Appendix Tables
Appendix A:
Below Market Housing Values and
Costs
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
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
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.
Appendix B:
Case Study Site Plans
City of Concord Rezoning Project | 1
Case Study / Site Tests
2024
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Draft 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
Concord Rezoning Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #231077
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.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
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.
Concord Rezoning Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #231077
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.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
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.
Concord Rezoning Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #231077
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.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
• 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.
Concord Rezoning Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #231077
• 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).
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
Fiscal Impact Analysis Tables
10
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Fiscal Impact Analysis Tables
20
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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). 26
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
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
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
Fiscal Impact Analysis Tables
30
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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). 36
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
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
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
APPENDIX TABLE A-1
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey
40
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
?×
?×
%&p(
%&p(
A¿
Diamo
ndBl
vd
Galin
do St
Olivera Rd
Mead
ow Ln
ConcordAv
Market St
YgnacioValley Rd
So
lano Wy
Monument B
lvd
C
rystyl
Ranch Rd
Kirk
er Pass Rd
AyersRd
Arnold IndustrialWy
Treat Blvd
Port Chicag
o
Hw
y
Clayton Rd
Concord Blvd
Oak Grove Rd
Bailey Rd
Cowell Rd
Willow
Pass
Rd
AFFH Overlay District
I
0 0.75 1.50.38
Miles
S:\MapRequest\CED\AFFHMap\AFFHMap.aprx
Map Created: 1/29/2026
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
AFFH Overlay District
City Limit
Attachment 8
AFFH Alternative Programs Considered
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
• 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.
Attachment 10
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2026 9:16 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment for Feb 24 2026 meeting
The last attachment for the upcoming Tues Feb 24 2026 meeting called "Supporting Document for Attachment 10 - Correspondence(25091)" (see my first attachment) clearly states that the owners of the property at 5350 Clayton Road, where the thrift shop is located, are not interested in having their properties rezoned. The first letter was from Oct 2025, which should've meant the property would not have been included since then.
My understanding is that the approval on Tues Feb 24 is NOT going to be by individual property. (see attachment 2) I ask that approval of Clayton Faire exclude 5350 Clayton Rd.
Assessors Parcel Number 120-081-018
If possible please include in the attachments for this approval meeting any correspondence from owners or their property managers of the other sites being rezoned. I would think it would be imperative to the approval process to know there is a desire to build affordable housing for the properties being rezoned.
I have attached a letter from the Property Manager of Clayton Faire but it is a year old. (see third attachment)
Thank you for your assistance. See you at the meeting.
Best Regards,
Jackie Buckland
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 6.a
February 24, 2026
Attachment 10
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 11:10 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: AFFH Meeting
My name is Byron Dahl. I have lived in the Ayers Ranch of The Valley since 1985. I do not support these projects, but realize this entire process is just an exercise in futility as with the passage of AB 330, there is nothing that can be done to prevent these projects from moving forward. In addition, the removal of the requirement to conduct an EIR just makes the matter even worse.
I realize there is a severe housing shortage and am willing to do my part to help, but lets look at the impacts these projects will have on The Valley. The K Mart site will develop 471 units. Clayton Faire 248, 5390 Myrtle 60 and 1539 Kirker Pass Rd 56. In addition to these new projects, don't forget the Bird Project at the intersection of Kirker Pass and Concord Blvd. They will add forty two units. That will add 877 units with the average unit housing approximately three individuals for a total of at least 2600 new residents to the area. Assuming only one vehicle per unit, probably grossly underestimated, that will probably add 1000 more vehicles to the area.
There are only a three exits out of the Valley. They are Kirker Pass RD/Ygnacio Valley Road, Clayton Road and Concord Blvd. All three of these egress paths are already totally congested. Adding that many more vehicles will make egress from the area that much more time consuming and frustrating. Looking at Concord Blvd, there are approximately ten schools ranging from pre schools to high schools from Kirker Pass Rd to Downtown Concord.. The added traffic on Concord Blvd will be dangerous for the kids and parents trying to make there way to and from school.
This particular area of Concord is already somewhat retail starved. With the addition of probably realistically 3000 new residents, there will not be enough support services such as restaurants, daycare and general retail. I don't see anything in the plans to remedy that problem.
Lastly, assuming one school age child per unit, that will add close to 1000 new students to an already overloaded school system.
As mentioned earlier in this posting, I do support more housing, but give me a break. You're way overloading this area!
Respectfully submitted,
Byron Dahl
From: Basil Yeung <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 12:42 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Questions Regarding Affirmatively Furthering Housing Overlay District Project - Public Hearing on 2/24
Dear City Council Members,
I have a few questions regarding the Affirmatively Furthering Housing Overlay District project:
1. How were these locations identified and selected for inclusion in the Affirmatively Furthering Housing Overlay District?
2. Is there an appeal process in place if residents disagree with the City Council’s decision?
3. Will residents in Concord bear any costs associated with this project?
4. How will the project impact residential property values in the identified areas?
5. What is the anticipated timeline for this project, including when it is expected to begin and conclude?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Basil Yeung
From: Patrick Sullivan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 3:22 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: February 24, City Council Meeting Regarding the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Program.
Sent from my iPhone
Mayor, City Council, and City Staff
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. I am out of town and can not attend the public meeting.
I am Patrick Sullivan and I am part of the management team at the Palm Lake Apartments at 780 Oak Grove Rd. For over a year I have attended meetings and followed along with the process of finalizing the details of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program.
During this year I was impressed with the amount of hard work put in by staff and the insightful comments made by the community. After all this work I feel it was wrong for the city council to arbitrarily change the number of units recommended for my parcel. State law requires cities to participate in this program. In this program cities must show the intent to provide the opportunity for more housing to be built. The state can impose serious sanctions on cities that do not comply with this law.
We now know that the owners of the K Mart lot, the lot allocated for the most housing units, is planning to build townhouse condominiums on their lot. They will build far fewer than the 471 units recommended for their lot. If you take away our recommended 300 units and only allow 165 units, I hope state regulators will approve Concords AFFH program.
Do to the councils recent negative comments on our parcel we have consulted with our Architect. We now have a scaled back version of our project. We now hope to build just two buildings. One fronting on to Treat Blvd and one fronting on to Oak Grove Rd. There will not be any construction near the single family homes on the other two sides of our property. To reconfigure our project like this 165 units still won’t be feasible. To make this revised project we would need approval for 190 units.
I hope you would reconsider your previous decision.
Thank you,
Patrick Sullivan
From: Steve Bayles <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 8:01 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning Plan
City Council,
The rezoning plan adds additional traffic on already heavily over burdened commute routes. This plan should focus on sites that are close to public transit and not on sites that dramatically impact and change the nature of existing neighborhoods.
Respectfully,
Steven Bayles
Sent from my Galaxy
From: Benavente, Pablo <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 9:07 AM
To: kasperprado8 <[email protected]>
Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 02.24.26 Public Comment - City’s General Plan Land Use Element Hello - Thank you for taking the time to write and for sharing your concerns. I hear the frustration in your message, especially around parking, traffic, noise, and safety. Those are real quality of life issues, and they matter.
The City Council is not moving forward with 300 units at Palm Lake. At our last meeting, after hearing extensive community input, we agreed that 165 units would be more suitable for that site (still subject to today’s council approval). The feedback we received, including concerns like the ones you outlined, directly shaped that decision. This is where we ultimately landed after weighing all of it carefully.
I’d like to mention that, according to the property owner, the existing will not be demolish if they decide to build. Those homes would remain, and they are subject to local rent control and just cause protections. That means current residents cannot simply be displaced without legal cause. Protecting residents, is important to me.
This process is also driven by state housing law. The City is required by the State of California to identify sites that can accommodate housing at different income levels. We do not have the option of opting out. What we can do, and what we did here, is make adjustments based on local realities and community feedback.
I know this is a sensitive topic. Please continue to stay engaged. Your voice, and the voices of your neighbors, absolutely influenced the outcome here.
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
On Feb 24, 2026, at 8:34 AM, kasperprado8 <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor Nakamura, Council Members, and Assistant City Manager Ezell,
I kindly request that you do not rezone Palm Lake when there are more suitable sites available.
Rezoning will have significant negative impacts on us. We struggle with limited parking, persistent noise, safety concerns, and heavy traffic congestion. The 300 units house low- and fixed-income families. Further concentration of residents will diminish quality of life and could displace those dependent on this housing.
Let me stress again, there are more suitable, underutilized sites, and Palm Lake is already densely populated.
Thank you for your time and for considering my petition,
Long time Concord and Palm Lake resident.
From: Warren Dreher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 11:58 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Warren Dreher <[email protected]> Subject: AFFH City Council Meeting February, 2026
To the Concord City Council
Regarding the proposed rezoning under AFFH of the following properties; AFFH 60 units at Kirker Pass and Myrtle on 1.2 acres
AFFH 56 units at 1539 Kirker Pass on .8 acre
• These proposed sites are within 100 yards of each other • No infrastructure to support either
• No Environmental Impact Report for either one
• No transit, one bus line
• Commute traffic is already backed up for miles morning and evening on Kirker Pass and Concord Boulevard
• Kirker Pass and Myrtle property is covered with enormous high voltage power lines Both of these proposed development sites are within 100 yards of the Bird Subdivision which is adding 42 two story 3500 sq ft houses on five acres at Concord Blvd and Kirker Pass Road. Each house has a one car garage. Neighboring streets will feel the impact of other vehicles.
• No Environmental Impact Report for this development either. • One road in and one road out onto Concord Blvd.
• Concord Blvd is only two lanes at this point. One in each direction. • Vehicles from all three sites will heavily impact Concord Blvd. Commute traffic is already backed up for miles morning and evening on Kirker Pass and Concord Boulevard
These developments will eliminate all green spaces and wetlands within this neighborhood. There is currently no public park within walking distance of this neighborhood.
Warren Dreher
Concord resident for 36 years
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 1:46 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Meeting on housing
As a long time Concord resident, I do have questions about the new proposed housing density in my area. Why will building that many housing units be considered in keeping with the neighborhoods which are primarily single family homes? Won't this add an extreme amount of traffic congestion? How about all the housing propsed for the naval weapons station-why can't that land be used instead of crammimg so many units into the current proposed areas? Also did you really have to schedule this meeting on the night of the state of the union speech by the President? I would appreciate some answers.
Thank you,
Beverly Hall
From: Rikkelman and Rikkelman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 2:28 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: 2/24/26 Public Hearing, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Program
Dear City Council Members,
I realize that the City of Concord is beholding to the State of California to meet the mandated requirements of the subject Program. As I have previously stated with other public comment re the subject program, the number of required units needs to be SPREAD across the study area. Spreading the number of units across the study area will minimize the potential impact to environment, such as traffic.
To further define, spreading the number of units across the study area does not mean just placing the units in different Districts that then abut against each other. How can you consider this spreading the units across the geographic footprint of the study area?? All you have done is to spread the resident complaints across several Districts so that not one Council Member has all complaints lodged with him/her.
The way I am reading this . . .
1. Site 1, Kmart (471 potential housing units)
2. Site 2, Clayton Faire (248 potential housing units)
3. Site 8, Palm Lakes (165 potential housing units (reduced from the 300 recommended by staff and the Planning Commission))
4. Site 16, 5390 Myrtle (60 potential housing units, estimated by staff based on existing onsite constraints)
5. Site 18, 1539 Kirker Pass (56 potential housing units)
. . . you are proposing to place 835 UNITS in the greater Clayton Valley corridor and only a mere 165 units on the other side of the study area (Treat/Oak Grove Palm Lakes area).
That’s nuts!! Reviewing agenda items from other meetings, I surmise that this is because the Oak Road/Treat/Palm Lakes area people became the squeaky wheel to Council, citing traffic issues, citing density/building height concerns, writing letters, so you backed down.
This is completely UNFAIR to the residents in the greater Clayton Valley corridor.
We have traffic issues, too.
We have density concerns, too.
We have building height concerns, too.
Maybe you don’t hear from many of us anymore because frankly, speaking for myself, fatigue is setting in, as is discouragement to be listened to as a vital member of the Concord community.
In the Clayton Valley corridor, we cannot breathe on our roads during morning and evening commute times. It is not only neighborhood traffic. It is traffic from those commuting from eastern Contra Costa County and the San Joaquin Valley who choose to not use the freeways but use our local streets as their cut-throughs to get to home or work.
I urge you to reconsider the number of units that you are proposing to place on the greater Clayton Valley footprint/side of Concord.
I urge you to consider building height and densities. Please consider if you were a senior living in a single-family home on the backside of the old K-Mart . . . think of the safety concerns you will have with a tall building of tenants peering into your home.
This is just totally unfair to our side of Concord to bear the burden of the State mandate while other parts of Concord become free from impact.
Thank you,
Anna Rikkelman
From: Teresa Quijada <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 2:47 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: 2/24/26 Public Hearing, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Program
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Teresa Quijada <[email protected]>
Date: February 24, 2026 at 2:41:38 PM PST
To: Laura Hoffmeister <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: 2/24/26 Public Hearing, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Program
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rikkelman and Rikkelman <[email protected]>
Date: February 24, 2026 at 2:28:35 PM PST
To: Teresa Quijada <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 2/24/26 Public Hearing, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Program
I Teresa Quijada who lives in this Clayton Concord area I am in agreement with Anna R. This is not acceptable and is extremely unfair to this community and especially to those families whom purchased their homes at a VERY HIGH PRICE !! !! I urge you to do better! Thank you.
Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing Program
Aaron Sage
Planning Manager
February 24, 2026
1
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Program
• State-mandated initiative (Assembly Bill 686, 2018)
• Address disparities in access to opportunities and promote equitable housing distribution
• Satisfied by Housing Element Objective 8.6, including these criteria:
• Rezone 20 acres of land in “high resource areas”
• Increase maximum density to 60 units per acre
• Create capacity for 1,000 housing units
2
Extensive Community Engagement
• Proactive outreach began in March 2024
• 7 community workshops (one in Spanish)
• 14 stakeholder / community partner meetings
• 3 online surveys
• 3 City Council meetings
• 2 Planning Commission meetings
• 1 joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting
• Interested parties list with over 1,400 contacts
• City webpage: www.cityofconcord.org/AFFH
3
Recent Actions
• November 19: Planning Commission recommends three
AFFH sites totaling 1,019 units
• January 27: Council considers Commission’s recommendation and directs staff to bring back revised package with two additional sites and reduced units at Palm Lake site
4
• 1. Kmart
• 2. Clayton Faire
• 8. Palm Lake Apartments
January 27 Proposal
• 16. 5390 Myrtle Dr.
• 18. 1539 Kirker Pass Rd.
Added by Council
5 161
2 8
18 Ygnacio Valley Rd.
AFFH Sites
6 AFFH Site Capacity
Site # Site Name Potential New Housing Units
Current
Zoning
1/27
Rezoning
Proposal
2/24
Rezoning
Proposal
1 Kmart 188 471 471
2 Clayton Faire 99 248 248
8 Palm Lake Apts. 96 300 165
16 5390 Myrtle Dr. 20 -- 60
18 1539 Kirker Pass Rd. 33 -- 56
TOTAL 436 1,019 1,000
(plus 300 existing units)
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
• 18.30.020 and 040 Residential Districts (added per Council direction)
• 18.40.020 Office and Commercial Districts
• 18.120 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Overlay
• 18.410.030 Zoning Clearance
• 18.455.070 Findings
7
Council Action
1. Adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element; and
2. Introduce an Ordinance amending the Concord Municipal Code by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. 8
Next Steps
• Ordinance adoption (2nd reading) on March 10
9
Questions and
Public
Comment
10
Kmart (considered January 27)
• Located in a High Resource
Area
• Current zoning allows 24
units per acre; 188 units
currently allowed
• Increases to 471 units with
rezoning
11
Clayton Faire (considered January 27)
• Located in a High Resource Area
• Current zoning allows 24 units
per acre; 99 units currently
allowed
• Increases to 248 units with
rezoning
12
Palm Lake Apartments (considered January 27)
• 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
• New capacity increases to 465
units (previously 600) with
rezoning
13
1539 Kirker Pass (added January 27)
• Located in a High Resource Area
• Current zoning allows 32 units
per acre; 33 units currently
allowed
• Increases to 56 units with
rezoning
14
Vacant Site at Kirker/Myrtle (added January 27)
• Located in a High Resource Area
• Current zoning allows 10 units
per acre; 20 units currently
allowed
• Increases to 60 units with
rezoning
15
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
16 Concord Objective Design Standards
February 10, 2026
The Honorable Alex Padilla
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Adam Schiff
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier
United States House of Representatives
2134 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable John Garamendi
United States House of Representatives
2428 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Josh Harder
United States House of Representatives
209 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District – Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor (MABR) and Densified Activated Sludge (DAS) Bay Area Regional Wastewater Demonstration Site, FY2027 Community Project Funding Request
Dear California Delegation,
On behalf of the City of Concord, I respectfully urge your support for Central Contra Costa Sanitary District’s (Central San’s) request for federal funding for the Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor (MABR) and Densified Activated Sludge (DAS) Bay Area Regional Wastewater Demonstration Site.
In 2024, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board introduced new regulations requiring all Bay Area wastewater agencies to reduce nitrogen discharges by 40% from 2022 levels by 2034. Meeting this stringent regulation will require significant upgrades to treatment facilities across the region, at an estimated price tag of $11-13 billion for Bay Area residents. Central San is piloting innovative treatment technologies that could enable wastewater agencies to meet these new regulatory requirements at a significantly lower cost than conventional methods.
Central San completed a highly successful, award-winning MABR pilot project in 2024 and is conducting a large- scale MABR demonstration test this year. The funding request will support the addition of DAS to the demonstration site in 2026-27. MABR and DAS are complementary, cutting-edge technologies that could significantly enhance nitrogen reduction within the existing treatment plant footprint, minimizing the need for expensive new infrastructure.
The MABR and DAS Bay Area Regional Wastewater Demonstration Site will be a pioneering initiative in California and one of the first of its kind in the country. Given the promising results of the MABR pilot test, we’re
7.a
optimistic about the potential of these innovative technologies to enhance environmental protection while delivering cost savings for our residents. Additionally, by generating and sharing real-world data, this demonstration site will help to guide and optimize future implementation of MABR and DAS technologies, both regionally and nationally.
As you consider FY2027 community funding priorities, I respectfully request your support for Central San’s request to fund the Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor (MABR) and Densified Activated Sludge (DAS) Bay Area Regional Wastewater Demonstration Site.
Sincerely,
Laura M. Nakamura
Mayor
City of Concord
cc: Concord City Council
Valerie Barone, City Manager
Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
Joelle Fockler, City Clerk