serve as case studies, and modeled building and parking configurations to assess how to achieve the desired residential density.

These sites include the Kmart at 5100 Clayton Road, dental offices at 2975 Treat Boulevard, and a portion of Clayton Faire Shopping Center. All of these sites are currently commercial properties, and this analysis tests the fiscal impact of rezoning these properties as residential with 60 dwelling units per acre or, in the case of the Kmart site, a mixed-use development featuring both multifamily housing and retail space. Summary Table 1 outlines the assumed development programs for each site.

Attachment 7

Page 258 of 397 ends

Concord Rezoning Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #231077

Page 2 ends

Summary Table 1. Existing Use and Rezoning Programs

The analysis quantifies net redevelopment effects on the City’s General Fund budget and reflects data from sources including the City of Concord Fiscal Year 2025 -2026 Budget
and program assumptions provided by Raimi & Associates.

Ex isting Use Residential
Rezoning
Residential
Rezoning - Mixed
Use (1)
Kmart - 5100 Clayton Road
Commercial
Retail 90,274 61,389
Residential
Market Rate Apartments 388 390
Below Market Rate Apartments 25 25
Dental Offices - 2975 Treat Boulevard
Commercial
Office 26,344
Residential
Market Rate Apartments 119
Below Market Rate Apartments 8
Clayton Faire - 5280, 5288, 5354, 5356 & 5358 Clayton Road Commercial
Retail 30,466
Office 20,150
Residential
Market Rate Apartments 200
Below Market Rate Apartments 13
Source: Raimi & Associates
(1) The Kmart site has two scenarios for redevelopment, one of which is only residential, the other which includes ground floor retail.

Page 259 of 397 ends

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Page 3 ends

Key Findings
The following Key Findings highlight the sites’ anticipated net fiscal impact if rezoned and redeveloped, accounting for the current impacts of the existing development. Actual fiscal impacts will depend on a variety of factors that cannot be predicted with certainty, including future changes in City or State budgeting practices, the efficiency of various City departments in providing services, and other factors. The analysis presents impact estimates in constant Year 2025 dollars.

1. In aggregate, the three test sites appear to be generating positive net revenues to the City under their current conditions. Even though the Kmart site is currently vacant, it is paying property taxes and demanding little to no services from the City. If the Kmart site were reoccupied by a retail use that could generate standard taxable sales, it would yield a more significant positive fiscal impact for the City, as evident from the positive results for the Clayton Fair site is generating both property and sales taxes. The Dental Office site is estimated to have a modest net negative impact largely because office uses have higher employment densities and generate demand for services but do not yield sales taxes comparable to those from retail uses.

2. Residential development can be anticipated to increase demand for City services, especially from the police and public works departments. The costs to provide these City services to new residents in the housing units are estimated to greatly exceed the City’s costs to serve the existing lower-density commercial uses.

3. Under current market conditions, the redevelopment of the case study sites are projected to have a negative fiscal impact on the City of Concord’s General Fund.

While in each case study there is an increase in General Fund revenues associated with redevelopment, it is not sufficient to completely offset the increase in General Fund expenditures associated with the increase in the population that will demand City services. Figure 1 lays out the estimated fiscal impact of rezoning these sites, compared with the estimated fiscal impact of their existing use.

4. The findings that residential development may have a net negative impact on the City’s fiscal position is not a recommendation that the City retain the current zoning on these sites or the subject corridor. There are numerous reasons to consider rezoning to allow for residential use, including the need to meet Concord residents’ affordable housing needs as well as the need to meet State mandates to retain funding and land use discretion. However, General Fund sustainability is also a consideration, and the City should be aware of and plan for the impacts of such residential development on local revenue streams.

Page 260 of 397 ends

Concord Rezoning Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #231077

Page 4 ends

Figure 1. Fiscal Impact Summary
Assumptions and Methodology
This section describes the assumptions, methodology and calculations underlying the FIA estimates detailed in Figure 1 above. The first two tables are concerned with Citywide assumptions and apply to all sites tested in this analysis.

Table 1 documents the population, employment, and service population assumptions underlying the FIA. The metrics are sourced directly from the California Department of Finance and the US Census Bureau American Community Survey. EPS calculated Concord’s service population by adjusting total employment by a factor of 0.5 to reflect the relatively lower municipal service burden attributable to local workers relative to residents.

Page 261 of 397 ends

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Page 5 ends

Table 1. General Citywide Assumptions

Table 2
summarizes the City of Concord General Fund revenues by line item and the associated estimating factors used in this FIA to quantify new revenues from Project development. Some budget items are not estimated because certain City revenues and expenditures are not directly impacted by the existing development or proposed project, such as Hotel Room Tax and Charges for Services, Licenses, and Permits, among others.

Neither the existing use, nor the residential rezoning is anticipated to generate additional hotel room stays, so no Hotel Room Tax revenue is associated with the sites. The other revenues not estimated are sources such as transfers or service charges, which are not expected to change due to a change in land use or intensity at any of the sites.

Item Amount Sources
Housing Units 48,106 DOF Jan 1, 2025 Estimate
Occupied Housing Units 46,299 DOF Jan 1, 2025 Estimate
Population 122,650 DOF Jan 1, 2025 Estimate
Persons/Household 2.65 DOF Jan 1, 2025 Estimate
.

Employment 63,001 2024 ACS 1-Year Estimate
Service Population (1) 154,151 DOF 2025, ACS
Sources: American Community Survey; State of California Department of Finance. (1) Service population is calculated by adding total residential population and half of total employment.

Page 262 of 397 ends

Concord Rezoning Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #231077

Page 6 ends

Table 2. Concord General Fund Revenues

The calculations described below, and the tables attached to this memorandum describe the processes used to estimate the fiscal impact of the existing use and residential rezoning of each site. The same methodology is used for each site described, and therefore three sets of tables are attached to this memorandum, one for each site. • Table 3 presents the detailed fiscal impact analysis results for both the existing use and the rezoned site.
• Table 4
provides an overview of the existing use on the site as well as an estimate of the residential redevelopment program if the site is rezoned. The number of affordable housing units is based on the requirements of the City of Concord’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which states 6 percent of the total number of rental units in a residential development project shall be inclusionary units. • Table 5 uses density assumptions related to residents and employment to calculate the service population associated with the site’s use.

Item FY2025-26
Adopted General Fund
Property Taxes
Property Tax $21,615,000 10.6% of Base 1% Property Tax
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $15,446,000 % increase in Citywide Assessed Value Other Local Taxes
Sales Tax $39,484,400 1.00% of estimated taxable sales
Hotel Room Tax (1) $2,308,000 not estimated
Bus ines s Taxes
Business License Fees $4,294,400 $68 per employee
Franchise Tax $9,779,400 $155 per employee
Other Revenues (2)
Use of Money and Property $1,535,820 not estimated
Charges for Services, Licenses, and Permits $12,256,082 not estimated Intergovernmental $244,000 not estimated
Other Financing Services $20,750,894 not estimated
Other Revenues $8,400,299 not estimated
Total Revenues $136,114,295
Estimating Factors Applied to Calculate
Project Revenue
Sources: City of Concord Budget; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) Hotel Room Tax is not estimated because no hotel room stays are associated with the site (2) Other Revenues are not estimated because they are not directly tied to land use.

Page 263 of 397 ends

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Page 7 ends

• Table 6 documents assumptions related to the projected assessed value of the site based on market data for recent residential construction in the area, in alignment with the market and feasibility analysis EPS conducted in 2024. The assessed value of the existing commercial use is sourced from the Contra Costa County Assessor. • Table 7
shows property tax and property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (VLF) calculations. Per the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office, the City of Concord’s General Fund will capture 10.6 percent of new property tax growth while the balance goes to other affected taxing entities (e.g., school districts). In 2004, the State of California adjusted the method for sharing VLF with local jurisdictions. Recent State budget changes replaced VLF with property tax, which grows proportionately with increases in the assessed value of the City. Therefore, Property tax in lieu of VLF revenue is assumed to increase from the current amount received by the City based on the pro rata growth in the City of Concord assessed value attributable to the Project, as a proportion the existing Citywide assessed valuation basis. • Table 8 documents the assumptions and calculations supporting household taxable retail spending potential. New households support retail sales with average expenditure expressed as a weighted sum of household taxable retail spending. The spending estimates differentiate between market rate rental households and below- market rate rental households because the incomes differ between these groups. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey tracks and reports household spending by income and those ratios are used in this analysis. • Table 9 relies on household spending derived in Table 8 to calculate sales tax revenue, and documents additional assumptions and calculations for employee and other on- site taxable spending. Key assumptions include:
- 75 percent of new residential spending is captured in Concord, which has an ample supply of retail to meet most consumer demands.
- 10 percent of on-site taxable sales in the mixed-use scenario for the Kmart site reflect purchases made by Project residents to avoid double counting taxable sales. - Concord’s General Fund receives one percent of net-new sales (i.e., the local Bradley-Burns Sales and Use Tax).
- 20 percent of any on-site taxable spending under the rezoning scenario is redistributed from other taxable sales in the City.
• Table 10 uses the average business license revenue per employee in Concord to estimate the revenue from business licenses associated with the existing use and residential rezoning. Business licenses are required for all businesses in the city, and the particular methodology of calculating the license fee varies somewhat depending on the type of business occupying the space, so using the average revenue per employee serves as a good general estimating factor.

Page 264 of 397 ends

Concord Rezoning Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #231077

Page 8 ends

• Table 11 summarizes the Concord General Fund expenditures by line item and documents the assumptions and calculations to estimate new General Fund costs resulting from providing services to the Project. The FIA relies on a categorization of the likely budgetary response to population growth for each department, expressed for fiscal modeling purposes in terms of “fixed expenses” and “variable expenses” within the department budget. EPS uses a per-service population cost approach to estimate department costs. The variable portion of each department budget is used to determine the per-service population cost, and per-service population factors are multiplied by the projected increase in service population generated by potential redevelopment under rezoning. The rezoning is not expected to generate new capital and technology, overhead, debt service, and other non-departmental expenditure requirements for the General Fund.

Supporting data and calculations are presented in the
Appendix Table A-1 – Bureau of
Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey (Table 1203).

Page 265 of 397 ends

CONCARD REZOING ANALYSIS
Fiscal Impact Analysis Tables
Kmart ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Dental Office ................................................................................................ ....................................................... 20 Clayton Faire ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix Table A-1. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey 40 9

Page 266 of 397 ends

Fiscal Impact Analysis Tables
10

Page 267 of 397 ends

Table 3
Detailed Fiscal Summary
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Vacant Occupied 60 du/ac Mixed-Use
Alternative
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $16,100 $16,100 $181,100 $206,100
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $10,500 $10,500 $117,700 $133,900 Sales Tax $0 $316,000 $99,500 $263,900
Business License $0 $17,600 $0 $12,000
Total General Fund Revenues $26,500 $360,100 $398,300 $615,800 General Fund Expenditures
Office of the City Manager $0 $900 $7,500 $8,200
City Attorney $0 $500 $3,900 $4,200
Community Development $0 $2,400 $19,600 $21,400
Economic Development & Base Reuse $0 $300 $2,600 $2,900 Finance $0 $1,200 $9,200 $10,100
Human Resources $0 $600 $5,000 $5,500
Recreation Services $0 $1,700 $13,500 $14,700
Police $0 $60,500 $484,400 $527,900
Public Works $0 $13,000 $104,200 $113,500
Total General Fund Expenditures $0 $81,200 $650,000 $708,300 Total Fiscal Benefits $26,500 $278,900 -$251,700 -$92,500 Kmart
Existing Commercial Use Residential Rezoning
11

Page 268 of 397 ends

Table 4
Program Description
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Vacant Occupied 60 du/ac Mixed-Use
Alternative
Residential
Apartments
Market Rate Units 0 0 388 390
Below Market Rate Units 0 0 25 25
Total 0 0 413 415
Commercial
Retail (sq. ft.) 90,274 90,274 0 61,389
Office (sq. ft.) 0 0 0 0
Item
Kmart
Existing Commercial Use Residential Rezoning
12

Page 269 of 397 ends

Table 5
Service Population Estimate
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Vacant Occupied 60 du/ac Mixed-Use
Alternative
Residential 2.5 people per household 0 0 1,033 1,038
Commercial
Retail 350 SF / Employee 0 258 0 175
Office 250 SF / Employee 0 0 0 0
Total 0 258 0 175
Total Service Population (2) 50% employee to resident equivalency 0 129 1,033 1,125 Resident or Worker Density Assumptions (1)
Kmart
Existing Commercial Use Residential Rezoning
(1) Residential density assumes an even mix of 1- and 2- bedroom units, with 2 people per 1-bedroom unit and 3 people per 2-bedroom unit. Employment density assumptions are based on professional experience and review of national employment density surveys. (2) Per-person employee burden on City service is weighted at 50 percent of resident burden. 13

Page 270 of 397 ends

Table 6
Assessed Value Estimates
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Vacant Occupied 60 du/ac Mixed-Use
Alternative
Land Use
Existing Use $15,207,584 $15,207,584
Retail $370 per square foot $22,713,930
Apartment
Market Rate Units $420,000 per unit $162,960,000 $163,800,000 BMR Units $330,000 per unit $8,250,000 $8,250,000
Total Assessed Value $15,207,584 $15,207,584 $171,210,000 $194,763,930 (1) Assessed value assumptions for rezoning scenarios are aligned with feasibility analysis EPS conducted in 2024.

Sources: Contra Costa County Assessor; CoStar (June, 2024); Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Kmart
Existing Commercial Use Residential Rezoning
Item Assessed Value Factor (1)
14

Page 271 of 397 ends

Table 7
Property Tax Revenues
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Vacant Occupied 60 du/ac Mixed-Use
Alternative
Assessed Value
Projected Assessed Value $15,207,584 $15,207,584 $171,210,000 $194,763,930 Property Tax 1.0%
Base Property
Tax Rate $152,076 $152,076 $1,712,100 $1,947,639
Concord General Fund Revenue (1) 10.6% Allocation to
General Fund $16,090 $16,090 $181,140 $206,060
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF
Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (2) $15,446,000 $15,446,000 $15,446,000 $15,446,000 Citywide Assessed Value (3) $22,465,260,770 $22,465,260,770 $22,465,260,770 $22,465,260,770 Project Net Assessed Value Increase (4) 0.07% 0.07% 0.76% 0.87% Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue (5) $10,456 $10,456 $117,716 $133,910 (1) Portion of property tax revenue distributed to the City of Concord General Fund. (2) FY2025-26 total VLF payment to the City of Concord per City of Concord Budget. (3) Per Contra Costa County Assessor's Office.
(4) Calculated by dividing the current/proposed assessed values by the citywide assessed value. (5) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in-lieu of VLF by the project's proportionate increase to the Citywide assessed value.

Sources: City of Concord FY25-26 Budget; Contra Costa County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Kmart
Existing Commercial Use Residential Rezoning
Assumption / FactorItem
15

Page 272 of 397 ends

Table 8
Household Spending Kmart
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Apartments
Estimated Annual Household Income
Market Rate (1) $138,560
Affordable (2) $119,680
Percent of Income - Taxable Retail Spending (3)
Market Rate 23%
Affordable 23%
Household Retail Spending
Market Rate $32,382
Affordable $27,970
Weighted Average Household Spending (4) $32,118
(4) Household incomes are weighted based on the number of units. (1) Assumes a monthly rent of $3,464 per unit (including utilities) and 30% of income spent on housing expenses.

Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(3) Determined using Bureau of Labor Statistics 2021 Consumer Expenditure Survey.

See Table A-1 for additional details.
(2) Assumes a monthly rent of $2,992 per unit (including utilities). This rental estimate assumes 1/6th of affordable units are restricted to Very Low (<50% AMI), 1/6th are Low (<80% AMI), and 4/6ths are restricted to Moderate Income (<100% AMI). 16

Page 273 of 397 ends

Table 9
Sales Tax Revenues
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Vacant Occupied 60 du/ac Mixed-Use
Alternative
Household Taxable Spending
Number of Households
Apartments 413 415
Annual Taxable Retail Spending
Apartments $32,118 per household $13,264,575 $13,328,810 Retail Sales Captured in Concord 75% of retail expenditures $9,948,431 $9,996,607 On-Site Taxable Sales
Retail Space (Sq.Ft.) 0 90,274 0 61,389
Gross On-Site Taxable Retail Sales $350 taxable sales per square foot $0 $31,595,900 $0 $21,486,150 Sales Net of On-Site Residential Spending (1) 10% of Household retail expenditures $0 $31,595,900 $0 $20,486,489 Sales Net of Redistributed Sales in City (2) 80% of gross taxable sales $0 $31,595,900 $0 $16,389,191 Total Taxable Retail Sales $0 $31,595,900 $9,948,431 $26,385,799 Total Sales Tax Revenue 1.0% of taxable sales $0 $315,959 $99,484 $263,858 (1) Reflects on-site sales capture equal to 10% of new resident and worker taxable sales Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Kmart
Existing Commercial Use Residential Rezoning
Item Assumptions / Factor
(2) Assumes 20% of sales shift from existing retailers in the city. This does not apply to the existing commercial use, which has been established and is not diverting existing sales from elsewhere in the City.
17

Page 274 of 397 ends

Table 10
Business License Revenue
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Vacant Occupied 60 du/ac Mixed-Use
Alternative
Employee Population 0 258 0 175
Average Business License Revenue Per Employee $68 $68 $68 $68 Business License Revenue $0 $17,581 $0 $11,956
Sources: City of Concord FY 25-26 Budget; Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.

Item
Kmart
Existing Commercial Use Residential Rezoning
18

Page 275 of 397 ends

Table 11
General Fund Expenditures
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Vacant Occupied 60 du/ac Mixed-Use
Alternative
Service Population 154,151 0 129 1,033 1,125
Office of the City Manager $4,468,784 25% $7 $0 $935 $7,483 $8,155 City Attorney $2,307,681 25% $4 $0 $483 $3,864 $4,211
Community Development $11,703,347 25% $19 $0 $2,448 $19,597 $21,357 Economic Development & Base Reuse $1,579,552 25% $3 $0 $330 $2,645 $2,882 Finance $5,512,152 25% $9 $0 $1,153 $9,230 $10,059
Human Resources $3,011,932 25% $5 $0 $630 $5,043 $5,496 Recreation Services $8,058,639 25% $13 $0 $1,685 $13,494 $14,706 Police $80,359,268 90% $469 $0 $60,506 $484,422 $527,913 Public Works $17,283,154 90% $101 $0 $13,013 $104,186 $113,540 Total Expenditures $134,284,509 $630 $0 $81,183 $649,965 $708,320 Sources: City of Concord Budget FY25-26; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) Percentage of costs that are service population-dependent, as opposed to fixed costs or costs recovered through fees or charges.

Allocated General
Fund Expenses
(FY2025-26) Item
Kmart
Existing Commercial
Use Residential Rezoning Citywide Per
Capita
General Fund
Expense
Percent
Variable (1)
19

Page 276 of 397 ends

Fiscal Impact Analysis Tables
20

Page 277 of 397 ends

Table 3
Detailed Fiscal Summary
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item
Existing
Commercial
Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $3,800 $55,700
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $2,500 $36,200
Sales Tax $0 $30,600
Business License $7,200 $0
Total General Fund Revenues $13,500 $122,400
General Fund Expenditures
Office of the City Manager $400 $2,300
City Attorney $200 $1,200
Community Development $1,000 $6,000
Economic Development & Base Reuse $100 $800
Finance $500 $2,800
Human Resources $300 $1,600
Recreation Services $700 $4,100
Police $24,700 $149,000
Public Works $5,300 $32,000
Total General Fund Expenditures $33,200 $199,900
Total Fiscal Benefits -$19,700 -$77,500
Dental Office
21

Page 278 of 397 ends

Table 4
Program Description
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Existing
Commercial
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Residential
Apartments
Market Rate Units 0 119
Below Market Rate Units 0 8
Total 0 127
Commercial
Retail (sq. ft.) 0 0
Office (sq. ft.) 26,344 0
Dental Office
22

Page 279 of 397 ends

Item
Existing
Commercial
Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Residential 2.5 people per household 0 318
Commercial
Retail 350 SF / Employee 0 0
Office 250 SF / Employee 105 0
Total 105 0
Total Service Population (2) 50% employee to resident equivalency 53 318 (1) Residential density assumes an even mix of 1- and 2- bedroom units, with 2 people per 1-bedroom unit and 3 people per 2- bedroom unit. Employment density assumptions are based on professional experience and review of national employment density surveys.
(2) Per-person employee burden on City service is weighted at 50 percent of resident burden.

Resident or Worker Density Assumptions (1)
23

Page 280 of 397 ends

Table 6
Assessed Value Estimates
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Existing
Commercial Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Land Use
Existing Use $3,620,889
Retail $370 per square foot
Apartment
Market Rate Units $420,000 per unit $49,980,000
BMR Units $330,000 per unit $2,640,000
Total Assessed Value $3,620,889 $52,620,000
Sources: Contra Costa County Assessor; CoStar (June, 2024); Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) Assessed value assumptions for rezoning scenarios are aligned with feasibility analysis EPS conducted in 2024.

Assessed Value Factor (1)
Dental Office
24

Page 281 of 397 ends

Table 7
Property Tax Revenues
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Existing
Commercial Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Assessed Value
Projected Assessed Value $3,620,889 $52,620,000
Property Tax 1.0%
Base Property
Tax Rate $36,209 $526,200
Concord General Fund Revenue (1) 10.6% Allocation to
General Fund $3,831 $55,672
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF
Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (2) $15,446,000 $15,446,000 Citywide Assessed Value (3) $22,465,260,770 $22,465,260,770 Project Net Assessed Value Increase (4) 0.02% 0.23%
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue (5) $2,490 $36,179
(1) Portion of property tax revenue distributed to the City of Concord General Fund. (2) FY2025-26 total VLF payment to the City of Concord per City of Concord Budget. (3) Per Contra Costa County Assessor's Office.
(4) Calculated by dividing the current/proposed assessed values by the citywide assessed value. (5) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in-lieu of VLF by the project's proportionate increase to the Citywide assessed value.

Sources: City of Concord FY25-26 Budget; Contra Costa County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Dental Office
Assumption / Factor
25

Page 282 of 397 ends

Table 8
Household Spending Dental Office
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Apartments
Estimated Annual Household Income
Market Rate (1) $138,560
Affordable (2) $119,680
Percent of Income - Taxable Retail Spending (3)
Market Rate 23%
Affordable 23%
Household Retail Spending
Market Rate $32,382
Affordable $27,970
Weighted Average Household Spending (4) $32,118
(4) Household incomes are weighted based on the number of units. (1) Assumes a monthly rent of $3,464 per unit (including utilities) and 30% of income spent on housing expenses.

Page 283 of 397 ends

Table 9
Sales Tax Revenues
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item
Existing
Commercial
Use
Residential
Rezoning -
60 du/ac
Household Taxable Spending
Number of Households
Apartments 127
Annual Taxable Retail Spending
Apartments $32,118 per household $4,078,937
Retail Sales Captured in Concord 75% of retail expenditures $3,059,203 On-Site Taxable Sales
Retail Space (Sq.Ft.) 0 0
Gross On-Site Taxable Retail Sales $350 taxable sales per square foot $0 $0 Sales Net of On-Site Residential Spending (1) 10% of Household retail expenditures $0 $0 Sales Net of Redistributed Sales in City (2) 80% of gross taxable sales $0 $0 Total Taxable Retail Sales $0 $3,059,203
Total Sales Tax Revenue 1.0% of taxable sales $0 $30,592 (1) Reflects on-site sales capture equal to 10% of new resident and worker taxable sales .

Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Dental Office
Assumptions / Factor
(2) Assumes 20% of sales shift from existing retailers in the city. This does not apply to the existing commercial use, which has been established and is not diverting existing sales from elsewhere in the City. 27

Page 284 of 397 ends

Table 10
Business License Revenue
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Existing
Commercial Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Employee Population 105 0
Average Business License Revenue Per Employee $68 $68
Business License Revenue $7,183 $0
Sources: City of Concord FY 25-26 Budget; Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.

Dental Office
28

Page 285 of 397 ends

Table 11
General Fund Expenditures
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item
Allocated General
Fund Expenses
(FY2025-26)
Percent
Variable (1)
Citywide Per
Capita
General Fund
Expense
Existing
Commercial
Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Service Population 154,151 53 318
Office of the City Manager $4,468,784 25% $7 $382 $2,301 City Attorney $2,307,681 25% $4 $197 $1,188
Community Development $11,703,347 25% $19 $1,000 $6,026 Economic Development & Base Reuse $1,579,552 25% $3 $135 $813 Finance $5,512,152 25% $9 $471 $2,838
Human Resources $3,011,932 25% $5 $257 $1,551
Recreation Services $8,058,639 25% $13 $689 $4,150
Police $80,359,268 90% $469 $24,720 $148,963
Public Works $17,283,154 90% $101 $5,317 $32,038
Total Expenditures $134,284,509 $630 $33,167 $199,868
Sources: City of Concord Budget FY25-26; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) Percentage of costs that are service population-dependent, as opposed to fixed costs or costs recovered through fees or charges.

Dental Office
29

Page 286 of 397 ends

Fiscal Impact Analysis Tables

Page 287 of 397 ends

Table 3
Detailed Fiscal Summary
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item
Existing
Commercial
Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $6,300 $93,400
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $4,100 $60,700
Sales Tax $106,600 $51,300
Business License $11,400 $0
Total General Fund Revenues $128,500 $205,400
General Fund Expenditures
Office of the City Manager $600 $3,900
City Attorney $300 $2,000
Community Development $1,600 $10,100
Economic Development & Base Reuse $200 $1,400
Finance $700 $4,800
Human Resources $400 $2,600
Recreation Services $1,100 $7,000
Police $39,300 $249,800
Public Works $8,500 $53,700
Total General Fund Expenditures $52,800 $335,200
Total Fiscal Benefits $75,700 -$129,800
Clayton Faire
31

Page 288 of 397 ends

Table 4
Program Description
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Existing
Commercial
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Residential
Apartments
Market Rate Units 0 200
Below Market Rate Units 0 13
Total 0 213
Commercial
Retail (sq. ft.) 30,466 0
Office (sq. ft.) 20,150 0
Clayton Faire
32

Page 289 of 397 ends

Item
Existing
Commercial
Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Residential 2.5 people per household 0 533
Commercial
Retail 350 SF / Employee 87 0
Office 250 SF / Employee 81 0
Total 168 0
Total Service Population (2) 50% employee to resident equivalency 84 533 (1) Residential density assumes an even mix of 1- and 2- bedroom units, with 2 people per 1-bedroom unit and 3 people per 2- bedroom unit. Employment density assumptions are based on professional experience and review of national employment density surveys.
(2) Per-person employee burden on City service is weighted at 50 percent of resident burden.

Resident or Worker Density Assumptions (1)
33

Page 290 of 397 ends

Table 6
Assessed Value Estimates
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Existing
Commercial Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Land Use
Existing Use $5,971,350
Retail $370 per square foot
Apartment
Market Rate Units $420,000 per unit $84,000,000
BMR Units $330,000 per unit $4,290,000
Total Assessed Value $5,971,350 $88,290,000
Sources: Contra Costa County Assessor; CoStar (June, 2024); Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) Assessed value assumptions for rezoning scenarios are aligned with feasibility analysis EPS conducted in 2024.

Assessed Value Factor (1)
Clayton Faire
34

Page 291 of 397 ends

Table 7
Property Tax Revenues
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Existing
Commercial Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Assessed Value
Projected Assessed Value $5,971,350 $88,290,000
Property Tax 1.0%
Base Property
Tax Rate $59,714 $882,900
Concord General Fund Revenue (1) 10.6% Allocation to
General Fund $6,318 $93,411
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF
Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (2) $15,446,000 $15,446,000 Citywide Assessed Value (3) $22,465,260,770 $22,465,260,770 Project Net Assessed Value Increase (4) 0.03% 0.39%
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue (5) $4,106 $60,704
(1) Portion of property tax revenue distributed to the City of Concord General Fund. (2) FY2025-26 total VLF payment to the City of Concord per City of Concord Budget. (3) Per Contra Costa County Assessor's Office.
(4) Calculated by dividing the current/proposed assessed values by the citywide assessed value. (5) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in-lieu of VLF by the project's proportionate increase to the Citywide assessed value.

Sources: City of Concord FY25-26 Budget; Contra Costa County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Clayton Faire
Assumption / Factor
35

Page 292 of 397 ends

Table 8
Household Spending Clayton Faire
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Apartments
Estimated Annual Household Income
Market Rate (1) $138,560
Affordable (2) $119,680
Percent of Income - Taxable Retail Spending (3)
Market Rate 23%
Affordable 23%
Household Retail Spending
Market Rate $32,382
Affordable $27,970
Weighted Average Household Spending (4) $32,118
(4) Household incomes are weighted based on the number of units. (1) Assumes a monthly rent of $3,464 per unit (including utilities) and 30% of income spent on housing expenses.

Page 293 of 397 ends

Table 9
Sales Tax Revenues
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item
Existing
Commercial
Use
Residential
Rezoning -
60 du/ac
Household Taxable Spending
Number of Households
Apartments 213
Annual Taxable Retail Spending
Apartments $32,118 per household $6,841,052
Retail Sales Captured in Concord 75% of retail expenditures $5,130,789 On-Site Taxable Sales
Retail Space (Sq.Ft.) 30,466 0
Gross On-Site Taxable Retail Sales $350 taxable sales per square foot $10,663,100 $0 Sales Net of On-Site Residential Spending (1) 10% of Household retail expenditures $10,663,100 $0 Sales Net of Redistributed Sales in City (2) 80% of gross taxable sales $10,663,100 $0 Total Taxable Retail Sales $10,663,100 $5,130,789
Total Sales Tax Revenue 1.0% of taxable sales $106,631 $51,308 (1) Reflects on-site sales capture equal to 10% of new resident and worker taxable sales .

Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Clayton Faire
Assumptions / Factor
(2) Assumes 20% of sales shift from existing retailers in the city. This does not apply to the existing commercial use, which has been established and is not diverting existing sales from elsewhere in the City. 37

Page 294 of 397 ends

Table 10
Business License Revenue
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item Existing
Commercial Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Employee Population 168 0
Average Business License Revenue Per Employee $68 $68
Business License Revenue $11,427 $0
Sources: City of Concord FY 25-26 Budget; Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.

Clayton Faire
38

Page 295 of 397 ends

Table 11
General Fund Expenditures
Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item
Allocated General
Fund Expenses
(FY2025-26)
Percent
Variable (1)
Citywide Per
Capita
General Fund
Expense
Existing
Commercial
Use
Residential
Rezoning - 60
du/ac
Service Population 154,151 84 533
Office of the City Manager $4,468,784 25% $7 $608 $3,859 City Attorney $2,307,681 25% $4 $314 $1,993
Community Development $11,703,347 25% $19 $1,591 $10,107 Economic Development & Base Reuse $1,579,552 25% $3 $215 $1,364 Finance $5,512,152 25% $9 $749 $4,760
Human Resources $3,011,932 25% $5 $409 $2,601
Recreation Services $8,058,639 25% $13 $1,096 $6,959
Police $80,359,268 90% $469 $39,327 $249,835
Public Works $17,283,154 90% $101 $8,458 $53,733
Total Expenditures $134,284,509 $630 $52,767 $335,212
Sources: City of Concord Budget FY25-26; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1) Percentage of costs that are service population-dependent, as opposed to fixed costs or costs recovered through fees or charges.

Clayton Faire
39

Page 296 of 397 ends

APPENDIX TABLE A-1
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey
40

Page 297 of 397 ends

Appendix Table A-1
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey (Table 1203) Concord Rezoning Analysis; EPS #231077
Item
All consumer
units
$70,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000
and more
Percent
Taxable
Income before taxes $94,003 $83,894 $121,806 $171,270 $322,568 Average annual expenditures $72,967 $70,871 $89,354 $116,773 $167,088

RETAIL SPENDING
Apparel Incl. Footware $1,662 $1,852 $2,100 $2,512 $3,407 100% Other Apparel and Services (1) $283 $230 $329 $351 $1,001 90% Personal care products and services (2) $866 $915 $1,038 $1,429 $1,686 25% Reading (3) $117 $116 $112 $215 $238 85%
Tobacco products and smoking supplies $371 $378 $431 $273 $237 100% Food at home (4) $5,703 $6,000 $6,941 $7,964 $9,136 35% Food away from home $3,639 $3,336 $4,790 $6,057 $8,542 100% Alcoholic beverages $583 $496 $787 $1,049 $1,439 100%
Housekeeping supplies $787 $808 $893 $1,177 $1,245 100% Household furnishings and equipment $2,606 $2,430 $3,210 $4,544 $6,320 100% Vehicle purchases (net outlay) $4,496 $4,677 $6,133 $9,697 $9,857 100% Gasoline, other fuels, and motor oil $3,120 $3,524 $4,103 $4,485 $4,701 100% Drugs (5) $615 $629 $602 $693 $880 25%
Education (6) $134 $73 $140 $172 $557 10%
Fees and admissions $833 $666 $979 $1,891 $2,943 0%
Audio and visual equipment and services
(7) $1,020 $1,084 $1,291 $1,449 $1,704 90%
Pets, toys, hobbies, and playground
equipment $908 $991 $1,040 $1,563 $1,809 100%
Other entertainment supplies, equipment,
and services (8) $698 $661 $637 $1,446 $2,401 90%
Total Retail $28,441 $28,866 $35,556 $46,967 $58,103
Taxable Retail $22,452 $22,861 $28,467 $37,796 $46,249
Taxable Retail % of Income 23.9% 27.3% 23.4% 22.1% 14.3% (1) 10% is assumed to be services (tailoring/repairs) (nontaxable); 90% is assumed to be accessories (taxable) (2) Category includes taxable products (25%) and non-taxable services (e.g., hair, nails) (75%) (3) 15% is assumed to be e-reading sales (nontaxable)
(4) Reasonable given taxable sales of $300 out of $900 gross sales PSF at Whole Foods (HdL and EPS research) (5) 75% is assumed to be on prescription (nontaxable) drugs (6) 10% of education spending assumed to be books and materials (taxable); 90 % is assumed to be services (nontaxable) (7) 10% is assumed to be services (nontaxable)
(8) 10% is assumed to be services (nontaxable)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey (Table 1203) 2021 & 2022 41

Page 298 of 397 ends

Analyzed Overlay Zoning Site Locations
Attachment 8

Page 299 of 397 ends

AFFH Alternative Programs Considered

Page 1 of 2 ends

These seven alternative programs were considered for the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Program, but not further explored due to constraints or potentially greater impacts compared to the selected approach:
• Subsidizing Housing Units for Lower-Income Households: While mobility could have been pursued through funding to purchase and make homes affordable to lower-income households, this approach was deemed financially infeasible.

Concord’s lack of financial resources would have limited the number of homes that could be made affordable, and only through a special tax would the City have been able to meet AFFH goals through a program of this nature. • Religious Institutional and Assembly Sites: Religious assembly uses (e.g., churches, mosques, temples, etc.) often hold significant cultural, historical, and/or emotional value. Rezoning such sites for housing would have likely faced strong opposition from congregants and the surrounding community. Religious assembly uses often provide ancillary community services (e.g. childcare) that could be disrupted or lost if the sites are redeveloped. This concept was also captured in a different program in the Housing Element, which ended up becoming a new state law; therefore, would not have been meaningful in addressing the identified disparities.
• Rezoning Open Spaces/Parks: Parks and open spaces are critical for a higher quality of life and ecological balance, including air quality, stormwater management, and habitat preservation. Losing green spaces can negatively impact public health, mental well-being, and recreational opportunities for residents. Residents would have likely strongly opposed the loss of parks, viewing it as a reduction in their quality of life and amenities. • Public Lands (e.g., Concord Pavilion): Public lands like the Concord Pavilion and Centre Concord are used for community events and economic development activities. Rezoning them for housing would limit these public benefits. Residents may view this as a short-term solution that sacrifices long -term community value,
which has been demonstrated by the community largely rejecting the inclusion of the Centre Concord site into the rezoning program. Additionally, some public lands, such as the Concord Pavilion, are deed restricted and cannot be used for activities other than the use identified in the deeds (i.e. the current use and park and recreational purposes).
• School Sites: Repurposing school sites would lead to a reduction in educational resources or space for future population growth. Schools are part of our essential infrastructure and rezoning them may provoke strong opposition from parents and local stakeholders. This concept was also captured in a different program in the Housing Element and as part of a new state law; therefore, would not have been meaningful in addressing the identified disparities.

Attachment 9

Page 300 of 397 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

• Concord Naval Weapons Station: The redevelopment of the Naval Weapons Station property, which includes plans for 12,000 new housing units, is a long- term project with an approximate buildout timeline of 40 years and is still years away from breaking ground. The property is currently owned by the federal government, and the transfer of ownership to the City is expected to take approximately two more years. Because the current Housing Element covers 2023 through 2031, the units planned for the Naval Weapons Station fall outside this timeframe. These units will not be included in the current Housing Element or the AFFH project and will instead be likely be addressed in the City’s next Housing Element update, at the earliest.

• Cal State University East Bay Campus: The Cal State University East Bay (CSUEB) Concord campus has potential as a site for the AFFH program and could help achieve the program's goals if it were ready for development.

However, CSUEB is just beginning to evaluate opportunities for development partnerships for its expansive nearly 400-acre campus.

Similar to the Naval Weapons Station property, development of the CSUEB campus is likely years away from being viable. To comply with AFFH requirements, the City must demonstrate that housing can realistically be developed within the current Housing Element cycle (2023-2031). Since the CSUEB property does not meet this timeframe, it cannot be included in the program.

Page 301 of 397 ends

Attachment 10

Page 302 of 397 ends

From: philip datte <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 10:15 AM
To : Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Comments Regarding Rezoning of District 4 (Oak Grove Rd and Treat Blvd) Thanks Pablo, I sent the same thing to everyone and the clerk. I could not change the text on the signature page, but you have the idea of the concerns.

Thanks for meeting me and I hope we can get some movement. I am all for progress, but really think this is the wrong location for this.

Phil

On Tuesday, January 20, 2026, Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Philip - Thank you for sending this over. I appreciate you taking the time to share the documents and your concerns. I hope you are also emailing the full City Council so all members have the same information as we continue these discussions.

I want you to know that I hear the concerns being raised and I’m doing my best to take them into account as this process moves forward. I take feedback from District 4 residents seriously and will continue listening as staff and Council work through this.

Thank you again for reaching out.

With gratitude,
Pablo Benavente
Councilmember, City of Concord, District 4

Pablo Benavente
Councilmember, City of Concord, District 4
�� [email protected]
� pablobenavente.com (sign up for my newsletter here)
� Facebook: @jpablobenavente
� �� Instagram: @cm.pablobenavente

Page 303 of 397 ends

From: philip datte <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2026 11:16 PM
To : Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Subject: Comments Regarding Rezoning of District 4 (Oak Grove Rd and Treat Blvd)

Councilmember Pablo Benavente
- Please see the attached documents regarding the
District 4 rezoning (Oak Grove Rd and Treat Blvd).

Regards,

Philip Datte

Page 304 of 397 ends

Philip Datte
Concord, CA 94518
[email protected]
City of Concord
Mayor Laura Nakamura
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord California 94519
January 15, 2026
Subject: AFFH Rezoning of District 4, Oak Grove Rd and Treat Blvd Mayor Laura Nakamura,
I am writing to voice my concern of the planned District 4 rezoning at the location of Oak Grove Road and Treat Blvd. A “yes” vote will have a lasting negative impact to the residents in this community. I strongly encourage you to vote “NO” on the rezoning of this location. Lists of some of the major concerns are show below:
 Property values will be negatively impacted. People paid a lot of money for their home and for many, this is their only investment.
 Increased traffic on certain corridors result in various “short cuts” through residential neighborhoods, usually at excessive speeds. (we see this Monday through Friday now)  The area is already experiencing high traffic volume, and we do not want more.  The increased congestion will negatively impact the 5 institutions of learning that are all less than a mile from this intersection and put students at risk.  When combined with our city neighbor’s (Walnut Creek) effort to provide housing, they chose an area not far from this intersection as well. So this area is getting doubly impacted.  Many existing businesses and residents will be permanently displaced resulting in a negative impact to the people who count on them and their existing dwellings.

There are plenty of underdeveloped areas in Concord that would benefit from redevelopment that are within 5-8 miles of this location. In addition, Concord is tasked with the development of the acquired Navel Weapons acreage. Although the State Assembly Bill AB686 provides guidance as to where the housing developments should be considered, it is only guidance and smart planning should be considered over bureaucratic planning in Sacramento. Vote NO on the rezoning of the Oak Grove Rd and Treat Blvd location. The community does not want it, and the businesses in the area do not want it.

I have included and copy of a petition signed by our community residents, and although this is a small sample of the population in District 4, it is representative of the concerns for this rezoning.

Sincerely,
Philip Datte & Residents of District 4
*This letter was sent to all Councilmembers

Page 305 of 397 ends

Page 306 of 397 ends

Page 307 of 397 ends

Page 308 of 397 ends

Page 309 of 397 ends

Page 310 of 397 ends

Page 311 of 397 ends

kasperprado8 <[email protected]>

Afternoon Phil,

I’m a Palm Lake resident and am strongly against the rezoning. I wrote to the city manager earlier.

If it will help, I’ll email the city council too—with the same summary memo included below.

The owner has not communicated anything to the residents of his intentions or impact. I suspect the homeowners that border Palm Lake will not be in favor of the rezoning either. Please forgive for not including my name for fear of reprisal from the owner.

Thank you,

The proposed rezoning of Palm Lake should not proceed due to its potential negative impacts on the existing community and the area's current challenges. Here is why:

1. Preservation of a community: The roughly 300 affordable homes at Palm Lake represent an established community providing crucial housing for low-income and fixed-income families. Densifying it further would be excessive and would degrade the quality of life for us and future residents.

2. Exacerbation of existing problems: The community is already heavily populated, and we already face issues with parking, noise, safety, and vehicular traffic. Rezoning and increasing density would only amplify these problems. The safety and health of current residents should be prioritized over densification efforts.

3. Unequal burden on the community: We should not be forced to bear the brunt of densification when other sites under consideration are more appropriate.

Instead of rezoning Palm Lake, city planners should consider the other sites. Protecting the current and diverse residents of Palm Lake should be the priority, rather than pursuing further densification that could harm an already heavily populated community.

Sincerely,
Palm Lake Resident

Page 312 of 397 ends

Jennifer Goodwin <[email protected]>

Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 10:07 AM

I would like my name added to the petition against the Treaty and Oak Grove road proposal. The area is already high density and can not sustain the amount of people that this would add.

Thank you,
Jennifer Goodwin

Page 313 of 397 ends

morena chatham <[email protected]>

Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 9:26 AM

Dear Mr. Datte,
My name is Morena Chatham, my husband Bob and I are opposed to any additional housing at the corner of Treat and Oak Grove. There is already plenty of traffic in the morning, around the end of the school day, and at the end of work day. With Ygnacio Valley High School, De La Salle and Carondelet letting out kids at the same time, that intersection becomes a traffic jam.

We oppose any construction of more housing around that area. You have our vote to stop that plan.

Morena Chatham

Page 314 of 397 ends

juliekaysullivan <[email protected]>

Tue, Mar 25, 2025, 8:19 AM

Please add my name to your opposition mailing list.

Julie Sullivan

Page 315 of 397 ends

Alissa Fischer <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 8:54 PM

Hi there.

I oppose the rezoning proposal. How would traffic flow during commute times and during school hours. And, the history of accidents should be a consideration. Significantly more cars will increase probabilities. I live in the area and will move away from this mess.

Thanks
Alissa Fischer

Page 316 of 397 ends

Victoria Mizzi <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 8:17 PM

I’ve lived in the Oak Grove/Treat/Ryan Rd. Neighborhood for 49 years.

This proposal to rezone will only congest the area more than it already is. With 4 schools already in place we have many children walking to and from school and many elderly walking to Trader Joe’s etc. The intersection of Oak Grove and Treat will be dangerously impacted.

I wish to raise my voice saying I oppose this proposal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Victoria Mizzi

Page 317 of 397 ends

Terry Burke <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 6:55 PM

Hi Phil:

I just read about the rejoining proposal in Edi Birsan’s newsletter. My husband and I own a home just off Treat and San Simeon. We oppose the rezoning proposal because we believe that the additional load on the traffic at Treat and Oak Grove will be extremely problematic.

We already saw a detrimental increase in traffic last year when Treat was under construction and people would use our neighborhood streets to bypass Treat. There were a lot of vehicles speeding around and it sometimes felt dangerous to cross the street with my old dog.

Please let me know how I can formally support this effort.

Regards
Terry Burke

Page 318 of 397 ends

Steve and Eldem Rank <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 5:06 PM

We oppose to the rezoning proposal! If you are collecting signatures we are ready!

Page 319 of 397 ends

William Joyce <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 2:05 PM

this is crazy

Thanks,

Bill Joyce

Page 320 of 397 ends

Rafal Preis <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 1:56 PM

Let me know what we can do to oppose the housing on Treat and Oak Grove

Page 321 of 397 ends

M Mendoza <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 1:15 PM

Hi Phil,

I own a home near David and Treat Blvd and I am also in opposition of high density living buildings off treat and oak grove area. Oak Grove road is already highly congested and would bring the value of homes nearby down.

I’ve worked two jobs for 13 years to purchase and own a home where we live. It would be unfortunate for the area to bring forth so much more traffic.

Mortay

Page 322 of 397 ends

Kristina Miller <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 1:05 PM

Hi Phil,

I'm reachout regarding the Proposal for the rezoning on Oak Grove and Treat. I live on Ryan Rd and I'm strongly against the proposal.

Our city and current infrastructure are already buried and maxed out. To add another 500 units to this already very dangerous intersection has me very concerned. What are the next steps you have planned for opposing the rezoning?

Thanks for any information on this and appreciate your work on this.

Thank you,
Kristina

Page 323 of 397 ends

Mary Arnold <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 12:56 PM

Concerned neighbor that would like to receive updates on this matter as they arise. Traffic is extremely difficult in this area now, so we definitely don't need more.

Thank You,
Mary

Page 324 of 397 ends

Jonathan Miller <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 12:58 PM

Hey Phil,
Happy to sign the petition. Let me know what is needed.

-JM

Page 325 of 397 ends

Mary Arnold <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 12:56 PM
to me

Concerned neighbor that would like to receive updates on this matter as they arise. Traffic is extremely difficult in this area now, so we definitely don't need more.

Thank You,
Mary

Page 326 of 397 ends

Cynthia Childers <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 12:44 PM
to me

Hello,
I have lived on Ryan Road and Lyon Circle my entire life. I am all for affordable housing for our residents, but it must be near public transit and you cannot cram it all into two city blocks at Treat and Oak Grove Rd. It must be distributed evenly around the city. Please.It’s already congested enough with the number of people and cars in that intersection. It already takes me two lights to get through the intersection from my neighborhood to get to Trader Joe’s. That’s not even during commute time. You must reconsider this plan. Thank you.

Cynthia Childers

Page 327 of 397 ends

Kiara Donato <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 12:44 PM
to me

Hello Phill,

I live in district 4 area and would like to learn more about your petition against the Oak Grove and Treat proposal.

Thank you,
Kiara

Page 328 of 397 ends

Catalina Gonzalez <[email protected]>

Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 12:34 PM
to me

Hello Mr. Datte,

I am opposed to the proposed construction of high density housing on Oak Grove and Treat, as that area is already very congested. The addition of the proposed 500 new units in the area would only make the traffic congestion much worse. I am a homeowner in the Ryan neighborhood. Please let me know how to sign your petition.

Thank you,
Catalina Gonzalez

Page 329 of 397 ends

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 8:30 AM
To: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: City Council 1/27/26 meeting: Feedback on item 6A : Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Hi Mike, thank you for your kind words. Later today the City Clerk’s Office will package all the public comment and transmit it to the City Council while also publishing it online. This is standard practice for agenda items. Feel free to reach out with any questions. -Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
City of Concord
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]
Sign up for our e-newsletter here.

Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 6.a
January 27, 2026

Page 330 of 397 ends

From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:52 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: City Council 1/27/26 meeting: Feedback on item 6A : Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

Hi,

I checked the public comments and did not see my letter posted. I did see public comments posted on Tuesday’s agenda, many from several months ago. I checked twice but Perhaps I missed it?

If it is not in the packet, could you provide it to the council members and add as an addenda of some sort?

Thanks!!!
Mike McDermott
Cell: 925-451-1072
[email protected]

Page 331 of 397 ends

From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 6:00 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council 1/27/26 meeting: Feedback on item 6A : Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Mayor Laura Nakamura, Council Members Dominic Aliano, Pablo Benavente, Laura Hoffmeister, and Carlyn Obringer;
I have been following the AFFH process very closely and have offered feedback to staff on several occasions. I have been especially concerned about the effect this rezoning may have on important neighborhood businesses like the CVS, Staples, Citibank, and US post office located in the Bel Air Shopping Center and the Clayton Valley Bowl and In-Shape fitness center in the Clayton Faire Shopping Center.

I was very happy to see the proposed staff recommendation reaches the 1,000 unit target while protecting these important businesses, and I ask City Council to approve this staff proposal without further amendment. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work and responsiveness of Assistant Manager Justin Ezell. This has been a very difficult project to manage, and I appreciate his deep knowledge and his patience with me and my questions.

Regarding Bel Air specifically: You may already be aware of the improvements proposed for the Bel Air center by the owners. The existing businesses will be preserved in that plan (link below) and new retail (possibly a grocery store like Trader Joes or Sprouts ) can be added. I live very close to that center and all my neighbors are excited about the plan to remodel Bel Air and expand retail opportunities. Here is the city webpage link:
https://concordgis.ci.concord.ca.us/webdevelopment/BelAirFacadePlans.pdf Hopefully with your approval of the staff proposal tonight and removal of uncertainty regarding the Bel Air Center, the owners will proceed with the renovation of this important shopping center.

Thanks!!!
Mike McDermott
43 year Concord Resident

Page 332 of 397 ends

*This email and letter was sent to all Council members

From: Joey Flegel-Mishlove <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 3:51 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo
<[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Item 6a: AFFH Rezoning Program

Dear Concord City Council,

I am writing on behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition and East Bay Housing Organizations.

Please see our attached letter expressing support for the AFFH rezoning program and urging you to adopt the rezoning plan at your January 27 meeting.

Thank you,
Joey Flegel-Mishlove
--

Joey Flegel-Mishlove (he/him)
Senior Policy Associate

EAST BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS (EBHO)
[email protected] | (414) 899-4452
538 9th Street, Suite 200, Oakland, CA 94612

Page 333 of 397 ends

January 22, 2026

Laura Nakamura, Mayor
Dominic Aliano, Vice-Mayor
Carlyn Obringer, Councilmember
Pablo Benavente, Councilmember
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember

Re: Support for AFFH Rezoning Program

Dear City Councilmembers,

The Raise the Roof Coalition along with East Bay Housing Organizations writes to you to express our sincere support for the AFFH rezoning program and all efforts to bring greater housing affordability to Concord. We urge you to move forward with the rezoning program without delay at your January 27 meeting in the name of housing affordability, racial justice, and an inclusive community.

Raise the Roof is a coalition of tenant, faith, labor, and community organizations who are working to bring good jobs, immigrant protections, and affordable housing to our city. East Bay Housing Organizations is a non-profit, mission driven organization with over 400 individual and organizational members comprising residents of affordable housing, developers of affordable housing, and numerous other advocates and service providers. Our coalition worked closely with the City of Concord throughout its 6th Cycle Housing Element Update process to lift up the priorities and needs of many Concord residents who are often excluded from the City’s decision making processes. At that time, and in response to these voices, the City of Concord made a commitment to this rezoning program with a goal of making “equal and fair housing opportunities…available to all residents.”1

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rezoning program is a direct response to documented patterns of segregation and discrimination in Concord. Of the city’s existing 24 affordable housing developments, 20 of them are packed tightly around downtown and the Monument Corridor. The remaining four hug tightly to major throughways and do not extend into Concord’s wealthier, more exclusive neighborhoods, which are rich in resources like schools, parks, and access to public amenities. Not only do these expensive neighborhoods lack affordable housing, they lack opportunities for affordable housing, as current zoning laws restrict 1 City of Concord, City of Concord Housing Element 2023-2031, pg. 24

Page 334 of 397 ends

these neighborhoods to single-family homes which are out of reach for a growing population of Concord residents. Community members we have spoken to have expressed fears that they will be forced to move out of Concord, or that their children will never be able to afford to buy homes in the neighborhoods they grew up in.

Map of Affordable Housing Developments in Concord. Purple squares denote planned or future developments, while the remaining 24 icons denote existing affordable homes.

City of Concord “Interactive Affordable Housing Map” accessed January 21, 2026. http://maps.cityofconcord.org/housing/

The AFFH Rezoning Program, then, is about creating opportunities for affordable housing in our communities. There is never any guarantee that rezoned land will be developed as affordable housing. We therefore see this program as a critical first step towards bringing more affordability to Concord. Subsequently, the City may have more work to do to ensure that new development is affordable, or to rezone even more sites so that dense, affordable housing can reach even more neighborhoods in our community. At this next meeting, however, we applaud your work in making at least three new sites available for affordable housing.

Our coalition acknowledges concerns that some have raised about rezoning, primarily around increased traffic near rezoned sites. If necessary, we encourage the City Council to take appropriate actions once rezoning is complete to redesign streets, invest in public transit, and address traffic flow. But we firmly believe that we should design our roads and traffic plans to meet the needs of our communities, rather than limiting our plans for housing and affordability by designing them around existing traffic patterns. Others have questioned whether increased density is necessary to achieve greater affordability, shouldn’t we seek to make single-family homes affordable as well? Indeed, our coalition firmly supports efforts to make single-family homes affordable and applauds initiatives such as the City’s First Time Homebuyer Program to

Page 335 of 397 ends

do just that. However, we know that for affordability to be a reality for all, the City must have a healthy mix of housing options and styles. Currently, major swathes of the City allow only single-family homes, a homogenous housing stock which will never permit affordability for all.

As this process has gone on, the City has moved further and further past the deadline for rezoning originally set in our Housing Element: December 2024.2 Raise the Roof member organization Public Advocates wrote a letter to the City Council in November of 2025 outlining the risks the City takes on by falling out of compliance with its Housing Element. For these reasons, we reiterate our call on the City to move the rezoning program forward without delay.

Finally, we recognize the great deal of work that has been done by City Staff and the City Council to engage community members and incorporate community feedback into the program.

Homeowners who live near proposed sites for rezoning have made their voices heard. So too have renters and community members who cannot afford to live in the neighborhoods you are currently looking to rezone. We have shown up at City Council meetings and town hall events for the past two years urging the City to create opportunities for affordable housing in neighborhoods that for so long have been inaccessible to us. We are proud to stand as partners with the City in taking this first step towards bringing more affordability to Concord, and we eagerly anticipate opportunities to build on these steps moving forward.

Sincerely,
Joey Flegel-Mishlove
Senior Policy Associate, East Bay Housing Organizations

On behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition:

Centro Legal de la Raza
Contra Costa Senior Legal Services
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE)
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
Ensuring Opportunity Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa County Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy (FAME)
Lift Up Contra Costa
Monument Impact
Movement Legal
Public Advocates
Rising Juntos
Tenants Together
Todos Santos Tenants Union
United Latino Voices
2 City of Concord, City of Concord Housing Element 2023-2031, pg. 27

Page 336 of 397 ends

From: JONI SHIELDS <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 10:03 AM
To: Planning Commission Public Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Thought about the AFFH sites

This is thought about the Palm Lake Site. I'm foreseeing how that many new living places will affect local traffic. I live in the neighborhood and totally avoid going near the Oak Grove and Treat intersection now at certain times of the day. I live about a mile away and it took me over thirty minutes to get to Trader Joe's around eight in the morning. Luckily, I can change my time but many can't. The traffic is extremely heavy around 8 AM and 2-4 PM due to routine commute plus one grammar school on Oak Grove and three high schools near that intersection. This many new units along with the cars involved would make this area even more congested and perhaps unsafe for students walking to school..

Anywhere you put this new housing will be impacted but I know this one firsthand.

I'm not sure how it will affect normal commute times, but it definitely will affect the morning one and the school let out one.

Thank you
Joni Shields

Page 337 of 397 ends

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 2:03 PM
To: Barbara Diorio <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: AFFH Overlay District

Ms. Diorio,

Thank you for your email regarding the AFFH program. Your concerns will be included in the materials provided to the City Council for next week's meeting.

Regarding the CVS/Staples site, staff is not recommending its inclusion in the AFFH overlay.

However, as an alternative site, it remains under consideration by the City Council. It's important to note that inclusion in the program does not mandate the construction of housing on the site.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Regards,

-Justin

Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
City of Concord
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]

Page 338 of 397 ends

From: Barbara Diorio <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 12:05 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; MFIP Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: AFFH Overlay District

Are you really considering removing our neighborhood Post Office, Staples and CVS Drug Store?
Some of the elderly residents at the Vista Verde Condominium and other local senior residences don’t drive, so they walk to these businesses. For many, this proximity to the Post Office and CVS is not a mere convenience - it’s a lifeline.

These residents already face problems safely crossing at the intersection of Treat Boulevard and Clayton Road, where the traffic is so heavy - especially during commute times. Adding multiple housing units with more cars will only make a congested area worse. It is already difficult for emergency vehicles to get to our complex, causing us further concern and anxiety.

Please reconsider the plan for AFFH housing at the Treat Boulevard location.

Most sincerely,
James and Janice Williams
Barbara Diorio
William and Sarah Hamor

Page 339 of 397 ends

From: kasperprado8 <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 5:17 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic
<[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura
<[email protected]>; Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 01.27.26 Public Comment - City’s General Plan Land Use Element

Saturday, January 24, 2026

Dear Mayor Nakamura, Council members, and Assistant City Manager Ezell,

If you would like to make a positive impact on Palm Lake's community, do not rezone Palm Lake.

Rezoning will have significant negative impacts on our community. We already struggle with limited parking, persistent noise, safety concerns, and heavy traffic congestion. The 300 units already house low- and fixed-income families in very close quarters. Further densification will erode our quality of life and may displace residents who rely on this housing.

There are more suitable, underutilized sites—use those instead.

Kind regards,
Long time Concord and Palm Lake resident.

Page 340 of 397 ends

From: (null) (null) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:01 AM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie
<[email protected]>
Subject: Formal Opposition to the AFFH overlay Zoning Project - Public Hearing Jan. 27, 2026
Date: January 23, 2026
To: City of Concord City Council ([email protected]) From: Azita Berloui / Rose lane , Treat Blvd , Clayton road Community group Subject: Formal Opposition to the AFFH Overlay Zoning Project – Public Hearing January 27, 2026

To the Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express grave concerns regarding the proposed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Overlay Zoning Project. While the goal of housing equity is notable, the proposed density of up to 60 units per acre in established neighborhoods presents significant, unmitigated negative impacts on the Concord community.

1. Severe Infrastructure and Traffic Congestion
The neighborhoods targeted for these "high resource" overlays are already struggling with peak-hour congestion. Adding high-density complexes without significant roadway expansion will lead to gridlock. Unlike urban centers with robust transit hubs, many of these suburban Concord sites remain car-dependent. Increasing density by 60 units per acre will exponentially increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), further straining our aging infrastructure and decreasing response times for emergency services.

2. Compounding Environmental and Air Quality Hazards
Concord sits in a geographic "bowl" that traps particulate matter, exacerbated by our proximity to major oil refineries in Martinez and Richmond. • Air Quality: Increased traffic from high-density developments will raise levels of nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in areas already burdened by refinery emissions.

Page 341 of 397 ends

• Acoustic Pollution: The transition from low-density residential to high-density multi-family housing introduces significant "noise floor" increases, impacting the mental health and quiet enjoyment of existing residents. • Lack of CEQA Oversight: The state’s streamlining of these projects often bypasses full Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), leaving the community in the dark regarding the cumulative effects on our local ecosystem and air basin.

3. Economic Inefficiency Amid Negative Population Growth The push for high-density "luxury" apartments—often the result of these overlays—ignores current demographic shifts.
• Population Decline: Census and California Department of Finance data show a consistent trend of negative population growth in the Bay Area as residents flee high costs.
• The Affordability Fallacy: Building high-density units does not automatically equate to affordability. In many Bay Area cases, new high-density developments remain at "market rate, " which remains unattainable for the average worker, while existing lower-cost naturally occurring affordable housing is pressured by rising land values.
• Example: Similar high-density projects in neighboring Silicon Valley cities have seen high vacancy rates in "luxury" tiers while the "missing middle" and low-income residents remain unhoused, proving that density alone is not a solution for affordability in a shrinking population market.

Conclusion
The AFFH Overlay as currently proposed threatens to permanently alter the character of Concord while worsening our environmental and traffic crises. We urge the Council to seek more balanced alternatives that prioritize the health of our current residents and reflect the actual demographic trends of 2026.

Sincerely,

Azita Berloui
4352 rose lane , Concord / Rose lane , Treat Blvd , Clayton road Neighborhood

Page 342 of 397 ends

From: JerryBConcord <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 3:19 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Followup

Thanks. Yes ok to forward
J
Sent from JBs iPhone 15pro

On Jan 24, 2026, at 11:07, Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> wrote:

Jerry,
Thank you for your kind words and feedback about the AFFH program that the council will discuss on Tuesday. If you'd like your comments to be included in the benched correspondence, let me know and I will forward your email to the city clerk. You can also send your comments to [email protected].

Best,
Laura

<Outlook-
c21eqv0p.png>
Laura Nakamura (She/her/hers)
Mayor / City Councilmember, District 5

Mobile 925-338-1259
Web https://www.lauranakamura.net/
Sign up for my newsletter:
https://www.lauranakamura.net/newsletter

Page 343 of 397 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 9:52 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Followup

Hi Laura: Congratulations on becoming the new mayor. I know you will serve the City well.

The issue with parent parking in the street for Clayton Valley Charter HS seems to be pretty much resolved. I’d be interested in what the City or School communicated to the parents, please share when you have time!!

Related to AFFH, it seems the planners and Planning Commission have continued along the same path vs. revisiting other sites that may have been eliminated when folks from our area were unaware of the process early on. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the meeting on the 27th as I have prior plans.

I have reviewed the information copied below from Justin’s email, and want to share some thoughts. First, we live essentially mid-way between the Kmart and Clayton Faire sites, which are very close to eachother. If a builder(s) were to build apartments on both of these sites it would significantly impair the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Further, the neighborhoods around the sites are mostly homes or apartments rarely 3 stories and mostly 2 or less stories. Building two 4 to 5 story apartment buildings, like the examples given in downtown Concord, would drastically change the character of the area.

My preference would be for the Kmart site, the area is more commercially developed now and has other apartment buildings nearby. Most strongly though, I’d ask that the City Council consider approving only 1 of these sites which would make strides to keeping the character of our neighborhoods while providing relief for the AFFH requirements.

Thanks
Jerry Boyle
From Justin’s email:

Page 344 of 397 ends

The Planning Commission’s action aligns with staff’s recommendation to apply the new overlay zoning to three sites:
• Kmart (5100 Clayton Road)
• Palm Lakes (780 Oak Grove Road)
• Clayton Faire (5280-5288 Clayton Road, 5350-5358 Clayton Road)

Page 345 of 397 ends

From: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:41 AM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Cc: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>; Robinson, Monique <[email protected]>
Subject: New information for one of the alternative AFFH sites This email is being shared with all Councilmembers.

Councilmembers Hoffmeister and Benavente,
Both of you asked about the potential number of units that could feasibly be developed on one of the alternative AFFH sites at 5390 Myrtle Drive, the two-acre parcel with overhead power lines. Staff had been estimating that approximately half of the site could be developed for housing, yielding about 60 units.

This morning, staff received the attached 72-unit conceptual plan from the property owners. This information was not submitted as part of a formal application; rather, it was provided for Council’s consideration during deliberations on which sites to include in the overlay zoning.

Staff has not yet completed a review of this concept to determine compliance with the proposed AFFH development standards, including setbacks, transitional requirements, and other applicable criteria. That said, staff will be as prepared as we can to respond to councilmember questions regarding the concept. The property owners have also been invited to attend tomorrow night’s meeting.

Regards,
-Justin
Justin Ezell
Assistant City Manager
City of Concord
(925) 671-3155
[email protected]

Page 346 of 397 ends

SCALE: 1/32" =1'-0"
low split rail fence
covered parking
covered parking
parking

DESIGN SITE PLAN

KIRKER PASS ROAD

MYRTLE DRIVE
driveway
driveway
driveway
driveway
covered parking
covered parking
covered parking
covered parking
72 covered parking
6 parking
street walkway
street walkway
street walkway
street walkway
street walkway
covered parking
1135 sf
covered parking
4 units
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
72 TWO BEDROOM UNITS
walkwaywalkwaywalkway
BBQ
trash
POOL
SPA
kidsplayground
elevator
elevator
elevator
balcony
balcony
balconybalconybalcony
balcony
balconybalcony
balcony
balcony
balcony
balcony
balcony
balcony
balcony
balcony
balcony balcony balcony
balcony
balconybalcony
balcony
walkway
walkwaywalkway
walkway
entryentryentryentry
entryentryentry
entry entry
entry
entry entry
entry
entry entry entry
entry
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
1135 sf
4 units
4 units
4 units
4 units
4 units
4 units
4 units
4 units
4 units
4 units
4 units
4 units
4 units 4 units 4 units
4 units
4 units

SITE PLAN
A1.0
5390 MYRITLE DR,
CONCORD, CA 94521
DATE:

SHEET NO:

JOB NO:

SCALE:

R E V I S I O N S

MARKDATE
3 2
1 DRAWN BY:
c ICG enginering.inc.

MB
12/08/2025

AS SHOWN

ENGINEERING
ICG
Hossam Nasser, PHD, PE
ICG Engineering, Inc.
1786 Margarita Ct.

Concord, CA 94521
Tel. 925.330.0452
[email protected]
www.icgengineersusa.com

Page 347 of 397 ends

UP
DN
UP
DN

FIRST,SECOND,THIRD AND FOURTH FLOOR PLANS
3/16" = 1'-0"

FIRST & SECOND

FLOOR PLANS
A2.0
5390 MYRITLE DR,
CONCORD, CA 94521
DATE:

SHEET NO:

JOB NO:

SCALE:

R E V I S I O N S

MARKDATE
3 2
1 DRAWN BY:
c ICG enginering.inc.

MB
12/08/2025

AS SHOWN

ENGINEERING
ICG
Hossam Nasser, PHD, PE
ICG Engineering, Inc.
1786 Margarita Ct.

Concord, CA 94521
Tel. 925.330.0452
[email protected]
www.icgengineersusa.com

Page 348 of 397 ends

FRONT ELEVATION
3/16" = 1'-0"

BACK ELEVATION
3/16" = 1'-0"

ELEVATIONS
A2.1
5390 MYRITLE DR,
CONCORD, CA 94521
DATE:

SHEET NO:

JOB NO:

SCALE:

R E V I S I O N S

MARKDATE
3 2
1 DRAWN BY:
c ICG enginering.inc.

MB
12/08/2025

AS SHOWN

ENGINEERING
ICG
Hossam Nasser, PHD, PE
ICG Engineering, Inc.
1786 Margarita Ct.

Concord, CA 94521
Tel. 925.330.0452
[email protected]
www.icgengineersusa.com

Page 349 of 397 ends

LEFT ELEVATIONRIGHT ELEVATION
3/16" = 1'-0"
3/16" = 1'-0"

1. WOOD SIDING

5. DARK GRAY STUCCO SIDING

2. GRAY STUCCO SIDING

3. DARK WOOD SIDING

4. STONE SIDING

ELEVATIONS
A2.2
5390 MYRITLE DR,
CONCORD, CA 94521
DATE:

SHEET NO:

JOB NO:

SCALE:

R E V I S I O N S

MARKDATE
3 2
1 DRAWN BY:
c ICG enginering.inc.

MB
12/08/2025

AS SHOWN

ENGINEERING
ICG
Hossam Nasser, PHD, PE
ICG Engineering, Inc.
1786 Margarita Ct.

Concord, CA 94521
Tel. 925.330.0452
[email protected]
www.icgengineersusa.com

Page 350 of 397 ends

From: Rikkelman and Rikkelman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:51 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: 1/27/26 Council agenda item #6

Dear Council,
I have said this many times, as I believe I have attended every single meeting regarding this subject since the second public meeting quite a while back. I was also one of a handful at the last Planning Commission meeting - and truly disappointed that more of the public did not show up but very understanding that we are all wearing thin of the subject and feeling as though we're not being listened to. (I honestly felt as though my comment was dismissed - listen to it and you will understand.)

I understand this is a State-mandated program. I understand there is a study area. I understand that the State is not allowing CEQA to be a part of the AFFH program. I ALSO understand that no one part of Concord should have to bear the burden of a higher density of people and more traffic on the road, choking we local folks' ability to get around in our neighborhoods.

I would like to make these simple points and would appreciate your feedback to this email.

1. Building height-Think if you lived in a single-family house on the opposite side of the K-Mart lot from where some of this is AFFH program is being proposed. What would you like to see peering into your windows day and night?! Mr. Barber on the Planning Commission nailed it and made the most sense of it -- not high levels of dense housing. Please be mindful of what monsters you are creating when putting buildings above three or four stories in height into our neighborhoods. Parking should not be the first two levels with then three or four levels of residential above it.

Parking should be surface level parking. I understand there is something called density credits of sorts that affordable housing developers can obtain. When approving the number of units in our neighborhoods, please be mindful of what additional credits the developers can get and again what monsters you will be creating. These are our neighborhoods. These are not downtown areas. And we don't want our neighborhoods looking like downtown areas.

Page 351 of 397 ends

2. Location-No one part of the study area in Concord should have to bear the burden of these additional units and the additional traffic that it will cause. The Clayton Valley /Treat corridor is not the dumping ground for what the other parts of the study area do not want. We are all in this together. Period.

3. Sites- I do NOT agree that the CVS/Staples site should be further included in this evaluation. I think public comment from the oodles of other past meetings has shown that this is a bad idea. What a horrible intersection to add more people and additional traffic. The CVS is a valued resource to especially seniors and the many senior facilities in the area, as well as others who needs specialty prescriptions filled into late evening hours. We don't need anything to encourage CVS to leave our neighborhood.

Thank you,
• Anna Rikkelman

Page 352 of 397 ends

From: Teresa Quijada <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:30 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: High density affordable housing

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Teresa Quijada <[email protected]>
Date: January 26, 2026 at 9:36:39 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: High density affordable housing

Sent from my iPhone
Hi, my name is Teresa Quijada, I would like to express my disapproval of these affordable housing units. First of all, they’re being targeted in a certain area up and down Clayton Road and treat Boulevard that is an enormous amount of added housing to this area that is already congested with traffic. In addition, these developments are way too enormous for the area. They should be limited to three stories max!! these do not belong in these areas that people paid top dollar to purchase their homes for their families. I would imagine the people that can leave an exit out of California and have the type of neighborhood that they have now they’ll go purchase it somewhere else in another state versus living next to high rises in their small suburb neighborhoods. This will backfire and with low income, you’re going to change the quality of the neighborhood as well, which is another reason for people to start exiting this state, for another state where they can have the type of neighborhood that they currently have now. Not to mention, we already have enough problems with rollouts on our electricity and water shortages. Where does any of this makes sense to put more stress on the states resources? This type of high density housing belongs in city communities not out in the suburbs. I hope the city of concord would fight for our communities and encourage this type of housing to happen in areas of the state that have plenty of land to build as many as they like with schools and a community that would also create jobs with a Costco and a Walmart and gas stations and restaurants. Encourage the state to start a whole new community instead of screwing up the ones that are already existing and if the city is going to build some of these, they need to fight back and say it needs to fit into the communities it’s going in. I’ll just use Kmart as an example 3 stories

Page 353 of 397 ends

max four and five and six is just over the top for these communities in this area once they start going up people are going to leave. People didn’t move here to have that next to them.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely Teresa Quijada

Page 354 of 397 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 11:41 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Program

Re: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Program – I am not in favor of the former K- Mart site for the following reasons:

1. The traffic at the intersection of Clayton Road and Ayers Road is already congested.

2. As a pedestrian, the intersection of Clayton Road and Ayers Road is hazardous— even with the traffic signals. Too many cars do not respect pedestrians’ right-of-way.

At times, there is an officer present on a motorcycle on the sidewalk by the gas station—I have been grateful for those times.

3. Even with the crosswalks, pedestrians do j-walk – and I realize that j-walking is now legal…I cringe at the thought of more people j-walking… Thank you for your time and consideration.

Joy Takemoto,
Concord resident

Page 355 of 397 ends

From: Kiara Donato <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:07 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: AFFH Overlay Zoning Project: Public Comment 1/27 City council meeting

Hello,

I’m am writing to you as a Concord resident near the Palm Lake Apartments site being considered for the AFFH program. My community will be directly impacted by the City Council ‘s decision on the AFFH project. I am a long time resident and am raising my young children in Concord. My eldest child is set to start their public school education next year and top of mind for our family is the safety and heavy traffic in our community.

I am concerned that the Palm lake Apartments site is being recommended with the highest number of new units. 300 additional units in our neighborhood would dramatically increase traffic among oak grove road and treat boulevard intersection, and the oak grove road and ygnacio road intersection. My children attend a local daycare center and we frequent the local grocery stores and businesses. We experience high traffic during the commute hours and understand these main roads act as highways for folks accessing the routes to the freeway as part of their commute. We see many school aged youth, parents, and older adults walking through the busy intersections and sidewalks.

I am hopeful that the council will take into consideration the concerns of my family and neighbors to make the best decision possible. I recommend the council consider reducing the amount of proposed units in the Palm Lake apartment site.

Thank you,
Kiara Donato

Page 356 of 397 ends

From: Desiree Morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:23 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Desiree McGrath <[email protected]>
Subject: AFFH - Kmart Site

Good afternoon City Staff, City Council and Planning Commission, I am writing to formally express my opposition, again, to the proposed zoning densities at the KMart and Clayton Faire sites as it relates to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Overlay District. The 60du is unacceptable.

While I support the goal of fair and equitable housing access, I have significant concerns about the proposal as currently drafted and the potential unintended consequences for existing neighborhoods and city resources. A base density of 60 units per acre—combined with the State Density Bonus—could allow a seven-story structure along Clayton Road. The allowed density would be 60-120 units to the acre. This outcome is unacceptable and incompatible with the existing community character. Additionally, state density bonus provisions allow developers to waive local design standards, further limiting the City’s ability to ensure that new development is compatible with the surrounding community.

This proposal would introduce high-density development into an established low-density area, undermining the very qualities that have led residents to choose to live in this part of Concord.

The fiscal implications of the proposal indicate that the estimated revenues for are not likely to cover the increased demand on city services. It is noted in the Staff Report:
‘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. ’ Local schools are already significantly impacted. We are unable to provide affordable before- and after- school care on campus, and there is no available space to support additional programs or activities. As a parent of a child attending Silverwood Elementary, I am deeply concerned about the strain additional high-density housing will place on already overextended educational resources. This is one data point about schools, but this same concern echoes for our other City services.

Page 357 of 397 ends

In addition, this City, City Council and City Planning need to assess the needs of this community. We need a balanced mix of uses, not housing alone. Retail, sit-down restaurants, salon suites, food halls, and family-oriented activities are critically lacking.

While certain retail options are constrained due to existing agreements, that reality further underscores the importance of thoughtful land-use planning rather than eliminating remaining commercial opportunities. We do not have need for another fast food facility.

The proposed density virtually guarantees market rental housing. It will not attract for-sale builders, despite residents repeatedly requesting opportunities for homeownership. While the City cannot zone specifically for for-sale housing, setting minimum densities this high effectively excludes that option altogether.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose including the KMart and Clayton Faire sites in this AFFH cycle. The Housing Element/AFFH needs can be accomplished at reduced densities.

Modifying the Housing Element with lower densities will keep our City’s compliance. Any future development in this area should be limited to under 30 dwelling units per acre to better align with infrastructure capacity, school impacts, and neighborhood compatibility.

Thank you for your time and for considering these concerns as part of the official record.

Desiree Morgan

Page 358 of 397 ends

From: rob morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:32 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>
Subject: AFFH - Kmart Site

Good afternoon City Staff, City Council and Planning Commission,

I am writing to formally express my opposition, again, to the proposed zoning densities at the KMart and Clayton Faire sites as it relates to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Overlay District. The 60du is unacceptable.

This proposal would introduce high-density development into an established low-density area, undermining the very qualities that have led residents to choose to live in this part of Concord.

Page 359 of 397 ends

educational resources. This is one data point about schools, but this same concern echoes for our other City services.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose including the KMart and Clayton Faire sites in this AFFH cycle. The Housing Element/AFFH needs can be accomplished at reduced densities.

Thank you for your time and for considering these concerns as part of the official record.

-Robert Morgan

Page 360 of 397 ends

Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Program
Ben Ulrey
Associate Planner
January 27, 2026
1

Page 361 of 397 ends

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Program
• State-mandated initiative (Assembly Bill 686)
• Promote fair housing, eliminate discrimination, equal access • Included in Concord’s Housing Element (Objective 8.6) • Will apply to 20 acres of land in “high resource areas” • Involves increasing density to 60 units per acre
• Create capacity for 1,000 housing units
• Strong development potential
• Low potential for displacement of lower-income households 2

Page 362 of 397 ends

3 Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Study Area
• “High Resource” areas as
determined by the state
+
• “Racially Concentrated Areas of
Affluence,” also determined by
the state

Page 363 of 397 ends

Extensive Community Engagement
• Proactive outreach began in March 2024
• Seven community workshops (one conducted in
Spanish)
• 14 stakeholder and community partner meetings
• Three online community surveys
• Two City Council meetings
• One Planning Commission Meeting
• One joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting
• One Planning Commission Hearing in November 2025
• Interested parties list containing more than 1,400
contacts
• City webpage: www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH
4

Page 364 of 397 ends

City Council / Planning Commission Direction
January 7, 2025
5 Site # Name Total Units
1 Kmart 471
2 Clayton Faire 248
3 CVS/Staples/Service Station/Burger King 617
6 Dental Offices at Treat / Oak Grove 180
8 Palm Lakes Apartments Infill 780
16 Vacant Site at Kirker and Myrtle 60
18 1539 Kirker Pass 56

Page 365 of 397 ends

• 1. Kmart
• 2. Clayton Faire
• 8. Palm Lake Apartments
Recommended
• 3. Staples, CVS, Auto repair,
Burger King
• 6. Dental Offices at Treat & Oak
Grove
• 16. Vacant Site at Kirker Pass &
Myrtle
• 18. Residential Site at 1539
Kirker Pass
Not Recommended
6 16
1 2
3 86
18 Ygnacio Valley Rd.

Page 366 of 397 ends

Studies Completed for AFFH Rezoning
• Residential Feasibility Analysis
• Fiscal Impact Analysis
• Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
• Level of Service Analysis
7

Page 367 of 397 ends

Feasibility Analysis
• Higher density multifamily development not financially feasible in current conditions
• Townhomes/garden-style apartments more feasible at lower densities, e.g., 20-30 dua
• Structured parking costs much greater than surface parking • Property values are higher with existing commercial uses • Tax credits may make below market rate projects more
feasible
8

Page 368 of 397 ends

Fiscal Impact Analysis
• Three sites used as case studies (Kmart, 2975 Treat, Clayton Faire) to test conversion to residential uses:
• Actual fiscal outcomes cannot be predicted with certainty • Likely increase demand for City services, especially Police and Public Works • Additional property tax and revenue gains not expected to fully offset the higher service costs
• Still reasons to consider residential uses including meeting housing requirements and needs
9

Page 369 of 397 ends

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
• Assumed a scenario of 2,416 additional housing (all 7 sites):
• Overlay district is expected to include ~1,000 new homes • Additional homes exceed established thresholds
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures
recommended to be included in development standards to
help reduce VMT
10

Page 370 of 397 ends

Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
• Assumed a scenario of 2,416 additional housing (all 7 sites):
• Overlay district is expected to include ~1,000 new homes • Four intersections would be affected:
• Ygnacio Valley Road & Cowell Road
• Ygnacio Valley Road & Ayers Road
• Bailey Road & Concord Boulevard
• Treat Boulevard & Cowell Road
11

Page 371 of 397 ends

Sites Under
Consideration
Sites recommended for
Overlay District:
• 1. Kmart
• 2. Clayton Faire
• 8. Palm Lake Apartments
Sites not recommended:
• 3. Staples, CVS, Auto repair, Burger
King
• 6. Dental Offices at Treat & Oak
Grove
• 16. Vacant Site at Kirker Pass &
Myrtle
• 18. Residential Site at 1539 Kirker
Pass
1212
16 1
2 3
86 18
Ygnacio Valley Rd.

Page 372 of 397 ends

Kmart (recommended)
• Located in a High Resource
Area
• Current zoning allows 24
units per acre; 188 units
currently allowed
• Increases to 471 units with
rezoning
13

Page 373 of 397 ends

Clayton Faire (recommended)
• Located in a High Resource Area
• Current zoning allows 24 units
per acre; 99 units currently
allowed
• Increases to 248 units with
rezoning
14

Page 374 of 397 ends

Palm Lake Apartments (recommended)
• Located in a High Resource Area
• Located in Racially Concentrated
Area of Affluence
• Current zoning allows 32 units
per acre; 300 units existing, 396
units currently allowed
• Increases to 600 units with
rezoning
15

Page 375 of 397 ends

Staples, CVS, Auto, BK (not recommended)
• Does not meet Housing Element
goals
• Not located in a High Resource
Area or Racially Concentrated
Area of Affluence
• Extra housing potential but
would not count toward 1,000-
unit goal
16 Clayton Rd.

Treat Blvd.

Bel Air Dr

Page 376 of 397 ends

Dental Offices (not recommended)
• Located in a High Resource Area
and Racially Concentrated Area
of Affluence
• Property owner recently
expressed interest in rezoning
• Property not likely to develop
during this cycle
17

Page 377 of 397 ends

Vacant Site at Kirker/Myrtle (not recommended)
• Located in a High Resource Area
• Property owner has expressed
interest in rezoning and
submitting a development
proposal
• Overhead power lines limits
development potential
18

Page 378 of 397 ends

1539 Kirker Pass (not recommended)
• Located in a High Resource Area
• Property owner has not
expressed interest in rezoning
• Mt. Diablo Creek limits
development potential
• Potential cultural and
environmental constraints
19

Page 379 of 397 ends

General Plan and Municipal Code Amendments
• Land Use Element of General Plan
• 18.15.020 Zoning Map and Districts
• 18.25.040 Planned District Zoning
• 18.40.020 Office and Commercial Districts
• 18.120 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay
• 18.410.030 Zoning Clearance
• 18.455.070 Findings
20

Page 380 of 397 ends

Overlay Zoning
• Existing zoning stays intact
• Preserves existing allowable non-residential uses
• No mandate – optional for property owners to build housing 21

Page 381 of 397 ends

Development Standards
• Density range of 20-60 units per acre
• Allows single-family attached and
multifamily
• Ground floor residential allowed
• Projects meeting criteria are allowed
by-right
• 40-foot building height
• 10-foot front, side, and rear setbacks
• Transitional requirements
22 Concord Objective Design Standards

Page 382 of 397 ends

Planning Commission Action
November 19, 2025:
• In a 3-1 vote the Planning Commission recommended
Council approval of amendments for the staff recommended sites
23

Page 383 of 397 ends

Consequences of Not Completing Program
• Decertification and Builders Remedy
• Legal and Financial Risks
• Legal action
• Fines
• Loss of funding
24

Page 384 of 397 ends

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
SB 131
• CEQA requires evaluation of environmental impacts
• Held February 19, 2025 “Scoping Session” kicked off EIR process • SB 131
• Signed into law on June 30, 2025, so took effect immediately • Makes rezoning for a Housing Element program statutorily exempt from CEQA requirements
25

Page 385 of 397 ends

Implications of Pursuing EIR After SB 131
• Project delays
• Increased litigation risk
• Potential scrutiny from HCD
26

Page 386 of 397 ends

Council Action
Adopt a Resolution amending the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, and 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), 18.40 (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.
27

Page 387 of 397 ends

Next Steps
• Final adoption on February 24
28

Page 388 of 397 ends

Questions and
Public
Comment
29

Page 389 of 397 ends

From: joe Schaeffer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:10 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: AFFH - Kmart Site

Good afternoon City Staff, City Council and Planning Commission,

I am writing to formally express my opposition, again, to the proposed zoning densities at the Kmart and Clayton Faire sites as it relates to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Overlay District. The 60du is unacceptable.

This proposal would introduce high-density development into an established low-density area, undermining the very qualities that have led residents to choose to live in this part of Concord.

The fiscal implications of the proposal indicate that the estimated revenues for are not likely to cover the increased demand on city services. It is noted in the Staff Report:
‘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. ’ Local schools are already significantly impacted. We are unable to provide affordable before- and after- school care on campus, and there is no available space to support additional programs or activities. As a parent of a child attending Silverwood Elementary, I am deeply concerned about the strain additional high-density housing will place on already overextended Correspondence Received after
3 p.m. on January 27, 2026
Agenda Item 6.a

Page 390 of 397 ends

educational resources. This is one data point about schools, but this same concern echoes for our other City services.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose including the Kmart and Clayton Faire sites in this AFFH cycle. The Housing Element/AFFH needs can be accomplished at reduced densities.

Thank you for your time and for considering these concerns as part of the official record.

Best regards,
Joe

Page 391 of 397 ends

From: breanna rutherford <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:34 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: AFFH-Kmart Site

Good afternoon City Staff, City Council and Planning Commission,

This proposal would introduce high-density development into an established low-density area, undermining the very qualities that have led residents to choose to live in this part of Concord.

Page 392 of 397 ends

educational resources. This is one data point about schools, but this same concern echoes for our other City services.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose including the KMart and Clayton Faire sites in this AFFH cycle. The Housing Element/AFFH needs can be accomplished at reduced densities.

Thank you for your time and for considering these concerns as part of the official record.

Thank you,
Breanna Rutherford

Page 393 of 397 ends

From: Yini Yu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:44 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: AFFH Project

Good afternoon City Staff, City Council and Planning Commission,

This proposal would introduce high-density development into an established low-density area, undermining the very qualities that have led residents to choose to live in this part of Concord.

Page 394 of 397 ends

educational resources. This is one data point about schools, but this same concern echoes for our other City services.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose including the KMart and Clayton Faire sites in this AFFH cycle. The Housing Element/AFFH needs can be accomplished at reduced densities.

Thank you for your time and for considering these concerns as part of the official record.

Page 395 of 397 ends

From: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 7:15 AM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Meeting - 1/27/26

*This email is being shared with all Councilmembers.

Council,
See comment from the meeting last night below.

Respectfully,

Wendy McAuley
Executive Assistant
Office of the City Manager & City Council
City of Concord | www.cityofconcord.org
(925) 671-3038 | [email protected]

Page 396 of 397 ends

From: Gayle T <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 9:28 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Meeting - 1/27/26

Hi City Council,

I appreciate Pablo's comments and agree with him, especially regarding Palm Lake, and Kmart property.

Gayle Tornberg

Page 397 of 397 ends

Concord City CouncilJanuary 27, 2026

Concord City Council
January 27, 2026