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 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 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.
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
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 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)
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
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
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)
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
2 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
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
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)
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
5 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
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
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
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)
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)
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.
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