Pleasant Hill City Council
May 16, 2022

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MAY 16, 2022
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM

VIA TELECONFERENCING
Watch on YouTube at: www.pleasanthillca.org/councilmeeting To provide comments via teleconference, click on the meeting link and enter the meeting ID and Passcode:

Meeting link: www.zoom.us
Meeting ID: 865 4619 9025
Passcode: 921018
The meeting ID and Passcode will change each meeting. See more information on Public Participation Options below.

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 1 May 16, 2022
City Offices, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Telephone (925) 671-5267 MAYOR MICHAEL G. HARRIS COUNCILMEMBER KEN CARLSON

VICE MAYOR TIMOTHY FLAHERTY COUNCILMEMBER SUE NOACK

COUNCILMEMBER MATTHEW RINN
The meeting will be held via teleconference as allowed pursuant to City Council resolution. Options for observing the meeting and participating in public comment are provided below.

Public Communication. The public is welcome to address the City Council on items on the Consent Calendar or other items not listed on the agenda but within the Council’s jurisdiction during the general Public Comment period. There is an opportunity for the public to comment on other agenda items at the time they are discussed.

Public Participation Options
1) Watch the Meeting via Youtube Livestream
Watch the meeting live on YouTube at: www.pleasanthillca.org/councilmeeting. 2) Submit Written Comments Before the Meeting
Send written comments to [email protected] (comments received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council before the meeting). 3) If You Wish to Make a Public Comment During the Meeting When the Mayor invites the public for general comment or comments on specific agenda items, please use the "Raise hand" feature in Zoom (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) which will alert staff that you wish to speak, and you will be invited to speak when it is your turn. Note that there may be multiple hearing items on the same agenda. There are two ways to join the meeting and make a public comment during the meeting:

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 May 16, 2022
a. Go to www.Zoom.us using your computer and entering the Meeting ID and Passcode provided near the top of this page. You will be placed into the meeting as an Attendee. You will not be seen or heard until it is your turn to speak.
b. Or by calling (669) 900-6833 and enter the Meeting ID and Passcode. Dial *9 to virtually “Raise Hand” in Zoom
We ask that you state your name and city of residence for the record when you start your comments.

When you are making a Public Comment during the meeting, please:
1) Try to be in a room or space without a lot of background noise. 2) Mute your microphone until it is your turn to speak, then mute your speakers while speaking. 3) Have a strong, reliable internet connection or cell phone signal.

If, due to a disability, a reasonable accommodation is needed to participate in this meeting, please contact the ADA Coordinator 24 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 671-5221 or via California Relay at 711.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection by contacting the City Clerk’s office at [email protected] or calling 925-671-5221.

City Council Meeting Recordings and Broadcasts.

Recorded City Council meetings are broadcast on Comcast Channel 28, Wave Channel 1029, and AT&T UVerse Channel 99 on the Wednesday following the meeting. Video recordings are generally available within 48 hours of the meeting, and may be viewed on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/MeetingVideos and selecting “City Council” from the meeting groups.

Agendas are Available for Review on the City Hall official noticing bulletin board (100 Gregory Lane), at the Pleasant Hill Police Department (330 Civic Drive), the Pleasant Hill Senior Center (233 Gregory Lane), and on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/agendas. Agenda packets will be available to the public on the City’s website at the same time as they are made available to the City Council.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PRESENTATIONS

3.1 Award of Appreciation to David Mascaro for Service on the Planning Commission 2002-2022

3.2 Introduction of Jihawna Johnson, Planning Commissioner; and Reintroduction of Lydia Gali, Education Commissioner

3.3 Update on Contra Costa Transportation Authority Programs and Projects by Timothy Haile

3.4 Proclamation Designating May as Mental Health Awareness Month City Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 May 16, 2022

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
(Brief updates on pending City business without discussion by the City Council.)

5. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

5.1 Reports from Councilmembers on Meetings or Conferences Attended at City Expense (A) Contra Costa Mayors Conference held via Teleconference on May 5, 2022 (B) Other Meetings Attended at City Expense

5.2 Announcements from Councilmembers

6. PUBLIC COMMENT:

The public is welcome at this time to address the City Council on items on the Consent Calendar or other items not listed on the agenda but within the Council’s jurisdiction. There is an opportunity for the public to comment on other agenda items at the time they are discussed.

Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. To participate in the teleconferenced meeting, please see the Public Participation Options above.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under “Consent Calendar” are considered by the Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate Council discussion of these items unless requested by a Councilmember prior to the time Council votes on the motion to adopt.

7.1 Approve Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of May 2, 2022

7.2 Approve Checks Dated: April 29, 2022; May 6, 2022

7.3 Reaffirm Resolution No. 33-22 Approving Continued Teleconferenced, Hybrid or In-Person Meetings of All City Legislative Bodies Pursuant to the Provisions of AB 361

7.4 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Approving Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments and to Provide for Public Hearing and Notice in Assessment District No. 20 for Fiscal Year 2022/2023

7.5 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Approving Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments and to Provide for Public Hearing and Notice in Assessment District No. 22 for Fiscal Year 2022/2023

7.6 Approve the Mayor Sending a Letter of Support for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority 680 Forward Grant Application

8. PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

8.1 Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Approving a Preferred Land Use Alternative for the Preparation of the Update of the General Plan and Housing Element

8.2 Adopt a Resolution No. ___-22 Authorizing a Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of 2023 Active Transportation Program (Cycle 6) Funds

9. ADJOURNMENT
Next City Council Meeting: June 6, 2022

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 16, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: APPROVE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 2, 2022

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve the minutes.

ATTACHMENT(S):

May 2, 2022 – Tentative Minutes
Prepared by: Carol Wu, City Clerk Recorder

7.1 Packet Pg. 4

MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING – CITY COUNCIL
May 2, 2022
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 May 2, 2022
Mayor Harris called a Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 7:00 PM via teleconference, complete proceedings of which were electronically recorded. The meeting agenda was posted on the City Hall outdoor bulletin board at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA on April 28, 2022, by Deputy City Clerk Juanita Davalos.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Michael G. Harris Mayor Present
Timothy M. Flaherty Vice Mayor Present (arrived 7:01 p.m.) Ken Carlson Councilmember Present
Sue Noack Councilmember Present
Matthew Rinn Councilmember Present

3. PRESENTATIONS

3.1 Award of Appreciation to Rachel Anderson for Service on the Commission on Aging from 2011 – 2022
Mayor Harris presented the Award of Appreciation to Rachel Anderson for her service on the Commission on Aging from 2011-2022. Ms. Anderson thanked the City Council for supporting the Commission on Aging and encouraged the public to volunteer for the commission.

3.2 Contra Costa Fire Protection District Update
Chris Bachman, Assistant Fire Chief of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, delivered a slideshow presentation which included a comparison between 2020 and 2021 incidents by type; an annexation update and consolidation of fire services; fire service improvements and technology advances. Assistant Fire Chief Bachman reported that the wildfire threat remains high and recommended fire prevention measures. Assistant Fire Chief Bachman said that Pleasant Hill had the lowest numbers of incident increases and thanked the Code Enforcement staff and the Pleasant Hill Police Department for their work.

Mayor Harris and Vice Mayor Flaherty thanked Assistant Fire Chief Bachman. Vice Mayor Flaherty requested a copy of the presentation.

3.3 Proclamation Designating May as Building Safety Month Mayor Harris read and presented the proclamation to Geoff Simmons, Chief Building Official.

Mr. Simmons acknowledged the hard work by the building safety professionals in the City.

Mr. Simmons reported that he will be present at Off the Grid on May 11th and 25th to discuss building safety with the public.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
Attachment: May 2, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 May 2, 2022

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:

June Catalano, City Manager, reported that:
 the Golden State Warriors game can be viewed on a large screen television at Off the Grid on May 11, 2022;
 the summer Concerts by the Lake will begin in a few weeks;  the Civic Action Commission is planning for Community Service Day to be held on September 24, 2022; and
 the Local Government Academy will be held in-person beginning September 2022.

5. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

5.1 Reports from Councilmembers on Meetings or Conferences Attended at City Expense
Councilmember Noack reported that she sits on the Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee for the League of California Cities and attended a recent meeting.

5.2 Announcements from Councilmembers
Councilmember Rinn announced that the Relay for Life sponsored by the American Cancer Society will be held at Pleasant Hill Park on Saturday, May 7, 2022.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Harris opened public comment.

There was no public comment.

Mayor Harris closed public comment.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion (Noack/Carlson) to Approve all consent items excluding items 7.1 and 7.6, which were pulled for further discussion, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris

7.2 Approve Checks Dated: April 15, 2022; April 22, 2022

7.3 Accept Update on Contra Costa Transportation Authority and TRANSPAC

7.4 Approve Appointment Recommendations to the Commission on Aging, Education Commission, and Planning Commission

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: May 2, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 May 2, 2022

7.5 Adopt Resolution No. 29-22 Accepting the 2021 Signage & Striping Project (Various Locations), Project No. 04-21, as Complete and Authorizing the City Engineer to Issue and Record a Notice of Completion

7.1 Approve Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of April 18, 2022 - Item Pulled from Consent
Councilmember Noack requested that item 7.1 be pulled from the Consent Calendar for a correction as stated on the record.

Motion (Noack/Rinn) to Approve item 7.1 corrected, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris

7.6 Adopt Resolution No. 30-22 Rescinding and Replacing Resolution No. 26-22 and Approving Participation in the Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust Program, Establishing the City of Pleasant Hill Pension Rate Stabilization Program Funding and Withdrawal Policy, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) to Establish and Administer a Section 115 Trust -Item Pulled from Consent Councilmember Rinn recused himself from voting on item 7.6.

Motion (Carlson/Noack) to Approve item 7.6, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Harris
RECUSED: Rinn

8. PUBLICWORKS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

8.1 Adopt Resolution No. 31-22 Accepting the Oak Park and Monticello Improvement Project No. 02-20 as Complete and Authorizing the City Engineer to Issue and Record a Notice of Completion
Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer, summarized the background and provided an overview of the Oak Park and Monticello Improvement Project. Mr. Kanagasundaram explained that the project was funded with Measure K funds and a cost sharing agreement between the City and its agency partners. Mr. Kanagasundaram described the construction highlights.

Councilmembers expressed their appreciation to Mr. Kanagasundaram, Deidre Castillo, Senior Civil Engineer, and staff for their hard work on the project during the challenging times.

Mr. Kanagasundaram thanked the City Council for the recognition and expressed his appreciation to the parties who helped on the project.

Mayor Harris opened public comment.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: May 2, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 May 2, 2022
There was no public comment.

Mayor Harris closed public comment.

Motion (Noack/Rinn) to Approve item 8.1, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris

8.2 Adopt Resolution No. 32-22 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Change Order for BHM Construction Inc.'s Contract for Additional Scope of Work for the New Pleasant Hill Library
Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer, provided an update on the new Pleasant Hill Library construction project. He explained how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the project and the mitigating actions that were taken. Mr. Kanagasundaram explained the fiscal impact of the change order to the BHM Construction contract. Mr. Kanagasundaram reported on the additional scope of work to be completed and noted that the project still within budget.

Mayor Harris thanked Mr. Kanagasundaram for his work and expressed his excitement for the grand opening of the new library.

Vice Mayor Flaherty asked about any additional change orders, which was answered by Mr. Kanagasundaram.

Mayor Harris opened public comment.

There was no public comment.

Mayor Harris closed public comment.

Councilmember Noack complimented the project team for working through the challenges of the pandemic and for keeping the project within budget.

Motion (Noack/Carlson) to Approve item 8.2, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris

8.3 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Approving a Preferred Land Use Alternative for the Preparation of the Update of the General Plan and Housing Element This item is continued to the meeting of May 16, 2022

9. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

9.1 Adopt Resolution No. 33-22 Allowing for In-Person, Hybrid Teleconferenced or Fully Teleconferenced Meetings of All City Legislative Bodies Pursuant to the Provisions of AB 361

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: May 2, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 May 2, 2022
Janet Coleson, City Attorney, briefly summarized State law AB 361, and the City Council’s direction to staff for a resolution providing the most flexibility in safely holding public meetings of the City’s legislative bodies. Ms. Coleson explained the possible different meeting formats.

Danielle Habr, Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk, reported on how other local cities are conducting their meetings.

Mayor Harris, Ms. Coleson, and June Catalano, City Manager, discussed the logistics of preparing for in-person meetings and the need to hold practice sessions.

Mayor Harris opened public comment.

There was no public comment.

Mayor Harris closed public comment.

Motion (Carlson/Flaherty) to Approve item 9.1, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris

10. OTHER

10.1 Adopt Resolution No. 34-22 Recognizing June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning (LGBTQ+) Pride Month in the City of Pleasant Hill Councilmember Carlson thanked Mayor Harris and Juanita Davalos, Administrative Analyst, for bringing this item forward on the agenda. Councilmember Carlson commented on the challenges faced by the LGBTQ+ community.

Janet Coleson, City Attorney, reported on a recent United States Supreme Court ruling on flying flags on city flagpoles.

Mayor Harris asked for a copy of the United States Supreme Court opinion.

Mayor Harris opened public comment.

Dee Vieira, Rainbow Community Center Board Member, expressed her support for the resolution and for flying the Rainbow flag on the City flagpole. Ms. Vieira invited the public to attend the City of Clayton Pride Parade to be held on June 25, 2022.

Councilmember Carlson thanked Ms. Vieira and the Rainbow Community Center for their work in the community.

Mayor Harris closed public comment.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: May 2, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 May 2, 2022
Motion (Carlson/Noack) to Approve item 10.1, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris

11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, May 16, 2022, beginning at 7:00 p.m.
________
CAROL W. WU, CITY CLERK RECORDER

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: May 2, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 16, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: APPROVE CHECKS DATED: APRIL 29, 2022; MAY 6, 2022

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve the check register.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Check Register
Prepared by: Sabrina Kwan, Accounting Technician II
Approved by: Erick Cheung, Finance Manager

7.2 Packet Pg. 11

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 16, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: REAFFIRM RESOLUTION NO. 33-22 APPROVING CONTINUED

TELECONFERENCED, HYBRID OR IN-PERSON MEETINGS OF ALL

CITY LEGISLATIVE BODIES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
AB 361

SYNOPSIS
On September 15, 2021, the Governor signed into law AB 361, an urgency measure which allows for the continuation of teleconferenced meetings without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Brown Act. The measure requires that the findings allowing for teleconferenced meetings are affirmed every 30 days. On May 2, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution allowing for teleconferenced, in-person, or hybrid (a blend of remote and in-person participants) public meetings of the City’s legislative bodies. Staff recommends the City Council reaffirm the resolution for the next 30-day period.

DISCUSSION
Background
AB 361 temporarily authorizes local agencies to hold teleconferenced meetings without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Brown Act when the legislative body of the local agency holds a meeting: 1) during a declared state of emergency, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; 2) during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and 3) during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. The City Council has been utilizing AB 361 to hold teleconferenced meetings since October 2021 for the City Council and all subsidiary City commissions, boards, and committees.

On May 2, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 33-22 allowing for in-person, hybrid, or fully teleconferenced meetings of all legislative bodies pursuant to the provisions of AB 361.

The resolution expires on June 1, 2022, which falls before the first City Council meeting in June.

7.3 Packet Pg. 39
Staff was asked to include meeting safety protocols for hybrid meetings when the AB 361 resolution is reaffirmed. The guidelines are still being developed to ensure the most current and accurate legal, health, and safety information is included.

Analysis
In order to continue to teleconferenced or hybrid meetings, the Council must reconsider the factors above every 30 days, and adopt specified findings that the facts relied upon still exist.

The State of California is still under an emergency declaration regarding COVID-19, and as of the publishing of the agenda packet that contains this report, both State and local health officials continue to recommend holding online meetings, or if meeting in person, social distancing1, to help stop the spread of the virus. Contra Costa Health Services updated its Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings on April 15, 2022.

The State of California emergency declaration regarding COVID-19 remains in effect, and both State and local health officials continue to encourage online public meetings as online meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of COVID-19. If meeting in-person, social distancing, to help stop the spread of COVID-19 is recommended.

Resolution No. 33-22 expires on June 1, 2022, which falls before the first City Council meeting in June. Staff therefore recommends the City Council affirm Resolution No. 33-22 allowing for inperson, hybrid, or fully teleconferenced meetings of all City legislative bodies through June 15, 2022 pursuant to the provisions of AB 361.

The City will continue to monitor State and local recommendations and guidelines and update the findings every 30 days, in compliance with AB 361.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

1 There are still references to social distancing in state materials including: the Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) for Medi-Cal beneficiaries located at https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/Pages/COVID-19-Vaccines.aspx as of the date this staff report was published; the guidance on additional vaccine doses for persons who are immunocompromised located at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID19/ThirdVaccineDoseQandA.aspx as of the date this staff report was published; and the FAQ’s to Cal-OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standards located at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/coronavirus/covid19faqs.html#training updated May 7, 2022.

7.3 Packet Pg. 40

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Affirm Resolution No. 33-22 allowing for in-person, hybrid, or fully teleconferenced meetings of all legislative bodies pursuant to the provisions of AB 361.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Provide further direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Resolution No. 33-22
Prepared by: Danielle K. Habr, Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

7.3 Packet Pg. 41
RESOLUTION NO. 33-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

ALLOWING FOR IN-PERSON, HYBRID TELECONFERENCED, OR FULLY

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS OF ALL LEGISLATIVE BODIES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF AB 361, AND RESCINDING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION 19-22
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) generally requires local agencies that meet via teleconference, including through other virtual or electronic means such as Zoom, to provide public access at each location in which members of the legislative body are teleconferencing; and WHEREAS, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361), which amended Government Code section 54953 to allow local agencies to meet virtually during a proclaimed state of emergency if state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Governor issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency on March 4, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and finds that state or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the City of Pleasant Hill, including all its commissions, committees, and other Brown Act bodies, shall have the option of holding public meetings in-person with social distancing, via hybrid teleconferencing, or via fully teleconferencing, pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code section 54953(e).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill;
Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

Section 2. This Resolution rescinds and replaces Resolution 19-22.

Section 3. The City Council and all other City commissions, committees, or other Brown Act Bodies shall be authorized to meet in person with social distancing, via hybrid teleconferencing or via fully teleconferencing the meeting. A hybrid approach is one in which some persons are permitted to attend in-person, as space permits, and others are permitted to attend virtually. The legislative body shall indicate which type of meeting it is holding by noting at the top of each agenda whether an in-person location is being

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Resolution No. 33-22 (Teleconferenced, Hybrid or In-person Meetings 5/16/22-6/15/22) made available and if it is, approximately how many members of the public may be accommodated.

Section 4. The City Council shall take action to renew this Resolution every thirty days for as long as any state or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing, but the City Council may terminate the Resolution at any time.

In the event that more than thirty days pass in between regular City Council meetings for any reason, the City Council shall take action to renew this Resolution prior to taking any action or engaging in any deliberation or discussion at the beginning of the next regular meeting or a special meeting called for such purposes.

Section 5. The City Council hereby finds and determines that this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3), because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a “project” pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 6. If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution regardless of the invalidity of any particular portion of this Resolution.

Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of May, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Resolution No. 33-22 (Teleconferenced, Hybrid or In-person Meetings 5/16/22-6/15/22)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 16, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 APPROVING INTENTION TO LEVY

AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC
HEARING AND NOTICE IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20 FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023

SYNOPSIS
An assessment district is a financial mechanism that allows for the levy of an assessment on a specific geographic area or parcels of real estate, which have been identified as receiving a direct and special "benefit" from a public improvement or service. Assessment District No. 20 (“AD 20”) enables the City to provide landscape maintenance and street lighting at an enhanced level along commercial streets. The properties within AD 20’s boundaries directly benefit from these landscape and lighting improvements. The annual assessments paid by the benefiting property owners of parcels within AD 20 and contributions by the City fund the maintenance and services provided.

In order for the City to continue to levy and collect assessments within the Assessment District for the 2022/2023 fiscal year, an Annual Report must be prepared and the City must hold a public hearing. Staff requests that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments within AD 20 for the 2022/2023 fiscal year and give notice of the time and place for a public hearing on the levy of the assessments.

DISCUSSION
Background
AD 20 was formed in 1988 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and the California Streets and Highways Code. Upon formation, AD 20 consisted of five zones. AD 20 was amended in 1999 to create a new zone (Zone 6) that includes the Downtown area.

In order for the City to continue to levy and collect assessments within the Assessment District for the 2022/2023 fiscal year (“FY 22/23”), the City Council adopted a resolution directing the Engineer of Work to prepare an annual report at its February 7, 2022 meeting. The Engineer of Work, Harris & Associates, has completed and filed the annual report (attached) for FY 22/23 with

7.4 Packet Pg. 44
the City Clerk. The Annual Report includes descriptions of the improvements to be made during the fiscal year, an estimate of costs, and the levy of assessments upon the benefiting properties.

Construction of phase I of the Downtown tree replacement project along Crescent Drive is proposed for FY 22/23 in Zone 6. There are no new services or substantial changes in existing services proposed for FY 22/23 in the other five zones.

There are 17 properties within the AD 20 boundaries that are located in the City of Concord:
eight properties are located east of Contra Costa Boulevard and south of Sun Valley Boulevard; the Sun Valley Mall Shopping Center contains six properties, and the remaining three properties are east of Contra Costa Boulevard and south of Concord Avenue at the on-ramp to Interstate Freeway 680. The City of Concord has granted the City of Pleasant Hill authority to levy assessments on these properties since the District was established. This authority must be requested and granted annually. Pleasant Hill Resolution No. 10-22, adopted February 7, 2022, requested consent from the City of Concord to collect AD 20 assessments for FY 22/23. The City of Concord adopted Resolution 22-19 approving the request on April 12, 2022.

A resolution of intention to collect assessment for FY 22/23 and call for a public hearing is attached.

Analysis
The collecting of assessments from properties within the boundaries of AD 20, together with the funds provided by the City, will ensure continued maintenance of lighting and landscape improvements within the boundaries of the District. City Maintenance staff provides for the maintenance of improvements, with the exception of the Downtown along Crescent Drive and Crescent Plaza (the Downtown property management contracts for maintenance work in the Downtown and is reimbursed by the Assessment District). The maintenance activities include weekly mowing and edging of turf; maintaining and repairing irrigation systems; pruning; removing debris and graffiti; repairing streetlights; maintenance and weeding, as well as paying for utility charges for water and electricity.

If AD 20 assessments are confirmed for FY 22/23, staff will continue to provide maintenance services for the District. The source of funds to provide the necessary maintenance and services is derived from annual assessments collected from property owners within six zones in the District. The attached Engineer’s Report lists the projected fund balances and proposed revenues and expenditures for FY 22/23 per zone. All of the zones with the exception of Zone 2 have sufficient revenues and fund balances to cover FY 22/23 expenses.

Zone 2 is currently projected to have a reserve balance this fiscal year. City staff began working with the AD Engineer in early 2020 to identify ways to reduce expenses and increase assessments in an effort to address the growing deficit in Zone 2. Because the City Council in 1988-89 approved a maximum rate for Zone 2 of $774.00, Zone 2 was assessed at that maximum allowable rate again beginning in FY 21/22 to eliminate the deficit within a period of approximately five years. Due to staff efforts to identify ways to lower expenses, and water

7.4 Packet Pg. 45
conservation efforts during the drought, the deficit has been eliminated as of this fiscal year. The properties will continue to be assessed at the approved rate, however, to rebuild the reserve for future improvements.

In Zone 6, the conceptual design of the Downtown tree replacement project was completed and presented to the Downtown property managers in FY 21/22. The Downtown owners committed to funding $100,000 of the project; construction of the first phase of the tree replacement project is scheduled for FY 22/23. The Assessment District contribution is budgeted at $90,000; additional funding must be identified to complete the project.

The reserve fund for Zone 6 will be depleted by the end of FY 22/23. Assessments for the Zone are proposed to be increased by the allowable CPI (3.21%). Increasing the assessments, however, will not be sufficient to meet the estimated expenses over the next few years. As a result, it may be necessary to conduct a property owner assessment ballot process within Zone 6 so that assessment rates can be increased above the current allowable maximum.

The estimated cost for the preparation and filing of all necessary reports required to continue the levy and collection of assessments is $19,165, which will be paid from the fund.

Assessments are made upon the various properties within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits received. As part of establishing special benefit, properties within the District are divided into six zones of improvement noted above with different assessments based on the amount of special benefit conferred. The City tracks the cost of maintaining the improvements, including incidental expenses within each zone. Contributions from the City’s General Fund are made by the City in Zones 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to offset benefits shared with the general public. In Zone 4, in lieu of a contribution, the City pays for the cost to maintain a portion of the Canal Trail median at Gregory Lane. Assessment rates have been established in each zone based upon acreage, street frontage, and benefit. These rates are listed in the attached Engineer’s Report.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Pleasant Hill annually contributes $97,946 from the General Fund toward the landscaping and lighting costs. This contribution is intended to offset the portion of the landscaping and lighting improvements that provide shared benefit to both the general public and, in particular, those properties outside the District but contiguous to District improvements in areas adjacent to or within the City’s right of way.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page. The Resolution of Intention will be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with the statutes not less than ten days prior to the public hearing.

7.4 Packet Pg. 46

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the Resolution of Intention.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Should the City Council decline to renew the Assessment District for the 2022/2023 fiscal year, there would be a loss of $423,891 in assessment revenues that fund maintenance activities within AD 20. The City would need to fund these maintenance activities, or the services would need to be suspended or substantially reduced.

ATTACHMENTS:

Proposed Resolution
AD 20 Engineer’s Report
Prepared by: Danielle K. Habr, Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer, and Ethan Bindernagel, Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

7.4 Packet Pg. 47
RESOLUTION NO. ___-22

A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT

HILL TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS, LEVY ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20 FOR THE 2022/2023 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill adopted Resolution No. 9-22, a Resolution directing preparation and filing of the 2022/2023 annual report for maintenance of Assessment District No. 20 (Commercial Landscaping and Lighting District) (AD 20); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 9-22, the City directed Harris & Associates, Inc., as Engineer of Work for AD 20, to prepare a report in accordance with Sections 22565 et seq., of the California Streets and Highways Code (the “Report”); and WHEREAS, the Report has been prepared and filed with the City Clerk and duly considered by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to levy and collect assessments within AD 20 for fiscal year 2022/23 (“FY 22/23”) in order to accomplish the installation, service, and maintenance of public landscape and street lighting as described in Exhibit A, which is incorporated by this reference and made a part of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the individual assessments for FY 22/23 in Zones 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are not proposed to increase beyond the approved assessment range from the previous year; and WHEREAS, the assessment rate for Zone 6 is proposed to be increased by the annual CPI of 3.21%, which is within the approved assessment range for the Zone and does not constitute an “increased assessment;” and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessments in all of AD 20 will be imposed exclusively to finance the operation and maintenance costs of lighting and landscape improvements within AD 20; and WHEREAS, the district consists of the lots and parcels shown on the assessment diagram of AD 20 on file with the City Clerk, and reference is hereby made to such diagram for further particulars; and
WHEREAS, reference is hereby made to the Report for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of AD 20, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within AD 20.

7.4.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Proposed Resolution (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that:

1. The Report is hereby deemed sufficient and preliminarily approved, and the Report shall stand as the Engineer’s Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to this resolution.

2. It is the intent of the City Council to levy and collect assessments within AD 20 to accomplish the installation, service, and maintenance of public landscape and street lighting, as described in Exhibit A.

3. Notice is hereby given that on June 27, 2022, at 7:00 p.m., the City Council will hold a public hearing during its regular meeting on the question of the ordering of the proposed improvements and the levying of the proposed assessments for the fiscal year 2022/2023. Please check the City’s website or posted agenda for information regarding whether the hearing will be held virtually or at City Hall at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, California. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any interested person may be afforded the opportunity to “hear and be heard” or may file a written protest with the City Clerk, or having previously filed a protest, may file a written withdrawal of that protest. A written protest shall state all grounds of objection. A protest by a property owner shall contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by such owner.

4. The City Clerk is directed to give notice of the public hearing by publishing this resolution of intention in accordance with Section 6061 of the Government Code.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of May, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

7.4.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Proposed Resolution (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments)

EXHIBIT A
TO

A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT

HILL TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS, LEVY ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDE FOR

HEARING AND NOTICE

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20
(COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING)
2021-22 FISCAL YEAR

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT
The installation, service, and maintenance of public landscape and street lighting within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 20 (AD 20).

In Zone 6, $90,000 has been budgeted from the capital reserves for the construction of the first phase of the Downtown tree replacement project scheduled to begin in FY 2022/2023.

No other improvements are planned for the 2022/2023 fiscal year.

7.4.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Proposed Resolution (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments)

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
ENGINEER’S REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20
MAY 2022

PREPARED BY
Harris & Associates
1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 500
Concord, CA 94520
www.weareharris.com

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ENGINEER….……………………………………………………………..1 PART 1 – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS……………………………………………………………………..3 PART 2 – ESTIMATE OF COSTS………………………………………………………………………………….5 PART 3 – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ………………………………………………………………………….14 PART 4 – METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT……………………………………………………………….15 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT ROLL…………………………………………………………………………..24 APPENDIX B – DISTRICT DIAGRAM………….……………………………………………………………...40 APPENDIX C – DISTRICT PARCELS IN CITY OF CONCORD………….………………………………41

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
1 STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ENGINEER
AGENCY: CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
PROJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
The preparation of this Annual Engineer’s Report (“Report”) is in conformance with the obligation of the City Council for Assessment District No. 20 (“District”) of the City of Pleasant Hill, to levy an assessment for landscaping and lighting services upon each lot or parcel of land in the District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel of land for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 (“FY 22/23”).

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500) (“Act”), Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the State of California Constitution, and in accordance with the City of Pleasant Hill’s Resolution being adopted by the City Council for the:

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20
(Hereinafter referred to as the “District”),
I, Alison Bouley, authorized representative of the District, the duly appointed Assessment Engineer submit the following Report which consists of the following four (4) parts and Appendices:

PART 1
Description of Improvements: This part provides a general description of improvements proposed to be maintained in the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file with the City and are hereby made a part of this Report by reference.

PART 2
Estimate of Cost: This part contains the cost estimate of the proposed maintenance including incidental costs and expenses for FY 22/23.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
2 PART 3
District Diagram: This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the external boundaries of the District. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report. The District Diagram is also filed under separate cover with the office of the City Clerk.

PART 4
Method of Apportionment of the Assessments: This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments as adopted by the City Council, based upon parcel classification of land within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received. The costs and expenses of the District have been assessed upon the parcels of land within the boundaries of District pursuant to the initial methodology established at the time of formation. For particulars as to the identification of parcels, reference is made to the District Diagram.

Appendices
Appendix A – Assessment Roll
Appendix B – District Diagram
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the costs and expenses of the District have been assessed to the lots and parcels within the boundaries of the District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each lot or parcel from the services provided.

DATED this day of , 2022
___________________________________________
Alison Bouley, P.E., Assessment Engineer
R.C.E. No. C61383
Engineer of Work

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
3 PART 1 – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Assessment District No. 20 (Commercial Landscaping and Lighting) (“AD 20” or “District”) was formed in 1988 in order to provide and preserve a high level of landscape maintenance and street lighting on commercial streets within the District. AD 20 consists of six zones. They are managed as six separate accounts within the existing District. The locations of these zones are described in the table below, and are also shown on the Assessment Diagram included as Appendix B of this Report.

The Assessment Diagram, included herein as Appendix B, refers to the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for an exact description of the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District.

Zone General Locations
1 Consists of several areas along Contra Costa Boulevard, Chilpaningo Parkway, Golf Club Road, Ellinwood Drive, Woodsworth Lane, Cleaveland Road and Gregory Lane.

The Zone runs from the Pleasant Hill City limits to the north, to Gregory Lane to the south, and includes the Target and Sun Valley Shopping Centers. 2 Located north of Hookston Road, south of Monument Drive, east of the I-680 freeway and west of Buskirk Avenue. Zone 2 also includes an area north of Lisa Lane between the Iron Horse Regional Trail and Monument Boulevard.
3 Consists of five non-contiguous areas. One is located along Oak Park Boulevard and Putnum Boulevard, between Monte Cresta Avenue and Keats Circle; the second is located along Oak Park Boulevard, west of the I-680 freeway; the third is generally located north of Coggins Drive, south of Mayhew Way and east of the I-680 freeway; the fourth is generally bounded by Astrid Drive on the south, the I-680 freeway to the east and the EBMUD Trail to the west; the fifth is generally bounded by Monument Boulevard to the north, Mayhew Way to the south, the Pleasant Hill City limits on the east and Vincent Drive to the west.
4 Consists of three non-contiguous areas along the north and south sides of Gregory Lane, between Twinview Drive and Khars Avenue.
5 Consists of three non-contigouous areas. One is generally on the northwest corner of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, south of Paso Nogal Road; the second is on the north side of Taylor Boulevard, at Morello Avenue; and the third is along Taylor Boulevard, between Grayson Creek and the Contra Costa canal. 6 Located in the Pleasant Hill downtown area, generally bounded by Gregory Lane to the north, Boyd Road to the south, the I-680 freeway to the east and Cleaveland Road to the west.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
4 Improvements and Services Provided
The improvements and services provided in the District include the following:

1. Street Lighting Installation Maintenance and Servicing

2. Landscape Installation Maintenance and Servicing

3. Measure C Improvement Plans for Contra CostaBoulevard-Monument Boulevard - Buskirk Avenue (portions not included within Zone 6)

4. Installation Maintenance and Servicing of Appurtenant Public Facilities – Crescent Drive and Crescent Plaza
Documents for each of the above listed improvements, detailing the general nature, location, quantity and services provided are available for review in the City offices, and are incorporated herein by reference.

In Zone 6, along Crescent Drive, an irrigation and phased tree replacement study was conducted and a draft street tree inventory and sustainability guidelines book was completed, with a draft report submitted in May 2020. This study was originally budgeted in FY 18/19 but delayed until FY 19/20. Staff reviewed the draft report and shared the findings with the Downtown property manager to review a future phased tree replacement project dependent on available capital funds and reserves.

FY 2022-23 Proposed Projects
Construction of phase I of the Downtown tree replacement project along Crescent Drive is proposed for FY 22/23 in Zone 6. There are no new services or substantial changes in existing services proposed for FY 22/23 in the other five zones.

Sidewalk repairs
Minor repairs to grates and sidewalks have been made at various locations in the District to repair conditions caused by the City’s street trees. The City will continue to identify and address raised, sunken, cracked or broken sidewalk areas that could become potential tripping hazards to pedestrians throughout all six zones.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
5 PART 2 – ESTIMATE OF COST
The estimate of cost table includes, for each zone, the proposed costs for the coming fiscal year (FY 22/23), and a projection of costs for two additional fiscal years.

City Contributions
The total cost of the improvements in each zone has been reduced by a contribution from the City, as shown on the individual budget pages. The contributions in Zone 1, 2 and 3 are roughly equal to the estimated costs to maintain streetlights in these zones (formerly maintained with Uniform Street Lighting District No. 1 funds). The contribution to Zone 5 addresses the general benefit conferred to residential properties from landscaped median maintenance on Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road.

A $650 contribution to Zone 4 is made to offset General Benefit received from maintenance of the Canal Trail medians.

The contribution made by the City to Zone 6 offsets the estimated general benefit received by properties not within the District and the share of the City Hall maintenance not considered to be of special benefit to Zone 6 properties. The amount of this contribution is not changing from previous years, but a more in-depth look will be taken in the future.

These General Fund contributions also address any general benefits conferred to properties that may be outside the District boundary.

The table below shows an Income and Expenditure summary for all Zones.

The information shown in the table above demonstrates the downward trend of the total balances within the District.

While Interest, Assessments, General Fund Contributions and Expenses remain constant or relatively constant, the Balances continue to be depleted. This is due to additional improvements and enhancements provided by the District and City over the past several years and additional maintenance for those improvements and enhancements without an increase in assessments. Additionally, the assessment revenues in a few of the Zones are insufficient to cover annual operating expenses, including increasing utility and maintenance costs, and as a result, the balances continue to dwindle. City staff continues to monitor and evaluate the entire District and will make recommendations to reduce service levels or request increased assessments as necessary. FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 Beginning Balance - July 1 $262,307 $128,277 $62,403
Interest $14,836 $15,023 $15,314
Assessments $423,891 $429,229 $437,556
General Fund Contribution $97,946 $97,946 $97,946
Expenses $670,702 $608,073 $604,397
Zone Assessment Deficiencies ($124,449) ($69,065) ($56,514) Ending Balance - June 30 $128,315 $62,403 $8,822

INCOME AND EXPENSE SUMMARY

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
6 Total Reserve Balance
The Total Reserve Balance is the total of the Balance Forward, plus Revenues, minus Expenses. Any Reserve Fund Adjustments are contributions to the Reserve Fund to plan for future replacement needs or deductions from the Reserve Fund to keep the assessment at or below the Maximum Allowable Assessment for that Zone.

Budget sheets for the individual Zones are included on the following pages.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
7 Zone 1
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 57,293 $ 18,838 $ (26,043)
Interest $ 5,596 $ 5,596 $ 5,596
Assessments $ 159,880 $ 159,880 $ 159,880
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 21,100 $ 21,100 $ 21,100 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 186,575 $ 186,575 $ 186,575

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 2,803 $ 2,887 $ 2,973
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 73,595 $ 75,803 $ 78,077 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 7,630 $ 7,706 $ 7,783 Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance (3) $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Street Maintenance $ - $ - $ -
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 42,699 $ 43,980 $ 45,299
Utilities - Water $ 89,574 $ 92,261 $ 95,029
Utilities - Other $ 2,985 $ 3,075 $ 3,167
Advertising $ 514 $ 514 $ 514
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (4) $ 231 $ 231 $ 231 Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 225,030 $ 231,456 $ 238,073
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 57,293 $ 18,838 $ (26,043) Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ (38,455) $ (44,881) $ (51,498) Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 18,838 $ (26,043) $ (77,540) Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ - $ - $ - Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ - $ - $ - TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 18,838 $ (26,043) $ (77,540)
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (192 parcels) 138.352 138.352 138.352 Proposed Assessment Rate $ 1,155.60 $ 1,155.60 $ 1,155.60 Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate(6) $ 1,155.60 $ 1,155.60 $ 1,155.60 Total Proposed Assessment $ 159,880 $ 159,880 $ 159,880 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 3 Costs to identify and repair large cracks & lifts in curbs and sidewalks as needed. 4 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 5
Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 6 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment. * If expenditures continue at the projected rate, assessment balancing measures will be needed in FY 2024/25.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
8 Zone 2
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 10,753 $ 18,672 $ 28,027
Interest $ 1,366 $ 1,366 $ 1,366
Assessments $ 39,026 $ 39,026 $ 39,026
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 25,194 $ 25,194 $ 25,194 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 65,586 $ 65,586 $ 65,586

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 515 $ 530 $ 546
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 25,351 $ 26,112 $ 26,895 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 2,049 $ 2,070 $ 2,090 Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance $ - $ - $ -
Contractual Services $ 3,000 $ - $ -
Streetlight Maintenance $ - $ - $ -
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 3,678 $ 3,789 $ 3,902
Utilities - Water $ 21,630 $ 22,279 $ 22,947
Utilities - Other $ 141 $ 145 $ 150
Advertising $ 138 $ 138 $ 138
Supplies - Pesticides $ 103 $ 106 $ 109
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (3) $ 62 $ 62 $ 62
Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 57,668 $ 56,231 $ 57,840
Reserve Balances
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 10,753 $ 18,672 $ 28,920 Reserve Fund Adjustments (4) $ 7,814 $ (76) $ -
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 18,567 $ 18,596 $ 28,920 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 105 $ 9,432 $ (893) Reserve Fund Adjustments (4) $ - $ - $ 7,746
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 105 $ 9,432 $ 6,853 TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 18,672 $ 28,027 $ 35,773
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (34 parcels) (5) 35.641 35.641 35.641 Total Assessable Linear Feet 2,497.87 2,497.87 2,497.87 Proposed Assessment Rate/Acre $ 774.00 $ 774.00 $ 774.00 Total Assessment per Acre $ 27,586 $ 27,586 $ 27,586
Maximum Allowable Assessment per Acre(6) $ 774.00 $ 774.00 $ 774.00 Proposed Assessment Rate/LF $ 4.58 $ 4.58 $ 4.58
Total Assessment per/LF $ 11,440 $ 11,440 $ 11,440
Maximum Allowable Assessment per/LF $ 4.58 $ 4.58 $ 4.58 Total Proposed Assessment $ 39,026 $ 39,026 $ 39,026 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 3 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 4 Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 5 Total EDU was derived by combining acreage and linear feet to determine actual assessment amounts. 6 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
9 Zone 3
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 35,611 $ 37,600 $ 38,901
Interest $ 785 $ 785 $ 785
Assessments $ 22,417 $ 22,417 $ 22,417
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 6,929 $ 6,929 $ 6,929 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 30,130 $ 30,130 $ 30,130

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 1,545 $ 1,591 $ 1,639
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 7,629 $ 7,858 $ 8,094 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 4,496 $ 4,541 $ 4,587 Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance (3) $ 750 $ 750 $ 750
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 8,615 $ 8,874 $ 9,140
Utilities - Water $ 1,676 $ 1,726 $ 1,778
Utilities - Other $ 1,991 $ 2,050 $ 2,112
Advertising $ 303 $ 303 $ 303
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (4) $ 171 $ 171 $ 171 Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 965 $ 965 $ 965 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 28,141 $ 28,830 $ 29,538
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 14,071 $ 14,415 $ 14,769 Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 14,071 $ 14,415 $ 14,769 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 21,540 $ 23,185 $ 24,132 Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ 1,989 $ 1,301 $ 592
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 23,530 $ 24,486 $ 24,724 TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 37,600 $ 38,901 $ 39,493
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (186 parcels) 80.269 80.269 80.269 Proposed Assessment Rate $ 279.27 $ 279.27 $ 279.27
Maximum Allowable Assessment (6) $ 279.27 $ 279.27 $ 279.27 Total Proposed Assessment $ 22,417 $ 22,417 $ 22,417 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 3% escalator. 3 Costs to identify and repair large cracks & lifts in curbs and sidewalks as needed. 4 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 5
Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 6 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
10 Zone 4
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 8,587 $ 6,183 $ 3,558
Interest $ 220 $ 220 $ 220
Assessments $ 6,285 $ 6,285 $ 6,285
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ - $ - $ - SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 6,505 $ 6,505 $ 6,505

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 214 $ 221 $ 227
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 4,753 $ 4,896 $ 5,043 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 582 $ 588 $ 594 Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance $ 250 $ 250 $ 250
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 670 $ 690 $ 710
Utilities - Water $ 1,545 $ 1,591 $ 1,639
Advertising $ 40 $ 40 $ 40
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (3) $ 55 $ 55 $ 55
Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 8,909 $ 9,131 $ 9,358
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 4,455 $ 4,565 $ 3,558 Reserve Fund Adjustments (4) $ - $ (1,007) $ (2,853)
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 4,455 $ 3,558 $ 705 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 4,133 $ - $ - Reserve Fund Adjustments (4) $ (2,404) $ - $ -
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 1,728 $ - $ - TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 6,183 $ 3,558 $ 705
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (25 parcels) 10.389 10.389 10.389 Proposed Assessment Rate $ 605.00 $ 605.00 $ 605.00
Maximum Allowable Assessment (5) $ 605.00 $ 605.00 $ 605.00 Total Proposed Assessment $ 6,285 $ 6,285 $ 6,285 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 3 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 4
Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 5 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment. * If expenditures continue at the projected rate, assessment balancing measures will be needed in FY 2025/26.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
11 Zone 5-A
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 34,961 $ 36,806 $ 37,811
Interest $ 586 $ 586 $ 586
Assessments $ 16,756 $ 16,756 $ 16,756
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 14,807 $ 14,807 $ 14,807 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 32,149 $ 32,149 $ 32,149

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 236 $ 243 $ 250
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 13,905 $ 14,322 $ 14,752 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 1,176 $ 1,188 $ 1,199 Contractual Services $ - $ - $ -
Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance (3) $ 500 $ 500 $ 500
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 2,398 $ 2,470 $ 2,544
Utilities - Water $ 10,300 $ 10,609 $ 10,927
Utilities - Other $ 766 $ 789 $ 812
Advertising $ 77 $ 77 $ 77
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (4) $ 47 $ 47 $ 47
Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 30,304 $ 31,144 $ 32,009
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 15,152 $ 15,572 $ 16,005 Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 15,152 $ 15,572 $ 16,005 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 19,809 $ 21,234 $ 21,806 Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ 1,845 $ 1,005 $ 140
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 21,653 $ 22,238 $ 21,946 TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 36,806 $ 37,811 $ 37,951
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (16 parcels) 20.390 20.390 20.390 Proposed Assessment Rate $ 821.76 $ 821.76 $ 821.76
Maximum Allowable Assessment (6) $ 821.76 $ 821.76 $ 821.76 Total Proposed Assessment $ 16,756 $ 16,756 $ 16,756 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 3 Costs to identify and repair large cracks & lifts in curbs and sidewalks as needed. 4 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 5
Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 6 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
12 Zone 5-B
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 15,331 $ 10,179 $ 4,318
Interest $ 325 $ 325 $ 325
Assessments $ 9,284 $ 9,284 $ 9,284
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 12,278 $ 12,278 $ 12,278 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 21,887 $ 21,887 $ 21,887

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 196 $ 202 $ 208
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 12,317 $ 12,687 $ 13,067 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 975 $ 985 $ 995 Contractual Services $ - $ - $ -
Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance (3) $ 500 $ 500 $ 500
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 1,989 $ 2,035 $ 2,096
Utilities - Water $ 8,662 $ 8,922 $ 9,190
Utilities - Other $ 635 $ 654 $ 674
Advertising $ 64 $ 64 $ 64
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (4) $ 50 $ 50 $ 50
Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 1,650 $ 1,650 $ 1,650 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 27,038 $ 27,748 $ 28,493
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 13,519 $ 10,179 $ 4,318 Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ (3,340) $ (5,862) $ (6,606) Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 10,179 $ 4,318 $ (2,289) Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ - $ - $ - Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ - $ - $ - TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 10,179 $ 4,318 $ (2,289)
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (27 parcels) 17.926 17.926 17.926 Proposed Assessment Rate $ 517.88 $ 517.88 $ 517.88
Maximum Allowable Assessment (6) $ 517.88 $ 517.88 $ 517.88 Total Proposed Assessment $ 9,284 $ 9,284 $ 9,284 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 3 One-time cost to identify and repair large cracks & lifts in curbs and sidewalks. 4 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 5
Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 6 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment. * If expenditures continue at the projected rate, assessment balancing measures will be needed in FY 2025/26.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
13 Zone 6
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 99,771 $ (0) $ (24,169)
Interest $ 5,959 $ 6,145 $ 6,437
Assessments (1) $ 170,244 $ 175,582 $ 183,909
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 17,638 $ 17,638 $ 17,638 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 193,840 $ 199,365 $ 207,984

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (2) $ 618 $ 637 $ 656
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (2) $ 4,998 $ 5,148 $ 5,302 District Engineering and Annual Report (3) $ 2,257 $ 2,280 $ 2,302 Contractual Services/Construction (4) $ 165,614 $ 170,000 $ 170,000 Tree Replacement Project (5) $ 90,000 $ - $ -
Assessment Increase Project (6) $ - $ 15,000 $ -
Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance $ - $ - $ -
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 18,224 $ 18,224 $ 18,224
Utilities - Water $ 11,114 $ 11,448 $ 11,791
Utilities - Other $ 388 $ 400 $ 412
Advertising $ 148 $ 148 $ 148
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (7) $ 50 $ 50 $ 50
Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 293,611 $ 223,533 $ 209,085
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 99,771 $ (0) $ (24,169) Reserve Fund Adjustments (8) $ (99,771) $ (24,168) $ (1,101) Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ (0) $ (24,169) $ (25,270) Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ - $ - $ - Reserve Fund Adjustments (8) $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 (8) $ - $ - $ - TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ (0) $ (24,169) $ (25,270)
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (22 parcels) 40.294 40.294 40.294 Total Assessable Linear Feet 1,128 1,128 1,128
Proposed Assessment Rate (9) Varies Varies Varies
Maximum Allowable Assessment (10) Varies Varies Varies 1 Assessments for 2022-23 have increased by the allowable CPI 2 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 3 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 4 Downtown Property Management Maintenance Contract. 5 Downtown tree replacement capital project. 6 Proposed Proposition 218 assessment increase project as expenses are exceeding revenues. 7 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 8 Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. and discuss with the Downtown Property Manager, and perform the work when sufficient capital reserve funds are available. 9 Proposed Assessment Rates were established at the time of formation, and vary for each Zone in the District. 10 Maximum Assessment Ranges are detailed in this Engineer's Report.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

Other Areas: $1,155.60 plus $4.57/LF to $1,733.40 plus $6.86/LF of parcel frontage.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
14 PART 3 – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of each Zone within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District has been submitted to the office of the City Clerk of the City of Pleasant Hill, and is hereby made a part of this Report by reference.

A copy of the Assessment Diagram is also included in Appendix B of the Report.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
15 PART 4 – METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
General
Street and Highways Code Section 22573 requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This section states:
“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
— Streets and Highways Code Section 22573
The 1972 Act permits the designation of areas of benefit within any individual assessment district if "by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvements." (Sec. 22574). Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax."
In November 1996, the voters of California adopted Proposition 218, which has been codified as Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 imposed a number of substantive and procedural requirements on taxes, assessments, and property-related fees imposed by local governments in California.

The method of apportionment described in this Report, and confirmed by the City Council, utilizes commonly accepted engineering practices which have been established pursuant to the 1972 Act and the California Constitution for the allocation of special benefit assessments. The calculation of assessments is based upon the parcel type and the services and improvements provided to equitably apportion the costs based on the special benefit received by each lot or parcel.

The special benefit received by each lot or parcel is over and above any general benefit conferred upon said lots or parcels or to the public at large.

Special Benefit
The improvements and associated costs have been allocated to the assessable properties within the District based upon the special benefit received by those properties. The improvements for which the properties are assessed have been identified as necessary, were installed and are being maintained as part of the development plans. As such, the costs to maintain and service the improvements are strictly the obligation of the properties within the District.

General Benefit
Although the improvements may be visible to passersby or to the public at large, the improvements were installed as a requirement of the development of the tract and are for the sole benefit of properties within the District. It has been determined however, due to limited access or use by properties or individuals outside the District, the City will contribute an amount to account for the incidental general benefits conferred to those outside properties or individuals.

The City contribution is shown on the Cost Estimate pages in Part 2 of this Report.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
16 Definition of Special Benefit
The method of apportionment described in this Report is based on the premise that each assessable parcel or unit receives distinct and special benefits from the improvements and services provided, including the visual desirability provided by well-maintained landscaping. In accordance with Article XIII D, Section 4 of the California Constitution:
“Special benefit means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the District or the public at large” The special benefits associated with local landscaping improvements are specifically:
 Enhanced desirability of properties due to proximity and accessibility of the improvements.  Improved aesthetic appeal provided by a positive representation of the development, neighborhood and the community.
 Improved ingress and egress to property resulting in enhanced traffic flow, reduced traffic accidents and consequent reduction of possible property damage.
 Improved traffic visibility and circulation.
 Improved accessibility for emergency vehicles.
 Reduced vandalism and other criminal activity.

ASSESSMENT RANGE FORMULA
To impose a new assessment or increased assessment in excess of the Maximum Assessment Rate for the current fiscal year, the City must comply with the provisions of the California Constitution, Article XIII D, Section 4c that requires a public hearing and certain protest procedures including mailed notice of the public hearing and property owner protest balloting. Property owners must approve the proposed new or increased assessment via a property owner protest balloting process before any such new or increased assessment can be imposed. A protest occurs when, at the public hearing, the returned assessment ballots opposed to the new or increased assessment outweigh the returned ballots in favor of the new or increased assessment, weighted by the financial obligation of each parcel.

The definition of new or increased assessments includes any assessment which, 1) did not previously exist or, 2) exceeds a previously approved assessment amount or assessment range formula. Any assessment range formula must have been previously adopted by the agency and approved by the property owners.

Assessment Methodology
It is generally recognized that most budgetary items will be impacted by inflation in future years. In accordance with the California Constitution, Section 53739 (b)(1), assessments “may be adjusted for inflation pursuant to a clearly defined formula…” A formula for an inflationary adjustment is therefore included as part of the maximum assessment for this District and was approved by the property owner(s) at the time of formation. The formula, as described below, allows for annual adjustments to the budget and the assessments.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
17 The benefit formula used to determine the financial obligation for each parcel is based on the benefit received from improvements and services provided by each assessed parcel. One of the more common approaches to fairly distributing District costs to the benefitting parcels in maintenance districts such as this utilizes a methodology referred to as the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (“EDU”) method of apportionment. This method utilizes various property characteristics such as development status, type of development (land-use) and size (units or acreage) to compare the proportional benefit of each property compared to other properties benefitting from the improvements.

Each Zone in the District assesses developed property on the basis of acreage for the maintenance and operation of the District improvements. District costs include all incidentals and appurtenances related to the maintaining, operating or servicing the improvements described herein.

There are also certain parcels within Zone 2 that are assessed an additional amount based on linear foot (“LF”) of parcel frontage. The parcels affected in Zone 2, are assessed $4.58/LF and are shown on the Assessment Roll. The additional assessment for frontage funds the Measure J improvements installed along Monument Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue.

In November 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J. The measure provided for the continuation of the County's half-cent transportation sales tax measure for 25 more years. As with Measure C (the original 1988 transportation sales tax measure); Measure J revenues are used to fund a voter-approved Expenditure Plan of transportation programs and projects.

The total estimated cost of the improvements has been divided among the several parcels of land within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits received by the parcels benefiting from the improvements.

Zones 1 – 5
The method used by the engineer to apportion the costs among the benefitting properties follows:

1. Separate zones of service have been identified on the assessment diagram.

2. The estimated fiscal year operating cost within each Zone has been calculated, with incidental expenses and contingencies added to the operating costs in each Zone on a pro rata basis.

3. The benefits received from the landscaping and lighting improvements relate to land area and to land use in equal proportion. Assessed area units were, therefore, assigned to each parcel within the District as follows:
a) Improved parcels were assigned an EDU based on the improved acreage as determined by the County Assessor.
b) Vacant (unimproved) lots were assigned an EDU based on one-half the parcel acreage,reflecting the absence of user benefit.

4. The basic assessment for each parcel (exclusive of Measures C and J improvements) was calculated by multiplying the assigned EDU times the assessment rate.

5. At the time of formation (1998), the City Council modified the Engineer’s Report prior to finalizing the formation of the District. The modifications included the following:

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
18 a) In Zone 5, parcel numbers 152-240-021 (currently 152-240-027); 153-040-047 and 153-050-054 were to be excluded from the assessment. These parcels are churches or civic organizations and at the time, these property types were typically not assessed due to the services they provided to the community in general. Parcel numbers 153-050-057 and 153-050-058 were also excluded since they are also a church (with a parking lot). b) In Zone 2, parcel number 148-042-005 (currently 148-042-009) had its assessment/EDU reduced by half to reflect the fact that it is and was a vacant parcel and serves as an open space area.

6. The Sun Valley Mall, in Zone 1, was assigned an EDU for a depth of 150 feet along its entire frontage for the special benefit received from the landscaping and lighting on Contra Costa Boulevard. This reduction reflects the fact that the Mall provides public landscaping and lighting on Willow Pass Road in Concord.

7. Parcels in Zone 1, APN’s 127-270-001 through 005, were assessed by the formation engineer according to the pro-rata share of the acreage of the parking area (parcel 005). The engineer applied the assessment rate to the area of parcel 005 and then spread the assessment back to the other four parcels based on the acreage percentage of those remaining parcels.

8. Parcel No. 127-032-042, in Zone 1, is a corner lot and fronts on Willow Pass Road. This parcel was assigned an EDU based one-half the parcel acreage, reflecting corner relief.

9. The combined total EDU for parcels 153-300-001, 002, 003 and 004 (formerly K Mart/Safeway), in Zone 1, were reduced by 4.17 acres reflecting a credit for the flowage easement over the property. In FY 19/20, there was a parcel merger and reconfiguration resulting in new parcel numbers 153-300-005, 008, 009 and 010.

10. In FY 22/23, Zone 1 had additional parcel changes resulting in 1 more parcel and 2.48 in additional acreage. This increased the total Zone 1 EDU from 136.213 to 138.352. APN’s 153-300-004 and 153- 300-010 became, 153-300-012; 153-300-013 and 153-300-014.

11. The total estimated costs in Zones 1 and 2 including incidental expense were reduced by a contribution from the General Fund. The amount of this contribution is based upon revenues collected pursuant to the former Pleasant Hill Unified Street Lighting District No. 1, respectively in each Zone.

12. Assessments in Zone 5 were calculated utilizing the amended methodology approved by the City Council on February 24, 1992, Resolution Number 12-92. Assessments in Zone 5 were reduced by a contribution from the City intended to offset the approximate cost to maintain the "pork chop" traffic islands at the intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road. The rate of Zone 5 parcels on Taylor Boulevard, Civic Drive and Norse Drive was reduced by a factor of 0.63, reflecting the reduced maintenance costs for that area. The rate for APN’s 153-050-014, 153-050-052 (the Pleasant Hill Executive Park) and 153-050-059 (the former American States Insurance parcel) were not reduced, reflecting increased user benefit for these parcels due to additional floor space, as these parcels contain 2-story buildings. Beginning in FY 20/21, the budget for Zone 5 was split into two separate budgets (5A and 5B), to reflect the differing assessment rates described above. The total expenditures for Zone 5 are divided between 5A and 5B on a pro-rata basis, by the total EDU in each area.

Parcel areas used in this report to determine relative benefit are based upon information available with the County Assessor. All assessments have been rounded to the nearest even cent.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
19 The table below indicates the basic assessment per improved acre for each Zone. Assessments for the previous two years and the assessment per lineal foot for Measure J improvements in Zone 2 are also indicated.

Assessment Rates – Zones 1 through 5
Zone Location FY 20/21
Rate
FY 21/22
Rate
Proposed
FY 22/23
Rate
1 C.C. Blvd, Chilpancingo Pkwy, Golf Club Rd, Ellinwood Dr, Woodsworth Ln, Cleaveland Rd & Gregory Ln $1,155.60 $1,155.60 $1,155.60 2* Monument Blvd, Buskirk Ave & Lisa Ln $349.89 $774.00 $774.00 Measure J (Linear Foot) $4.58 $4.58 $4.58
3 Hookston Rd, Estland Way, Vincent Rd, Oak Park Blvd,
Buskirk Ave, Coggins Dr & N. Main St $279.27 $279.27 $279.27 4 Pleasant Hill Rd & Gregory Ln $605.00 $605.00 $605.00 5A & 5B Pleasant Hill Rd, Taylor Blvd, Morello Ave, Civic Dr, Norse Dr, Apollo Way & Devon Ave.
$821.76
$517.88
$821.76
$517.88
$821.76
$517.88
Assessment Range Formula for Zones 1 through 5
At the time of formation, the assessment levied per EDU for Zones 1 through 5 were established as shown above. There is no provision to increase the established assessment rate for these Zones. If the assessment rate in any year is proposed to exceed the established rate, the City must comply with Article XIII D, Section 4c of the California Constitution.
*During a routine parcel audit performed by Harris & Associates, the Formation Engineer’s Report for AD 20 was reviewed as a reference source. The initial assessment rate for Zone 2 was established at $774.00 when the District was formed (FY 88/89). This rate was approved by the property owner(s) at that time and was authorized by the City Council. California Government Code Section 53753 (2), (B) states that a previously approved tax, fee, assessment or charge, so long as it is not increased beyond the previously approved rate, is not considered an “increased” assessment.

Because the City Council initially authorized an assessment rate for Zone 2 of $774.00, Zone 2 was assessed at that rate again beginning in FY 21/22. The additional assessment revenue resulting from assessing the authorized rate for Zone 2 was anticipated to eliminate the Zone deficit within a period of approximately four years however, due to cost reductions in FY 21/22 in combination with the $774.00 assessment, the fund is currently balanced.

Zone 6
All of the improvements to be serviced and maintained within Zone 6 of the assessment district have been constructed for the benefit of the properties within the Zone and are of special benefit to those properties. The maintenance and servicing of the improvements enhances the quality of life on a day to day basis by providing an attractive, clean, safe and secure environment in which to live and work.

Benefit Assumptions

1. Certain parcels formerly within Zone 1, and not also within Subdivision 8240 “Downtown Pleasant Hill” (Tract 8240), are specially benefitted by the landscaping and lighting improvements on Contra Costa Boulevard, Monument Boulevard, Boyd Road, North Main Street and Cleveland Road. These parcels are identified as: 1) the Terraces; 2) the Courtyard Hotel and Courtyard Shopping Center; 3) the Cal Fed

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
20 Bank Building (now Citi Bank); 4) the Wells Fargo Building; 5) the Hotel site south of Boyd Road at N.

Main Street (Hyatt House). These properties primarily benefit from the former Zone 1 benefit derived by these properties, and continues to be proportionate to those improvements (i.e. with or without the Measure C supplement). As such, these properties are assessed at the Zone 1 rate, with applicable linear footage also assessed.

2. The benefit received by parcels assessed within Tract 8240 is proportionate to the area of the parcel as it relates to the total area within Tract 8240. These lots appear on the recorded final map of Tract 8240, lots A, B, C, D, E, H, I, J and K. Parcel area, as it relates to parcel use, is an effective measurement of the special benefit received by each parcel respectively from the improvements. Parcels F and G are residential properties not included in the District.

3. The City Hall property benefits from the maintenance of landscaping and lighting improvements, particularly the maintenance of the frontage improvements on Gregory Lane, Cleaveland Road and Trelany Road. These benefits constitute special benefit and are assessable. The City however pays for the maintenance costs in lieu of paying the assessment.

4. Additionally, maintenance of the landscaping and lighting improvements at City Hall is of special benefit to the properties adjoining Tract 8240.

5. The following parcels receive no special benefit from the improvements:
a. 150-300-041 (Park at City Hall)
b. 149-110-056 (Soldiers Memorial Monument)
c. 148-020-012 (Contra Costa Boulevard)
(a and b are sources rather than recipients of benefit; c is a road right of way)

6. General Benefits are those benefits derived by property or persons outside the District. The properties on the west side of Cleaveland Road that are not in the District, benefit from the improvements on Cleaveland Road. These benefits are not assessable to parcels in Zone 6.

General Benefit

1. The City Hall frontage benefit is estimated at Zone 1 rates as shown in the table below. As previously stated, the City performs the maintenance of these improvements and is therefore not assessed.

APN Zone 1 Rate Area Amount
150-181-050 $1,155.60 3.560 $4,113.94

2. General benefit for the parcels along the west side of Cleaveland Road are estimated based upon parcel area and Zone 1 rates to be:

APN(s) Zone 1 Rate Area Amount
150-170-073 $1,155.60 0.97 $1,120.93
Bk 150 Pg 23 (Tr. 5647) $1,155.60 1.40 $1,617.84
Bk 150 Pg 25 (Tr. 235771) $1,155.60 0.83 $959.15
$3,697.92

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
21 3. The City contribution for benefits received by Parcels F and G of Tract 8240 (residential parcels) and #70 Cleaveleand Road is estimated as 50% of the Zone 6 assessment that would otherwise apply ($6,634.00 in FY 99/00 and $9,288.00 maximum).

4. The contribution from former Zone 1 General Fund is considered to offset any general benefit not linked to property on Contra Costa Boulevard and Monument Boulevard ($6,930.00).

5. The City benefits received by properties in Zone 6, other than City Hall, from the maintenance of the grounds at City Hall was estimated in the initial report (August 1999) to be equal to $42,851 - $35,039 or $7,812.00. The general benefit contribution is reduced by this amount.

A summary of the Zone 6 general benefit contribution is shown on the table below:

Summary of Zone 6 General Benefit Contribution
City Hall Frontage (Zone 1 Transfer) $4,113.94
West side of Cleaveland Road $3,697.92
Parcels F & G $6,634.00
Zone 1 General Fund $6,930.00
Less Zone 6 benefit from City Hall ($7,812.00)
Total Zone General Benefit $13,563.86
Calculation of Zone 6 Assessments:

The net cost of the improvements within Zone 6 has been divided among the several parcels of land within the Zone in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by the parcels benefiting from the improvements.

The method used to calculate the assessment for each parcel follows:

1. The assessment rates per acre for the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are assigned at the F Y 98/99 Zone 1 rates ($1,155.60). The assessment for these parcels also includes a rate of $4.57 per linear foot of street frontage. The assessment calculation for these parcels is shown on the Assessment Roll in Appendix A.

APN Description
148-020-010 Terraces
127-110-026 Courtyard Hotel
127-110-027 Courtyard Center
150-210-059
Wells Fargo

2. Incidental expenses include the cost of the Engineer’s Report, legal costs, advertising costs and City staff time in coordinating the annual levy process for the District.

3. The net amount to be assessed is calculated as the total Zone 6 maintenance plus incidental expenses, less the City Contributions as shown.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
22 The maximum assessment to the Tract 8240 lots in any future year subject to adjustment by the CPI will be calculated according to the method described for the FY 99/00 fiscal year substituting the amounts indicated in Part 2C of the initial report under the column entitled “Maximum Zone 6”. The maximum assessments for the Terraces and other parcels not within Tract 8240 assume a 50% increase in the maintenance effort and cost on Contra Costa and Monument Boulevards within Zone 6.

Assessment Range Formula – Zone 6
Each year, the Maximum Assessment rate shall be increased for inflation by the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), during the preceding calendar year, for All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward areas, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Should the stated index be discontinued, a reasonably equivalent index should be utilized annually. The actual annual assessment rate levied in any fiscal year for Zone 6 may not exceed the established maximum allowed (adjusted by CPI) annual assessment rate for that year without receiving property owner approval for the increase. The actual assessment rate shall be as approved by the City Council, not to exceed the maximum allowed annual assessment rate for such fiscal year.

For FY 22/23, the Maximum Assessment Rate for Tract 8240 is proposed to be increased by the annual CPI of 3.21%.

This results in an assessment rate per acre of $7,145.33. The following tablestrack the Maximum Assessment (adjusted annually) as well as the Actual Assessment applied during that fiscal year.

Tract 8240 CPI History
Other Zone 6 Parcels CPI History (Acreage)
Other Zone 6 Parcels CPI History (Linear Foot)
Fiscal Annual CPI Adjusted Max. Actual
Year CPI % Calculation Assessment/Acre Assessment/Acre
2019/2020 N/A N/A $6,614.00 $6,614.00
2020/2021 2.9% 1.029000001 $6,805.81 $6,805.81
2021/2022 1.72% 1.017220105 $6,923.00 $6,923.00
2022/2023 3.21% 1.032114341 $7,145.33 $7,145.33
Fiscal Annual CPI CPI Change to Min. Assessment Max. Assessment Actual Year CPI % Calculation Rate/Acre Range/Acre Range/Acre Rate Applied 2019/2020 N/A N/A $1,155.60 $1,155.60 $1,733.40 $1,155.60 2020/2021 2.9% 1.029000001 $1,189.11 $1,155.60 $1,733.40 $1,155.60 2021/2022 1.72% 1.017220105 $1,209.59 $1,155.60 $1,733.40 $1,155.60 2022/2023 3.21% 1.032114341 $1,248.43 $1,155.60 $1,733.40 $1,248.43 Fiscal Annual CPI CPI Change to Min. Assessment Max. Assessment Actual Year CPI % Calculation Rate/Acre Range/Acre Range/Acre Rate Applied 2019/2020 N/A N/A $4.57 $4.57 $6.86 $6.86
2020/2021 2.9% 1.029000001 $4.70 $4.57 $6.86 $6.86
2021/2022 1.72% 1.017220105 $4.78 $4.57 $6.86 $6.86
2022/2023 3.21% 1.032114341 $4.94 $4.57 $6.86 $6.86

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
23 The proposed CPI increase for Tract 8240 this year, as well as the increases up to the maximum amounts for acreage and linear foot for the other Zone 6 parcels, is necessary because expenses are exceeding revenues for the Zone. If this trend continues, a Proposition 218 property owner ballot measure will be required in order to increase assessments beyond the current maximums
Operating Reserve
The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set-up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Funds raised by collection of assessments shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments or to fund costs which are greater than revenue from the assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. The estimated beginning and ending Operating Reserve fund balances for FY 22/23 are shown in the Cost Estimate table.

Section 22569 (a) of the 1972 Act allows the District assessments to “…include a reserve which shall not exceed the estimated costs of maintenance and servicing to December 10 of the fiscal year, or whenever the city expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the county, whichever is later.” Capital Reserve
In addition to the Operating Reserve as detailed above, an agency may create a capital reserve to fund items that will require replacement at some point, due to limited useful life. These items may include but are not limited to the asphalt path in each subdivision, sidewalks, street trees, streetlights, etc. The estimated beginning and ending Capital Reserve fund balances for FY 22/23 are shown in the Cost Estimate table.

Any additional surplus funds, in excess of the 50% Operating Reserve or identified Capital Reserve costs, must be carried over to the next fiscal year.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
24 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel Identification for each lot or parcel within the District shall be based on available parcel maps and other property data from the Contra Costa County Assessor’s office as they existed at the time this Report was prepared and adopted by the City Council.

A listing of parcels assessed within the District for FY 22/23, along with the corresponding assessment amounts, is included on the following pages. If any parcel submitted for collection is identified by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the current fiscal year, a corrected parcel number and/or new parcel numbers will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel(s) shall be based on the method of apportionment and assessment rate approved in this Report.

Therefore, if a single parcel has changed to multiple parcels, the assessment amounts applied to each of the new parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment.

Non-assessable lots or parcels include areas of public streets and other roadways (typically not assigned an APN by the County); dedicated public easements, open space areas and rights-of-way, including public greenbelts and parkways; utility rights-of-way; common areas; landlocked parcels; small parcels vacated by the County, bifurcated lots, and any other property that cannot be developed or has specific development restrictions. These types of parcels are considered to receive little or no benefit from the improvements and are therefore, exempted from assessment.

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
25 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
125-050-0131 0.357 0.357 $1,155.60 $412.54
125-050-0251 1.23 1.23 $1,155.60 $1,421.38
125-050-0271 0.03 0.03 $1,155.60 $34.66
125-050-0281 3.822 3.32199 $1,155.60 $3,838.90
125-250-0041 0.855 0.855 $1,155.60 $988.04
125-250-0081 0.67 0.67 $1,155.60 $774.26
125-250-0111 0.306 0.306 $1,155.60 $353.62
125-250-0121 0.627 0.627 $1,155.60 $724.56
125-250-0141 0.467 0.467 $1,155.60 $539.66
125-250-0171 0.627 0.627 $1,155.60 $724.56
125-250-0181 0.0030 $1,155.60 $0.00
125-250-0211 0.77 0.77 $1,155.60 $889.82
125-250-0231 0.67 0.67 $1,155.60 $774.26
125-250-0241 0.025 0.025 $1,155.60 $28.90
125-250-0251 0.87 0.87 $1,155.60 $1,005.38
127-032-0351 0.18 0.18 $1,155.60 $208.00
127-032-0381 0.81 0.81 $1,155.60 $936.04
127-032-0391 0.93 0.93 $1,155.60 $1,074.70
127-032-0421 0.86 0.43001 $1,155.60 $496.92
127-032-0431 0.48 0.48 $1,155.60 $554.68
127-032-0441 0.377 0.377 $1,155.60 $435.66
127-032-0451 0.55 0.55 $1,155.60 $635.58
127-032-0461 0.36 0.36 $1,155.60 $416.02
127-040-0141 0.090 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-040-0191 0.74 0.74 $1,155.60 $855.14
127-040-0201 0.967 0.967 $1,155.60 $1,117.46
127-050-0401 0.180 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-050-0521 0.589 0.589 $1,155.60 $680.64
127-050-0531 0.118 0.118 $1,155.60 $136.36
127-050-0541 0.159 0.159 $1,155.60 $183.74
127-050-0571 0.0374 0.0374 $1,155.60 $43.22
127-050-0581 0.13 0.13 $1,155.60 $150.22
127-050-0641 0.56 0.56 $1,155.60 $647.14
127-050-0651 0.29 0.29 $1,155.60 $335.12
127-050-0671 0.42 0.42 $1,155.60 $485.36
127-050-0681 0.61 0.61 $1,155.60 $704.92
127-050-0691 3.40 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-050-0701 1.343 0.4477 $1,155.60 $517.36
127-061-0261 1.49 1.49 $1,155.60 $1,721.84
127-061-0301 0.975 0.975 $1,155.60 $1,126.72
127-081-0031 0.24 0.12 $1,155.60 $138.68

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
26 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
127-081-0041 0.760 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-081-0431 0.52 0.52 $1,155.60 $600.92
127-081-0471 1.44 1.44 $1,155.60 $1,664.06
127-081-0481 1.03 1.03 $1,155.60 $1,190.26
127-081-0511 0.71 0.71 $1,155.60 $820.48
127-180-0551 2.54 2.54 $1,155.60 $2,935.22
127-180-0561 1.347 0.674 $1,155.60 $778.88
127-180-0581 1.453 1.453 $1,155.60 $1,679.08
127-210-0131 2.18 2.18 $1,155.60 $2,519.20
127-210-0141 3.880 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-210-0221 0.250 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-210-0271 5.090 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-210-0311 2.43 2.43 $1,155.60 $2,808.10
127-210-0361 1.410 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-210-0371 9.490 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-210-0381 0.70 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-270-0011 0.228 0.711 $1,155.60 $821.64
127-270-0021 0.232 0.711 $1,155.60 $821.64
127-270-0031 0.794 2.56 $1,155.60 $2,958.34
127-270-0041 0.977 3.129 $1,155.60 $3,615.88
127-270-0051 7.1110 $1,155.60 $0.00
150-052-0091 3.616 3.616 $1,155.60 $4,178.64
150-101-0121 0.21 0.21 $1,155.60 $242.68
150-102-0121 0.2 0.2 $1,155.60 $231.12
150-102-0131 0.23 0.23 $1,155.60 $265.78
150-102-0141 0.260 $1,155.60 $0.00
150-103-0081 0.48 0.48 $1,155.60 $554.68
150-103-0131 0.16 0.16 $1,155.60 $184.90
150-103-0161 0.48 0.48 $1,155.60 $554.68
150-121-0021 0.24 0.24 $1,155.60 $277.34
150-123-0231 0.95 0.95 $1,155.60 $1,097.82
150-123-0241 0.18 0.18 $1,155.60 $208.00
150-123-0251 0.346 0.346 $1,155.60 $399.84
150-123-0271 0.33 0.33 $1,155.60 $381.34
150-123-0281 1.02 1.02 $1,155.60 $1,178.72
150-125-0111 0.168 0.168 $1,155.60 $194.14
150-150-0121 0.34 0.34 $1,155.60 $392.90
150-150-0191 0.28 0.28 $1,155.60 $323.56
150-150-0401 0.66 0.66 $1,155.60 $762.70
150-150-0551 0.2 0.2 $1,155.60 $231.12
150-150-0581 0.62 0.62 $1,155.60 $716.48

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
27 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
150-150-0661 0.428 0.428 $1,155.60 $494.60
150-150-0791 1.06 1.06 $1,155.60 $1,224.94
150-150-0801 1.431 1.431 $1,155.60 $1,653.66
150-170-0741 1.511 1.511 $1,155.60 $1,746.12
150-220-0561 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0571 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0581 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0591 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0601 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0611 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0621 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0631 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0641 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0651 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0661 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0671 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0681 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0691 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0701 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0711 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0721 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0731 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0741 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0751 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0761 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0771 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0781 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0791 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0801 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0811 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0821 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0831 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0841 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-240-0461 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0471 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0481 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0491 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0501 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0511 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0521 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0531 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
28 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
150-240-0541 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0551 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0561 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0571 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0581 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0591 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0601 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0611 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0621 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0631 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0641 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0651 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0661 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0671 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0681 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-290-0011 0.096 0.096002077 $1,155.60 $110.94
150-290-0021 0.097 0.097005884 $1,155.60 $112.10
150-290-0031 0.170 0.170006923 $1,155.60 $196.46
150-290-0041 0.205 0.205001731 $1,155.60 $236.90
150-290-0051 0.5680 $1,155.60 $0.00
153-030-0771 1.486 1.486 $1,155.60 $1,717.22
153-030-0891 0.995 0.995 $1,155.60 $1,149.82
153-030-0901 0.74 0.74 $1,155.60 $855.14
153-030-0951 2.474 2.474 $1,155.60 $2,858.96
153-030-1061 18.396 18.396 $1,155.60 $21,258.42
153-030-1071 0.771 0.771 $1,155.60 $890.96
153-081-0121 0.36 0.36 $1,155.60 $416.02
153-081-0141 0.24 0.24 $1,155.60 $277.34
153-081-0151 1.67 1.67 $1,155.60 $1,929.86
153-121-0381 2.68 2.68 $1,155.60 $3,097.00
153-134-0251 0.307 0.307 $1,155.60 $354.76
153-134-0261 0.941 0.941 $1,155.60 $1,087.42
153-222-0011 0.18 0.18 $1,155.60 $208.00
153-222-0021 0.2 0.2 $1,155.60 $231.12
153-223-0121 0.180 $1,155.60 $0.00
153-223-0161 0.18 0.18 $1,155.60 $208.00
153-223-0191 0.36 0.36 $1,155.60 $416.02
153-230-0031 0.19 0.18599862 $1,155.60 $214.94
153-230-0041 0.09 0.09300796 $1,155.60 $107.48
153-230-0051 0.93 0.92900658 $1,155.60 $1,073.56
153-230-0071 1.00 0.99899619 $1,155.60 $1,154.44

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
29 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
153-230-021 1 0.30 0.3 $1,155.60 $346.68
153-230-022 1 5.59 5.59200415 $1,155.60 $6,462.12
153-230-023 1 0.30 0.3 $1,155.60 $346.68
153-230-024 1 0.60 0.59899619 $1,155.60 $692.20
153-230-025 1 2.30 2.29700588 $1,155.60 $2,654.42
153-250-003 1 0.582 0.582 $1,155.60 $672.56
153-250-004 1 0.554 0.554 $1,155.60 $640.20
153-250-005 1 0.649 0.649 $1,155.60 $749.98
153-250-006 1 0.303 0.303 $1,155.60 $350.14
153-250-007 1 4.678 4.678 $1,155.60 $5,405.90
153-250-008 1 0.72 0.72 $1,155.60 $832.04
153-250-009 1 0.37 0.37 $1,155.60 $427.58
153-270-001 1 0.37 0.37 $1,155.60 $427.58
153-270-002 1 0.57 0.57 $1,155.60 $658.70
153-270-003 1 0.69 0.69 $1,155.60 $797.36
153-270-004 1 1.01 1.01 $1,155.60 $1,167.16
153-270-006 1 0.83 0.83 $1,155.60 $959.14
153-270-007 1 0.4 0.4 $1,155.60 $462.24
153-270-010 1 0.625 0.625 $1,155.60 $722.26
153-270-011 1 1.56 1.56 $1,155.60 $1,802.74
153-270-013 1 0.72 0.72 $1,155.60 $832.04
153-270-014 1 2.13 2.13 $1,155.60 $2,461.42
153-270-015 1 0.29 0.29 $1,155.60 $335.12
153-300-004 1 0.58 0.58 $1,155.60 $670.24
153-300-005 1 1.62 0.00 $1,155.60 $0.00
153-300-008 1 9.95 7.76 $1,155.60 $8,967.46
153-300-009 1 2.32 2 $1,155.60 $2,080.08
153-300-010 1 5.77 4.50 $1,155.60 $5,200.20
172.92 136.213 $157,407.84

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
30 APN Zone Acres EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/Acre
FY 22/23
Assessment
/Acre LF Rate L.F.

FY 22/23 LF
Assessment
FY 22/23
Total
Assessment
147-050-033 2 0.099 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
147-050-043 2 0.897 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
147-050-044 2 0.803 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
147-050-050 2 0.883 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-010-012 2 0.57 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-010-013 2 0.31 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-010-019 2 0.278 0.139 $774.00 $107.60 $107.60
148-010-020 2 0.137 0.137 $774.00 $106.04 $106.04
148-010-021 2 0.139 0.139 $774.00 $107.58 $107.58
148-010-022 2 0.34 0.34 $774.00 $263.16 $263.16
148-010-023 2 1.59 1.59 $774.00 $1,230.66 $1,230.66
148-010-024 2 0.36 0.36 $774.00 $278.64 $278.64
148-010-026 2 0.314 0.314 $774.00 $243.04 $243.04
148-010-027 2 2.68 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-010-028 2 0.55 0.55 $774.00 $425.70 $425.70
148-010-029 2 1 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-010-030 2 0.47 0.47 $774.00 $363.78 $363.78
148-031-008 2 2.167 2.167 $774.00 $1,677.26 $4.58 300.58 $1,376.66 $3,053.92 148-031-010 2 5.447 5.447 $774.00 $4,215.98 $4.58 402.93 $1,845.42 $6,061.40 148-031-011 2 0.547 0.547 $774.00 $423.38 $4.58 104.78 $479.89 $903.28 148-041-028 2 1.23 1.23 $774.00 $952.02 $4.58 95.94 $439.41 $1,391.44 148-041-029 2 1.971 1.971 $774.00 $1,525.55 $4.58 96.04 $439.86 $1,965.42 148-041-030 2 0.631 0.631 $774.00 $488.39 $4.58 138.28 $633.32 $1,121.72 148-041-035 2 0.706 0.706 $774.00 $546.44 $4.58 29.32 $134.29 $680.74 148-041-036 2 5.482 5.482 $774.00 $4,243.07 $4.58 607 $2,780.06 $7,023.14 148-041-037 2 0.254 0.254 $774.00 $196.60 $4.58 276 $1,264.08 $1,460.68 148-042-009 2 1.88 0.94 $774.00 $727.56 $4.58 447 $2,047.26 $2,774.82 148-053-013 2 0.015 0 $774.00 $0.00 2497.87 $11,440.24 $0.00 148-066-009 2 0.015 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-090-032 2 0.42 0.42 $774.00 $325.08 $325.08
148-090-033 2 0.58 0.58 $774.00 $448.92 $448.92
148-090-034 2 6.78 6.78 $774.00 $5,247.72 $5,247.72
148-090-035 2 1.78 1.78 $774.00 $1,377.72 $1,377.72
148-090-039 2 2.667 2.667 $774.00 $2,064.26 $2,064.26

41.31 35.64102 $27,586.15 $11,440.24 $39,026.46

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
31 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
148-070-0023 0.3 0.3 $279.27 $83.78
148-070-0033 0.31 0.31 $279.27 $86.58
148-070-0043 3.290 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0213 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0223 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0233 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0243 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0253 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0263 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0273 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0283 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0293 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0303 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0313 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0323 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0333 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0343 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0353 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0363 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0373 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0383 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0393 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0403 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0413 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0423 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0433 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0443 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0453 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0463 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0473 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0483 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0493 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0503 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0513 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0523 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0533 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0543 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0553 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
32 148-070-0563 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0573 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0583 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
148-070-0593 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0603 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0613 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0623 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0633 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0643 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0653 0.120 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0663 0.120 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0673 0.120 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0683 0.120 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0693 0.120 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0073 0.40 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0153 0.236 0.236 $279.27 $65.90
148-070-0173 0.52 0.52 $279.27 $145.22
148-070-0203 1.387 1.387 $279.27 $387.34
148-090-0083 0.105 0.105 $279.27 $29.32
148-090-0283 0.89 0.89 $279.27 $248.56
148-100-0243 0.33 0.33 $279.27 $92.16
148-100-0393 1.170 $279.27 $0.00
148-100-0453 2.47 2.47 $279.27 $689.80
148-100-0563 0.0050 $279.27 $0.00
148-100-0583 3.108 3.108 $279.27 $867.98
148-100-0593 4.371 4.371 $279.27 $1,220.68
148-100-0633 0.248 0.248 $279.27 $69.26
148-100-0643 1.825 1.825 $279.27 $509.66
148-360-0083 1.12 1.12 $279.27 $312.78
148-360-0103 6.072 6.072 $279.27 $1,695.72
148-360-0243 0.750 $279.27 $0.00
148-360-0273 4.9560 $279.27 $0.00
148-360-0283 1.615 1.615 $279.27 $451.02
148-360-0303 4.013 4.013 $279.27 $1,120.72
148-360-0313 2.5470 $279.27 $0.00
148-372-0073 0.94 0.94 $279.27 $262.52
148-372-0083 14.883 14.883 $279.27 $4,156.38
148-372-0103 0.67 0.67 $279.27 $187.12
148-372-0123 1.02 1.02 $279.27 $284.86
148-372-0133 0.66 0.66 $279.27 $184.32
148-372-0143 1.04 1.04 $279.27 $290.44

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
33 148-371-0103 0.29 0.29 $279.27 $80.98
148-371-0113 0.755 0.755 $279.27 $210.84
148-371-012311 $279.27 $279.28
APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
148-371-013311 $279.27 $279.28
148-371-0143 0.651 0.651 $279.27 $181.80
148-371-0153 1.748 1.748 $279.27 $488.16
148-490-0013 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0023 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0033 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0043 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0053 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0063 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0073 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0083 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0093 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0103 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0113 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0123 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0133 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0143 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0153 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0163 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0173 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0183 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0193 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0203 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0213 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0223 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0233 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0243 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0253 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-026300 $279.27 $0.00
148-490-0283 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0293 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0303 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0313 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0323 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0333 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0343 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0353 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0363 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
34 148-490-0373 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0383 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0393 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
148-490-0403 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0413 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0423 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0433 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0443 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0453 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0463 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0473 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0483 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-049300 $279.27 $0.00
149-110-0873 0.140 $279.27 $0.00
149-122-0013 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
149-122-0023 0.039 0.039 $279.27 $10.90
149-122-0173 0.360 $279.27 $0.00
149-122-0213 0.514 0.514 $279.27 $143.54
149-122-0233 0.039 0.039 $279.27 $10.90
149-122-0243 0.5170 $279.27 $0.00
149-122-0263 1.858 1.858 $279.27 $518.88
149-122-0273 0.073 0.073 $279.27 $20.38
149-122-0283 0.293 0.293 $279.27 $81.82
149-241-0103 0.262 0.262 $279.27 $73.16
149-253-0133 0.32 0.32 $279.27 $89.36
149-253-0163 0.228 0.228 $279.27 $63.68
149-253-0283 0.22 0.22 $279.27 $61.44
149-253-0293 0.294 0.294 $279.27 $82.10
149-270-0063 0.41 0.41 $279.27 $114.50
149-270-0083 0.43 0.43 $279.27 $120.08
149-270-0363 1.50 $279.27 $0.00
149-270-0373 1.41 1.41 $279.27 $393.78
149-270-0383 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
149-270-0393 1.26 1.26 $279.27 $351.88
149-284-0053 0.21 0.21 $279.27 $58.64
149-284-0063 2.626 2.626 $279.27 $733.36
149-284-0073 0.159 0.159 $279.27 $44.40
149-284-0083 0.145 0.145 $279.27 $40.50
149-284-0123 0.277 0.277 $279.27 $77.36
170-040-0433 0.11 0.11 $279.27 $30.72
170-040-0443 0.33 0.33 $279.27 $92.16

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
35 170-040-058 3 0.23 0.23 $279.27 $64.24
170-050-001 3 0.31 0.31 $279.27 $86.58
170-050-003 3 0.24 0.24 $279.27 $67.02
APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
170-050-026 3 0.59 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-050-028 3 0.39 0.39 $279.27 $108.92
170-050-029 3 0.23 0.23 $279.27 $64.24
170-050-031 3 0.32 0.32 $279.27 $89.36
170-050-032 3 0.74 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-061-022 3 0.23 0.23 $279.27 $64.24
170-061-024 3 0.321 0.321 $279.27 $89.64
170-091-006 3 0.207 0.207 $279.27 $57.80
170-091-007 3 0.207 0.207 $279.27 $57.80
170-091-008 3 0.2 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-091-015 3 0.81 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-091-017 3 0.15 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-091-018 3 0.2 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-092-032 3 0.21 0.21 $279.27 $58.64
170-092-039 3 0.22 0.22 $279.27 $61.44
170-092-040 3 0.19 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-092-041 3 0.11 0.11 $279.27 $30.72
170-092-050 3 0.23 0.23 $279.27 $64.24
170-092-054 3 0.43 0.43 $279.27 $120.08
170-092-055 3 0.26 0.26 $279.27 $72.62
170-092-057 3 1.04 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-092-058 3 0.41 0 $279.27 $0.00
100.834 80.269 $22,417.42

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
36 APN Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
149-010-089 4 0.23 0.23 $605.00 $139.16
149-010-090 4 0.4 0.4 $605.00 $242.00
149-380-001 4 0.181 0.181 $605.00 $109.50
149-380-002 4 0.071 0.071 $605.00 $42.96
149-380-003 4 0.071 0.071 $605.00 $42.96
149-380-004 4 0.071 0.071 $605.00 $42.96
149-380-005 4 0.123 0.123 $605.00 $74.42
149-380-006 4 0.123 0.123 $605.00 $74.42
149-380-007 4 0.645 0 $605.00 $0.00
152-132-046 4 1.23 1.23 $605.00 $744.16
152-132-047 4 1.07 1.07 $605.00 $647.36
152-132-049 4 1.9 1.9 $605.00 $1,149.50
152-181-030 4 2.28 2.28 $605.00 $1,379.40
152-181-048 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-049 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-050 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-051 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-052 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-053 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-054 4 0.82 0 $605.00 $0.00
164-131-027 4 0.44 0.44 $605.00 $266.20
166-060-048 4 0.249 0.249 $605.00 $150.64
166-081-031 4 0.41 0.41 $605.00 $248.06
166-081-051 4 0.35 0.35 $605.00 $211.76
166-081-052 4 0.35 0.35 $605.00 $211.76

11.854 10.389 $6,285.42

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
37 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
152-023-024 5A 0.62 0.62 $821.76 $509.50
152-030-050 5A 0.33 0.00 $821.76 $0.00
152-030-051 5A 1.4 0.00 $821.76 $0.00
152-030-052 5A 2.34 0.00 $821.76 $0.00
152-040-015 5A 0.56 0.56 $821.76 $460.18
152-040-026 5A 1.84 1.84 $821.76 $1,512.04
152-040-029 5A 0.424 0.424 $821.76 $348.42
152-040-030 5A 0.438 0.438 $821.76 $359.94
152-040-031 5A 0.55 0.00 $821.76 $0.00
153-050-014 5A 3.44 3.44 $821.76 $2,826.86
153-050-052 5A 2.911 2.911 $821.76 $2,392.14
153-050-059 5A 4.505 4.505 $821.76 $3,702.02
164-242-010 5A 0.36 0.36 $821.76 $295.84
164-242-012 5A 1.92 1.92 $821.76 $1,577.78
164-242-013 5A 0.65 0.65 $821.76 $534.14
164-242-014 5A 0.502 0.502 $821.76 $412.52
164-242-015 5A 2.22 2.22 $821.76 $1,824.30

25.01 20.390 $16,755.68

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
38 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
152-240-005 5B 0.498 0.498 $517.88 $257.90
152-240-007 5B 1.15 1.15 $517.88 $595.56
152-240-014 5B 1.27 1.27 $517.88 $657.70
152-240-016 5B 0.49 0.49 $517.88 $253.76
152-240-019 5B 0.5 0.50 $517.88 $258.94
152-240-020 5B 0.49 0.49 $517.88 $253.76
152-240-024 5B 1.891 1.891 $517.88 $979.32
152-240-025 5B 2.089 2.089 $517.88 $1,081.86
152-240-026 5B 0.555 0.555 $517.88 $287.42
152-240-027 5B 2.79 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-021 5B 1.04 1.04 $821.76 $538.60
153-050-031 5B 0.5 0.50 $517.88 $258.94
153-050-036 5B 1.17 1.17 $517.88 $605.92
153-050-037 5B 0.88 0.88 $517.88 $455.74
153-050-040 5B 0.99 0.99 $517.88 $512.70
153-050-046 5B 1.42 1.42 $517.88 $735.38
153-050-048 5B 0.8 0.80 $517.88 $414.30
153-050-050 5B 1.27 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-053 5B 4.06 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-057 5B 3.632 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-058 5B 1.18 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-063 5B 1.68 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-064 5B 2.25 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-065 5B 4.17 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-066 5B 3.215 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-067 5B 2.193 2.193 $517.88 $1,135.72

42.173 17.926 $9,283.52

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
39 APN Zone Acres EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/Acre
FY 22/23
Assessment
/Acre LF Rate L.F.

FY 22/23
LF Assessment
FY 22/23
Total
Assessment
127-110-026 6 1.992 4.149 $1,192.71 $2,375.88 $6.86 546 $3,745.56 $6,121.44 127-110-027 6 6.769 9.069 $1,192.71 $8,073.45 $6.86 582 $3,992.52 $12,065.98 148-020-010 6 2.673 2.673 $1,192.71 $3,188.12 $6.86 1252 $8,591.26 $11,779.38 148-020-012 6 0.139 0 $1,192.71 $0.00 $0.00
149-110-056 6 0.25 0 $1,192.71 $0.00 $0.00
149-110-085 6 2.024 2.024 $1,192.71 $2,414.05 $2,414.04 149-110-086 6 0.868 0.868 $1,192.71 $1,035.27 $1,035.28 150-181-050 6 3.56 0 $1,192.71 $0.00 $0.00
150-210-059 6 2.33 2.33 $1,192.71 $2,779.01 $2,779.02
150-300-001 6 2.83 2.83 $7,145.33 $20,221.28 $0.00 $20,221.28 150-300-002 6 1.2 1.2 $7,145.33 $8,574.40 $0.00 $8,574.40 150-300-003 6 0.825 0.825 $7,145.33 $5,894.90 $0.00 $5,894.90 150-300-004 6 1.279 1.279 $7,145.33 $9,138.88 $0.00 $9,138.88 150-300-005 6 1.619 1.619 $7,145.33 $11,568.29 $0.00 $11,568.28 150-300-006 6 1.036 1.036 $7,145.33 $7,402.56 $0.00 $7,402.56 150-300-007 6 5.188 5.188 $7,145.33 $37,069.97 $0.00 $37,069.98 150-300-010 6 1.264 1.264 $7,145.33 $9,031.70 $0.00 $9,031.70 150-300-011 6 1.496 1.496 $7,145.33 $10,689.41 $0.00 $10,689.42 150-300-012 6 1.939 1.939 $7,145.33 $13,854.79 $0.00 $13,854.80 150-300-013 6 1.323 0 $7,145.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
150-300-014 6 0.179 0 $7,145.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
150-300-015 6 0.505 0.505 $1,192.71 $602.32 $0.00 $602.32

41.288 40.294 $153,914.28 $170,243.66

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
40 APPENDIX B – DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
41 7.4.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: AD 20 Engineer's Report (AD 20 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 16, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 APPROVING INTENTION TO LEVY

AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC
HEARING AND NOTICE IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22 FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023

SYNOPSIS
An assessment district is a financial mechanism that allows for the levy of an assessment on a specific geographic area or parcels of real estate, which have been identified as receiving a direct and special "benefit" from a public improvement or service. Assessment District No. 22 (“AD 22”) enables the City to provide landscape maintenance and street lighting at an enhanced level within the scenic easements in the Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk Subdivisions. The properties within AD 22’s boundaries directly benefit from these landscape and lighting improvements. The annual assessments paid by the benefiting property owners of parcels within AD 22 fund the maintenance and services provided.

In order for the City to continue to levy and collect assessments within the Assessment District for the 2022/2023 fiscal year, an Annual Report must be prepared and the City must hold a public hearing. Staff requests that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments within AD 22 for the 2022/2023 fiscal year and give notice of the time and place for a public hearing on the levy of the assessments.

DISCUSSION
Background
AD 22 (Grayson Woods) was formed in 1997 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of the California Streets and Highways Code. AD 22 was amended in 2002 to include Subdivision 8304, Gallery Walk.

In order for the City to continue to levy and collect assessments within the Assessment District for the 2022/2023 fiscal year (“FY 22/23”), the City Council adopted a resolution directing the Engineer of Work to prepare an annual report at its February 7, 2022 meeting. The Engineer of Work, Harris & Associates, has completed and filed the annual report (attached) for FY 22/23 with

7.5 Packet Pg. 94
the City Clerk. The Annual Report includes descriptions of the improvements proposed during the fiscal year, an estimate of costs, and the levy of assessments upon the benefiting properties.

There are no new services or substantial changes in existing services proposed for FY 22/23 in the Gallery Walk subdivision. The Gallery Walk subdivision has sufficient capital set-aside funds for a future capital project; therefore, staff is recommending that the assessment rate remain at $187.50 for FY22/23, a rate that ensures the capital set-aside fund remains healthy.

A potential Reliez Valley slope stabilization project has been budgeted at $25,000 for FY 22/23 in the Grayson Woods subdivision from the capital set-aside in the fund. Although the Grayson Woods subdivision has sufficient capital reserves to fund the slope stabilization project, it will significantly reduce the fund balance. As a result, staff is recommending an increase in the assessment rate for Grayson Woods of 3.21% above the FY 21/22 rate, an increase of $9.94 from $309.90 to $319.84 per parcel. This new rate is approximately $40 below the Maximum Assessment rate of $359 for Grayson Woods.

A resolution of intention to collect assessments for FY 22/23 and call for a public hearing is attached.

Analysis
The collecting of assessments from properties within the boundaries of AD 22, together with the funds provided by the City, will ensure continued maintenance of lighting and landscape improvements within the boundaries of the District. City Maintenance staff provides for the maintenance of the improvements. The maintenance activities include weekly mowing and edging of turf; maintaining and repairing irrigation systems; pruning; removing debris and graffiti; repairing streetlights; maintenance and weeding, as well as paying for utility charges for water and electricity.

If AD 22 assessments are confirmed for FY 22/23, staff will continue to provide maintenance services for Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk. The assessment revenues total $59,641 for this year, which includes the assessment adjustments mentioned above. Staff and the Engineer of Work are making every effort to control expenditures related to managing, maintaining, and servicing AD 22 landscape and lighting improvements.

The estimated cost for the preparation and filing of the annual report is not to exceed $9,995, a cost borne by the District and divided proportionately between Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Pleasant Hill contributes a percentage of funding each year from the General Fund toward landscape and lighting costs for both development areas. This contribution is intended to offset the portion of the landscape and lighting improvements that provide benefit to the general public in areas located adjacent to public roadways within the City’s right of way. The proposed General Fund contribution for FY 22/23 is $8,246 ($2,366 for Grayson Woods and $5,880 for

7.5 Packet Pg. 95
Gallery Walk).

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page. The Resolution of Intention will be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with the statutes not less than ten days prior to the public hearing.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the Resolution of Intention.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Should AD 22 not be confirmed for FY 22/23, there would be a loss of $59,641 in assessment revenues to fund maintenance activities within AD 22. The City would need to fund these maintenance activities or services would need to be suspended or substantially reduced.

ATTACHMENTS:

Proposed Resolution
AD 22 Engineer’s Report
Prepared by: Danielle K. Habr, Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer, and Ethan Bindernagel, Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

7.5 Packet Pg. 96
RESOLUTION NO. ___-22

A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT

HILL TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS, LEVY ASSESSMENTS, AND PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22 FOR THE 2022/2023 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill adopted Resolution No. 11-22, a Resolution directing preparation and filing of the 2022/2023 annual engineer’s report for maintenance of Assessment District No. 22 (AD 22); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 11-22, the City directed Harris & Associates, as Engineer of Work for AD 22, to prepare a report in accordance with Sections 22565 et seq., of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Report"); and WHEREAS, the Report has been prepared and filed with the City Clerk and duly considered by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to levy and collect assessments within AD 22 for fiscal year 2022/2023 (“FY 22/23”) in order to accomplish the installation, service, and maintenance of public landscape and street lighting as described in Exhibit A which is incorporated by this reference and made a part of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the individual assessments for FY 22/23 are not proposed to exceed the maximum assessment rate for AD 22; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessments will be imposed exclusively to finance the operation and maintenance costs of lighting and landscape improvements within and immediately adjacent to AD 22; and
WHEREAS, the district consists of the lots and parcels shown on the assessment diagram of AD 22 on file with the City Clerk of the City, and reference is hereby made to such diagram for further particulars; and
WHEREAS, reference is hereby made to the Report for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of AD 22, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within AD 22.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that:

1. The Report is hereby deemed sufficient and preliminarily approved and the Report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to this resolution.

7.5.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Proposed Resolution (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments)

2. It is the intent of the City Council to levy and collect assessments within AD 22 to accomplish the installation, service, and maintenance of public landscape and street lighting as described in Exhibit A.

3. Notice is hereby given that on June 27, 2022, at 7:00 p.m., the City Council will hold a public hearing during its regular meeting on the question of the ordering of the proposed improvements and the levying of the proposed assessments for the 2022/2023 fiscal year. Please check the City’s website or posted agenda for information regarding whether the hearing will be held virtually or at City Hall at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, California. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any interested person may be afforded the opportunity to “hear and be heard” or may file a written protest with the City Clerk, or having previously filed a protest, may file a written withdrawal of that protest. A written protest shall state all grounds of objection. A protest by a property owner shall contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by such owner.

4. The City Clerk is directed to give notice of the public hearing by publishing in accordance with Section 6061 of the Government Code.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of May 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARIS, OD Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

7.5.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Proposed Resolution (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments)

EXHIBIT A
TO

A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PLEASANT HILL TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS, LEVY ASSESSMENTS

AND PROVIDE FOR HEARING AND NOTICE

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22
FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The installation, service and maintenance of public landscaping and street lighting improvements within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 22.

A potential slope stabilization project has been budgeted at $25,000 for fiscal year 2022/2023 in the Grayson Woods subdivision from the capital set-aside in the fund.

7.5.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Proposed Resolution (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments)

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
ENGINEER’S REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22
MAY 2022

PREPARED BY
Harris & Associates
1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 500
Concord, CA 94520
www.weareharris.com

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ENGINEER….……………………………………………………………..i PART 1 – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS……………………………………………………………………..1 PART 2 – ESTIMATE OF COSTS………………………………………………………………………………….3 PART 3 – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM…………………………………………………………………………….6 PART 4 – METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT………………………………………………………………...7 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT ROLL…………………………………………………………………………..13 APPENDIX B – DISTRICT DIAGRAM………….……………………………………………………………...21

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
i

STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ENGINEER
AGENCY: CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
PROJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
The preparation of this Annual Engineer’s Report (“Report”) is in conformance with the obligation of the City Council for Assessment District No. 22 (“District”) of the City of Pleasant Hill, to provide landscaping and lighting services upon each lot or parcel of land in the District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel of land for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 (“FY 22/23”).

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500) (“Act”), Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the State of California Constitution, and in accordance with the City of Pleasant Hill’s Resolution being adopted by the City Council for the:

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22
(Hereinafter referred to as the “District”),
I, Alison Bouley, authorized representative of the District, the duly appointed Assessment Engineer submit the following Report which consists of the following four (4) parts and Appendices:

PART 1
Description of Improvements: This part provides a general description of improvements proposed to be maintained in the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file with the City and are hereby made a part of this Report by reference.

PART 2
Estimate of Cost: This part contains the cost estimate of the proposed maintenance including incidental costs and expenses for FY 22/23.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
ii
PART 3
District Diagram: This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the external boundaries of the District and any Zones. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report. The District Diagram is also filed under separate cover with the office of the City Clerk.

PART 4
Method of Apportionment of the Assessments: This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon parcel classification of land within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.

The costs and expenses of the District have been assessed upon the parcels of land within the boundaries of District pursuant to the initial methodology established at the time of formation.

Appendices
Appendix A – Assessment Roll
Appendix B – District Diagram
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the costs and expenses of the District have been assessed to the lots and parcels within the boundaries of the District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each lot or parcel from the services provided.

DATED this day of , 2022
___________________________________________
Alison Bouley, P.E., Assessment Engineer
R.C.E. No. C61383
Engineer of Work

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
1 PART 1 – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The boundaries of Assessment District No. 22 correspond to the boundaries of the tracts of land identified on the Assessment Diagram located in Appendix B of this Report. The tracts include the Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk subdivisions within the City of Pleasant Hill.

A copy of the Assessment Diagram is on file with the City Clerk. The Assessment Diagram refers to the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for an exact description of the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. Each parcel on the Assessment Diagram is keyed to the assessment, which appears in the Assessment Roll, by its Assessor’s Parcel Number.

The Assessment District consists of two subdivisions containing 237 assessable single-family residential lots and an assessable golf course and clubhouse parcel. There are also several non-assessable parcels including open space, scenic easements, public streets and rights of ways. In total there are 248 assessor’s parcels within the District Boundaries.

Improvements and Services Provided
The following are the specific improvements maintained and serviced within the District:

Grayson Woods
The subdivision contains 104 residential lots and a golf course and clubhouse. The improvements consist of the maintenance, servicing of landscaping and street lighting on public streets, easements, and rights of way immediately adjacent to and within the Grayson Woods subdivision. The improvements being maintained consist of public street lighting systems and public landscaping including, but not limited to, trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, turf, and asphalt pathways. The services provided include, but are not limited to, litter and debris removal, irrigation system adjustment, maintenance and repairs, pruning, staking, fertilizing, plant replacement and restoration, weed and rodent control, erosion control, trimming of vegetation, and removal of debris in creek areas.

There are approximately 69,000 square feet of landscaped area within the Grayson Woods development. There is approximately 1,000 square feet of turf area and several hundred square feet of raised annual color beds included in the in the landscaping, which are changed two to three times annually.

The small creek along the west side of Reliez Valley Road empties into a 48-inch pipe with a trash rack on the east side of Reliez Valley Road, which needs to be cleared from landscaping debris as necessary. Vegetation in a creek running through the landscaped easement must be pruned and cleaned, and periodic slope stabilization is provided as necessary to ensure proper drainage. Maintenance of public open space parcels F, H and I is also provided by the District.

In addition to the landscaping improvements, there are 30 total streetlights to be serviced and maintained: six on Reliez Valley Road, five on Grayson Road, eight on Iron Hill Street and 11 on Golf Links Street and adjoining cul-de-sacs. The County services and maintains the streetlights on Reliez Valley Road, and this cost has been excluded from the District.

Plans and specifications for the service and maintenance of streetlights are published by PG&E and are incorporated into this Report by reference.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
2 Other services, which the District provides, include the repair or resurfacing of the asphalt path along Reliez Valley Road.

Maintenance of the public open space within the development may also be provided under the District, but has been budgeted on an as-needed basis.

There are no substantial changes or additions to the improvements or services proposed for FY 22/23, but the budget has included $25,000 for a potential slope stabilization project located along Reliez Valley Road. There was a slide there in 2021, which may need to be repaired. This amount is being funded from the Zone Reserves.

Gallery Walk
The subdivision contains 133 residential lots. These parcels of land were annexed into the existing assessment district in 2002 and are shown on the diagramfound in Appendix B. There is also a separate budget for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements for the Gallery Walk development.

Areas beingmaintained lie within the public right of way, generally located along West Hookston Road, Cleaveland Road, Astrid Drive and within the East Bay Municipal Utility District (“EBMUD”) right of way. The improvements consist of the maintenance and servicing of the existing landscaping, including, but not limited to trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, turf, concrete sidewalks, and asphalt pathways; and street lighting on public streets, easements, and right of ways immediately adjacent to the subdivision. The landscaping services provided include, but are not limited to litter and debris removal; irrigation system adjustment, maintenance and repairs; pruning, staking, fertilizing, plant replacement and restoration; weed control; erosion control; and trimming of vegetation.

The services in the public right of way adjacent to West Hookston Road, Cleaveland Road, and Astrid Drive are limited to street lighting. The maintenance of ground cover, turf, irrigation, and litter and debris removal in these areas is not the responsibility of the District, but is provided by the individual property owner or the Homeowner’s Association.

There will be an occasional need to repair or replace the concrete sidewalks along the exterior of the tract. Reserve funds will be used for that purpose when required and may also be used to resurface the asphalt path along the EBMUD trail in the future, as well as other repairs or replacements as needed.

There are no substantial changes or additions to the improvements or services proposed for FY 22/23.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
3 PART 2 – ESTIMATE OF COST
The estimated budget for the annual maintenance and servicing of the improvements and the proportionate share of administration costs for the District has been prepared based on the estimated and historical costs to provide said maintenance and services. Individual budgets for Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk are shown on the following pages.

The proposed costs represent the estimated costs required to maintain the improvements at the level expected by property owners and the City, and includes contributions from the City to account for the general benefit conferred to parcels outside the District.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
4 GRAYSON WOODS
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 39,098 $ 11,311 $ 8,450
Interest $ 313 $ 90 $ 68
Assessments $ 34,703 $ 35,744 $ 36,816
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 2,366 $ 2,437 $ 2,510 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 37,381 $ 38,271 $ 39,394

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 1,359 $ 1,399 $ 1,441
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 14,479 $ 14,913 $ 15,360 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 5,490 $ 5,545 $ 5,600 C/S Professional (3) $ - $ - $ -
C/S Construction (3) $ 25,000 $ - $ -
Sidewalk/Pathways Maintenance $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 3,726 $ 3,837 $ 3,952
Utilities - Water $ 9,351 $ 9,632 $ 9,921
Utilities - Other $ 1,390 $ 1,432 $ 1,475
Advertising $ 250 $ 250 $ 250
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (4) $ 214 $ 214 $ 214 Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 2,410 $ 2,410 $ 2,410 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 65,168 $ 41,132 $ 42,124

RESERVE BALANCE
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 32,584 $ 11,311 $ 8,450 Operating Reserve Fund Adjustments $ (27,787) $ (2,861) $ (2,731) Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 4,797 $ 8,450 $ 5,719 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 6,514 $ - $ - Capital Reserve Fund Adjustments $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 6,514 $ - $ - Total Reserve Balance: $ 11,311 $ 8,450 $ 5,719
Assessable EDU's - Single Family Parcels 104.00 104.00 104.00 Assessable EDU's - Golf Course Clubhouse & Remainder 4.50 4.50 4.50 Total EDU 108.50 108.50 108.50
Actual/Proposed Assessment (5) $ 319.84 $ 329.44 $ 339.32 Maximum Allowable Assessment (6) $ 359.00 $ 359.00 $ 359.00 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years assumes a 1% escalator. 34 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 5 Actual Assessment are proposed to increase as shown to replenish Reserves. 6 Maximum Assessment was established in an amount not to exceed $359.00.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

Consulting Services related to professional service and construction contract costs.

The $25,000 shown is specifically related to a landslide repair project along Reliez Valley Road.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
5 GALLERY WALK
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 56,202 $ 58,533 $ 62,506
$ - $ -
Interest $ 450 $ 468 $ 500
Assessments $ 24,938 $ 24,938 $ 24,938
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 5,880 $ 6,056 $ 6,238 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 31,267 $ 31,462 $ 31,675

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 1,359 $ 1,399 $ 1,441
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 14,666 $ 15,106 $ 15,559 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 6,730 $ 6,797 $ 6,865 C/S Professional (3) $ - $ - $ -
C/S Construction (3) $ - $ - $ -
Sidewalk/Pathways Maintenance $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ - $ - $ -
Utilities - Water (4) $ - $ - $ -
Utilities - Other $ 193 $ 198 $ 204
Advertising $ 250 $ 250 $ 250
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (5) $ 238 $ 238 $ 238 Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 28,935 $ 27,489 $ 28,058

RESERVE BALANCES
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 14,468 $ 13,745 $ 14,029 Operating Reserve Fund Adjustments $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 14,468 $ 13,745 $ 14,029 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 41,734 $ 44,789 $ 48,477 Capital Reserve Fund Adjustments $ 2,332 $ 3,973 $ 3,617 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 44,065 $ 48,761 $ 52,094 Total Reserve Balance: $ 58,533 $ 62,506 $ 66,123
Assessable EDU's - Single Family Parcels 133.00 133.00 133.00 Total EDU 133.00 133.00 133.00
Actual/Proposed Assessment $ 187.50 $ 187.50 $ 187.50
Maximum Allowable Assessment (6) $ 234.36 $ 234.36 $ 234.36 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years assumes a 1% escalator. 3 Consulting Services related to professional service and construction contract costs. 4 Water supplied by development. 5 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 6 Maximum Assessment was established in an amount not to exceed $234.36.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
6 PART 3 – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of each Zone and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District has been submitted to the office of the City Clerk of the City of Pleasant Hill, and is hereby made a part of this Report by reference.

A copy of the Assessment Diagram is included as Appendix B of this Report.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
7 PART 4 – METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
General
Street and Highways Code Section 22573 requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This section states:
“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
— Streets and Highways Code Section 22573
The 1972 Act permits the designation of areas of benefit within any individual assessment district if "by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will received different degrees of benefit from the improvements." (Sec. 22574). Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax."
In November 1996, the voters of California adopted Proposition 218, which has been codified as Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 imposed a number of substantive and procedural requirements on taxes, assessments, and property-related fees imposed by local governments in California.

The method of apportionment described in this Report, and confirmed by the City Council, utilizes commonly accepted engineering practices established pursuant to the 1972 Act and the California Constitution for the allocation of special benefit assessments. The calculation of assessments is based upon the parcel type and the services and improvements provided to equitably apportion the costs based on the special benefit received by each lot or parcel. The special benefit received by each lot or parcel is over and above any general benefit conferred upon said lots or parcels or to the public at large.

Special Benefit
The improvements and associated costs have been allocated to the assessable properties within the District based upon the special benefit received by those properties. The improvements for which the properties are assessed have been identified as necessary, were installed and are being maintained as part of the development plans. As such, the improvements and continuing maintenance and servicing of those improvements are the obligation of the properties within the District.

General Benefit
The landscaping and hardscape improvements that are unique to each neighborhood in the District (Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk), with regards to the specific plant materials, style and intensity of landscaping and hardscape within the community, provide a special benefit to property owners within those neighborhoods by providing visual interest, a sense of identity and community and definition that is unique to each neighborhood. Landscaping is also used to provide neighborhood traffic calming and provide informal gathering places.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
8 As a result, the landscaping helps to define the character of each neighborhood, setting it apart from other areas within the City. The landscaping improvements provide particular aesthetics and community identity to the neighborhoods.

Those landscaping improvements were installed and are maintained as a condition of development and would not have been installed otherwise.

Assessments may only be levied upon parcels in proportion to the proportional special benefit received by a parcel per Article XIII D of the State Constitution (“Proposition 218”). Special benefit means a particular and district benefit that is over and above any general benefit conferred on parcels located in the district or to the public at large. Further, no assessment may exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional benefit conferred upon a parcel. Based upon this, it is necessary to calculate the cost related to any general benefit, and that amount must be subtracted from the assessment to be levied upon the parcels in the District. The improvements maintained by the assessment, which are described in the plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer, confer special benefits that affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from their effects on other parcels not within the District, and which real property in general and the public at large do not share since the improvements were provided for the sole benefit of the parcels within the district and were required as a condition of development.

However, even though the improvements were installed for the sole benefit of the parcels within each area, it has been determined that there is an incidental General Benefit from the maintenance of trees, landscaping improvements, hardscaping, ornamental structures, and appurtenant facilities located near the parcels within each neighborhood. This benefit is considered incidental and provides negligible benefit to motorists traveling to or from the neighborhood, or to properties outside the District. As a result, the City has quantified this General Benefit as described below in order to subtract it from the special benefit and will make an annual contribution for the incidental general benefits conferred to those outside properties or individuals.

For Grayson Woods, the landscaping along the east side of Reliez Valley Road and the north side of Grayson Road may confer some limited benefit to passersby or parcels outside the District.

Maintenance costs have been calculated at $0.153 per square foot. This is based on the square footage of landscaping being maintained divided by the annual labor costs to maintain that landscaping (2020-21 Labor Costs (Salaries and Benefits shown on the budget page) of $10,543 / 69,000 SF maintained = $0.153/SF). For areas in the City with no landscaping improvements to be maintained, the City provides limited weed control and debris removal as necessary.

The average cost per square foot for those services is approximately $0.025. The percentage difference between $0.153 and $0.025 is equal to 16.34%. The City therefore, will make a contribution equal to 16.34% of the annual labor costs of the Grayson Woods area to offset any General Benefit.

For Gallery Walk, the landscaping along the EBMUD easement, as well as the south side of Hookston Road and the east side of Cleveland Road confers some level of benefit to individuals outside the District.

The costs per square foot to maintain the landscaping improvements within Gallery Walk is also $0.153/SF (2020-21 Labor Costs of $7,406 / 48,500 SF maintained = $0.153/SF). Due to the nature and location of the landscaping in Gallery Walk, and the fact that approximately 40% of the total area being maintained is located within the EBMUD easement, which is readily accessible to the general public, it has been determined that 80% of the landscaping within the EBMUD easement should be considered general benefit. The remaining 20% of the landscaping provides direct and special benefit to the parcels in Gallery Walk. That 20% includes the landscaping along the west side of the development, as well as the asphalt pathway, which provides direct access to the EBMUD easement. Taking into account the areas defined as general benefit vs. special benefit and spreading the costs proportionally, the City will make a contribution equal to 40.09% of the annual labor costs of the Grayson Woods area to offset any General Benefit.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
9 Definition of Special Benefit
The method of apportionment described in this Report is based on the premise that each assessable parcel or unit receives distinct and special benefits from the improvements and services provided, including the visual desirability provided by well-maintained landscaping and lighting. In accordance with Article XIII D, Section 4 of the California Constitution:
“Special benefit means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the District or the public at large” The special benefits associated with local landscaping and lighting improvements are specifically:
 Enhanced desirability of properties due to proximity and accessibility of the improvements.  Improved aesthetic appeal provided by a positive representation of the development, neighborhood and the community.
 Improved ingress and egress to property resulting in enhanced traffic flow, reduced traffic accidents and consequent reduction of possible property damage.
 Improved traffic visibility and circulation.
 Improved accessibility for emergency vehicles.
 Reduced vandalism and other criminal activity.

ASSESSMENT RANGE FORMULA
To impose a new assessment or increased assessment in excess of the Maximum Assessment Rate for the current fiscal year, the City must comply with the provisions of the California Constitution, Article XIII D, Section 4c that requires a public hearing and certain protest procedures including mailed notice of the public hearing and property owner protest balloting. Property owners must approve the proposed new or increased assessment via a property owner protest balloting process before any such new or increased assessment can be imposed. A protest occurs when, at the public hearing, the returned assessment ballots opposed to the new or increased assessment outweigh the returned ballots in favor of the new or increased assessment, weighting those assessment ballots by the financial obligation of each parcel.

The definition of new or increased assessments includes any assessment which, 1) did not previously exist or, 2) exceeds a previously approved assessment amount or assessment range formula. Any assessment range formula must have been previously adopted by the agency and approved by the property owners.

Assessment Methodology
It is generally recognized that most budgetary items will be impacted by inflation in future years. In accordance with the California Constitution, Section 53739 (b)(1), assessments “may be adjusted for inflation pursuant to a clearly defined formula…” A formula for an inflationary adjustment is therefore included as part of the maximum assessment for this District and was approved by the property owner(s) at the time of formation. The formula, as described below, allows for annual adjustments to the budget and the assessments.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
10 The benefit formula used to determine the financial obligation for each parcel is based on the improvements benefitting the parcels, as well as the use, or type, of each parcel that benefits from said improvements. One of the more common approaches to fairly distributing District costs to the benefitting parcels in maintenance districts such as this utilizes a methodology referred to as the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (“EDU”) method of apportionment. This method utilizes various property characteristics such as development status, type of development (land-use) and size (units or acreage) to compare the proportional benefit of each property compared to other properties benefitting from the improvements. The parcel types and corresponding benefit within the District follow:

Grayson Woods
Residential parcels
The maintenance of landscaping along Reliez Valley Road and Grayson Road is of special benefit to all residential properties within the Grayson Woods development in that it enhances the appearance of the development and improves the quality of life within the development on a day to day basis. The cleaning and removal of debris from drainage ditches assures that drainage from upstream properties may pass freely through the development. All properties must access the property via Reliez Valley Road or Grayson Road and the benefit to each single-family residential parcel is presumed to be the same, regardless of location within the development. As a result, each singlefamily residential parcel is assigned an EDU of 1.00.

Golf Course Clubhouse/Restaurant and Parking
The benefit received by the golf course clubhouse/restaurant and parking area from street lighting may be evaluated in terms of the benefit received by a single-family residence. The clubhouse benefits the same from vehicle and pedestrian safety as well as from enhanced property appearance and security. The clubhouse parking lot frontage is roughly equivalent to that for four average residential lots and its street lighting benefit is accordingly assigned 4.00 EDU.

Remainder of Golf Course
The remainder of the golf course parcel receives limited special benefit from street lighting. That portion of the fairway which fronts on a lighted street benefits from the safety and security provided to pedestrians and motorists.

Assuming a typical lot has a frontage of 50 feet, an equivalent number of units of street lighting benefit for the golf course fairway may be calculated by dividing that portion of the parcel by 50, resulting in an additional 0.50 EDU.

Open Space and Scenic Easements
These parcels do not have lighted frontage, do not benefit from street lighting, and therefore are not assessed As described above, equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) have been assigned to each assessor’s parcel number (APN) by land use. They are listed in following table:

Grayson Woods
EDUs by Land Use
Parcel Type
Parcel
Count
EDU per Parcel
Type Total EDU’s
Single Family Residential 104 1.00 104.00
Golf Course & Clubhouse 2 4.50 4.50
Open Space (Lots F, H & I) 4 0.00 0.00
Totals: 110 108.50

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
11 At the time of formation, the assessment levied per EDU was established to fall within a range of $289.00 to $359.00, with the exact amount to be levied in any given year to be determined by the budget for that year. The actual assessment each year may be increased the following year by the percentage of the annual change in the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco/Oakland/Hayward Area (CPI), so long as the resulting increase does not exceed $359.00, as established. If the assessment in any year is proposed to exceed $359.00, the City must comply with Article XIII D, Section 4c of the California Constitution, as previously stated. The annual percentage change for 2021 (January 2022), was 3.21%.

A potential Reliez Valley slope stabilization project has been budgeted at $25,000 for FY 22/23 in the Grayson Woods subdivision from the capital set-aside in the fund. Although the Grayson Woods subdivision has sufficient capital reserves to fund the slope stabilization project, it will significantly reduce the fund balance. As a result, staff is recommending that the assessments for Grayson Woods be increased by 3.21% this year, over the FY 21/22 rate, from $309.90 to $319.84.

Gallery Walk
The Gallery Walk area consists of single-family residential parcels only.

The net total amount to be assessed has been distributed among the various parcels of land within the Gallery Walk Annexation in accordance with the estimated special benefits to be received by each parcel from the improvements.

Each residential lot is assigned an equal dwelling unit, “EDU.” The assessment per EDU is calculated as the total estimated cost less the general benefit contribution by the City is shown in the Cost Estimate table, divided by the total EDUs in Gallery Walk.

Gallery Walk
EDUs by Land Use
Parcel Type Parcel Count
EDU per Parcel
Type Total EDUs
Single Family Residential 133 1.00 133.00
Totals: 133 133.00
At the time of annexation, the assessment levied per EDU was established to fall within a range of $187.49 to $234.36, with the exact amount to be levied in any given year to be determined by the budget for that year. The actual assessment each year may be increased the following year by the percentage of the annual change in the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco/Oakland/Hayward Area (CPI), so long as the resulting increase does not exceed $234.36, as established. If the assessment in any year is proposed to exceed $234.36, the City must comply with Article XIII D, Section 4c of the California Constitution, as previously stated. The annual percentage change for 2021 (January 2022), was 3.21%. The Zone has sufficient Reserves to fund a future capital project while maintaining the current assessment (i.e. no CPI increase) and remaining fiscally healthy.

Operating Reserve
The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set-up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Assessment funds shall be used only for the purposes stated herein. A contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments or to fund costs which are greater than revenue from the assessments, as the City Council deems

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
12 appropriate. The estimated beginning and ending Operating Reserve fund balances for FY 22/23 are shown in the Cost Estimate table.

Section 22569 (a) of the 1972 Act allows the District assessments to “…include a reserve which shall not exceed the estimated costs of maintenance and servicing to December 10 of the fiscal year, or whenever the city expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the county, whichever is later.” Capital Reserve
In addition to the 50% Operating Reserve detailed above, an agency may create an additional reserve (“Capital” or “Replacement” Reserve) to fund the replacement of improvement items that useful life exceeding five years. These items may include but are not limited to the asphalt path in each subdivision, sidewalks, streetlights, irrigation systems, etc. The estimated beginning and ending Capital Reserve fund balances for FY 22/23 are shown in the Cost Estimate table.

Any additionalsurplus funds, in excess of the 50% Operating Reserve or identified Capital Reserve, must be carried over to the next fiscal year.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
13 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel Identification for each lot or parcel within the District shall be based on available parcel maps and other property data from the Contra Costa County Assessor’s office as they existed at the time this Report was prepared and adopted by the City Council.

A listing of parcels assessed within the District for FY 22/23, along with the corresponding assessment amounts, is included on the following pages. If any parcel submitted for collection is identified by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the current fiscal year, a corrected parcel number and/or new parcel numbers will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel(s) shall be based on the method of apportionment and assessment rate approved in this Report.

Therefore, if a single parcel has changed to multiple parcels, the assessment amounts applied to each of the new parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment.

Non-assessable lots or parcels include areas of public streets and other roadways (typically not assigned an APN by the County); dedicated public easements, open space areas and rights-of-way, including public greenbelts and parkways; utility rights-of-way; common areas; landlocked parcels; small parcels vacated by the County, bifurcated lots and any other property that cannot be developed or has specific development restrictions. These types of parcels receive little or no benefit from the improvements and are therefore, exempted from assessment.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
14 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
164-040-037 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-040-039 Grayson Woods $1,439.28
164-550-001 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-002 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-003 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-004 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-005 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-006 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-007 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-008 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-009 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-010 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-011 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-012 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-013 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-014 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-015 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-016 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-017 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-018 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-019 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-020 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-021 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-022 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-023 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-024 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-025 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-026 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-027 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-028 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-029 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-030 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-031 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-032 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-033 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-034 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-035 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-036 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-037 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-038 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-039 Grayson Woods $319.84

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
15 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
164-550-040 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-041 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-043 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-044 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-045 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-046 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-047 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-048 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-049 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-050 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-051 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-052 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-053 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-054 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-055 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-056 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-057 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-058 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-059 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-063 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-550-064 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-550-066 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-001 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-002 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-003 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-004 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-005 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-006 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-007 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-008 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-009 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-010 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-014 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-015 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-016 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-017 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-018 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-019 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-020 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-021 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-022 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-023 Grayson Woods $319.84

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
16 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
164-560-024 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-025 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-026 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-027 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-028 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-029 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-030 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-031 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-032 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-033 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-034 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-035 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-036 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-037 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-038 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-039 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-040 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-041 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-042 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-046 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-560-047 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-560-048 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-560-049 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-560-051 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-052 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-053 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-055 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-056 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-057 Grayson Woods $319.84
$34,702.64

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
17 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
149-121-043 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-044 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-045 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-046 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-047 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-048 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-049 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-050 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-051 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-052 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-053 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-054 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-055 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-056 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-057 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-058 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-059 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-060 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-061 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-062 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-063 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-064 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-065 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-066 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-067 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-068 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-069 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-070 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-071 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-072 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-073 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-074 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-075 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-076 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-077 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-078 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-079 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-080 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-081 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-082 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-083 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-084 Gallery Walk $187.50

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
18 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
149-121-085 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-086 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-087 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-088 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-089 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-090 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-091 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-092 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-093 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-094 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-095 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-096 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-097 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-098 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-099 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-100 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-101 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-102 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-103 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-104 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-105 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-106 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-107 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-108 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-109 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-110 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-111 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-112 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-113 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-114 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-115 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-116 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-117 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-118 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-119 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-120 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-121 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-122 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-123 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-124 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-125 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-126 Gallery Walk $187.50

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
19 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
149-121-127 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-128 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-129 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-130 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-131 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-132 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-133 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-134 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-135 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-136 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-137 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-138 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-139 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-140 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-141 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-142 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-143 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-144 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-145 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-146 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-147 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-148 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-149 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-150 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-151 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-152 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-153 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-154 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-155 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-156 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-157 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-158 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-159 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-160 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-161 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-162 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-163 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-164 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-165 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-166 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-167 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-168 Gallery Walk $187.50

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
20 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
149-121-169 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-170 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-171 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-172 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-173 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-174 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-175 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-176 Gallery Walk $0.00
149-121-177 Gallery Walk $0.00
149-121-178 Gallery Walk $0.00 $24,937.50

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
21 APPENDIX B – DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
The following pages show the Assessment Diagram or boundary map for each Zone. The lines and dimensions shown on maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor, for the current year, are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.

7.5.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
22 7.5.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
23 7.5.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: AD 22 Engineer's Report (AD 22 - Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments) 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3323 – (925) 671-5270 www.pleasanthillca.org

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Councilmembers
FROM: Mayor Michael G. Harris, OD
DATE: May 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve the Mayor Sending a Letter of Support for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority 680 Forward Grant Application
At the May 6, 2022 Mayor’s Conference, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), requested that cities send a letter of support for CCTA’s application to the United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) competitive grant program for CCTA’s 680 Forward initiative.

The 680 Forward program promotes a holistic approach to improving mobility and creating more sustainable, shared modes of transportation and will fund a suite of multimodal projects along Interstate 680. The ten projects within this program are designed to work together to improve safety, smooth traffic, and increase access for all users of the transportation system. 680 Forward is the only project in the Bay Area competing for Mega Grant (large) funding that has been endorsed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the metropolitan planning organization for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. With over $627 million in state, other federal, and regional funding already committed, CCTA is seeking approximately $395 million in National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) Grant funding.

I am requesting the approval of the City Council to submit the attached proposed letter of support to the United States Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg.

Attachments:
680 Forward Initiative Project Fact Sheet
Proposed Letter of Support
ATTACHMENT(S):

7.6 Packet Pg. 127
2 680 Forward Project Fact Sheet
Proposed Letter of Support

7.6 Packet Pg. 128
680 680
2244
580 580
880 880
44 44
8080
SAN

FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

RICHMOND

WALNUT CREEK

SACRAMENTO

FAIRFIELD

SAN JOSE
SAN

FRANCISCO

OAKLAND

RICHMOND

WALNUT CREEK

SACRAMENTO

FAIRFIELD

SAN JOSE

INTRODUCTION
Interstate 680 (I-680) is a backbone corridor
for the Bay Area that plays a critical role in the
region’s prosperity. It provides for the movement
of goods, services, and people throughout
northern California and beyond. Thousands of
homes and businesses rely on this corridor for
day-to-day travel and increased congestion has
led to unacceptable delays. Importantly, I-680
is also a federally designated “alternative fuel
corridor,” which amplifies CCTA’s commitment
to moving the corridor forward through focused
modernization and implementation of a suite of
multimodal projects along the corridor.

To improve safety, smooth traffic, and increase
access for all users of the transportation
system, CCTA has designed a one-of-a-kind
holistic approach that combines specific transit
improvements, active transportation projects,
congestion relief projects, and innovative
concepts to work in harmony to improve this
vital corridor. Projects featured in CCTA’s 680
Forward program include:
• Zero emission bus service
• Shared mobility hubs
• Transit bus-on-shoulder lanes
• Bicycle and pedestrian overcrossings
• Express lane network
• I-680/SR-4 interchange improvements
• Tech tools to encourage sharing modes
• New mobility options for elderly and disabled
These combined projects will have significant
environmental, equity, and economic benefits,
and increased mobility options are a major
interest for the local community. Reducing
congestion, investing in transit, switching
to alternative fueling, and improving nonmotorized transportation options will positively impact climate change. Improving bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure, building mobility
hubs, and investing in affordable transit will
create a more socially equitable community and
give disadvantaged community members more
transportation options. Economic benefits will
be seen in the reconfiguring of the SR-4 corridor
by improving traffic operations and safety, and
the use of intelligent compaction methods will
reduce maintenance costs.
680 FORWARD IS THE ONLY PROJECT

IN THE BAY AREA COMPETING FOR

MEGA GRANT FUNDING THAT HAS BEEN

ENDORSED BY THE METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC),

THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING,

FINANCING, AND COORDINATING

AGENCY FOR THE NINE-COUNTY SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA.

CCTA seeks $395 million,
37% of the total project
cost of $1.07 billion, to
move I-680 forward while
aligning with federal,
state, and local safety,
equity, and emission goals.

7.6.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 680 Forward Project Fact Sheet (Support letter for 680 Forward initiative) 3 | 680 FORWARD
Our recent behavioral research along the I-680 corridor made clear that a significant percentage (68%) of corridor residents would like to drive less.

This means that many of the cars that we see on the corridor every day, actually don’t want to be there! Drivers would rather take other modes of transportation, they just don’t think it is possible for them.

This research opened our eyes and revealed that a shift was necessary in how we plan projects. No longer can we rely only on traffic data and traditional modeling to design transportation infrastructure. We also MUST consult with our residents and ask thoughtful, scientific questions about why they travel the way they do and how they would like to travel.

Our research also revealed that transit is a mode many are willing to try.

With this in mind we have the following transit-related projects planned for the I-680 corridor:

EXPRESS BUS PROJECT
The I-680 corridor currently does not have train or bus service connecting the Tri-Valley area to Martinez. An express bus route on I-680 is necessary to close this gap and serve those passengers that have no other means of traveling along the corridor. This service would provide a vital connection between travelers on Amtrak’s national network, and the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin routes with regional rail service such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) rail networks.

Several key elements are necessary to make this express bus connection work, including the shared mobility hubs being planned as part of the INNOVATE 680 program. These hubs will be strategically placed along I-680 at several convenient locations such as the Bollinger Canyon Park & Ride and Walnut Creek BART. Other elements under development for this express bus service include the purchase of hydrogen fuel-cell buses, fueling stations, and shoulder improvements to support part-time transit lanes.

In addition to filling an unmet need for passengers, this service will provide additional travel options to all who live and work along the corridor, it will help reduce congestion, and it will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thereby improving the environment.

PART-TIME TRANSIT LANES
This project involves improving highway shoulders so that buses can use these lanes during peak congestion hours to help them keep on schedule. CCTA’s goal with these lanes is to make transit a more accessible and reliable mode of travel.

TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS

7.6.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 680 Forward Project Fact Sheet (Support letter for 680 Forward initiative) 4 | 680 FORWARD
HUB
Our Shared Mobility Hubs and trail improvement projects are aimed at supporting greener, more active travel modes. Recent data we collected from residents around the I-680 corridor showed that most residents are willing to walk or bike up to 15 minutes to get to a transportation stop. Our teams are encouraged by this fun fact, and we are using this information as well as data about preferred amenities and mobility methods to design projects that will make active transportation options not just the smart choice, but the easy choice.

Two of the projects that we have in motion right now are Shared Mobility Hubs (part of our INNOVATE 680 program) and several bike and pedestrian infrastructure projects involving the Iron Horse Trail.

We also have a Vision Zero Implementation Guide to support active transportation projects in the corridor.

BIKE & PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
The Iron Horse Trail is a regional feature that parallels I-680 and connects the communities along the corridor while providing residents a way to bike or walk to many destinations. CCTA has two pedestrian overcrossing projects planned along this trail: one in San Ramon at Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon Road, and one that will close a gap that currently exists between the Iron Horse Trail and the Contra Costa Canal Trail. Both overcrossings will enhance safety and access for pedestrians and bicyclists who use the Iron Horse Trail.

The pedestrian overcrossing in San Ramon will consist of a 200 foot-long cable stayed bridge. This project is fully funded and will begin construction in 2023.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
The planned gap closure project between the Iron Horse Trail and the Contra Costa Canal Trail will result in a more cohesive bike trail network for the communities along I-680 in central Contra Costa County.

Currently, the I-680 corridor and the I-680/SR-4 interchange are barriers to connecting these two trails.

SHARED MOBILITY HUBS
This project will include the planning and development of shared mobility hubs at existing park and ride lots along I-680 from Bollinger Canyon Road to State Route 4. These neighborhood mobility centers will offer personalized travel options to provide first and last mile connections to transit and may also include amenities such as coffee shops, bike lockers, and wi-fi.

7.6.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 680 Forward Project Fact Sheet (Support letter for 680 Forward initiative) 5 | 680 FORWARD
The I-680 corridor serves as the main artery through central Contra Costa County, connecting it with Solano County to the north and Alameda and Santa Clara counties to the south. It is critical to the movement of goods and people in our county and region that this highly-traveled corridor is operationally optimized, safe, and smooth. CCTA has two key projects in motion that are focused on improving travel along the corridor:

EXPRESS LANE COMPLETION
This project involves extending the existing express lanes from Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek to the Benicia Bridge, and will provide 25 miles of nearly continuous express lanes in the northbound direction. The goal of this express lane system is to increase travel speeds for those choosing to travel by carpool, vanpool, or motorcycle.
680/4 INTERCHANGE PROJECT
The State Route 4 (SR-4) corridor serves as the only major east-west transportation link joining the communities of Antioch, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Oakley, and Brentwood with central Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. It is critical that the interchange where SR-4 meets I-680 operates smoothly.

CCTA is working on a series of phased interchange improvements that will reconfigure the interchange, increase safety, provide congestion relief, and generally improve traffic operations within this highly-traveled area.

CONGESTION RELIEF
Innovative solutions are a part of our regular routine at CCTA. We are always looking for new ways to do our work better, and this project is no exception. We utilized the intelligent compaction method during the Phase 3 asphalt installation on this project.

Intelligent compaction (IC) refers to the compaction of road materials, such as soils, aggregate bases, or asphalt. IC rollers provide real-time compaction monitoring and timely adjustments to the compaction process to ensure more uniform material density than conventional compaction methods. This helps avoid premature pavement failure. The rubberized open-graded asphalt will reduce noise in the corridor.

Additionally, our crews used additives in the asphalt that reduced the temperature of the asphalt production, which required less fuel and reduced overall GHG emissions during the paving process.

This also promotes greater longevity in the product itself and results in a longer life span and less maintenance.

7.6.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 680 Forward Project Fact Sheet (Support letter for 680 Forward initiative) 6 | 680 FORWARD
CCTA’s goal for the I-680 corridor is to provide a new set of easy-to-use options and tools that will improve mobility for everyone and encourage travelers to move toward greener or shared modes of transportation.

To accomplish this CCTA is using several innovative options to help smooth traffic including:

COORDINATED ADAPTIVE RAMP METERING (CARM)
This project supports many of the projects happening on the corridor in Contra Costa. CCTA’s plan is to gather operational data from high-tech infrastructure, like Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) and Adaptive Ramp Metering (ARM), to refine the transportation system through a countywide connected data center. Real-time traffic information, based on the data gathered, will prompt dynamic adjustments to ramp meters in real time.

INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY

MOBILITY-AS-A-SERVICE
Also known as MAAS, this project is a combination of public and private transportation services that provides personalized mobility options based on traveler needs, allowing you to plan, pay and receive rewards for your trip. Our team is developing a mobile application to tie together all services along the corridor and eventually countywide. For the mobile app to be successful, projects like the shared mobility hubs and express bus services utilizing the shoulder, would be in operation.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS
Often referred to as ADS, this project will collect safety data on connected and autonomous vehicle operations to create more accessible travel options for the elderly and disabled. It will also inform technology that allows infrastructure and vehicles to communicate and avoid collisions.

ONE

VEHICLE
PER
GREEN
ALL OF THESE PROJECTS TOGETHER are anticipated
to improve mobility and accessibility throughout the region while supporting California’s vision to increase economic vitality and add jobs, while reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

TOTAL project cost................................... $1,070,000,000* TOTAL funding request................................$395,000,000* Requested Federal Mega funding match....................37% *Dollar amounts are approximate. Please refer to the application for exact amounts.

7.6.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 680 Forward Project Fact Sheet (Support letter for 680 Forward initiative) Mayor
100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3323 – (925) 671-5270 www.pleasanthillca.org
May 17, 2022
The Honorable Pete Buttigieg
Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: Support for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Grant Application for the USDOT’s National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) Competitive Grant Program; 680 Forward Program
Dear Secretary Buttigieg:

On behalf of the City of Pleasant Hill, I write to express our strong support of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) application to the United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) competitive grant program for its 680 Forward initiative.

The 680 Forward program promotes a holistic approach to improving mobility and creating more sustainable, shared modes of transportation. 680 Forward will fund a suite of multimodal projects along Interstate 680 – a backbone corridor in the San Francisco Bay Area that bisects all of Contra Costa County – to modernize the corridor for the future. The corridor experiences significant delays and inconsistent flow of traffic in both directions, and these delays are expected to continue in the foreseeable future. Expanding and widening I-680 is an expensive option, and building additional rail service in the corridor would cost billions of dollars. Neither option is financially feasible nor would adequately address these congestion problems.

To address these challenges, the ten projects within this program are designed to work in harmony to improve safety, smooth traffic, and increase access for all users of the transportation system.

Specific projects include: new, zero-emission express bus service supported by shared mobility hubs, and improved highway shoulders for part-time transit lanes; bicycle and pedestrian overcrossings to create a more cohesive bicycle network near large employment centers; coordinated adaptive ramp metering to reduce congestion; technology to encourage behavior change towards shared transit modes; completion of an express lane network; and new mobility options for elderly people and people with disabilities. Key elements of 680 Forward complement each other by strengthening regional multimodal connections and reducing barriers to alternative mode use.

7.6.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Proposed Letter of Support (Support letter for 680 Forward initiative) 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3323 – (925) 671-5270 www.pleasanthillca.org
680 Forward is the only project in the Bay Area competing for Mega Grant (large) funding that has been endorsed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the metropolitan planning organization for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. With over $627 million in state, other federal, and regional funding already committed, CCTA is seeking approximately $395 million in National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) Grant funding.

The 680 Forward program aligns with USDOT’s efforts to advance infrastructure projects of regional significance with economic, mobility, and safety benefits, and is poised to reduce travel time and environmental emissions, while enhancing the region’s economic vitality. Importantly, 680 Forward will prepare the I-680 corridor for the future with innovative solutions that will foster multimodal transportation options, reduce vehicle-miles traveled, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and increase equity and access for historically disadvantaged and underserved communities.

The City of Pleasant Hill strongly supports CCTA’s 680 Forward program for Mega Grant funding. Thank you for your consideration of this request, which will transform this critical corridor and advance the region’s commitment to transit innovation.

Sincerely,
Michael G. Harris, O.D.

Mayor

7.6.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Proposed Letter of Support (Support letter for 680 Forward initiative)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 16, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22

APPROVING A PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE

PREPARATION OF THE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND

HOUSING ELEMENT

SYNOPSIS
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the Planning Commission (PC) have made recommendations to the City Council to adopt a proposed Preferred Land Use Alternative as part of the in-progress General Plan Update and Housing Element. The Preferred Land Use Alternative establishes the recommended land use changes as part of the General Plan Update and the Housing Element. Council’s adoption of an alternative will provide land use clarity so that staff and the consultant team may move forward with necessary environmental review for the General Plan and Housing Element.

DISCUSSION
Project Description
The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider recommendations from the GPAC and the PC on a preferred land use alternative related to the in-progress General Plan Update and Housing Element. The Council is asked to review the proposed alternative that identifies potential land use designation modifications throughout the City. City Council adoption of the alternative is a critical step that will allow the General Plan Update, Housing Element and necessary environmental review to continue its progress.

Background
On February 5, 2020, the GPAC met to discuss the results of the community feedback received from the Planning and Design Workshops and online engagement. This meeting was a follow-up to the November 19, 2019 GPAC Meeting where the members reviewed initial feedback from the Workshops earlier in November and where the GPAC finalized the General Plan Vision Statement and Guiding Principles.

8.1 Packet Pg. 136
Following the discussion on community feedback, the consultant team provided the GPAC with an overview of nine Focus Areas and the changes the community recommended to each area. The GPAC analyzed each Focus Area and discusssed what changes, if any, should occur, before finalizing a GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative consisting of preferred land uses within the final Focus Areas. Figure 1 of Attachment B shows the nine GPAC Focus Areas.

In May 2021, the GPAC began working with staff and the consultant team to revisit the 2020 GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative as part of the Housing Element Update process. At meetings on May 12 and June 23, 2021, the GPAC reviewed potential sites for higher density residential land uses, some of which overlap with the GPAC Focus Areas. On November 17, 2021, the GPAC recommended that staff carry forward nine Housing Element Opportunity Sites for consideration in conjunction with the changes proposed through the GPAC Focus Areas (see Attachment E).

In January 2022, the consultant team prepared a GPAC-Preferred Alternative Memo that summarized GPAC recommendations on both the Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites. On January 26, 2022, the GPAC met to discuss the GPAC-Preferred Alternative Memo (Attachment D), receive and consider public input, and provide a final recommendation for each Focus Area.

On March 22, 2022, the PC held a public hearing to consider the recommendation of the GPAC.

After receiving public comment and considering the GPAC recommendation, the PC adopted PC Resolution No 9-22 (Attachment F) to forward a recommendation to the Council to adopt the GPAC’s proposed Preferred Land Use Alternative without any further modifications. As part of the hearing, the Commission recommended that Focus Area 2 – Mangini-Delu, have a maximum development allowance of 210 residential units throughout the site.

On April 27, 2022, the GPAC held a meeting at which the committee revisited the designation of the Mangini-Delu site (Focus Area 2) as a housing opportunity site (Attachment C). The GPAC agreed to remove the site from the Housing Element opportunity site inventory, but to keep it as part of the Preferred Land Use Alternative for the General Plan Update. Removal of Focus Area 2 from the housing opportunity site inventory eliminates various state-mandated constraints, including deadlines imposed by State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Further, removal will also allow the City to retain better discretion in determining future redevelopment of the site.

Analysis
A. Preferred Land Use Alternative
Attachment B provides additional information related to the Preferred Land Use Alternative, including Housing Opportunity sites.

Modifications Proposed at the January 26, 2022 General Plan Advisory Committee

8.1 Packet Pg. 137
At the January 26, 2022 GPAC meeting, additional sites were included in certain Focus Areas. The following areas are noted with staff commentary.

Focus Area 2 – Taylor/Pleasant Hill (Mangini-Delu)
The GPAC clarified that the site should have a single land use/density designation that would accommodate 210 residential units.

Focus Area 3 – Downtown Pleasant Hill
The GPAC added commercial properties on the southeast corner of Contra Costa Boulevard and Gregory Lane (currently the site of the Sonesta Hotel, Rite-Aid, Staples, etc.). The Committee added this portion as an integral part of Downtown Pleasant Hill.

Focus Area 5 – Contra Costa Boulevard
The GPAC provided direction to add a row of single-family residential properties on Shirley Drive that back up onto Contra Costa Boulevard and amend the remaining singlefamily residential neighborhood to the east of Contra Costa Boulevard to have a mixed use designation. This would begin the transition to more intense uses along the heavily traveled Contra Costa Boulevard corridor. City staff noted that the Shirley Drive properties do not currently have direct access to Contra Costa Boulevard and with the existing properties to the west retaining a single-family residential designation, this might be an area that warrants delay of the consideration for a mixed use designation. The Planning Commission supported the recommendation of the GPAC for this Focus Area.

Focus Area 6 – Gregory Lane
The GPAC provided direction to designate all parcels in the vicinity of the Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill Road intersection as mixed-use high density and to amend all single-family properties within the Focus Area to mixed-use neighborhood. This will provide consistency of land uses along this area. Further, Gregory Lane is a heavily traveled corridor that over the long-term would benefit from a mixed use, rather than singlefamily residential, development pattern.

Focus Area 8 – Oak Park Boulevard
The GPAC added commercial parcels at the intersection of Patterson and Oak Park Boulevards to be consistent with adjacent and nearby parcels that were proposed to be redesignated to mixed-use neighborhood.

Focus Area 10 – JFK University Site and Sites along Ellinwood Way

8.1 Packet Pg. 138
The GPAC recommended designating various parcels on the east side of Ellinwood Way with a Mixed Use High Density designation, and the former Boy Scouts of America office building at the north end of Ellinwood Way as Multi-Family Residential Low Density. The GPAC noted that this change could create more capacity for high density residential in an area currently served by sufficient infrastructure and surrounded by multi-family residential and multi-story commercial buildings. City staff cautioned that the area may have access concerns, though, as there are currently only two routes with limited carrying capacity leading into the area. This condition would have to be analyzed and addressed as part of more intensive development in this area. The Planning Commission supported the recommendation of the GPAC for this Focus Area.

B. Housing Element Opportunity Sites
Some Focus Areas contain Housing Opportunity sites, identified through the Housing Element update process. The selection of Housing Opportunity sites evolved over months of discussion with the GPAC and input from the public. An initial housing site map was presented for consideration, and after input from the GPAC, members of the public, and affected property owners, the final proposed Housing Opportunity sites were recommended by the GPAC at its November 17, 2021 meeting (see Attachment , with a subsequent modification to remove the Mangini-Delu Site (Site D) occurring at the April 27, 2022 GPAC meeting. Attachment B, provides more information on the recommended Housing Opportunity sites that would be identified as part of the Housing Element. All of the sites would accommodate development of (and provide the buffer and affordability levels required by) the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which requires the City to provide the land use and zoning capacity to accommodate 1,803 new housing units during the next eight-year Housing Element cycle (2023-2031).

Other Focus Areas include sites with higher or new residential density designations.

These sites are not included as Housing Opportunity sites. While Housing Opportunity sites are specifically identified for Housing Element compliance, the changes proposed for the additional parcels identified within some of the Focus Areas reflect the long-term land use vision of the City. The Council, by reviewing and recommending approval of the Preferred Land Use Alternative, would also be signaling simultaneous support for the Housing Element opportunity sites identified by the GPAC.

C. Minor Clean-Up Modifications
As part of the review of the General Plan Land Use map, staff identified sites that could be considered for modifications to land use designations. The Planning Commission supported the modifications as summarized below:
 1791 Shirley Avenue (APN 153-223-012) – This site currently has a single-family residence, yet has an Office designation. The GPAC recommended this site have a mixed-use designation. If this recommended land use designation is made, the site

8.1 Packet Pg. 139
would be consistent with the proposed changes to the land use designation of singlefamily properties to the north.  700 Ellinwood Way (APN 127-180-058 & 055) – This property currently has a hotel and a split land use designation, Office designation to the north and Commercial and Retail to the south, both containing a single hotel use. With the existing hotel use in place, the Commercial and Retail with a Tourist Commercial Overlay designation may be more appropriate.
 650 Ellinwood Way (APN 127-210-031) – This site currently has an Office designation. There is a multi-story hotel onsite; thus, a change to apply the Commercial and Retail with a Tourist Commercial Overlay designation may be more appropriate.
 3220 Buskirk Avenue (APN 148-100-045) – This site currently has a Commercial and Retail land use designation. However, given the presence of an existing multistory hotel on the property, applying the Tourist Commercial Overlay designation would be consistent with recent action by the City.

CEQA
Once City Council provides direction regarding the scope of the Preferred Land Use Alternative and resulting recommended land use changes, the City will conduct CEQA analysis of that scope.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department.

Notice of the meeting was also provided in the East Bay Times Newspaper published on April 16, 2022 and May 4, 2022, displayed on an A-Frame at the Police Station, displayed on the City Hall Changeable Message Board Sign, and on the City’s web page. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the proposed resolution to approve the Preferred Land Use Alternative for the General Plan Update so that staff and the consultant team may commence necessary environmental review for the General Plan and Housing Element.

8.1 Packet Pg. 140

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Do not adopt the Resolution.

2. Continue the item to a later date with direction provided to Staff.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A Proposed Resolution
Attachment B Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum
Attachment C April 27, 2022 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum Attachment D January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum Attachment E November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum Attachment F Planning Commission Resolution No. 9-22
Attachment G Public Hearing Notice
Attachment H Public Comments
Prepared by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Reviewed by: Ethan Bindernagel, Community Development Director and Assistant City Manager Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

8.1 Packet Pg. 141
RESOLUTION NO. ___- 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL,

APPROVING A PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE AS PART OF THE UPDATE OF

THE GENERAL PLAN AND ACCOMPANYING HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill began a comprehensive update of the General Plan in 2019 that would serve and guide future development in the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill formed a General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) consisting of two City Council members, two Planning Commissioners and one Architectural Review Commissioner to provide direction and guidance in the preparation of the update; and WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill has held GPAC workshops and meetings as part of the General Plan Update to review, discuss and receive public input on a Preferred Land Use Alternative; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill is also preparing an updated Housing Element in response to requirements of the 6
th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City of Pleasant Hill that mandates the City provide the land use and zoning capacity for the future development of 1,803 new housing units throughout the City over the next eight-year planning cycle; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2022, the GPAC held a meeting and approved forwarding a recommendation to the Planning Commission and to the City Council to adopt the proposed Preferred Land Use Alternative for the General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which time all interested parties could appear and be heard, and adopted PC Resolution No. 9-22 recommending the City Council adopt the proposed Preferred Land Use Alternative for the General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2022, the GPAC held a meeting and made a recommendation that the City Council to remove Focus Area 2 (Mangini-Delu property) from the Housing Element housing opportunity site inventory; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the proposed Preferred Land Use Alternative for the General Plan Update was noticed for the April 18, 2022 meeting date, but was continued without discussion to the May 2, 2022 and then continued for consideration to the May 16, 2022 meeting date, at which time all interested parties could appear and be heard.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill approves the Preferred Land Use Alternative for General Plan 2040 on the following basis:

1. The City Council concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the General Plan Advisory Committee to approve the Preferred Land Use Alternative, including consideration of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element Update.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: A - Proposed Resolution (Preferred Land Use Alternative)

2. The Preferred Land Use Alternative properly takes into consideration the long-term land use vision of the City that addresses future housing, commercial and industrial uses anticipated over the projected timespan of the General Plan Update.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, on the 16 th day of May 2022,
by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: A - Proposed Resolution (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 1
This memo provides an overview of GPAC direction through both the Focus Area and Housing Opportunity Sites processes, followed by a summary comparison of buildout potential between the Existing General Plan Land Use diagram and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use diagram.

Introduction
On February 5, 2020, the GPAC met to discuss the results of the community feedback received from the Planning and Design Workshops and online engagement. This meeting was a follow-up to the November 19, 2019, GPAC Meeting where the members were briefed on initial feedback from the Workshops earlier in November and where the General Plan Vision Statement and Guiding Principles were finalized.

Following the discussion on community feedback, the Consultant team provided the GPAC with an overview of nine Focus Areas and the changes recommended by the community to each area. The GPAC analyzed each Focus Area and had a robust discussion on what changes, if any, should occur, before finalizing a GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative consisting of preferred land uses within the final Focus Areas. Figure 1 shows GPAC Focus Areas.

In May 2021, the GPAC began working with staff and the Consultant team to revisit the 2020 GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative as part of the Housing Element Update process. At meetings on May 12, 2021 and June 23, 2021, the GPAC reviewed and discussed potential sites for higher density residential land uses, some of which overlap the GPAC Focus Areas. On November 17, 2021, the GPAC recommended that staff carry forward nine Housing Element Opportunity Sites for consideration in conjunction with the changes proposed through the GPAC Focus Areas. The text box on the following pages illustrates the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Process.

In January 2022, the Consultant Team prepared a GPAC Preferred Alternative Memo that summarized GPAC recommendations on both the Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites. On January 26, 2022 the GPAC met to discuss the GPAC Preferred Alternative Memo, receive and consider public input, and provide a final recommendation for each Focus Area.

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................1 GPAC Focus Areas................................................................................................................................................................4 GPAC Housing Element Opportunity Sites.............................................................................................................21 Buildout Potential Comparison ..................................................................................................................................36 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Memo
2020 GPAC RECOMMENDATION
FOR FOCUS AREAS (1-9)
2021 GPAC HOUSING ELEMENT

OPPORTUNITY SITES (A-N)
2022 GPAC PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE

ADDITIONAL

COMMUNITY INPUT

ADDITIONAL

COMMUNITY INPUT
VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES; 1 INITIAL COMMUNITY INPUT 2 3
4 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 2 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo 2020
2021
GPAC Focus Areas (Figure 1)
The GPAC analyzed and discussed nine Focus Areas,
considered community input and the City’s Vision and
Guiding Principles, and recommended preferred land
uses within each Focus Area.

GPAC Housing Element Opportunity Sites
The GPAC refined the recommendation to incorporate
housing element objectives. The GPAC analyzed smaller
Housing Element Opportunity Sites for pinpointed
residential density increases to accommodate the
projected housing need. This process is explained
beginning on page 18. Housing Element Opportunity
Sites are shown in Figure 9.
2019 General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles
Community Design Workshops
The GPAC-Preferred Alternative Process
2022 GPAC Focus Area Final Recommendations
In 2022, the GPAC reviewed the 2020 Focus Area
recommendation and Housing Element Opportunity
Sites, considered public input, and provided final
recommendations for each Focus Area. Pages 4-19
summarize the GPAC process for each Focus Area,
including initial 2020 recommendation and any
modifications recommended in 2021 and 2022.

THE FOCUS AREAS ARE

ESTABLISHED THROUGH

COMMUNITY DESIGN

WORKSHOPS

GPAC REVIEWS COMMUNITY

INPUT AND RECOMMENDS

PREFERRED LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS WITHIN EACH

FOCUS AREA

GPAC REVIEWS STATE HOUSING

GOALS AND RECOMMENDS

SMALLER HOUSING ELEMENT

OPPORTUNITY SITES FOR

TARGETTED DENSITY INCREASES,

SOME OF WHICH LIE WITHIN A

FOCUS AREA

BECAUSE THE HOUSING

ELEMENT OPPORTUNTY SITES

ALTERED THE ORIGINAL FOCUS

AREA RECOMMENDATION, THE

GPAC REVISITED THE FOCUS

AREAS AND PROVIDED FINAL

RECOMMENDATIONS
1 2
3 4

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022
3 Figure 1: GPAC-Preferred Focus Areas
1 2
6 8
49 5
3 7

1. DVC College Area

2. Taylor/Pleasant Hill (Mangini)

3. Downtown Pleasant Hill/
Pleasant Hill Plaza

4. Industrial Area off Hookston

5. Contra Costa Boulevard

6. Gregory Lane

7. Taylor Boulevard

8. Oak Park Boulevard

9. Monument Boulevard

10. JFK University/Ellinwood Way
10 8.1.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 4 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo GPAC Focus Areas
Focus Area 1: Diablo Valley College (DVC)
Location: East of Contra Costa Boulevard along Golf Club Drive The GPAC discussed the area surrounding Diablo Valley College and the potential for land use changes. This focus area is primarily built out, except for a portion an existing shopping center and large empty surface lots across Golf Club Road from DVC. The existing shopping center (Diablo Valley Plaza) has been experiencing development, with a portion of the site currently undergoing redevelopment with new commercial tenants. The remaining vacant lots are owned by DVC and are used for overflow parking. The lots are currently not slated for development. Several public comments focused on the potential for student housing. Currently the demand for student housing is not high enough to change land uses surrounding the college to support it. The GPAC discussed the reality that the cost of rental housing is so high, it is likely that students would not be able to afford to live in the housing adjacent to the campus. If housing is desired surrounding the campus, the GPAC believes that process would have to be led by DVC.

The GPAC was open to developing goals
and policies for this Focus Area that
would encourage the restoration of
the creek corridor, potentially opening
access to the creek from adjacent
commercial businesses. The goal would
be to expand the walking trail, add bike
lanes, and more walkable amenities.
2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 1:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended to
leave Focus Area 1 as is. No changes
were proposed to General Plan land use
designations in this Focus Area.
2021 GPAC Modifications:

In 2021, the GPAC selected the DVC
overflow parking lot on the northwest
corner of the Focus Area as a Housing
Element Opportunity Site with a GPACPreferred land use designation of Mixed Use Very High Density. This designation
allows for density of 70‑100 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac), and is
shown on Figure 2. For more information
on this, please see page 22.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

No additional modifications
recommended.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 5
Figure 2: DVC Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
DVC Overflow Parking Lot
See page 22

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
DVC Overflow Parking Lot
See page 22

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 6 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 2: Taylor/Pleasant Hill (Mangini-Delu)
Location: Intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard The GPAC discussed the overall vision for Focus Area 2 which includes the Mangini-Delu property. Public input received for this focus area was mixed with approximately half requesting the property to remain as open space with a farm, while the other half requested the property be developed with more housing for the community. The GPAC noted that the land is presently already designated for Single-Family Medium Density residential, with an underlying R-10 zoning designation.

Members were in favor of keeping the property residential but were open to increasing the allowable density from SingleFamily Medium to Single-Family High on the two parcels adjacent to the Parks and Recreation Facility at the intersection (the Winslow Center) and allowing Multi-Family Low along Pleasant Hill Road. This would provide a feathering of density, lessening the impact to adjacent single-family residential on Apollo Way. The GPAC was in favor of creating specific goals and policies for this area that served to protect the creek and encourage the clustering of housing in order to preserve as much of the existing open space as possible if and when the property owner decides to develop the land. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 2:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended a
slight increase in density in the area by
re-designating the parcels along Taylor
Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road to SingleFamily High Density and Multi-Family Low, while maintain Single-Family Medium
Density on parcels adjacent to Apollo Way.
2021 GPAC Modifications:

In 2021, the Focus Area (specifically the
Mangini site) was selected as a Housing
Element Opportunity Site by the GPAC.

The GPAC also recommended additional
changes, resulting in the application of a
single designation for those parcels along
Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road,
but requiring a cohesive plan for the area
that would commit to accommodating the
construction of 210 units.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that
the entire Focus Area be designated
with a single land use designation that
allows a range in densities appropriate
to accommodate the 210 unit goal. With
an allowable density range of 4.6 to 13.0
dwelling units per acre, and an assumed
realistic density of 9 units per acre, the area
can be assumed to accommodate 210 units.

These changes are reflected on Figure 3.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 7
Figure 3: Taylor/Pleasant Hill (Mangini) Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 8 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 3: Downtown Pleasant Hill
Location: Retail centers adjacent to Contra Costa Boulevard and along Crescent Drive north of Boyd Road and south of Woodsworth Lane
The existing General Plan designation in Downtown Pleasant Hill is Mixed Use. Most public comment for this Focus Area was primarily centered on adding the ability to include housing above existing retail, which has the potential to energize the Downtown and bring in additional foot traffic. The GPAC discussed that because this area is already designated Mixed Use per the existing General Plan, it currently allows housing and the broadest range of commercial uses, including office uses.

The GPAC was open to developing goals and policies for this Focus Area that would encourage a more walkable environment through enhanced pedestrian connections between businesses along Crescent Drive and adjacent retail centers. The GPAC was also open to considering potential policy that encourages the establishment of civic uses such as a City Arts Center which could encourage more businesses to relocate downtown.
2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 3:

The GPAC recommended that Pleasant Hill Plaza (marked on the map below) be added to the Downtown Focus Area, but ultimately decided to leave the Focus Area unchanged, as no revisions were proposed to General Plan land use designations. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that the Focus Area be expanded to include the retail parcels on the southeast corner of the intersection of Contra Costa Boulevard and Gregory Lane. The intent of this change was to tie together the retail centers that anchor the intersection and expand the Downtown boundary. This change is reflected on the images below.

Pleasant Hill
Plaza
Additional
retail parcels
added in
2022
Additional
retail parcels
added in
2022

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 9
Focus Area 4: Industrial Area off Hookston Road
Location: Adjacent to Estand Way and Vincent Road off Hookston Road The existing General Plan designation for Focus Area 4 is Light Industrial. All GPAC members recognized that this is the only remaining area in Pleasant Hill with such a designation, and that the designation should be preserved with only minor modifications to allowable uses. GPAC members generally agreed upon that allowing for increased diversity of uses will allow the area to flourish, as well as potentially encouraging more amenities for workers in the area. It was noted that for this area to compete for more tech and incubator uses, the infrastructure must be improved, as this is believed to be one of the largest impediments to relocation for tech, biotech, and incubator businesses. Public comment for this focus area echoed the same sentiments by the GPAC. The public felt that the City should preserve areas in the City for non-retail or service jobs and that allowing for light manufacturing is vital to the local economy and job diversity. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 4:

The GPAC recommended to leave Focus Area 4 as is. No changes were proposed to General Plan land use designations. In lieu of land use changes, the GPAC recommended modifications to the land use definition for Light Industrial to allow for more flexible uses including, but not limited to, restaurants, research and development facilities, and biotech. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 10 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 5: Contra Costa Boulevard
Location: Contra Costa Boulevard between Boyd Road and Taylor Boulevard The GPAC discussed the overall vision for Focus Area 5, which includes a majority of Contra Costa Boulevard, the primary north-south arterial through the City. Currently the street is primarily commercial and retail uses, with occasional pockets of single-family residential. The GPAC noted that the corridor presently allows a mix of uses including commercial and residential uses. Members were in favor of retaining this area for a mix of uses and were open to re-designating properties that are currently not Mixed Use. Most of these parcels are located adjacent to, or fronting upon the street. One area the GPAC is considering re-designating is the East Vivian residential neighborhood. This neighborhood is currently designated Single-Family High Density and has several properties that back up to Contra Costa Boulevard. The GPAC envisioned that this area would be prime for increased mixed-use development in the long-term given its proximity to both Contra Costa Boulevard and Interstate 680.

Public comment on this focus area included the concern of re-designating the East Vivian neighborhood, since many felt mixed use might be too intense for the area and that the change could be too drastic in the short-term. One suggestion was to allow mixed use but limit the height of buildings to reduce compatibility impacts. The General Plan currently notes that mixed use projects are subject to review under Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning districts that currently limits project sizes to a minimum of one acre for commercial projects and two acres for residential projects. This should be carried forward and will require future parcel consolidation which is unlikely to occur over the next 20 years. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 5:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended maintaining Focus Area 5 as Mixed Use. Recommended changes include re-designating
the southern half of the East Vivian neighborhood extending from Dawn Avenue to Anelda Drive from Single- Family High Density to Mixed Use, and re- designating the Commercial and Retail area at the corner of Ellinwood Drive and Contra Costa Boulevard to Mixed Use to create consistency among all parcels that front the Boulevard.
2021 GPAC Modifications:

In 2021 the GPAC chose three areas within the Contra Costa Boulevard Focus Area as Housing Element Opportunity Sites.

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density for these
parcels, which are shown on Figure 4 on the following page.

This revised designation allows for a density of 40-70 du/ ac. For more information, please see the Housing Element Opportunity Sites discussion beginning on page 21.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that the Focus Area be
expanded to include the strip of uses along Shirley Drive, just west of Contra Costa Boulevard. Additionally the GPAC recommended that the single family uses in the Focus Area be redesignated to Mixed Use. The intent of this change was to begin the transition of planning for less single-family residential along Contra Costa Boulevard with a greater emphasis on mixed-use and transit-oriented development.

The GPAC felt redesignating the parcels between Shirley Drive and Contra Costa Boulevard was consistent with the redesignating of parcels between Peggy Drive and Contra Costa Boulevard. These changes are reflected in Figure 4.

Additional
parcels added
in 2022

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 11
Figure 4: Contra Costa Boulevard Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Additional
parcels added
in 2022
Additional
parcels added
in 2022
Single family parcels
(North of Dawn Dr.)
recommended for
Mixed Use in 2022
Single family parcels
(South of Elda Dr.)
recommended for
Mixed Use in 2020
Single family parcels
(North of Dawn Dr.)
recommended for
Mixed Use in 2022
Single family parcels
(South of Elda Dr.)
recommended for
Mixed Use in 2020

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 12 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 6: Gregory Lane
Location: Gregory Lane between Contra Costa Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road Focus Area 6 which is centered on Gregory Lane was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on mobility improvements for pedestrians and cyclists. The GPAC discussed opportunities to slow traffic and incorporate potential bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks, which can be achieved through the creation of goals and policies that direct transportation and safety upgrades to this corridor. It was noted that to slow the speed and increase pedestrian crossing safety, the City has recently installed a street signal at the intersection of Elinora and Gregory. Public comment was in support of the GPAC direction and favored the potential addition of bike lanes along Gregory Lane. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 6:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended to leave Focus Area 6 as is. No changes were proposed to General Plan land use designations in this Focus Area. In lieu of land use changes, the GPAC recommended complete street upgrades for a safer environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
2021 GPAC Modifications: In 2021, parcels at the corner of Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory Lane were recommended for additional density as Mixed Use High Density through the Housing Element Opportunity Site process. This revised designation allows for a density of 40-70du/ac. For more information, please see page 31. 2022 GPAC Modifications:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that all the parcels at the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory Lane be redesignated Mixed Use High Density. Additionally, the GPAC recommended that the single-family uses parcels within the Focus Area be redesignated Mixed Use Neighborhood. Similar to changes along Contra Costa Boulevard, the GPAC felt that Gregory Lane was a similar heavily traveled corridor and that in the long term this area would be best served by mixed-use and transit-oriented development rather than single-family residential. These changes are reflected in Figure 5.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 13
Figure 5: Gregory Lane Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Parcels near
intersection
recommended for
Mixed Use High in
2022
Single-family parcels
recommended for Mixed
Use Neighborhood in 2022
Parcels near
intersection
recommended for
Mixed Use High in
2022
Single-family parcels
recommended for Mixed
Use Neighborhood in 2022

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 14 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 7: Taylor Boulevard
Location: Taylor Boulevard between Contra Costa Boulevard and the City Limits of Lafayette Similar to Focus Area 6 (Gregory Lane), Focus Area 7 which is centered on Taylor Boulevard was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on mobility and safety improvements. The GPAC discussed that Taylor Boulevard is meant to serve as a critical vehicular corridor and opportunities to widen or add bike lanes are not feasible based on the topography and traffic speeds. The GPAC was interested in creating new policies that would encourage safer pedestrian crossings at existing intersections such as Pleasant Hill Road and Grayson Road. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 7: The GPAC recommended to leave Focus Area 7 as is. No changes were proposed to General Plan land use designations in this Focus Area. In lieu of land use changes, the GPAC recommended policies and programs that focus on expanding pedestrian crossings to enhance safety. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.

Focus Area 8: Oak Park Boulevard
Location: Oak Park Boulevard between Patterson Boulevard and North Main Street Similar to Focus Areas 6 and 7 (Gregory Lane and Taylor Boulevard), Focus Area 8 which is centered on Oak Park Boulevard was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on mobility and safety improvements. The GPAC discussed that Oak Park Boulevard is currently a heavily traveled corridor that tends to experience increased congestion due to narrow lanes and several popular businesses that front the street. These businesses regularly have overflow parking which creates traffic and parking management issues. The GPAC recognized that in order to improve this area the General Plan should include new goals and policies that are directly focused on improving traffic flow, circulation, and parking demand.

This could include an eventual widening of the corridor. Further, to help lessen compatibility issues between existing singlefamily homes and adjacent commercial uses, the GPAC recommended re-designating parcels on the south side of Oak Park Boulevard east of the intersection of Patterson Boulevard to a new Mixed-Use Neighborhood Designation. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 8: The GPAC recommended to re-designate properties that are currently SingleFamily High Density on the south side of Oak Park Boulevard east of the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and Patterson Boulevard. These properties would be re-designated to a new General Plan designation called Mixed Use Neighborhood which would allow a maximum of 20 du/ac and the incorporation of both commercial and office uses. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that the Focus Area be expanded to include four additional parcels near of Patterson Boulevard and Oak Park Boulevard. Additionally, the GPAC recommended that all commercial and neighborhood business designated parcels be re-designed to Mixed Use Neighborhood to allow for mixed use residential projects in the future. 2022 GPAC Modifications:

No additional modifications recommended.
* Parcels added to the
Focus Area in 2022
*
*
* *

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 15
Figure 6: Oak Park Boulevard Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
* Parcels added to the
Focus Area in 2022
*
*
* *
* Parcels added to the
Focus Area in 2022
*
*
* *
Single-family parcels
recommended for Mixed
Use Neighborhood in 2020
Single-family parcels
recommended for Mixed
Use Neighborhood in 2020
Neighborhood business and
commercial parcels recommended
for Mixed Use Neighborhood in 2022
Neighborhood business and
commercial parcels recommended
for Mixed Use Neighborhood in 2022

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 16 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Pleasant Hill Plaza
Location: Corner of Contra Costa Boulevard and Gregory Lane adjacent to Interstate 680 Originally Focus Area 9, the Pleasant Hill Plaza Focus Area was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on potential improvements to existing shopping and retail centers on Contra Costa Boulevard. The GPAC recognized that this site does not necessarily require any land use changes and should be consolidated into adjacent focus areas (e.g. Focus Area 3: Downtown Pleasant Hill) that emphasize retail center enhancements and overall connectivity and walkability. The public did not have any additional comments for this area. 2020 GPAC Direction for Pleasant Hill Plaza: in 2020,The GPAC recommended that Pleasant Hill Plaza be merged with Focus Area 3 (Downtown Pleasant Hill). No changes to General Plan land use designations were proposed in this area. See page 8 for details on the combined Focus Area.

Focus Area 9: Monument Boulevard
Location: Oak Park Boulevard between Patterson Boulevard and North Main Street The Monument Boulevard Focus Area includes a series of parcels located at the corner of Monument Boulevard at the intersection of Lisa Lane. This area currently includes a medical business park, gas station, vehicle sales lot, and mobile home park. The GPAC was in favor of re-designating this area from Commercial and Retail to Mixed-Use to encourage additional retail, office, and housing development. The GPAC also recognized that this area should also include policies that protect and preserve the existing mobile home
park that is located south of Mohr Lane.
2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 9: In 2020,
the GPAC recommended that all parcels in this
area be re-designated to Mixed Use and that
policies be created to preserve the existing
mobile home park.
2021 GPAC Modifications: In 2021, the GPAC
included parcels within this Focus Area within
a Housing Element Opportunity Site. The GPAC
recommended designating these parcels Mixed
Use High Density. This revised designation allows
a density of 40-70 du/ac. These changes are
reflected on Figure 7 on the next page. For more
information, please see page 34.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

Although the GPAC did not recommend any
additional land use changes, they did request
that a new policy focused on traffic circulation
around Monument Boulevard be included in the
updated Transportation/Circulation Element.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 17
Figure 7: Monument Boulevard Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 18 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo JFK
University Site
Focus Area 10: JFK University Site and Sites along Ellinwood Way Location: East of the Intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard The JFK University site is a 4.87-acre site currently designated Office. The sites along Ellinwood Way comprise approximately 15-acres and are also currently designated Office. 2021 GPAC Direction for the potential site:

In 2021, the GPAC recommended that the JFK University site be considered as a Housing Element Opportunity Site, designated Mixed Use High Density and that Mixed Use Very High Density be considered at this site if necessary to meet the identified housing need. The GPAC also recommended that the site’s proximity to the freeway be considered in all land use decisions. Due to a request from the owner, the site has been removed from the housing element process. However, this site could still be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the General Plan Land Use Element update.
2022 GPAC Direction for the potential site:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that the JFK site be re-designated Mixed Use Very High Density as part of the General Plan Update. At this time, the GPAC also recommended that the office uses along Ellinwood Way, just north of JFK University, be re-designated to Mixed Use Very High Density. Finally the GPAC recommended that the office use at the north end of Ellinwood Way, be re-designated to Multi-Family Low Density. The intent of redesignating the properties adjacent to Ellinwood Way was to create more capacity for future higher-density residential where there was already existing infrastructure in place. Currently
these properties are low-rise to mid-rise office
complexes which have the onsite capacity
for residential and the associated parking.

This redesignation also is consistent with the
surrounding development which consists of
multi-family townhomes, apartments, and
hotels. These changes are reflected in Figure 8.

During GPAC meetings in 2021, the
JFK University Site was presented
as Housing Element Opportunity
Site E. Although the site will not
be recommended for rezoning in
the housing element, it may still
be considered for re-designation
within the General Plan Land Use
Element update. The GPAC has
recommended the site, as well as
additional parcels along Ellinwood
Way for re-designation.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 19
Figure 8: JFK University Site and Sites along Ellinwood Way

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
JFK
University
site
JFK
University
site
* Parcels added to the
Focus Area in 2022
*
*
*
* Parcels added to the
Focus Area in 2022
*
*
*

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 20 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Minor Clean-Up Modifications
As part of the review of the General Plan Land Use map, staff identified, and the Planning Commission recommended, additional “clean-up” sites for modifications to existing land use designations. The sites are summarized below:
• 1791 Shirley Avenue (APN 153-223-012) – This site currently has a single-family residence, yet has an Office designation. The GPAC recommended this site to have a mixed use designation, thus, if this land use designation is recommended, then this will bring make the site consistent with the proposed changes to the land use designation of single family properties to the north.
• 700 Ellinwood Way (APN 127-180-058 & 055) – This property currently has a hotel and has a split land use designation, Office designation to the north and Commercial and Retail to the south, both containing a single hotel use. With the hotel use in place, the Commercial and Retail with a Tourist Commercial Overlay designation may be more appropriate.
• 650 Ellinwood Way (APN 127-210-031) – This site currently has an Office designation. The site has a multiple story hotel on the site, thus, a change to Commercial and Retail with a Tourist Commercial Overlay designation may be more appropriate.
• 3220 Buskirk Avenue (APN 148-100-045) – This site currently has a Commercial and Retail land use designation.

However, due to a multi-story hotel on the property, applying the Tourist Commercial Overlay designation would be consistent with recent action by the City.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 21
GPAC Housing Element Opportunity Sites
At meetings on May 12, 2021 and June 23, 2021, the GPAC reviewed and discussed potential sites for higher density residential land uses with sufficient capacity to meet the State-mandated housing goals. On November 17, 2021, the GPAC recommended that staff carry forward eight Housing Opportunity Sites for consideration in addition to the changes recommended in the previously discussed Focus Areas. In 2022, the Mangini-Delu site was removed from the housing opportunity sites list in order to give the City time to implement a master plan requirement for the area. This section summarizes each of the seven Housing Element Opportunity Sites, which are identified in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Housing Element Opportunity Sites

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 22 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site A: DVC Overflow Parking Lot Location: North of Golf Club Road near Paso Nogal Road.

The DVC Overflow Parking Lot Opportunity Site is an 11-acre site currently designated School and zoned for single-family residential.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site A:

The GPAC recommended that the density on the Opportunity Site be increased to Mixed Use Very High Density, which can accommodate 70-100 dwelling units/acre (du/ac).

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

Assuming five acres of redevelopment at Mixed Use Very High Density, the site can accommodate 350 units of the lower income housing need.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 23
Figure 10: DVC Overflow Parking Lot Housing Element Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 24 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site F: TAP Plastics Site
Location: Along Contra Costa Boulevard and Massolo Drive, just north of Beth Drive.

The TAP Plastics Opportunity Site is a 1.53-acre site currently designated Mixed Use.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site F:

The GPAC recommended that Mixed Use High Density be considered for this Opportunity Site. The GPAC also recommended that the site be extended north to include Tap Plastics, but that the parcel including Ace Hardware be removed (based on owner request).

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 53 lower income units.

TAP Plastics
Ace Hardware

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 25
Figure 12: TAP Plastics Housing Element Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
TAP Plastics TAP Plastics

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 26 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site G: Gregory Gardens
Location: Along Contra Costa Boulevard between Doray Drive and Doris Drive.

The Gregory Gardens Opportunity Site is a 3.59-acre site is currently designated Mixed Use. The Opportunity Site is a shallow site and is currently occupied by various active commercial uses.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site G:

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density in this Opportunity Site.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 126 lower income units.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 27
Figure 13: Gregory Gardens Housing Element Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Gregory Gardens
Opportunity Site Gregory Gardens
Opportunity Site
Opportunity Site F
See page 24
Opportunity Site F
See page 24

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 28 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site I: Pleasant Hill Road/ Gregory Lane
Location: The intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory Lane.

The Gregory Gardens Opportunity Site is a 3.64-acre site currently designated Neighborhood Business and occupied by retail, service, and restaurant uses. The Opportunity Area initially included a total of 4.93 acres; however Walgreens, 7-11, and 607 Gregory Lane were removed based on owner requests. These parcels are identified in Figure 14.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site I:

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density for this Opportunity Site and that the site be expanded to include the parcels on the southwest corner of the intersection.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 127 lower income units.

Walgreens
607 Gregory
7-11

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 29
Figure 14: Pleasant Hill Road/Gregory Lane Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Walgreens
607 Gregory
7-11
Walgreens
607 Gregory
7-11

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 30 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site J:

Contra Costa Boulevard/Gregory Lane
Location: Parcels along the west side of Contra Costa Boulevard between Gregory Lane and Vivian Drive.

The Contra Costa Boulevard/Gregory Lane Opportunity Site is a 7.07-acre site currently designated Mixed Use and occupied by retail, service, and restaurant uses. 1817 Contra Cosa Boulevard was removed based on owner requests.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site J:

The GPAC recommended that the original site be expanded north to Vivian Drive, as shown in Figure 15. The GPAC also recommended that the Mixed Use High Density designation be considered for this Opportunity Site, primarily in the southern portion of the expanded site.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

With a combination of Mixed Use (12-40 du/ac) and Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 146 lower income units and 57 moderate income units. 1817 Contra Costa Blvd.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 31
Figure 15: Contra Costa Boulevard/Gregory Lane Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 32 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site M: Monument Triangle
Location: Parcels south of Monument between Lisa Lane and the Park Royale Mobile Home Park.

The Monument Triangle Opportunity Site is a 4.55-acre site currently designated Commercial and occupied by restaurant and commercial uses.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site M:

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density for this Opportunity Site, but removed the gas station (due to feasibility concerns) and the mobile home park (due to complicated requirements for changing a mobile home park use).

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 159 lower income units.

Mobile Home Park
Gas Station

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 33
Figure 16: Monument Triangle Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Mobile Home Park
Gas Station
Mobile Home Park
Gas Station

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 34 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site N: Former JC Penny
Location: Two parcels along Pacheco Boulevard near Golf Club Road.

The Former JC Penny Opportunity Site is a 6.64-acre site currently designated Commercial and occupied by a vacant retail structure, a restaurant, and parking. Since the restaurant locations are unlikely to redevelop in the planning period, the Opportunity Site assumes development of only five acres of the site.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site M:

Consider Mixed Use High Density for this Opportunity Site. Exclude the restaurant uses at the northwest corner from site calculations.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

Assuming five acres of development at Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 175 lower income units.

Restaurants

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 35
Figure 17: Former JC Penny Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 36 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Buildout Potential Comparison | 2022 GPAC Preferred Alternative Potential Housing Unit Capacity
Table 1 compares housing unit potential under the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative to the Statemandated housing goals contained in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates the capacity for an additional 1,193 units that can be counted toward State-mandated goals for housing unit capacity.

Table 1: Potential Housing Capacity Vs. RHNA Goal
Lower
Moderate Above Moderate Total
Very Low Low
State Housing Goal
(Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
566 326
254 657 1,803 892
2021 Alternative Total 1,218 355 963 2,272
GPAC Sites 1,136 57 0 1,193
Vacant Sites 0 10 105 115
Assumed Redevelopment of Mixed Use Sites 0 0 249 249
Assumed ADUs 0 288 32 320
Pending and Approved Projects Estimate 82 0 313 395
Difference 326 101 42 469
Difference as % 137% 140% 106% 126%
Potential Non-Residential Square Footage
Table 2 compares maximum non-residential square footage potential under the Existing General Plan and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative. As shown the GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates the potential for an additional 326,750 sq.ft. of retail space, 149,270 sq.ft. of service commercial space. Conversely, the GPACPreferred Alternative reduces the square footage potential in the Other category by recommended re-designation of the DVC overflow parking lot from School to Mixed Use Very High.

Table 2: Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage Potential Non-Residential Square Footage
Total Acres Retail Service
AgricultureManufacturing Wholesale Other TOTAL
GPAC-Preferred Alternative 4,812 3,373,150 4,154,540 - 181,600 - 9,398,930 17,108,220 Existing General Plan 4,812 3,046,400 4,005,270 - 181,600 - 9,796,790 17,030,060 Difference - 326,750 149,270 - - - (397,860) 78,160
Difference as Percent - 10.7% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -4.1% 0.5%

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 37
Potential Population
Table 3 compares maximum population potential under the Existing General Plan and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative. This data is based on maximum allowable density at full buildout of the General Plan. This is not a population projection, but a tool to compare the maximum potential change under the GPAC-Preferred Land Use. While the GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates a slight reduction in potential in single-family designations (-1.4 percent change), it creates the potential capacity an additional 12,541 residents in multifamily housing opportunities at full buildout. In total the recommended changes represent a 15.5 percent increase over the maximum potential under the existing General Plan.

Table 3: Maximum Population Potential
Population
Total Acres
Single
Family
Multifamily TOTAL
GPAC-Preferred Alternative 4,812 42,299 46,519 88,818
Existing General Plan 4,812 42,906 33,978 76,884
Difference - (607) 12,541 11,934
Difference as Percent - -1.4% 36.9% 15.5%
Employment Potential
Table 4 compares employment potential under the Existing General Plan and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative. As shown the GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates the potential for an additional 1,020 retail jobs and 1,464 service jobs. Conversely, the GPAC-Preferred Alternative reduces total employment in the Other category.

This change is also caused by re-designating the DVC overflow parking lot from School to Mixed Use Very High Density.

Table 4: Employment Potential
Employment Potential
Total Acres Retail Service Agriculture
Manufacturing Wholesale Other TOTAL
GPAC-Preferred Alternative 4,812 10,538 9,709 - - - 2,989 23,236 Existing General Plan 4,812 9,518 8,245 - - - 3,482 21,245 Difference - 1,020 1,464 - - - (493) 1,991
Difference as Percent - 10.7% 17.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -14.2% 9.4% Land Use Diagrams
Figures 18 and 19 compare the Existing General Plan Land Uses and the GPAC-Preferred Land Uses within the Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites. Because the GPAC recommendations are limited to the Focus Areas and Housing Opportunity Sites, only these areas are shown on the diagrams.

Figure 20 shows the Citywide GPAC-Preferred Land Use Diagram.

Why are these totals so high?
This table compares the maximum
potential buildout of each alternative
if every parcel were to be built-out at
the maximum allowed density. This
is not an evaluation of reality of the
built environment in Pleasant Hill.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 38 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Figure 18: Existing Land Uses in Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) May 2022 39
Figure 19: 2022 GPAC-Preferred Land Uses in Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 40 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Figure 20: 2022 GPAC-Preferred Land Use

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: B - Preferred Land Use Alternative Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill
Planning Division

MEMORANDUM
TO: General Plan Advisory Committee
FROM: Troy Fujimoto, Planning Division
DATE: April 27, 2022
SUBJECT: Pleasant Hill Housing Element – Mangini-Delu Housing Opportunity Site Background
On February 5, 2020, the GPAC met to discuss the results of community feedback received from the 2019 Planning and Design Workshops and online engagement. Following the discussion on community feedback, the GPAC considered nine Focus Areas and finalized a 2020 GPACPreferred Land Use Alternative.

In 2021, the GPAC began working with staff and the consultant team to revisit the 2020 GPACPreferred Land Use Alternative to consider potential sites for higher density residential land uses as part of the Housing Element Update. The GPAC considered public input and recommended that staff carry forward eight Housing Element Opportunity Sites, with one site, Site D: Mangini-Delu, including a master plan requirement.

The eight Housing Element Opportunity Sites have an estimated total residential capacity of more than 1,400 units toward the state-identified goal of zoning to accommodate capacity for 1,803 units. Housing Opportunity Sites include:

A: DVC Overflow Lot
D: Mangini-Delu Area
F: TAP Plastics
G: Gregory Gardens Shopping Center
I: Pleasant Hill/Gregory Lane
J: Gregory/Contra Costa Boulevard
M: Monument Triangle Area
N: Former JCPenney Furniture Store

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: C - April 27, 2022 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) The city's Housing Element Opportunity Sites, combined with other vacant and underutilized sites, current pipeline projects, and assumed accessory dwelling unit development, are estimated to exceed the City’s RHNA (and required 20 percent buffer) by approximately 350 units.

On January 26, 2022, the GPAC revisited the 2020 GPAC-Preferred Alternative to incorporate the eight Housing Element Opportunity Sites and final recommendations into an updated 2022 GPACPreferred Land Use Alternative.

State Requirements Related to Housing Element Opportunity Sites The State requires that rezonings proposed as a part of the Housing Element occur within three years of the adoption deadline (January 2023), and limits this to one year if the Housing Element is not certified within 120 days of the deadline. Additionally, sites identified in more than two consecutive housing elements must allow residential uses by-right, without imposing additional discretionary approval processes.

Discussion
The Mangini-Delu site (see Figure on next page) includes a proposed rezone and master plan requirement. The site was also identified in the previous two housing elements but has yet to develop. If included in the current Housing Element Update, the site would be required to allow residential uses by-right, subject only to objective design and development standards, and the master plan would need to be completed before the City rezones the site. If the site is not included as an Opportunity Site in the current Housing Element, these requirements would not be imposed.

Based on past discussions with the GPAC, staff recommends that the Mangini-Delu site move forward as part of the 2022 GPAC Preferred General Plan Land Use Alternative with the current proposed land use designation and the 210 housing unit cap and be excluded as a Housing Element Opportunity Site. Removal of the site would not impact the City's ability to provide sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA as there is a surplus of approximately 350 units. In addition, excluding the site from the Housing Element will allow the City, the necessary time and flexibility to properly address the concerns voiced by the public without having an HCD-imposed deadline that could curtail necessary review and hamper more thoughtful consideration for the future planning of this site.

Please note, the Housing Element identifies residential capacity to meet the housing goals set by the State in the RHNA. Regardless of inclusion of a site within the Housing Element, all residential projects permitted during the housing element cycle are counted toward fulfilling the City’s RHNA obligation.

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: C - April 27, 2022 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative)

8.1.c
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: C - April 27, 2022 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 1
This memo provides an overview of GPAC direction through both the Focus Area and Housing Opportunity Sites processes, followed by a summary comparison of buildout potential between the Existing General Plan Land Use diagram and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use diagram.

Introduction
On February 5, 2020, the GPAC met to discuss the results of the community feedback received from the Planning and Design Workshops and online engagement. This meeting was a follow-up to the November 19, 2019, GPAC Meeting where the members were briefed on initial feedback from the Workshops earlier in November and where the General Plan Vision Statement and Guiding Principles were finalized.

Following the discussion on community feedback, the Consultant team provided the GPAC with an overview of nine Focus Areas and the changes recommended by the community to each area. The GPAC analyzed each Focus Area and had a robust discussion on what changes, if any, should occur, before finalizing a GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative consisting of preferred land uses within the final Focus Areas. Figure 1 shows GPAC Focus Areas.

In May 2021, the GPAC began working with staff and the Consultant team to revisit the 2020 GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative as part of the Housing Element Update process. At meetings on May 12, 2021 and June 23, 2021, the GPAC reviewed and discussed potential sites for higher density residential land uses, some of which overlap the GPAC Focus Areas. On November 17, 2021, the GPAC recommended that staff carry forward nine Housing Element Opportunity Sites for consideration in conjunction with the changes proposed through the GPAC Focus Areas. The text box on the following pages illustrates the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Process.

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................1 GPAC Focus Areas................................................................................................................................................................3 GPAC Housing Element Opportunity Sites.............................................................................................................17 Buildout Potential Comparison...................................................................................................................................36 2021 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Memo
2020
2021
GPAC Focus Areas (Figure 1)
The GPAC analyzed and discussed nine Focus Areas, considered community input and the City’s Vision and Guiding Principles, and recommended preferred land uses within each Focus Area.

GPAC Housing Element Opportunity Sites (Figure 2)
The GPAC refined the recommendation to incorporate housing element objectives. The GPAC analyzed smaller Housing Element Opportunity Sites for pinpointed residential density increases to accommodate the projected housing need. 2019 General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles
Community Design Charrette
The 2021 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Process

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 2 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Figure 1: GPAC-Preferred Focus Areas
1 2
6 8
49 5
3 7

1. DVC College Area

2. Taylor/Pleasant Hill (Mangini)

3. Downtown Pleasant Hill/
Pleasant Hill Plaza

4. Industrial Area off Hookston

5. Contra Costa Boulevard

6. Gregory Lane

7. Taylor Boulevard

8. Oak Park Boulevard

9. Monument Boulevard

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 3
GPAC Focus Areas
Focus Area 1: Diablo Valley College (DVC)
Location: East of Contra Costa Boulevard along Golf Club Drive The GPAC discussed the area surrounding Diablo Valley College and the potential for land use changes. This focus area is primarily built out, except for a portion an existing shopping center and large empty surface lots across Golf Club Road from DVC. The existing shopping center (Diablo Valley Plaza) has been experiencing development, with a portion of the site currently undergoing redevelopment with new commercial tenants. The remaining vacant lots are owned by DVC and are used for overflow parking. The lots are currently not slated for development. Several public comments focused on the potential for student housing. Currently the demand for student housing is not high enough to change land uses surrounding the college to support it. The GPAC discussed the reality that the cost of rental housing is so high, it is likely that students would not be able to afford to live in the housing adjacent to the campus. If housing is desired surrounding the campus, the GPAC believes that process would have to be led by DVC.

The GPAC was open to developing goals
and policies for this Focus Area that
would encourage the restoration of
the creek corridor, potentially opening
access to the creek from adjacent
commercial businesses. The goal would
be to expand the walking trail, add bike
lanes, and more walkable amenities.
2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 1:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended to
leave Focus Area 1 as is. No changes
were proposed to General Plan land use
designations in this Focus Area.
2021 GPAC Modifications:

In 2021, the GPAC selected the DVC
overflow parking lot on the northwest
corner of the Focus Area as a Housing
Element Opportunity Site with a GPACPreferred land use designation of Mixed Use Very High Density. This designation
allows for density of 70‑100 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac), and is
shown on Figure 2. For more information
on this, please see page 18.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 4 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Figure 2: DVC Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
DVC Overflow Parking Lot
See page 20
DVC Overflow Parking Lot
See page 20

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 5
Focus Area 2: Taylor/Pleasant Hill (Mangini)
Location: Intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard The GPAC discussed the overall vision for Focus Area 2 which includes the Mangini-Delu property. Public input received for this focus area was mixed with approximately half requesting the property to remain as open space with a farm, while the other half requested the property be developed with more housing for the community. The GPAC noted that the land is presently already designated for Single-Family Medium Density residential, with an underlying R-10 zoning designation.

Members were in favor of keeping the property residential but were open to increasing the allowable density from SingleFamily Medium to Single-Family High on the two parcels adjacent to the Parks and Recreation Facility at the intersection (the Winslow Center) and allowing Multi-Family Low along Pleasant Hill Road. This would provide a feathering of density, lessening the impact to adjacent single-family residential on Apollo Way. The GPAC was in favor of creating specific goals and policies for this area that served to protect the creek and encourage the clustering of housing in order to preserve as much of the existing open space as possible if and when the property owner decides to develop the land. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 2:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended a
slight increase in density in the area by
re-designating the parcels along Taylor
Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road to SingleFamily High Density and Multi-Family Low, while maintain Single-Family Medium
Density on parcels adjacent to Apollo Way.
2021 GPAC Modifications:

In 2021, the Focus Area (specifically the
Mangini site) was selected as a Housing
Element Opportunity Site by the GPAC.

The GPAC also recommended additional
changes, resulting in the application of a
single designation for those parcels along
Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road,
but requiring a cohesive plan for the area
that would commit to accommodating
the construction of 210 units. These
changes are reflected on Figure 3. For more
information, please see page 20.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 6 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Figure 3: Taylor/Pleasant Hill (Mangini) Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 7
Focus Area 3: Downtown Pleasant Hill
Location: Retail centers adjacent to Contra Costa Boulevard and along Crescent Drive north of Boyd Road and south of Woodsworth Lane
The existing General Plan designation in Downtown Pleasant Hill is Mixed Use. Most public comment for this Focus Area was primarily centered on adding the ability to include housing above existing retail, which has the potential to energize the Downtown and bring in additional foot traffic. The GPAC discussed that because this area is already designated Mixed Use per the existing General Plan, it currently allows housing and the broadest range of commercial uses, including office uses. The GPAC was open to developing goals and policies for this Focus Area that would encourage a more walkable environment through enhanced pedestrian connections between businesses along Crescent Drive and adjacent retail centers. The GPAC was also open to considering potential policy that encourages the establishment of civic uses such as a City Arts Center which could encourage more businesses to relocate downtown. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 3:

The GPAC recommended that Pleasant Hill Plaza (marked on the map below) be added to the Downtown Focus Area, but ultimately decided to leave the Focus Area unchanged, as no revisions were proposed to General Plan land use designations.
2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.

Pleasant Hill
Plaza

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 8 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 4: Industrial Area off Hookston Road
Location: Adjacent to Estand Way and Vincent Road off Hookston Road The existing General Plan designation for Focus Area 4 is Light Industrial. All GPAC members recognized that this is the only remaining area in Pleasant Hill with such a designation, and that the designation should be preserved with only minor modifications to allowable uses. GPAC members generally agreed upon that allowing for increased diversity of uses will allow the area to flourish, as well as potentially encouraging more amenities for workers in the area. It was noted that for this area to compete for more tech and incubator uses, the infrastructure must be improved, as this is believed to be one of the largest impediments to relocation for tech, biotech, and incubator businesses. Public comment for this focus area echoed the same sentiments by the GPAC. The public felt that the City should preserve areas in the City for non-retail or service jobs and that allowing for light manufacturing is vital to the local economy and job diversity. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 4:

The GPAC recommended to leave Focus Area 4 as is. No changes were proposed to General Plan land use designations. In lieu of land use changes, the GPAC recommended modifications to the land use definition for Light Industrial to allow for more flexible uses including, but not limited to, restaurants, research and development facilities, and biotech. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 9
Focus Area 5: Contra Costa Boulevard
Location: Contra Costa Boulevard between Boyd Road and Taylor Boulevard The GPAC discussed the overall vision for Focus Area 5, which includes a majority of Contra Costa Boulevard, the primary north-south arterial through the City. Currently the street is primarily commercial and retail uses, with occasional pockets of single-family residential. The GPAC noted that the corridor presently allows a mix of uses including commercial and residential uses. Members were in favor of retaining this area for a mix of uses and were open to re-designating properties that are currently not Mixed Use. Most of these parcels are located adjacent to, or fronting upon the street. One area the GPAC is considering re-designating is the East Vivian residential neighborhood. This neighborhood is currently designated Single-Family High Density and has several properties that back up to Contra Costa Boulevard. The GPAC envisioned that this area would be prime for increased mixed-use development in the long-term given its proximity to both Contra Costa Boulevard and Interstate 680.

Public comment on this focus area included the concern of re-designating the East Vivian neighborhood, since many felt mixed use might be too intense for the area and that the change could be too drastic in the short-term. One suggestion was to allow mixed use but limit the height of buildings to reduce compatibility impacts. The General Plan currently notes that mixed use projects are subject to review under Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning districts that currently limits project sizes to a minimum of one acre for commercial projects and two acres for residential projects. This should be carried forward and will require future parcel consolidation which is unlikely to occur over the next 20 years. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 5:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended maintaining
Focus Area 5 as Mixed Use. Recommended
changes include re-designating the southern
half of the East Vivian neighborhood extending
from Dawn Avenue to Anelda Drive from SingleFamily High Density to Mixed Use, and redesignating the Commercial and Retail area at the corner of Ellinwood Drive and Contra Costa
Boulevard to Mixed Use to create consistency
among all parcels that front the Boulevard.
2021 GPAC Modifications:

In 2021 the GPAC chose three areas within
the Contra Costa Boulevard Focus Area as
Housing Element Opportunity Sites. The GPAC
recommended Mixed Use High Density for
these parcels, which are shown on Figure 4 on
the following page. This revised designation
allows for a density of 40-70 du/ac. For more
information, please see the Housing Element
Opportunity Sites discussion beginning on
page 17.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 10 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Figure 4: Contra Costa Boulevard Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 11
Focus Area 6: Gregory Lane
Location: Gregory Lane between Contra Costa Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road Focus Area 6 which is centered on Gregory Lane was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on mobility improvements for pedestrians and cyclists. The GPAC discussed opportunities to slow traffic and incorporate potential bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks, which can be achieved through the creation of goals and policies that direct transportation and safety upgrades to this corridor. It was noted that to slow the speed and increase pedestrian crossing safety, the City has recently installed a street signal at the intersection of Elinora and Gregory. Public comment was in support of the GPAC direction and favored the potential addition of bike lanes along Gregory Lane. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 6:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended to leave Focus Area 6 as is. No changes were proposed to General Plan land use designations in this Focus Area. In lieu of land use changes, the GPAC recommended complete street upgrades for a safer environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
2021 GPAC Modifications: In 2021, parcels at the corner of Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory Lane were recommended for additional density as Mixed Use High Density through the Housing Element Opportunity Site process. This revised designation allows for a density of 40-70du/ac. These changes are reflected on Figure 5 on the following page. For more information, please see page 28.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 12 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Figure 5: Gregory Lane Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 13
Focus Area 7: Taylor Boulevard
Location: Taylor Boulevard between Contra Costa Boulevard and the City Limits of Lafayette Similar to Focus Area 6 (Gregory Lane), Focus Area 7 which is centered on Taylor Boulevard was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on mobility and safety improvements. The GPAC discussed that Taylor Boulevard is meant to serve as a critical vehicular corridor and opportunities to widen or add bike lanes are not feasible based on the topography and traffic speeds. The GPAC was interested in creating new policies that would encourage safer pedestrian crossings at existing intersections such as Pleasant Hill Road and Grayson Road. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 7: The GPAC recommended to leave Focus Area 7 as is. No changes were proposed to General Plan land use designations in this Focus Area. In lieu of land use changes, the GPAC recommended policies and programs that focus on expanding pedestrian crossings to enhance safety. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.

Focus Area 8: Oak Park Boulevard
Location: Oak Park Boulevard between Patterson Boulevard and North Main Street Similar to Focus Areas 6 and 7 (Gregory Lane and Taylor Boulevard), Focus Area 8 which is centered on Oak Park Boulevard was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on mobility and safety improvements.

The GPAC discussed that Oak Park Boulevard is currently a heavily traveled corridor that tends to experience increased congestion due to narrow lanes and several popular businesses that front the street. These businesses regularly have overflow parking which creates traffic and parking management issues. The GPAC recognized that in order to improve this area the General Plan should include new goals and policies that are directly focused on improving traffic flow, circulation, and parking demand. This could include an eventual widening of the corridor. Further, to help lessen compatibility issues between existing single-family homes and adjacent commercial uses, the GPAC recommended re-designating parcels on the south side of Oak Park Boulevard east of the intersection of Patterson Boulevard to a new Mixed-Use Neighborhood Designation.
2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 8: The GPAC recommended to re-designate properties that are currently SingleFamily High Density on the south side of Oak Park Boulevard east of the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and Patterson Boulevard. These properties would be re-designated to a new General Plan designation called Mixed Use Neighborhood which would allow a maximum of 20 du/ac and the incorporation of both commercial and office uses. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 14 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Figure 6: Oak Park Boulevard Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 15
Pleasant Hill Plaza
Location: Corner of Contra Costa Boulevard and Gregory Lane adjacent to Interstate 680 Originally Focus Area 9, the Pleasant Hill Plaza Focus Area was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on potential improvements to existing shopping and retail centers on Contra Costa Boulevard. The GPAC recognized that this site does not necessarily require any land use changes and should be consolidated into adjacent focus areas (e.g. Focus Area 3: Downtown Pleasant Hill) that emphasize retail center enhancements and overall connectivity and walkability. The public did not have any additional comments for this area. 2020 GPAC Direction for Pleasant Hill Plaza: in 2020,The GPAC recommended that Pleasant Hill Plaza be merged with Focus Area 3 (Downtown Pleasant Hill). No changes to General Plan land use designations were proposed in this area.

See page 7 for details on the combined Focus Area.

Focus Area 9: Monument Boulevard
Location: Oak Park Boulevard between Patterson Boulevard and North Main Street The Monument Boulevard Focus Area includes a series of parcels located at the corner of Monument Boulevard at the intersection of Lisa Lane. This area currently includes a medical business park, gas station, vehicle sales lot, and mobile home park. The GPAC was in favor of re-designating this area from Commercial and Retail to Mixed-Use to encourage additional retail, office, and housing development. The GPAC also recognized that this area should also include policies that protect and preserve the existing mobile home
park that is located south of Mohr Lane.
2020 GPAC Direction for Additional Focus
Area 9: In 2020, the GPAC recommended that all
parcels in this area be re-designated to Mixed
Use and that policies be created to preserve the
existing mobile home park.
2021 GPAC Modifications: In 2021, the GPAC
included parcels within this Focus Area within
a Housing Element Opportunity Site. The GPAC
recommended designating these parcels Mixed
Use High Density. This revised designation allows
a density of 40-70 du/ac. These changes are
reflected on Figure 7 on the next page. For more
information, please see page 32.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 16 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Figure 7: Monument Boulevard Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 17
GPAC Housing Element Opportunity Sites
At meetings on May 12, 2021 and June 23, 2021, the GPAC reviewed and discussed potential sites for higher density residential land uses with sufficient capacity to meet the State-mandated housing goals. On November 17, 2021, the GPAC recommended that staff carry forward eight Housing Opportunity Sites for consideration in addition to the changes recommended in the previously discussed Focus Areas. This section summarizes each of the eight Housing Element Opportunity Sites. Figure 8 identifies Housing Element Opportunity Sites.

Figure 8: Housing Element Opportunity Sites

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 18 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site A: DVC Overflow Parking Lot Location: North of Golf Club Road near Paso Nogal Road.

The DVC Overflow Parking Lot Opportunity Site is an 11-acre site currently designated School and zoned for single-family residential.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site A:

The GPAC recommended that the density on the Opportunity Site be increased to Mixed Use Very High Density, which can accommodate 70-100 dwelling units/acre (du/ac).

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

Assuming five acres of redevelopment at Mixed Use Very High Density, the site can accommodate 350 units of the lower income housing need.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 19
Figure 9: DVC Overflow Parking Lot Housing Element Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 20 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site D: Mangini-Delu
Location: East of the Intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard The Mangini-Delu Opportunity Site is a 25-acre site currently designated Single-family Low Density.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site D:

The GPAC recommended that, rather than dictate the densities for parcels along Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard as proposed, the City should require a specific plan or other planning document for the area that assures the City’s housing needs will be met while allowing the developer(s) to distribute the density to meet the project needs. Consistent with this recommendation, the densities on the southern and western portions of the focus area have been averaged to Multifamily Low Density.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At this mix of land uses, the Opportunity Site can accommodate 210 above moderate income level units.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 21
Figure 10: Mangini-Delu Housing Element Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 22 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo JFK University Site
Location: East of the Intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard The JFK University Opportunity Site is a 4.87-acre site currently designated Office.

GPAC Direction for the potential Housing Element Opportunity Site:

The GPAC recommended that the site be considered as a Housing Element Opportunity Site, designated Mixed Use High Density and that Mixed Use Very High Density be considered at this site if necessary to meet the identified housing need.

The GPAC also recommended that the site’s proximity to the freeway be considered in all land use decisions.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

Although the GPAC’s recommendations for this site will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, the site has been removed from the housing element process at the owner’s request.

During GPAC meetings in 2021, the
JFK University Site was presented
as Housing Element Opportunity
Site E. Although the site will not
be recommended for rezoning in
the housing element, it may still
be considered for re-designation
within the General Plan Land Use
Element update. We have included
a description of the site and the
GPAC recommendation here to
inform the Commission, Council,
and the public of the GPAC’s
discussion of the site.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 23
Figure 11: JFK University Site

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 24 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site F: TAP Plastics Site
Location: Along Contra Costa Boulevard and Massolo Drive, just north of Beth Drive.

The TAP Plastics Opportunity Site is a 1.53-acre site currently designated Mixed Use.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site F:

The GPAC recommended that Mixed Use High Density be considered for this Opportunity Site. The GPAC also recommended that the site be extended north to include Tap Plastics, but that the parcel including Ace Hardware be removed (based on owner request).

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 53 lower income units.

TAP Plastics
Ace Hardware

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 25
Figure 12: TAP Plastics Housing Element Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
TAP Plastics TAP Plastics

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 26 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site G: Gregory Gardens
Location: Along Contra Costa Boulevard between Doray Drive and Doris Drive.

The Gregory Gardens Opportunity Site is a 3.59-acre site is currently designated Mixed Use. The Opportunity Site is a shallow site and is currently occupied by various active commercial uses.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site G:

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density in this Opportunity Site.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 126 lower income units.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 27
Figure 13: Gregory Gardens Housing Element Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Gregory Gardens
Opportunity Site Gregory Gardens
Opportunity Site
Opportunity Site F
See page 24
Opportunity Site F
See page 24

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 28 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site I: Pleasant Hill Road/ Gregory Lane
Location: The intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory Lane.

The Gregory Gardens Opportunity Site is a 3.64-acre site currently designated Neighborhood Business and occupied by retail, service, and restaurant uses. The Opportunity Area initially included a total of 4.93 acres; however Walgreens, 7-11, and 607 Gregory Lane were removed based on owner requests. These parcels are identified in Figure 14.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site I:

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density for this Opportunity Site and that the site be expanded to include the parcels on the southwest corner of the intersection.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 127 lower income units.

Walgreens
607 Gregory
7-11

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 29
Figure 14: Pleasant Hill Road/Gregory Lane Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Walgreens
607 Gregory
7-11
Walgreens
607 Gregory
7-11

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 30 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site J:

Contra Costa Boulevard/Gregory Lane
Location: Parcels along the west side of Contra Costa Boulevard between Gregory Lane and Vivian Drive.

The Contra Costa Boulevard/Gregory Lane Opportunity Site is a 7.07-acre site currently designated Mixed Use and occupied by retail, service, and restaurant uses. 1817 Contra Cosa Boulevard was removed based on owner requests.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site J:

The GPAC recommended that the original site be expanded north to Vivian Drive, as shown in Figure 15. The GPAC also recommended that the Mixed Use High Density designation be considered for this Opportunity Site, primarily in the southern portion of the expanded site.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

With a combination of Mixed Use (12-40 du/ac) and Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 146 lower income units and 57 moderate income units. 1817 Contra Costa Blvd.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 31
Figure 15: Contra Costa Boulevard/Gregory Lane Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 32 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site M: Monument Triangle
Location: Parcels south of Monument between Lisa Lane and the Park Royale Mobile Home Park.

The Monument Triangle Opportunity Site is a 4.55-acre site currently designated Commercial and occupied by restaurant and commercial uses.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site M:

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density for this Opportunity Site, but removed the gas station (based on owner request) and the mobile home park (due to complicated requirements for changing a mobile home park use).

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 159 lower income units.

Mobile Home Park
Gas Station

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 33
Figure 16: Monument Triangle Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Mobile Home Park
Gas Station
Mobile Home Park
Gas Station

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 34 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site N: Former JC Penny
Location: Two parcels along Pacheco Boulevard near Golf Club Road.

The Former JC Penny Opportunity Site is a 6.64-acre site currently designated Commercial and occupied by a vacant retail structure, a restaurant, and parking. Since the restaurant locations are unlikely to redevelop in the planning period, the Opportunity Site assumes development of only five acres of the site.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site M:

Consider Mixed Use High Density for this Opportunity Site. Exclude the restaurant uses at the northwest corner from site calculations.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

Assuming five acres of development at Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 175 lower income units.

Restaurants

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 35
Figure 17: Former JC Penny Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 36 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Buildout Potential Comparison
Potential Housing Unit Capacity
Table 1 compares housing unit potential under the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative to the Statemandated housing goals contained in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates the capacity for an additional 1,403 units that can be counted toward State-mandated goals for housing unit capacity.

Table 1: Potential Housing Capacity Vs. RHNA Goal
Lower
Moderate Above Moderate Total
Very Low Low
State Housing Goal
(Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
566 326
254 657 1,803 892
2021 Alternative Total 1,218 355 963 2,536
GPAC Sites 1,136 57 210 1,403
Vacant Sites 0 10 159 169
Assumed Redevelopment of Mixed Use Sites 0 0 249 249
Assumed ADUs 0 288 32 320
Pending and Approved Projects Estimate 82 0 313 395
Difference 326 101 306 733
Difference as % 137% 140% 147% 141%
Potential Non-Residential Square Footage
Table 2 compares maximum non-residential square footage potential under the Existing General Plan and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative. As shown the GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates the potential for an additional 25,300 sq.ft. of retail space, 41,030 sq.ft. of commercial space. Conversely, the GPAC-Preferred Alternative reduces the square footage potential in the Other category by recommended re-designations of the DVC overflow parking lot (designated School) and the JFK University site (designated Office).

Neither the parking lot, nor the vacant school site are currently generating any non-residential square footage or employment.

Table 2: Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage Potential Non-Residential Square Footage
Total Acres Retail Service
AgricultureManufacturing Wholesale Other TOTAL
GPAC-Preferred Alternative 4,812 3,063,980 4,038,330 - 181,600 - 9,399,900 16,683,810 Existing General Plan 4,812 3,038,680 3,997,240 - 181,600 - 9,796,790 17,014,310 Difference - 25,300 41,090 - - - (396,890) (330,500)
Difference as Percent - 0.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -4.1% -1.9%

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 37
Potential Population
Table 3 compares maximum population potential under the Existing General Plan and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative. This data is based on maximum allowable density at full buildout. This is not a population projection, but a tool to compare the maximum potential change under the GPAC-Preferred Land Use. While the GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates little additional potential in single-family designations (0.1 percent change), it creates the capacity for more than 7,000 residents at full buildout, which represents a 20 percent increase over the maximum capacity calculated for the existing General Plan.

Table 3: Maximum Population Potential
Population
Total Acres
Single
Family
Multifamily TOTAL
GPAC-Preferred Alternative 4,812 42,928 40,977 83,905
Existing General Plan 4,812 42,906 33,720 76,626
Difference - 22 7,257 7,279
Difference as Percent - 0.1% 21.5% 9.5%
Employment Potential
Table 4 compares employment potential under the Existing General Plan and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative. As shown the GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates the potential for an additional 77 retail jobs and 222 service jobs. Conversely, the GPAC-Preferred Alternative reduces total employment in the Other category.

This change is also caused by re-designating the DVC overflow parking lot from School to Mixed Use Very High Density. The parcel is not currently generating any employment opportunities.

Table 4: Employment Potential
Employment Potential
Total Acres Retail Service Agriculture
Manufacturing Wholesale Other TOTAL
GPAC-Preferred Alternative 4,812 9,572 8,444 - - - 3,001 21,017 Existing General Plan 4,812 9,495 8,222 - - - 3,482 21,199 Difference - 77 222 - - - (481) (182)
Difference as Percent - 0.8% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -13.8% -0.9% Land Use Diagrams
Figures 18 and 19 compare the Existing General Plan Land Uses and the GPAC-Preferred Land Uses within the Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites. Because the GPAC recommendations are limited to the Focus Areas and Housing Opportunity Sites, only these areas are shown on the diagrams.

Figure 20 shows the Citywide GPAC-Preferred Land Use Diagram.

Why are these totals so high?
This table compares the maximum
potential buildout of each alternative
if every parcel were to be built-out at
the maximum allowed density. This
is not an evaluation of reality of the
built environment in Pleasant Hill.

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 38 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Figure 18: Existing Land Uses in Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) January 2022 39
Figure 19: GPAC-Preferred Land Uses in Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 40 City of Pleasant Hill | GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Figure 20: GPAC-Preferred Land Use

8.1.d
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: D - January 26, 2022, General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill
Planning Division

MEMORANDUM
TO: General Plan Advisory Committee
FROM: Troy Fujimoto, Planning Division
DATE: November 17, 2021
SUBJECT: Pleasant Hill Housing Element - Proposed Housing Sites Background
Since 1969, the state of California has required every jurisdiction to include a Housing Element as part of their General Plan. Unlike other mandatory General Plan elements, the Housing Element must be updated every eight years and is subject to review and approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Major components of the Housing Element include a housing needs assessment, the identification of sites for housing at all income levels, a review of constraints to housing, and updated policies and programs to carry out the goals of the updated element.

The purpose of a Housing Element is to provide an assessment of current and future housing needs, identify opportunities and constraints on housing production, establish goals, policies, and programs to meet those needs, and to update City practices and regulations to reflect new State laws.

Contemporary housing elements often identify strategies and programs that focus on conserving and improving existing affordable housing, maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community, assisting in the provision of new affordable housing, removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment, and promoting fair and equal housing opportunities. 5 th Cycle vs. 6th Cycle Housing Element Updates
Every update of a housing element is called a cycle. For every cycle, there is a window of time for all jurisdictions in California to update their housing elements. The City’s current 2014-2022 Housing Element was adopted in 2015 and was part of the 5th Cycle of housing element updates in the state. This update for the 2023-2031 Housing Element is part of the 6th Cycle of housing element updates. Between the 5th and 6th Cycles, the State has passed over a dozen new housing laws, many of which aim to lower barriers to building affordable housing. All of the new housing legislation will be addressed as part of the 6
th Cycle update. Additionally, a major component of
every housing element update cycle requires each jurisdiction to identify the capacity to support

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) the development of a pre-determined number of housing units. This requirement is known as the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA.

Overview of RHNA
In the process of updating the Housing Element, each jurisdiction is required to accommodate its fair share of the regional housing need. RHNA is the process used to determine housing allocations for each jurisdiction. As part of the RHNA, HCD determines the total number of housing units needed across California over the next decade. The Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG/MTC) is tasked with developing a methodology to determine the number of housing units for which each Bay Area jurisdiction is required to provide sites.

Under State law, the RHNA is distributed across the following four income categories:
• Very low household income
• Low household income
• Moderate household income
• Above moderate household income
The household income for each of these categories is based on a percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI). The breakdown of these categories is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Income Category
Income Category Percent of AMI
Very Low <50%
Low 51-80%
Moderate 81-120%
Above Moderate >120%
In May 2021, ABAG/MTC updated its methodology for RHNA for all Bay Area jurisdictions.

The City of Pleasant Hill’s draft RHNA requirement is shown in Table 2. Table 2 also illustrates that Pleasant Hill is responsible for identifying housing sites that can support 1,803 total units in this 6
th Cycle, which is 1,355 more housing units than required in the 5th Cycle. The substantial increase in the total RHNA is not unique to Pleasant Hill, as most communities across the state are seeing increased housing allocations well over 300 percent.

Table 2: 5th and 6th Cycle RHNA Comparison
Cycle Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA
Very Low Low
5 th Cycle 118 69 84 177 448
6 th Cycle 566 326 254 657 1,803
Change +448 +257 +170 +480 +1,355
As part of the inventory and analysis of adequate sites, Pleasant Hill will need to evaluate the overarching General Plan land use categories and the underlying zoning designations to determine whether there is enough land available to accommodate the assigned RHNA allocation

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) for each income category. If unable to accommodate the RHNA, Pleasant Hill must rezone enough additional land to satisfy the RHNA obligation. The inventory evaluation must include land of adequate potential to meet the City’s RHNA number.

Overview of May 12, 2021, GPAC Meeting
At the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meeting on May 12, 2021, The City’s consultants, Mintier Harnish, provided an overview of what is required in the Housing Element and what the 6
th Cycle RHNA entails. The consultants also reviewed the GPAC-preferred land use alternative, which reflected the land use configuration of the preferred land use diagram that was developed as part of the Planning and Design Workshop in November 2019. Because the Housing Element and General Plan Updates both require a land use buildout analysis, Staff and the consultants are revisiting the 2020 GPAC-preferred land use alternative as part of the Housing Element Update process. During the GPAC meeting, members of the GPAC suggested several sites for Staff to consider for potential housing.

Overview of June 23, 2021, GPAC Meeting
At GPAC meeting on June 23, 2021, the City’s consultants provided an overview of the GPAC Alternative Buildout and a discussion of 14 potential housing opportunity sites (Opportunity Sites A-N). These opportunity sites were originally formed around the General Plan Alternative Focus Areas derived from the Planning and Design Workshops in 2019. For each opportunity site, the consultants included the site area, assumed density, housing unit capacity, constraints, and staff recommendations. The consultants also provided a detailed summary of the preliminary sites including the assumed densities, which would result in a residential capacity of 2,417 units.

During this meeting, members of the GPAC suggested, confirmed, or rejected sites for Staff and the consultant to consider for potential housing as part of the 6 th Cycle Housing Element update.

Staff and the consultants later met to discuss each site and determine its feasibility and usability in the buildout process. The purpose of the June 23, 2021 GPAC meeting was to present Staff’s recommendation on how to proceed with the suggested sites. Staff also recommended two additional sites for GPAC consideration.

Overview of July 14, 2021, Housing Element Workshop
At a Housing Element Workshop on July 14, 2021, the City’s consultants provided an overview of what is required in the Housing Element, what the 6
th Cycle RHNA entails compared to
previous cycles, and a made presentation on Opportunities Sites A-N. For each opportunity site, the consultants included the site area, assumed density, potential housing unit capacity, site and development constraints, and the GPAC's recommendation for the site. The meeting included a public comment period and discussion with panelists and City staff.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) Overview of October 27, 2021, Pleasant Hill Housing Element Town Hall The City held a Town Hall meeting on October 27, 2021, to provide additional information to members of the public regarding the Housing Element. Extensive public outreach (social media, mailings, newspaper, website, etc.) occurred prior to this Town Hall to encourage public participation. Over 70 members of the public participated, and many asked questions of Mayor Noack and Councilmember Carlson, who lead the GPAC, as well as City staff and the consultants regarding the Housing Element and overall process. Mayor Noack, Councilmember Carlson, City Staff, and the consultant facilitated an introductory presentation focusing on an overview of the Housing Element and RHNA, including a discussion of incentives for Housing Element compliance and consequences and penalties for non-compliance. Following the presentation, the Town Hall concluded with a discussion with the community members addressing their questions or concerns with the Housing Element process and preliminary opportunity sites. Most questions from the community were focused on the increased density proposed for Opportunity Site D: Mangini-Delu. The primary concern of commenters was the compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, traffic impacts, and the loss of the open space.

Other topics raised included potential traffic and parking constraints, active transportation, and community engagement in the process moving forward.

Sites
An evaluation and inventory of available housing sites is a requirement for every Housing Element update. Sites appropriate for consideration typically include vacant or underutilized sites, or areas that the City plans to re-designate to a residential land use. Another method to satisfy the RHNA requirement is to increase permitted densities on existing residentially zoned parcels.

Property Owner Feedback
Since the last GPAC meeting, City staff has reached out to all property owners of GPACrecommended housing opportunity sites. Staff provided information on the Housing Element process and the preliminary inclusion of their properties as housing opportunity sites, as well as the proposed development intensity envisioned. In addition, City staff wanted to understand if property owners had any objection to inclusion of their property or if there were any obstacles that would prevent housing from developing onsite within the 6th Housing Element Cycle.

While the City did not receive responses from all property owners, the following property owners had concerns and/or objected to the City’s designation of their sites as housing opportunity sites:
 1530 Contra Costa Boulevard
 2396 Pleasant Hill Road
 2571 Jewel Lane
 2583 Jewel Lane
 1817 Contra Costa Boulevard
 2590 Pleasant Hill Road, Winslow Center

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) Staff and the consultants note that, as part of the process to identify housing opportunity sites, HCD will employ a more rigorous scrutiny of the methodology and feasibility of each proposed site than in previous cycles. This will occur during HCD's review of the Public Review Draft Housing Element. If HCD does object to the inclusion of a site, the City must remove that site from the available sites inventory identified to satisfy the City’s RHNA requirement.

Remaining Sites Summary
Following the previous GPAC Meetings, Housing Element Workshop, and Housing Element Town Hall, the Consultant adjusted the opportunity site densities based on GPAC recommendations, and removed parcels based on property owner feedback. The remaining opportunity sites (excluding vacant, ADUs, and pending and approved projects) would create a potential capacity to support 1,862 housing units. While this is above the total RHNA requirement, a breakdown of housing capacity by income level (Table 3) shows that Pleasant Hill still needs to locate housing capacity for moderate-income households to address both the RHNA and the State-required 20 percent buffer.

RHNA Buffer: No Net Loss Law
Senate Bill 166 (2017) requires sufficient adequate sites to be available at all times throughout the RHNA planning period for each RHNA income category. To ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the housing element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period, HCD requires that jurisdictions create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required.

The total number of dwelling units, including the GPAC-recommended sites, vacant sites, ADUs, and pending approved projects, total 2,761. Of the 2,761 units, 1,727 units are designated as lower income sites. These sites were the result of the GPAC-recommended sites and a pending project that includes 82 affordable senior units. Most of the moderate-income sites came from assumed ADU development. The above moderate-income sites include pending and approved projects, individual vacant sites, 25 percent of the ADU assumption, and the GPACrecommended Mangini-Delu site.

ADU Assumption
HCD allows jurisdictions to count a projected number of ADUs toward the RHNA. While the projection is typically based on ADU permitting trends in the city and based on the average number of ADU permits approved each year in the last three years (2018, 2019, and 2020), jurisdictions may project a higher rate if they can justify their assumptions to HCD. Because of the combination of the pandemic's effect on permitting (only 5 ADUs permitted in 2020) and new State laws aimed at accelerating ADU production statewide, we have assumed production will increase to 320 ADUs over the eight-year planning period.

Table 4 below shows the designations associated with each income category. Table 5 shows pending and approved projects.

To reach the moderate income goals, the GPAC could consider:
 Identifying one or more of the Mixed Use High Density Opportunity Sites where

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) 1 Does not apply to sites currently designated Mixed Use. Applies only to sites A: DVC, E: JFK University, K: Jewel Lane, M: Monument Triangle, and N: JCPenny.
affordability may be constrained despite increased density (such as in an area with high land costs) and recommending the site(s) be applied toward moderate income goals. This allows the City to move a portion of the excess Lower Income units to meet Moderate Income goals without any further changes to GPAC preferred land use designations.  Reducing the density of certain Mixed Use High Density opportunity areas to Mixed Use.1 Due to reduced density, parcels designated Mixed Use fulfill moderate income goals. While this option would decrease density and capacity in the specific opportunity area, it shifts units from the lower income excess to meet the moderate income need.  Changing the designation of one or more of the additional housing sites (listed below) to a designation assumed for moderate income housing (Table 4).

Table 3: Site Summary
Lower
Moderate AboveModerate Total
Very Low Low
6 th Cycle RHNA 566 326 254 657 1,803
892
2021 Alternative Total 1,727 240 794 2,761
GPAC Sites 1,645 0 217 1,862
Vacant Sites 0 0 163 163
Assumed ADUs 0 240 80 320
Pending and
Approved Projects 82 0 313 395
Difference 835 (+94%) -14 (-6%) 116 (+18%) 937 (+52%)
Table 4: Income Category Breakdown
Above Moderate Income Units Single-Family Low Density (1.3-3.0 du/ac) Single-Family Medium Density (3.1-4.5 du/ac)
Single-Family High Density (4.6-6.9 du/ac)
Multi-Family Very Low Density (7.0-11.9 du/ac)
Multi-Family Low Density (12.0-19.9 du/ac)
Moderate Income Units Multi-Family Medium Density (20-30 du/ac) Multi-Family High Density (40-70 du/ac)
Mixed Use (12-40 du/ac)
Mixed Use Neighborhood (1.3-20.0 du/ac)
Lower Income Units Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) Mixed Use Very High Density (70-100 du/ac)

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) Table 5: Pending and Approved Projects1
Project Units Income Category
PLN 19-0416: Single Family Residence 1 Above Moderate
PLN 19-0457: Single Family Residence 1 Above Moderate
PLN 20-0246: Single Family Residence 1 Above Moderate
PLN 17-0386: Single Family Residence 1 Above Moderate
PLN 19-0506: Single Family Residence 1 Above Moderate
PLN 18-0435: Single Family Residence 1 Above Moderate
PLN 19-0104: Single Family Residence 1 Above Moderate
PLN 19-0345: Single Family Residence 1 Above Moderate
PLN 21-0294: SAHA, 490 Golf Club Road 82 Lower Income
PLN 20-0144: New Residences 2 Above Moderate
PLN 21-0026: Single Family Residence 1 Above Moderate
PLN 21-0028: 401 Taylor 46 residences
16 ADUs
Above Moderate
PLN 18-0359: 85 Cleaveland 189 Above Moderate, based on expected affordability
PLN 18-0383: 1750 Oak Park
Contra Costa County
34 Above Moderate
PLN 17-0013: Reliez Terraces
(Former Molino Property)
2150 and 2198 Pleasant Hill Road
17 Above Moderate
Total Lower Income: 82
Total Moderate 0
Total Above Moderate 313
1 : Projects completed before July 1, 2022 may not be counted toward the 6th Cycle RHNA tally and must be removed from this list.

Additional Sites Discussed at the GPAC Meeting #14, July 2021 During the July 2021 GPAC meeting, two new sites were mentioned as potential options. These sites were not recommended; however, the GPAC felt they could be considered if the City's lower income goals are not met by the current opportunity sites. The two sites are outlined below.

Shopping Center at Contra Costa Boulevard and 2nd (CCB-2ND)  11.35 acres
 Existing General Plan Land Use: Commercial and Retail Existing Zoning: Retail Business
Shopping Center at Taylor and Morello (TAY-MOR)
 9.05 acres
 Existing General Plan Land Uses: Neighborhood Business, Commercial and Retail Existing Zoning: Neighborhood Business, Single Family - 7000 sq ft Lots, Retail Business

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) Additional Housing Sites Submited for Consideration
Since the last General Plan Advisory Committee meeting, the City has received input and feedback on additional sites for consideration as housing opportunity sites. A summary of the sites is provided below.

DVC Triangle (DVC-2)
 1 acre
 Existing General Plan Land Use: School
 Existing Zoning: Single Family - 7000 sq ft Lots
Oak Park Shopping Center (OAKPARK)
 2.66 acres
 Existing General Plan Land Use: Neighborhood Business  Existing Zoning: Neighborhood Business
Summary of Public Comments
Through the Housing Element process, the City has received numerous public comments on the Housing Element and the Housing Opportunity Sites. A list of public comments can be found in Attachment B. Many of the comments relay concerns about the potential increase in housing units envisioned for the Mangini-Delu Site (Opportunity Site D). Other comments expressed concerns about the number of units that the City has to plan for in the upcoming Housing Element and the potential effects upon the City of Pleasant Hill, including changing the appearance of the City and the loss of a small town feel, traffic issues, water supply and longterm impacts to existing neighborhoods.

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Committee receive all public input, review the potential housing opportunity sites, consider sites for removal or change in housing density and any additional sites for inclusion, and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Attachments
Attachment A Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
Attachment B Public Comments

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
1 A. DVC Overflow Parking Lot
Size 5 acres of 11-acre site
Proposed Designation Mixed Use Very High
Assumed density 70 - 100 du/ac (70 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 350 units
Issues
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Potential for increased density (designation changed to Mixed Use Very High)

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill
– GPAC #15
Attachment A– Summary of Proposed Housing Sites2
D. Mangini-Delu Area
Size 25.90 acres
Assumed densities 4.8 du/ac (eastern section)

8.3 du/ac (northern section)

21.0 du/ac (southern section)
Housing Units 51 units (eastern section)
81 units (northern section)
85 units (southern section)
210 total units
(assumes 7 houses removed)
Issues• Includes existing homes • Will require program for relocation GPAC Recommendation• Keep in inventory • East section to SF High Density

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
3 E. JFK University
Size 4.87 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use Very High Density
Assumed density 70 - 100 du/ac (70 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 243 units
Issues • Directly adjacent to highway
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Consider 70-100 du/ac MU on this site

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
4 F. ACE Hardware
Size 1.53 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 53 units
Issues • Removed 1530 Contra Costa Blvd. based on owner request (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Extend site area north to include Tap Plastics site
(acreage has been adjusted accordingly)

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill
– GPAC #15
Attachment A– Summary of Proposed Housing Sites5
G. Gregory Gardens
Size 3.59 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 126 units
Issues• Shallow site • Existing active uses
GPAC Recommendation• Keep in inventory • Review lease agreements

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
6 I. Pleasant Hill/Gregory Lane Intersection
Size 4.93 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 172 units
Issues • Walgreens and 7-11 sites removed based on owner requests (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Consider sites south of Gregory and select sites within this area (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
• Consider 40-70 du/ac MU designation for this site

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
7 J. Gregory Lane/Contra Costa Boulevard Intersection
Size 7.07 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 247 units
Issues • 1817 Contra Costa Boulevard removed based on owner request (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
GPAC
Recommendation
• Keep in inventory
• Extend the focus area boundary north to Caspers
(acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
• Potential site for brewery or brew pub
• Consider 40-70 du/ac Mixed Use

GREGORY LANE

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
8 K. Jewel Lane Neighborhood
Size 1.82 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 58 total units (assumes 7 houses removed) Issues • Includes existing homes
• Will require program to address family relocation
• 2571 and 2583 Jewel Lane removed based on letters from owners (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Expand the focus area to Include the L-shaped building to the east (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
9 M. Monument Triangle Area
Size 4.5 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 159 units
Issues
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Exclude mobile home park (acreage has been adjusted
accordingly)

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
10 N. Former JC Penny Furniture Store
Size 5.75 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 232 units
Issues
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Consider to 40-70 du/ac Mixed Use in this area.

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative) City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
11 Summary of Opportunity Sites by GPAC Recommended Land Use Designation Acres
Dwelling Units Income
Single Family Multifamily TOTAL Category
Residential
Single-Family Low Density 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Above Mod
Single-Family Medium Density 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Above Mod Single-Family High Density 11.33 44.00 7.00 51 Above Mod Multi-Family Very Low Density 10.32 57.00 24.00 81 Above Mod Multi-Family Low Density 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Above Mod
Multi-Family Medium Density 4.25 0.00 85.00 85 Above Mod Multi-Family High Density 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Moderate
Commercial and Mixed-Use
Commercial and Retail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 n/a
Mixed Use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Moderate
Mixed Use Neighborhood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Moderate
Mixed Use High Density 30.14 0.00 1,052.00 1,052 Lower
Mixed Use Very High Density 15.86 0.00 593.00 593 Lower Total 71.90 101.00 1761.00 1862

8.1.e
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: E - November 17, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Memorandum (Preferred Land Use Alternative)

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: F - Planning Commission Resolution No. 9-22 (Preferred Land Use Alternative)

8.1.f
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: F - Planning Commission Resolution No. 9-22 (Preferred Land Use Alternative)

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION OF A PREFERRED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE

GENERAL PLAN
Citywide, City of Pleasant Hill
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Pleasant Hill that the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a recommendation of the General Plan Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission on a Preferred Land Use Alternative for the in-progress General Plan Update that also takes into consideration Housing Opportunity sites. The Preferred Land Use Alternative was reviewed and recommended for potential consideration in a CEQA document by the General Plan Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. The Preferred Land Use Alternative includes potential land use designation changes at various locations throughout the City of Pleasant Hill and also includes various potential new land use designations, including new Mixed-Use Designations and updated densities in various Multi-Family Residential Designations. Once direction is provided by the City Council as to the scope of the Preferred Land Use Alternative and resulting recommended Land Use Changes, the City will conduct CEQA analysis of that scope.

This public hearing was originally scheduled to be considered by the City Council at the April 18, 2022 meeting date. This item was continued without discussion and THE PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the City Council starting at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 16, 2022. More information on how to participate, including providing live comments during the meeting, will be provided on the posted City Council Agenda.

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(B) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at a Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Pleasant Hill at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.

For information on this matter, please call or email Troy Fujimoto, at (925) 671-5224 or [email protected].

Troy Fujimoto
Zoning Administrator

8.1.g
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: G - Public Hearing Notice (Preferred Land Use Alternative) Comments on GPAC and PC Preferred Alterantive
May 2022