Pleasant Hill City Council
December 13, 2022

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 13, 2022
SPECIAL MEETING – 6:30 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: 826 3182 3247
Passcode: 520651
The meeting ID and Passcode will change each meeting. See more information on Public Participation Options below.

City Offices, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Telephone (925) 671-5267

CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR MICHAEL G. HARRIS COUNCILMEMBER KEN CARLSON

VICE MAYOR TIMOTHY FLAHERTY COUNCILMEMBER SUE NOACK

COUNCILMEMBER MATTHEW RINN

PLANNING COMMISSION

CHAIR ALEX KHALFIN VICE-CHAIR CELIA CHIANG

COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CHENEY COMMISSIONER JIHAWNA JOHNSON

COMMISSIONER DIANA VAVREK COMMISSIONER ALEX VINSON

COMMISSIONER CHADWICK WYLER
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 and Planning Commission on items on the special meeting agenda.

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 comments on 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. There are two ways to join the meeting and make a public comment during the meeting:
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.

Planning Commission Meeting Recordings and Broadcasts.

Meeting Broadcasts: Click “Watch Meetings” on the City’s website, www.pleasanthillca.org, to watch livestreamed meetings (please note that streaming does not start until the meeting start time) or you may view meetings at youtube.com, at the following link - www.pleasanthillca.org/planningcom. Planning Commission meetings are also recorded and broadcast on Comcast Channel 28, U-Verse Channel 99, and Wave Channel 29 on the Thursday and Saturday following the Tuesday meeting at 7:00 p.m. In addition, meetings also may be viewed on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org by clicking “Watch Meetings.”

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 and Planning Commission.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. STUDY SESSION

3.1 Joint Study Session to Review the Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element covering the Planning period of January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031

4. ADJOURNMENT
Next City Council Meeting: December 19, 2022
Next Planning Commission Meeting: January 10, 2023

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: December 13, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: JOINT STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE DRAFT SIXTH CYCLE

HOUSING ELEMENT COVERING THE PLANNING PERIOD OF
JANUARY 31, 2023 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2031

SYNOPSIS
The City Council and the Planning Commission are holding a joint study session on the City’s Draft Housing Element. The purpose of the study session is to provide an overview of the Draft Housing Element, collect feedback from the public, and receive direction from the City Council and the Planning Commission. The City Council and the Planning Commission, are requested to direct staff to submit the Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its initial 90-day review.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of the Housing Element is to establish a comprehensive plan to address housing needs in Pleasant Hill for the next eight years. The Housing Element sets the policies surrounding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing units that meet the needs of Pleasant Hill residents.

The City of Pleasant Hill last updated its Housing Element in 2015 for the 5th Housing Element Cycle covering the planning period from January 31, 2015, to January 31, 2023. As required by State law, this Housing Element Update covers the planning period from January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031, also known as the 6th Housing Element Cycle.

Housing Element Update Components
The Draft Housing Element consists of two parts: the Policy Document and the Needs Assessment. For ease of use, these have been combined into a single PDF for the Public Review Draft.
 The Policy Document states goals, policies, implementing programs, and quantified objectives for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing. The Policy Document is presented first in the Public Review Draft.

3.1 Packet Pg. 4
 The Needs Assessment identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs to inform policy development. Within this document, the Resources section provides a list of sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

General Plan Advisory Committee Review
Five meetings have been held by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to discuss housing issues in Pleasant Hill and inform the drafting of the Housing Element. The GPAC reviewed and discussed potential sites for higher density residential land uses with sufficient capacity to meet the State-mandated housing goals. Initially, the GPAC recommended that staff carry forward eight Housing Opportunity Sites for consideration in addition to the changes recommended in the Focus Areas of the concurrent General Plan Update. Subsequently, the Housing Opportunity Sites were refined, which resulted in seven sites carried forward into the Housing Element sites inventory as sites requiring a rezone (sites A-L).

Each of the meetings included an opportunity for public comment. All comments received from the public during GPAC meetings are available in Appendix C of the Draft Housing Element - Needs Assessment (Attachment A). A summary of GPAC meetings related to the Draft Housing Element is summarized below:
 The first GPAC meeting that focused on the Housing Element was held on May 11, 2021.

The meeting included an introduction to housing elements and the RHNA; a discussion of GPAC focus areas, buildout assumptions, potential housing opportunity sites; and opportunities for public comment.
 A subsequent GPAC meeting, held on June 23, 2021, included an initial review of potential housing opportunity sites and a discussion of potential housing capacity. During this meeting, significant amounts of public comment were received, particularly regarding the consideration of the Mangini-Delu site as a housing opportunity site.  On November 17, 2021, the GPAC reviewed and considered the sites recommended by the GPAC at the June 23, 2021 meeting and discussed a recommended approach for land use alternatives that incorporate housing opportunity sites. The GPAC recommended moving forward with the Housing Element sites inventory based on the GPAC Preferred Alternative Land Use Plan.
 On January 26, 2022, the GPAC reviewed an overview of the Alternatives process and the incorporation of Housing Element Opportunity Sites, a discussion of the changes to Focus Areas based on the Housing Element sites inventory, and a summary of potential housing capacity under the revised GPAC-Preferred Alternative.  At a GPAC Meeting on June 29, 2022, the Draft Housing Element Policy Document was reviewed. The meeting included a discussion of key findings from the Needs Assessment and program requirements; and a review of each program contained within the Draft

3.1 Packet Pg. 5
Policy Document. Following the meeting, staff revised the Policy Document based on GPAC direction and feedback.

Public Outreach
In response to the need for public participation, in addition to various GPAC meetings, City planning staff worked with consultants to develop a robust community engagement program tailored to ensure the community and other stakeholders are engaged in the process and are given ample opportunities to provide input. The engagement program includes branding, a project website, business cards, newsletters and e-blasts, announcements on the City website and social media, a workshop and town hall meeting, a fair housing survey, multiple GPAC meetings, and Planning Commission and City Council study sessions and hearings.

RHNA Overview
Each jurisdiction in California is required to plan for its fair share of the region’s housing need, which includes the regional need for the nine counties of the Bay Area. This fair share is determined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through a process called the Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND). After HCD identifies the total housing need for each region of the State, regional Councils of Government, in this case the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), are then responsible for distributing this need across the local governments within the region. This distribution process is also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. Once a local government has received its RHNA, it must revise its housing element to show how it plans zone residential land to accommodate its portion of the region’s housing need. The RHNA is one of the primary threshold criteria necessary to achieve HCD support of the Housing Element.

Table 1 (on the following page) shows Pleasant Hill’s RHNA for the 2023-2031 Housing Element (6th Cycle) and illustrates the appreciable increase from the 5th Cycle requirements.

3.1 Packet Pg. 6
Table 1: RHNA Comparison Between 5th and 6th Cycle Requirements Lower
Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Very RHNA
Low Low
5th Cycle 118 69 84 177 448
6th Cycle 566 326 254 657 1,803
Unit Change + 448 + 257 + 170 + 480 + 1,355
% Change + 380% + 372% + 202% + 271% + 302%
Due to the State's No-Net-Loss Zoning law (SB 166, 2017), each jurisdiction must provide an additional 20 percent buffer across lower and moderate-income categories to ensure that affordability is preserved. This buffer allows some units to be developed outside the projected income area (i.e. moderate income housing on a lower-income site) without the City falling into a deficit in any individual category.

Table 2: Regional Housing Need Allocation and HCD-Required 20 Percent Buffer, Pleasant Hill
Lower
Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Very
Low
Low
Required RHNA 566 326 254 657 1,803
Required RHNA plus 20%
Buffer 679 391 305 657 2,032
Capacity to Meet the RHNA
The Draft Housing Element provides capacity to meet the RHNA through pipeline projects, projected construction of accessory dwelling units (ADU), vacant sites, and the eight GPACrecommended Housing Opportunity Sites. Table 3 below shows a summary of total RHNA capacity. As shown, the City currently has 380 units in pending and approved projects, including

3.1 Packet Pg. 7
106 lower income units. Based on recent trends, the City projects 320 ADUs in the upcoming planning period. Although the City is mostly built out, there are 37 vacant parcels zoned appropriately for residential development with a capacity for 232 new housing units.

Finally, as discussed previously, the GPAC identified Housing Opportunity Sites with potential for redevelopment to high-density mixed use. These Housing Opportunity Sites require a rezone in line with the City’s Preferred Land Use Alternative. Under the designation proposed through the Preferred Land Use Alternative, these sites provide the capacity for 1,192 new units.

In total, the Draft Housing Element identifies capacity for 2,124 housing units through existing approved projects, projected ADU development, and the development of vacant and underutilized parcels, including the capacity to meet the RHNA and buffer requirement across all income categories. The figure on the following page shows the location of pending projects, vacant sites, and Housing Opportunity Sites.

Table 3: Summary of Progress toward the RHNA (6th Cycle) Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Required RHNA (6th Cycle) 892 254 657 1,803
Total Planned Units (6th Cycle) 1,157 308 659 2,124
Credits Assumed ADUs 0 280 40 320
Pending and Approved Projects 106 14 260 380
Sites Vacant Sites 0 0 232 232
Housing Opportunity Sites 1,051 14 127 1,192
Total Planned Units (6th Cycle) 1,157 308 659 2,124
Required RHNA plus 20% buffer 1,070 305 657 2,032
Surplus (beyond “RHNA plus 20%”) + 87 + 3 + 2 + 92
Percentage of Required RHNA (6th Cycle) 130% 121% 100% 118%

3.1 Packet Pg. 8

3.1 Packet Pg. 9
Changes to State Law
The California legislature has passed several housing bills since the City adopted its previous Housing Element in 2015. These changes to Housing Element law must be addressed in the current update. While the City complies with many of these laws, the following list summarizes major changes that were made in the 2023-2031 Housing Element update in response to these legislative changes.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). In response to AB 686 (2017), the City incorporated a new fair housing analysis that can be found in Appendix A: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. The analysis identifies fair housing issues in the community that the City must proactively work to overcome. To do this, the City has bolstered implementation programs with meaningful actions and objectives that work to overcome fair housing issues and their contributing factors. For more information, please see section 1.8: Contributing Factors, beginning on page A-56 (Attachment A).

No-Net-Loss Zoning. In response to SB 166 (2017), the City included an additional 20 percent buffer in the residential sites inventory, as discussed above and shown in Table 2. Although the City is mostly built out, the City worked with the public to identify sites with potential for redevelopment to mixed use with high density residential. These sites are underutilized with lowdensity uses, large parking lots, old structures, and low improvement values compared to land values. At Mixed Use High (40-70 dwelling units/acre) and Mixed Use Very High (70-100 dwelling units/acres) these sites provide combined capacity for 1,192 units, approximately 2/3 of the RHNA total. Housing Opportunity Sites are discussed beginning on page 4-128 (Attachment A). A summary of capacity to meet the RHNA and required buffer is provided on page 4-160 (Attachment A).

Implementation Programs. The implementation programs in the Policy Document commit the City to specific actions to address housing needs, constraints, and fair housing issues. The 2023- 2031 Housing Element continues and expands upon many successful existing programs. New implementation programs included to address new State requirements are summarized below.  Program E: Surplus and Excess Public Land Inventory. In accordance with AB 1486 (2019) and AB 1255 (2019), this new program commits the City to create a publicly visible inventory of surplus and excess public land with potential for residential development.
 Program F: Increase Allowable Densities. This program commits the City to increase allowable densities in line with the General Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative. The

3.1 Packet Pg. 10
program also includes the rezone requirements mandated for any Housing Opportunity Site with a proposed rezone.
 Program G: Housing Information Transparency. Required by State law, this program requires the City to post housing related information on the City website to increase transparency.
 Program O: Municipal Code Updates. This program outlines required updates to the municipal code triggered by changes in state law and constraints identified in the Needs Assessment.
 Program Q: Place-based Density Increases. Program Q commits the City to revise the Zoning Code to allow urban lot splits, duplexes, and other two-unit projects in singlefamily residential zones in accordance with Senate Bill 9.  Program R: Missing Middle Housing. Missing middle housing types provide diverse housing options, such as duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and multiplexes compatible in scale and form to detached single-family homes. This program commits the City to evaluate and revise zoning standards, as appropriate, to increase the variety of housing types in the city, with particular emphasis on housing affordable to the local workforce.

By providing for additional capacity, and particularly affordable opportunities, in high resource areas, this program satisfies a new requirement that Housing Elements address housing mobility through program action(s).
 Program EE: Housing Opportunity Sites. This program works to incentivize redevelopment at Housing Opportunity Sites and to publicize available incentives on the City website.
 Program FF: Affordable Housing in High Opportunity Areas. This program works to overcome fair housing issues by working to promote multi-unit development in lowdensity zones. By expanding capacity in high resource areas, and particularly lower- and moderate-income capacity, the City can work to relieve displacement pressures on multifamily zones where affordable units are more concentrated.  Program UU: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. This program, required by new State law, commits the City to address disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity for all residents and to work proactively to overcome fair housing issues. The program includes additional fair housing objectives and identifies programs that work to address each fair housing issue identified in the AFFH Analysis.

The Public Review Draft Housing Element is not the final adopted/certified document. There will be future public hearings and public comment opportunities. This Draft was posted for

3.1 Packet Pg. 11
public comment from November 9, 2022 to December 9, 2022. Following the 30-day public review period, the Draft will be revised and submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for an initial 90-day review. Following the 90-day review, HCD will submit comments to the City, after which the City will revise the Housing Element accordingly and initiate a process to adopt. The City will hold public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council in April or May, 2023. The adopted Housing Element document will then be submitted to HCD for a final 60-day review and certification.

Next Steps
Following Planning Commission and City Council review and comments on December 13, 2022, staff and consultants will review input and revise the document accordingly. After this review period, the City will submit the revised Draft to HCD for the initial 90-day review.

Upon completion of HCD review, staff and consultants will revise the Draft to respond to HCD’s comments. The Final Housing Element will be submitted to the Planning Commission for recommendation and the City Council for adoption in the spring. Once adopted, the Housing Element will then be submitted to HCD for review and certification.

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. In addition, additional notice was made through posting of an A-Frame at the Police Station, posting on the City Hall Changeable Message Sign, through City social media outlets, email blasts, newspaper notice and on the City website and the pleasanthill2040.com website. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Review and discuss the Draft Housing Element Update, receive and consider public input, and provide comments to staff on recommended revisions and direction to submit the Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its initial 90-day review.

3.1 Packet Pg. 12
ATTACHMENT(S):

A. Draft Housing Element
B. Housing Element Newsletter
C. Public Comments
Prepared by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Reviewed by: Ethan Bindernagel, Community Development Director Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

3.1 Packet Pg. 13
4 Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-1
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the State).

General plans serve as the local government’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include seven required elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, and housing. The law mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as “housing-element law.”
California’s housing-element law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing development.

As a result, housing policy in California rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements.

Although the Housing Element is one of seven required elements of the general plan, it has several unique requirements that set it apart from the other six. State law (Government Code Section 65580 (et seq.)) specifies in detail the topics that the housing element must address and sets a schedule for required updates every eight years. The housing element is also the only element reviewed and certified by the State for compliance with State law. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is the State department responsible for this certification.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element establishes a comprehensive plan to address housing needs in Pleasant Hill over the eight-year planning period between January 31, 2023 and January 31, 2031. The Housing Element sets the community goals and policies surrounding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing units to meet the needs of Pleasant Hill residents (present and throughout the planning period). Pleasant Hill is a member of the Association of Bay Area Governments and, therefore, is required to submit an updated Housing Element to HCD by January 31, 2023.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-2 Public Review Draft November 2022
The Introduction is divided into the following sections:

Contents
Section Title Page
Key Terms.................................................................................................................... 4-2 Components of the Housing Element ....................................................................... 4-4 Key Findings from the Needs Assessment............................................................... 4-4 Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs........................................................ 4-9 Quantified Objectives ................................................................................................ 4-37 Key Terms
Contract rent: Actual rent as specified in a rental or lease agreement, excluding utilities.

Displacement: The involuntary relocation of current residents or businesses. Physical displacement is the result of eviction, acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of property, or the expiration of covenants on rent- or income-restricted housing. Economic displacement occurs when residents and businesses can no longer afford escalating rents or property taxes, Gentrification: Gentrification is a process of neighborhood change, usually resulting from an influx of relatively wealthy, white residents to a neighborhood.

High opportunity areas: Synonymous with “high resource areas,” high opportunity areas are areas that currently have strong economic, environmental, and educational outcomes. These areas are defined within the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis. The image on the following page shows opportunity scores in Pleasant Hill.

Low barrier navigation center: Housing or shelter in which a resident who is homeless or at risk of homelessness may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing.

Missing middle housing. Missing Middle Housing is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units—compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes—located in a walkable neighborhood. Missing middle housing types provide diverse housing options, such as duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and multiplexes.

Place-based strategies. Actions that target the specific circumstances of a place.

Workforce housing. Housing affordable to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of area median income (AMI).

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-3
Figure:

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-4 Public Review Draft November 2022
Components of the Housing Element
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update consists of two parts; the Needs Assessment, and the Housing Element Policy Document.

1. The Needs Assessment identifies and analyzes the existing and projected housing needs, provides a list of sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation, documents constraints to housing production, and analyzes fair housing. In short, the Needs Assessment provides the context for the City's housing action plan.

2. The Policy Document states goals, policies, implementing programs, and quantified objectives for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing. The Policy Document is the action plan that responds directly to the findings of the Housing Needs Assessment and input from the community. The City will implement the actions specified in the Policy Document throughout the eight-year planning period.

The key findings of the Needs Assessment are listed below, along with the relevant programs designed to address them.

Key Findings from the Needs Assessment
Population, Housing, and Employment Trends
▪ Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of Pleasant Hill increased by 4.4 percent from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay Area (9.1 percent).
▪ Future Housing Need. According to Plan Bay Area 2040, between 2020 and 2030 the population of Pleasant Hill is projected to continue to grow at a rate of over four percent, leading to an expected increase of 1,475 new residents and 615 new households by 2030. ▪ Age – In 2019, Pleasant Hill’s youth population under the age of 18 was 6,701 and senior population 65 and older was 5,598. These age groups represent 19.2 percent and 16.1 percent, respectively, of Pleasant Hill’s population.
▪ Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 64.4 percent of Pleasant Hill’s population was White while 2.1 percent was African American, 12.8 percent was Asian, and 14.6 percent was Latinx. People of color comprise a smaller proportion of the population of Pleasant Hill than in the Bay Area as a whole.1 1 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-5
▪ Employment –Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 520 (3.2 percent). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in Pleasant Hill has increased from 1.11 in 2002 to 1.24 jobs per household in 2018.

Program C commits the City to providing sufficient housing sites to meet the needs of the population across all income categories. More specifically, Programs F, K, M, O, S, CC and KK address workforce housing and mixed-use housing opportunities.

Housing Stock Characteristics
▪ Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, higher housing prices, and greater displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Pleasant Hill increased 0.4 percent from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for Contra Costa County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock. By comparison, during this period, the population of Pleasant Hill grew at a rate of

4.4 percent and the number of jobs in the city increased by 3.2 percent.

Programs C, F, and Q work to facilitate higher density development, and Program K works to provide residential development opportunities in commercial areas through the implementation of mixed-use zoning.
▪ Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all Pleasant Hill residents to live and thrive in the community.
▪ Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $500,000- $750,000 in 2019. Home prices increased by 116.3 percent from 2010 to 2020.2 ▪ Rental Prices – The median contract rent for an apartment in Pleasant Hill was $1,900 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 55.2 percent from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $76,280 per year.

Program AA works to increase affordable homeownership opportunities in Pleasant Hill through the pursuit of mortgage credit certificates, and Program BB commits the City to investigating concepts and funding sources for additional homeownership assistance measures. Programs S through Z work to assist the development of affordable housing.
▪ Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of the community today and in the future. In 2020, 59.9 percent of homes in Pleasant Hill were singlefamily detached, 10.9 percent were single-family attached, 7.0 percent were small multifamily (2- 4 units), 21.6 percent were medium or large multifamily (5+ units), and 0.6 percent were mobile homes. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more than multifamily units. Generally, in Pleasant Hill, the share of the housing stock that is detached single-family homes exceeds that of other jurisdictions in the region. 2 Housing Element data is provided by ABAG and HCD in a pre-approved data package. This data was provided to the City in 2021. Due to the time required to compile and approve data sets, 2019 data was the most recent data available to the State. The City acknowledges that since 2020, home prices have increased dramatically.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-6 Public Review Draft November 2022
Programs aimed at addressing the lack of affordable housing types include F, I, J, K, and P. ▪ Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be “affordable” if the household spends less than 30 percent of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost burdened.” In Pleasant Hill, 15.7 percent of households spend 30 percent to 50 percent of their income on housing, while 15.5 percent of households are severely cost burdened and use the majority of their income for housing.

Programs including M, P, S, U, V, W, Y, Z, and CC work to reduce the costs of production or create more affordable housing opportunities by streamlining development approvals, incentivizing affordable housing types, generating funds, or reducing fees.
▪ Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, no households in Pleasant Hill are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and none live in areas at risk of, or undergoing gentrification. However, of the total households in Pleasant Hill, approximately 27.6 percent live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs, suggesting that economic displacement pressures exist within the city. Displacement is discussed in greater detail in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis and key findings are summarized below.

To continue to protect residents from displacement over the planning period and to provide housing opportunities proactively for all income levels throughout the city, the Housing Element includes a variety of programs aimed lowering the cost of production, increasing density at key housing opportunity sites, and providing opportunities for affordable housing development in low-density, high-opportunity areas.

Special Housing Needs
▪ Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In Pleasant Hill, 10.2 percent of residents have a disability of some kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 5.0 percent of Pleasant Hill households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. Approximately 10.5 percent of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

Programs M, S, GG, CC, DD, and XX respond to the City's special housing need by streamlining development review, incentivizing development, or providing direct funding for construction or rehabilitation of housing for those with special needs.

Non-governmental and Governmental Constraints
▪ Pleasant Hill’s Zoning Code allows for a variety of housing types in the city including multiplefamily units, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, manufactured and mobile homes, and accessory dwelling units. However, Pleasant Hill will need to update the Municipal Code to allow for low-barrier navigation centers and emergency shelters, and to update the Density Bonus Ordinance for continued compliance with recent State law, as necessary.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-7
Sites Inventory
▪ Sites Inventory. In combination with the City’s pending projects and ADU development trends, the Site Inventory identifies adequate sites to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The sites inventory also identifies capacity for an additional 20 percent in the lower and moderate income categories to ensure that the City retains lower-income capacity if one or more sites are developed at market rate. This “buffer” is a new requirement in this housing element cycle, as required by per SB 166 (2019) and Government Code Section 65863.

Pleasant Hill received a RHNA of 1,803 total units distributed across very low-income (566 units), lowincome (326 units), moderate-income (254 units), and above moderate-income (657 units) categories.

The City has identified capacity for more than 2,130 new units, including a total of 1,421 housing of units accommodated on vacant and non-vacant sites. Multiple property owners of vacant and non-vacant sites are supportive of and interested in housing development on their properties. See Program C for more information.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, together, address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development.

The goal of the AFFH analysis is to ensure available sites for lower-income housing are located equitably across a region and its communities with fair access to opportunities and resources.

Ensuring that sites for housing, particularly lower income units, are in high opportunity areas rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty requires jurisdictions to consider factors, such as accessibility to various opportunities, including jobs, transportation, education, and health services, when planning for housing.

The AFFH analysis identified fair housing issues and contributing factors, which along with the City’s response, are summarized below.
▪ Issue: Encouraging development of new affordable housing in high opportunity areas. ▪ Dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multifamily housing.
▪ Location and type of existing affordable housing.
▪ Lack of affordable housing in moderate-resource areas. ▪ Limited supply of affordable housing in areas with access to opportunity.

Programs F P, Q, R, V, Z, and FF encourage new affordable housing in high opportunity areas. ▪ Issue: Protecting existing residents from displacement

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-8 Public Review Draft November 2022
▪ Unaffordable rents and sales prices in a range of sizes ▪ Displacement of residents due to economic pressure such as unaffordable rents, concentration of poverty, and availability of affordable housing ▪ Location, type, and supply of affordable housing
▪ Land use and zoning laws
▪ Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities; lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services ▪ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities According to research from UC-Berkeley, the City of Pleasant Hill is not currently experiencing displacement pressures; however, to ensure that this trend continues, Programs F, I, K, R, FF, KK, LL, MM, PP, QQ, RR, and SS strive to protect existing residents from displacement by providing adequate sites throughout the city, as well through preservation efforts, and by relieving displacement pressures on medium and high density areas of the city.
▪ Issue: Fair housing enforcement and outreach
▪ Lack of resources for fair housing agencies to conduct more rigorous testing and audits, outreach, training, public education campaigns.
▪ Lack of public (local, State, Federal) fair housing enforcement including funding for staffing and training of public interest law firms
Programs QQ, UU, VV, and WW work to provide for fair housing enforcement and outreach proactively.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-9
Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs
Maintain a housing supply sufficient to meet the housing needs of all Pleasant Hill residents. [Source: Existing Goal, Goal: 1]
H-1.1 Monitor Development
Monitor residential and job producing development in the city in order to maintain an adequate housing supply for city residents. [Source: Existing Policy 1A] H-1.2 Maintain Adequate Supply
Maintain a sufficient supply of residential land with appropriate zoning to meet locally generated housing needs. [Source: Existing Policy 1B]
H-1.3 Implement the Action Plan
Provide active leadership in implementing the policies and programs contained in the Housing Element. [Source: Existing Policy 1C]
H-1.4 Inter-jurisdictional Development
Encourage and facilitate inter-jurisdictional development of affordable housing. [Source: Existing Policy 1D]
H-1.5 Encourage Higher Densities
Encourage development at the maximum allowed density to increase the quantity and affordability of the city’s housing stock. [New Policy] H-1.6 Provide Transparency
Provide transparency regarding information on housing-related actions, fees, and programs. [New Policy]
Promote diversity in tenure, type, size, location, and price to permit a choice of housing for persons of all economic levels throughout the city. [Source: Existing Goal, Goal: 2, modified]
H-2.1 Housing Types
Allow a variety of housing types in all residential zones. [Source: Existing Policy 1A] H-2.2 Remove Constraints
Remove constraints to production and availability of housing, where possible. [Source: Existing Policy 1B, modified]
H-2.3 Streamline Review
Facilitate streamlined review of below market rate and special needs housing projects. [Source: Existing Policy 1C, modified]
H-2.4 Mixed Use Development
Encourage mixed-use development in commercial zones, at underutilized sites, and along transportation corridors. [Source: Existing Policy 1D, modified] H-2.5 Promote Accessory Dwelling Unit Production
Promote the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in all residential zones. [Source: New Policy]

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-10 Public Review Draft November 2022
H-2.6 Zone for Lot Splits and ADUs
Support SB 9 lot splits in residential zones. [Source: New Policy] Increase housing opportunities for lower- and moderate-income households. [Source:

Existing Goal, Goal: 3]
H-3.1 Preference Policy
Facilitate construction of affordable housing by prioritizing new projects that include units for lower-income segments of the community. [Source: Existing Policy 3A] H-3.2 Workforce Housing
Look for opportunities to promote the development or preservation of housing affordable to those who work in Pleasant Hill. [Source: Existing Policy 3B] H-3.3 Low- and Moderate-income Housing
Participate in programs assisting production or preservation of affordable units in order to provide housing for low- and moderate-income households. [Source: Existing Policy 3C]
H-3.4 Direct Assistance
Provide direct assistance to individuals and households needing affordable housing. [Source: Existing Policy 3D]
Improve housing conditions for people with special needs. [Source: Existing Goal, Goal: 4]
H-4.1 Incentivize Special Needs Housing
Provide incentives for and encourage development of senior housing, and housing for the developmentally, mentally, and physically disabled, at sites where proximity to services and other features make it desirable. [Source: Existing Policy 4A] H-4.2 Support Shelter Efforts
Support efforts to provide temporary shelter for homeless persons. [Source: Existing Policy 4B]
Protect and rehabilitate the existing housing stock. [Source: Existing Goal, Goal: 5] H-5.1 High Quality Neighborhoods
Maintain and enhance the quality of Pleasant Hill’s neighborhoods so they will retain their value as they mature. [Source: Existing Policy 5A] H-5.2 Housing Preservation
Preserve Pleasant Hill’s existing housing stock in habitable condition. [Source: Existing Policy 5B]
H-5.3 Single-family Remodeling and Additions
Encourage updating and remodeling of single-family residences. [Source: Existing Policy 5D]

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-11
H-5.4 Livable Neighborhoods
Provide public services and improvements that keep neighborhoods safe and livable. [Source: Existing Policy 5E]
Preserve the City’s affordable housing stock whenever and wherever feasible. [Source:

Existing Goal, Goal: 6]
H-6.1 Discourage Conversion to Non-residential Uses
Discourage the conversion of older residential units to non-residential uses. [Source: Existing Policy 6A]
H-6.2 Preserve Affordable Units
Ensure that units produced for low- and moderate-income households are made available to those households and maintained as affordable units. [Source: Existing Policy 6B]
H-6.3 Condominium Conversion
Prohibit conversion of multifamily rental units to market rate condominiums if such conversions would reduce the number of rental apartments to less than 20 percent of the city’s housing stock or if the rental apartment vacancy rate in the City is below 5 percent. [Source: Existing Policy 6C]
Assure that housing programs maximize opportunity and housing choice throughout the city and proactively work to overcome patterns of economic segregation and discrimination based upon age, sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, familial status, ethnic background, or disability. [Source: Existing Goal, Goal: 7, modified and expanded for AFFH]
H-7.1 Anti-discrimination
Ensure that individuals and families seeking housing in Pleasant Hill are not discriminated against on the basis of income, age, disability, sex, gender, sexual orientation, family structure, national origin, ethnicity, religion, occupation, or other similar factors. [Source: Existing Policy 7A]
H-7.2 Fair Housing Service Provider
Support the fair housing services provider. [Source: New Policy] H-7.3 Public Investments
Ensure public investments are equitably distributed throughout the community. [Source: New Policy]
H-7.4 AFFH Consideration
Evaluate affirmatively furthering fair housing goals in all housing related decisions. [Source: New Policy]

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-12 Public Review Draft November 2022
Require energy conserving practices in the maintenance of existing dwellings and in new residential development, additions, and remodeling. [Source: Existing Goal, Goal: 8] H-8.1 Energy Conservation Practices
Encourage energy conservation practices for new and existing residential dwellings. [Source: Existing Policy 8A]
H-8.2 Sustainable Building Practices
Require the use of green building and sustainable practices for new and renovation residential projects throughout the City, in compliance with State law. [Source: Existing Policy 8B]

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-13
Implementation Programs
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
A Annual Progress Report
The City shall continue to review housing needs,
conditions, achievements, and challenges as part of
the City’s regular annual reporting to the Planning
Commission and City Council and Annual Housing
Element Progress Report, as required by State law.
[Existing Program 1.1, modified]
Submit the Annual Progress Report
to the State Department of Housing
and Community Development and
the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research by April 1st of each
year.

Implements Policies:

H-1.1
Responsibility:

Planning Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Annually
B TRANSPAC Cooperation
The City shall continue to work with the Regional
Transportation Planning Committees (TRANSPAC/
TRANSPLAN) and the other transportation subregions to limit potential traffic congestion created through new development by notifying TRANSPAC
when new housing development proposals generate
100 or more peak hour trips per day, as required by
the Congestion Management Authority. [Existing
Program 1.2]
Ongoing coordination with regional
transportation agencies.

Implements Policies:

H-1.1, H-1.4
Responsibility:

Engineering Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-14 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
C Available Sites Inventory
The City shall prepare a sites inventory and suitability analysis that identifies suitable sites for housing
development that allows targeted income housing
developers to have a clear idea of what sites are
suitable for meeting the Regional Housing Needs of
the City. The City shall monitor housing production
and rezone parcels as necessary to maintain
adequate sites for housing for all income categories
throughout the planning period, in compliance with the
“no net loss” provisions of Government Code Sec.
65863.

The City shall maintain an inventory of parcels
meeting the requirements of Government Code
Section 65583.2(c); that is, vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive housing elements or nonvacant sites identified in a prior housing element, that are identified to accommodate housing for lower
income households. This inventory shall be made
available online.

The City shall consider AFFH in the identification of
sites within the inventory and will work to provide sites that proactively work to overcome concentrations of
lower- and moderate-income earning populations on
the eastern portion of the city.

The City shall, in accordance with SB 6 (2019), submit
an electronic copy of the sites inventory to the
Department of Housing and Community Development.

This inventory will also be made available to
interested developers. [Existing Program 1.3,
modified]
Identify housing sites suitable to
accommodate:
• Very low income: 566 units
• Low income: 326 units
• Moderate income 254 units
• Above Moderate income: 657
units
• Total: 1,803 units
A publicly visible inventory of
available sites by 2023.

Biennially engage with private and
non-profit housing providers to
promote available parcels
appropriate for development that
can accommodate low-income
and/or moderate-income.

Through consideration of AFFH in
the sites inventory process, as well
as engagement with developers,
actively encourage development of
new affordable housing in Areas of
High Opportunity
Implements Policies:

H-1.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Publicly-visible
inventory: by 2023
Engagement with
developers on lowerand moderate-income
sites: biennially
D Regional Coordination on Affordable Housing
The City shall work with the County and neighboring
cities to increase the opportunity to jointly develop
affordable housing, particularly in high opportunity
areas. [Existing Program 1.6, modified]
Contact County and surrounding
cities on an annual basis to explore
opportunities for coordination on
affordable housing.

Support regional efforts to obtain
funding for affordable housing.

Update TCAC Opportunity diagrams
as new data is released. Present
data to regional partners to
encourage the development of new
housing in high opportunity areas.

Implements Policies:

H-1.3, H-1.4
Responsibility:

Planning Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Annually

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-15
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
E Surplus and Excess Public Land Inventory
The City shall, in accordance with AB 1486 (2019) and
AB 1255 (2019), annually identify and inventory a list
of sites owned by the City, county, or State that have
been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of in the prior year. This inventory shall be publicly available and be included in the Housing Element annual report
presented to the City Council and submitted to HCD.

There are currently (2022) no surplus public lands in
the Planning Area. [New Program]
Public-facing inventory of surplus
publicly-owned lands
Implements Policies:

H-1.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-16 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
F Increase Allowable Densities
The City shall update the General Plan, Municipal
Code and Zoning Map as follows:
• Add a new Mixed Use Neighborhood zone that will
allow residential densities between 1.3 and 20
dwelling units per acre.
• Add a new Mixed-Use zone that will allow
residential densities between 12 and 40 dwelling
units per acre.
• Add a new Mixed-Use High-Density zone that will
allow residential densities between 40 and 70
dwelling units per acre.
• Add a new Mixed Use Very High-Density zone that
will allow residential densities between 70 and
100 dwelling units per acre.

The City shall rezone housing opportunity site parcels
to increase residential capacity, as identified within
the sites inventory analysis in the Housing Needs
Assessment Lower-income sites included in the sites
inventory with a proposed zoning change, as well as
vacant sites identified in two previous housing
elements and non-vacant sites identified in the
previous housing element, shall be rezoned,
incompliance with Govt. Code Section 65583.2(h) and
(i), to:
• permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily
uses by-right (without discretionary approval) for
developments in which 20 percent or more of the
units are affordable to lower income households.
• accommodate a minimum of 20 units per site;
and
• require a minimum density of 16 units per acre.
[New Program]
Update the General Plan and
Development Code within three
years of Housing Element adoption
deadline.

Increase densities appropriately to
encourage the development of new
housing in high opportunity areas.

Provide for additional density and
capacity to work to protect existing
residents from displacement
Implements Policies:

H-1.2, H-1.5
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
Timeframe:

Within three years of
the adoption deadline

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-17
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
G Housing Information Transparency
The City shall, in accordance with AB 1483 (2019),
obtain, maintain, update, and make publicly available
information related to zoning ordinances,
development standards, fees, exactions, affordability
requirements, fair housing laws from the Department
of Housing and Community Development and State
Fair Employment, and Housing Commission’s
enforcement program, programs and funding sources
for homeowners at risk of foreclosure, State Historic
Building Code, information on energy conservation
opportunities.

The City shall, as appropriate, share this information
on the City website and/or in hard copy form at City
Hall and local library. Any changes to such
information shall be made public within 30 days of
changes. The City shall provide these items in English
and Spanish. [New Program]
Updated information is made
publicly available within 30 days of
changes
Implements Policies:

H-1.3, H-2.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing
H Development Standards
To ensure that development standards do not pose an
unreasonable constraint to achieving the City’s
housing objectives, the City shall continue to monitor
development and report in its Annual Progress
Reports required pursuant to Government Code
Section 65400. The City shall evaluate development
standards, such as maximum stories, building height,
and lot coverage, within the 2040 General Plan Update
and subsequent Zoning Code Update and shall amend
or remove any provisions that constrain the
production of lower-income housing. [Existing
Program 1.8 (Measure B), modified]
Review and revise, as appropriate,
General Plan and Zoning Code
provisions by 2026
Implements Policies:

H-2.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Building Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:
by 2026

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-18 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
I Variety of Housing Types in Low Density Areas
The City shall encourage alternative housing types
such as, duplexes, small-lot developments, small unit
sizes, and single-family attached units in low density
single-family zones by:

A: evaluating and revising development standards, as
necessary, as part of the General Plan Update process
and subsequent Zoning Code Update to remove
identified constraints to these housing types
B: using the Objective Design and Development
Standards to streamline the design review process.
[Existing Program 2.1, modified]
Through actions A and B,
encourage the development of:
• 24 very low-income units
• 24 low-income units
• 50 moderate-income units
• 50 above moderate-income
units
Encourage the development of new
housing in high opportunity areas
Increase capacity to work to
protect existing residents from
displacement
Implements Policies:

H-2.1, H-2.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Action A: by 2024
Action B: Within three
years of the adoption
deadline
J Manufactured Housing
The City shall continue to allow manufactured housing
in residential districts in accordance with applicable
State and Federal laws and Sec. 18.20.090 of the
zoning ordinance, and require such units to meet local
standards for elements such as siding, roofing, and
type of foundation, to the extent allowed by State and
Federal law.
[Existing Program 2.2]
N/A Implements Policies:

H-2.1
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Building Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:
2023-2031
K Mixed-Use Zoning
The City shall utilize mixed use zoning to encourage
housing production along commercial corridors, and
near employment and transportation rich areas. The
City shall amend the Zoning Code to create and
implement the development criteria set for mixed use
development within Pleasant Hill.

The City shall encourage commercial redevelopment
projects in mixed use zones to consider incorporating
a residential component and will incentivize projects
that incorporate an affordable component. Incentives
may include, but are not restricted to, an additional
density bonus or height allowance, streamlined
review, or direct financial or technical support.
[Existing Program 2.3, modified]
Encourage the new construction of:
• 50 very low-income units
• 150 low-income units
• 150 moderate-income units
• 50 above moderate-income
units
• Total: 400 units
Promote increased density and
expanded capacity beyond the
RHNA through the expansion of
mixed-use zoning to work to
protect existing residents from
displacement
Implements Policies:

H-2.4
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing;
Explore allowing 100
percent residential
projects in mixed use
zones by 2025

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-19
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
L Flexible Parking Standards
The City shall continue to provide appropriate flexible parking requirements that allow shared use in
locations being considered for higher-density housing
development. [Existing Program 2.4]
N/A Implements Policies:

H-2.2, H-2.3
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Building Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing
M Streamlined Review Process
The City shall continue to apply streamlined permit
processing for affordable housing developments and
shall explore additional measures to expedite the
affordable housing developments in the city.

Planning staff shall evaluate and revise the
streamlined application review process and the
Objective Design and Development Standards, as
appropriate, to further streamline projects that provide affordable housing. The City shall also explore the
option of allowing the Zoning Administrator to grant
exclusions from standards within the Objective Design
and Development Standards to remove barriers to
developing affordable housing based on site-specific
constraints to facilitate the production of affordable, senior, special needs, or workforce housing.

Building and Engineering staff will study ways to
mitigate the cost of construction, for example by
revising engineering standards and working with the
local Fire District to allow for narrower street widths, rolled curbs and parking bays, and considering
allowing use of less expensive building materials,
such as plastic for storm drainage pipes, provided
applicable code requirements are satisfied. [Existing
Program 2.5, modified]
Review and revise the streamlined
review process annually
Review and revise, as necessary
the Objective Design and
Development Standards by 2028
Implements Policies:

H-2.3
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Building Division,
Engineering Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Review streamlined
review process:
annually
Review Objective
Design and
Development
Standards: by 2028

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-20 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
N Single-room Occupancy
The City shall continue to allow single-room
occupancy (SRO) housing in the MRVL, MRL, MRM
and MRH zoning districts consistent with Sec.

18.20.085 of the Zoning Ordinance.

This type of housing can help to address the needs of
very-low- and extremely-low-income households such
as college students and service sector employees.
[Existing Program 2.6]
Encourage the development of:
• 40 SRO units (extremely lowincome)
Implements Policies:

H-2.1, H-3.2
Responsibility:

PW&CDD, PC, CC
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:
2023-2031
O Municipal Code Updates
The City shall review and amend the Municipal Code,
to comply with State law to:
• Allow low barrier navigation centers for
compliance with Government Code Sections
65660 and 65668 (AB 101).
• Update Chapter 18.20.150 (Density Bonus) for
compliance with California Government Code
Sections 65915 through 65918.
• Permit emergency shelters without a conditional
use permit or other discretionary permits in
zone(s) with capacity to meet the identified need,
in compliance with the statutory requirements of
AB 139.3
[New Program]
Amend the Municipal Code for
compliance with State law by 2026.

Identify zone(s) where emergency
shelters are a permitted use, within
one year of adoption of the
Housing Element
Address the lack of affordable
housing types in the city by
removing governmental constraints
to housing production.

Implements Policies:

H-2.1, H-2.2, H-3.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division, CC
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Municipal Code
Update: by 2026
Identify zones for
emergency shelters:
within one year of the
adoption deadline
3 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/people-experiencinghomelessness.shtml.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-21
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
P Accessory Dwelling Units
The City shall continue to facilitate the construction of ADUs and will create incentives to encourage
production, particularly for units accessible to lowerincome households, seniors, and those with special housing needs. Potential incentives include, but are
not restricted to, fast tracking development
applications, deferred or waived fees, pre-approved
plans, or capping total fees and the City shall give
preference to ADU projects that include a three-year
lower- or moderate-income affordability agreement.

The City shall also encourage and incentivize ADU
construction in low-density zones and high
opportunity areas, consistent with the City’s
commitment to affirmatively further fair housing. The
City shall provide information and educational
materials to property owners and by offering technical
assistance related to the permitting process
The City shall continue to provide and update public
information regarding ADUs on the City website,
including a guide for homeowners explaining the
benefits and procedures for adding an ADU and links
to resources and incentive programs. [Existing
Program 3.4, modified]
Address the lack of affordable
housing types in the city by
incentivizing the development of:
• 320 total ADUs
• 150 moderate-income units
• 75 lower-income units
• 10 extremely low-income units
Incentivize the development of 80
ADUs accessible to seniors and
residents with special housing
needs
Explore and adopt, as appropriate,
additional financial incentives by
2025
Encourage the development of new
housing in high opportunity areas
by providing informational
materials on the City website, as
well as technical assistance to 30
households primarily in high
opportunity areas within the
planning period.
.

Implements Policies:

H-2.1, H-2.2
Responsibility:

PW&CDD
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:
2023-2031
Informational
materials: by 2024
Adopt additional
incentives, as
necessary: by 2025
Q Place-based Density Increases
The City shall revise the Zoning Code to allow urban
lot splits, duplexes, and other two-unit projects in
single-family residential zones in accordance with
Senate Bill 9. [New Program]
Encourage the development of:
• 50 very low-income units
• 50 low-income units
• 100 moderate-income units
Revise the Zoning Code by 2026.

Increase capacity in low-density
areas to proactively work to relieve
displacement pressures on
multifamily zones.

Encourage the development of new
housing in high opportunity areas
through the use of SB9 lot splits.

Implements Policies:

H-2.1, H-2.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:
2023-2031

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-22 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
R Missing Middle Housing
The City shall review and amend the General Plan and
zoning code and applicable development standards to
encourage and promote a mix of dwelling types and
sizes, specifically missing middle-density housing
types (e.g., triplexes, courtyard buildings, townhomes, live/work) to create a diversity of housing types and
densities and increase the availability of affordable
housing to reduce displacement risk for residents
overpaying for housing.

Specifically, the City will add new mixed-use zones
and will evaluate and revise development standards
such as minimum lot sizes; setback, lot coverage and
building height restrictions; and required parking
ratios to allow for missing middle housing types,
particularly on vacant sites in high opportunity, lowdensity areas. [New Program] Encourage the development of:
• 100 low-income units
• 150 moderate-income units
• 150 above moderate-income
units
Revise zoning standards to
encourage missing middle housing
by 2026.

To enhance housing mobility and
housing choice, support the
development of at least three
missing middle housing
developments between three and
40 units.

To enhance housing mobility,
encourage the development of 50
moderate-income units in high
opportunity areas.

Promote multi-unit development in
low-density zones to proactively
work to relieve displacement
pressures on multifamily zones.

Encourage the development of new
housing in high opportunity areas.

Implements Policies:

H-2.1, H-2.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:
2023-2031
Revise zoning
standards: by 2026
S Density Bonus
The City shall continue to provide a density bonus for
development of affordable housing, as well as senior,
workforce, and other special needs housing
consistent with State law. The City shall consider
requests for additional density bonuses to encourage
affordable housing production for those with special
housing needs. [Existing Program 3.1, modified]
Encourage the development of:
• 40 very low-income units
• 30 low-income units
• 30 low-income senior units
Implements Policies:

H-1.3, H-3.1, H-3.3, H4.1
Responsibility:

Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:
2023-2031

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-23
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
T Inclusionary Unit Requirement In-lieu Fee
The City shall continue to allow developers to satisfy
affordable housing requirements by providing units
elsewhere in the city when inclusion of affordable
units within the development is not feasible, or by
providing an in-lieu fee to the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund to be used to incentivize the production of
affordable units, particularly in high opportunity areas. [Existing Program 3.2, modified]
Amend the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance to update in-lieu fees, as
necessary, to reflect real costs of
developing affordable housing, and
to provide incentives to construct
workforce housing.
.

Implements Policies:

H-2.2, H-3.3, H-3.4
Responsibility:

Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

Affordable Housing
Trust Fund
Timeframe:
2023-2031
U Inclusionary Housing Requirement
The City shall continue to require all housing projects of five or more units to include affordable housing.

Developers may satisfy the requirements of the City’s
Affordable Housing Ordinance by providing at least:
• 5 percent of the base density for occupancy by
very low-income households,
• 10 percent for low-income households,
• 25 percent for qualifying senior residents, or
• 20 percent ADUs (in single-family projects).

In order to ensure that this Inclusionary Ordinance
does not pose an undue constraint to housing
production, the City shall monitor development trends
and impacts to market rate housing and shall report
annually to HCD in the Annual Progress Report. If the
ordinance presents an obstacle to development of the
City’s fair share of regional housing needs, the City will revise the ordinance accordingly. [Existing Program

3.3]
Encourage the development of:
• 20 units per year
• 50 very low-income units
• 50 low-income units
• 50 Senior
Implements Policies:

H-1.1, H-2.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:
2023-2031
Review Ordinance:
annually

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-24 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
V Funding to Support Affordable Housing
The City shall seek State and Federal funds, and
encourage the use of private financing mechanisms,
to assist in the production of affordable housing,
including housing affordable to extremely low-income
households. Funding mechanisms that should
continue to be explored include the HCD Multifamily
Housing Program, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC), federally subsidized Section 221 (d)(4),
Section 8 or Section 202 programs, Community
Development Block Grants, tax-exempt bond
financing, Federal HOME program funds,
administrative fees collected by the County Housing
Authority, and favorable financing made available
through financial institutions, to assist low- and
moderate-income households.

The City shall partner with developers and non-profit
agencies to apply for State and Federal monies for
direct support of low-income housing construction
and rehabilitation, with preference for affordable
projects in high opportunity areas.

The City shall assess potential funding sources
annually throughout the planning period and shall
promote the benefits of this program to the
development community by posting information on its
website and creating a handout to be distributed with
land development applications. [Existing Program 3.5,
modified]
$100,000 per year
Encourage the development of:
• 10 extremely low-income units
• 40 very low-income units
• 40 low-income units
• 80 moderate-income units
Encourage the development of new
affordable housing in high
opportunity areas
Implements Policies:

H-3.1, H-3.3
Responsibility:

Planning Divisions,
City Manager
Potential Funding:

HCD, LIHTC, CDBG,
HOME and other
State and Federal
grant programs
General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:
2023-2031
Identify funding
sources: annually
W Successor Agency Funds
The City shall continue to use Successor Agency
funds to fund housing programs throughout the city.

Included in the estimated expenditures for each year
is an annual amount ($235,000) for debt previously
incurred for development of the Grayson Creek
Apartments affordable housing project. This amount
will recur annually until the debt is paid in full (2031). [Existing Program 3.6, modified]
$235,000 per year; >$2 million total
between 2023 and 2031
Implements Policies:

H-3.1, H-3.3, H-3.4
Responsibility:

Successor Agency
Potential Funding:

Successor Agency
Timeframe:
2023-2031

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-25
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
X Coordination with Non-Profit Developers
The City shall continue to invite non-profit housing
developers to work with the City in promoting and
encouraging affordable housing. The City has worked
with non-profit housing developers on past projects
and will continue cooperative efforts in the future with these or other interested nonprofit developers. The
City shall make information available to non-profit
developers related to incentives, programs, and
available sites. [Existing Program 3.7, modified]
Connect with local affordable
housing developers bi-annually
Provide information regarding
incentives for affordable housing,
the City's inclusionary ordinance,
and available sites on the City
website by 2025
Implements Policies:

H-1.4, H-3.1, H-3.2, H3.3
Responsibility:

Planning Division, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:
2023-2031
Y Tax-exempt Revenue Bonds
The City shall continue to offer support to developers
through tax exempt financing where affordable
housing will be produced and will give preference to
projects in high opportunity areas. [Existing Program

3.8]
Encourage the development of:
• 50 very low-income units
• 50 low-income units
Implements Policies:

H-2.2, H-3.1, H-3.2, H3.3
Responsibility:

PW&CDD
Potential Funding:

Affordable Housing
Trust Fund
Timeframe:
2023-2031
Z Housing Trust Fund
The City shall continue to use monies in the Housing
Trust Fund to assist in the development of affordable
housing, with preference for those in high opportunity
areas.

Revenue for the trust fund comes from “in- lieu” fees
provided from the inclusionary unit ordinance. The
potential uses of these funds include: land acquisition for below market rate housing, buy-downs on
mortgages for purchasers of below market rate units,
capital improvements to below market rate housing,
fee waivers, loans, and deferrals, etc. [Existing
Program 3.9, modified]
Annual outreach to developers and
other nonprofit housing agencies
Encourage the development of new
affordable housing in high
opportunity areas.

Implements Policies:

H-2.2, H-3.1, H-3.2, H3.3
Responsibility: PC,
CC
Potential Funding:

Affordable Housing
Trust Fund
Timeframe:

Ongoing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-26 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
AA Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
The City shall participate in the Contra Costa County
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program for first-time
homebuyers, when funding becomes available. The
City shall support the County and participating
jurisdictions in the pursuit of additional funding
sources for the program. [Existing Program 3.10]
Assist ten moderate-income
households in the planning period.

Provide assistance to prospective
homebuyers to increase housing
mobility
Implements Policies:

H-3.4
Responsibility:

PW&CDD
Potential Funding:

CCC Mortgage Credit
Certificate Program
Timeframe:
2023-2031
BB Funding for Homeownership
The City shall continue to investigate concepts and
funding sources for a homeownership assistance
program.

The City shall continue to explore the possibility of
providing assistance to lower- and moderate-income
households and shall give priority to those who work
in the city, for example, teachers, police officers, and those who work in City government. Other potential
target groups are first-time homebuyers of lower- and
moderate-income levels, and large families. [Existing
Program 3.11, modified]
Investigate funding opportunities
annually
Provide assistance to prospective
homebuyers to increase housing
mobility
Implements Policies:

H-3.4
Responsibility:

City Manager,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

CDBG, HOME, and
other State and
Federal grants
General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Investigate and apply
for available funding
annually and as
notices of funding
available are released
CC Priority Processing
The City shall continue to provide priority in permit
processing to affordable housing developments, as
well as senior, special needs, and workforce housing
developments, and shall explore additional measures
to expedite affordable housing developments in the
city. [Existing Program 3.13, modified]
Review streamlined processing
procedures and revise, as
necessary by 2027
Implements Policies:

HE1.1
Responsibility:

Building Division,
Planning Division, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing
Review processing
procedures: by 2027

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-27
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
DD Lot Consolidation
The City shall play an active role in facilitating lot
consolidation to facilitate affordable housing
development, particularly for housing opportunity
sites listed in the residential sites inventory of the
Housing Needs Assessment. The City shall conduct
outreach to property owners of housing opportunity
sites to identify meaningful incentives to facilitate lot consolidation and redevelopment. Based on this
feedback, within three years of Housing Element
adoption, the City will revise the Lot Consolidation
Ordinance to update incentives, as necessary, which
currently include:
• Increased density on consolidated parcels
• Flexible development standards such as reduced
setbacks, increased lot coverage, increased
heights, reduced parking
• Reduced fees
• Streamlined permit processing through
administrative staff review
The City shall work in partnership with property
owners that are receptive to lot consolidation to assist them in facilitating the parcel merger process in a
streamlined and timely manner.

The Lot Consolidation Ordinance and application
procedures will be posted on the City website and
discussed with developers during the preliminary
review process. Lot consolidation requests will be
processed as expeditiously as possible in compliance
with all applicable State and local laws and
regulations. [Existing Program 3.14, modified]
Encourage the development of:
• 50 very low-income units
• 50 low-income units
• 50 moderate-income units
• 50 above moderate-income
units
Revise the Lot Consolidation
Ordinance, as appropriate, within
three years of adoption of the
Housing Element.

Implements Policies:

H-1.2, H-1.3, H-2.1, H2.2, H-3.1, H-3.2, H3.3
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Building Division, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing
Revise Ordinance:
within three years of
the adoption deadline

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-28 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
EE Housing Opportunity Sites
The City shall encourage and facilitate development
on housing opportunity sites by providing incentives,
potentially including, assistance with entitlement
processing, flexible development standards, and
streamlined processing for affordable housing
projects and providing financial support when
available. The City shall post information regarding
any available incentives on the City website by 2024.

The City shall monitor and evaluate development of
underdeveloped parcels and report on the success of
strategies to encourage residential development in its
Annual Progress Reports required pursuant to
Government Code Section 65400. If identified
strategies are not successful in generating
development interest, the City will evaluate additional methods for encouraging and facilitating
development.

Provide incentives to encourage the
production of:
• 525 very low-income units
• 527 low-income units
Implements Policies:

H-1.1, H-1.2, H-1.5, H2.3, H-3.1, H-3.3, H3.4
Responsibility:

Planning Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Post available
incentives to website:
by 2024 with annual
updates.

FF Affordable Development in High Opportunity Areas
The City shall adopt incentives to encourage
affordable multi-unit projects in low-density high
opportunity areas, potentially including, but not limited to: priority permit processing; reduced, waived, or
deferred development fees; reduced parking and/or
other City standards; or an additional density bonus.
[New Program]
Encourage the production of:
• 75 very low-income units
• 100 low-income units
Encourage the development of new
affordable housing in high
opportunity areas.

Promote multi-unit development in
low-density zones to proactively
work to relieve displacement
pressures on multifamily zones.

Implements Policies:

H-2.1, H-3.1, H-3.2, H3.3, H-3.4
Responsibility:

City Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Within three years of
the adoption deadline
GG Accessible Housing Units
The City shall continue to facilitate projects that
provide units meeting Federal, State and local
accessibility requirements. Currently, the City enforces State-mandated requirements for rental housing units
(Title 24). The City shall continue to encourage
ownership housing that can be equipped with
handicapped facilities. The City has adopted a
Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance and will
provide fast-track processing and other incentives to
facilitate the production of housing targeted to
persons with disabilities. [Existing Program 4.2]
Encourage the development of:
• 30 units for seniors
• 30 units for residents with
special housing needs
Implements Policies:

H-4.1
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Building Division,
Planning Commission
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-29
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
HH Supportive Housing
The City shall continue to encourage supportive
housing for persons with developmental disabilities
and will work with nonprofit developers to identify and develop adequate sites. The City will assist or partner with developers and non-profits to apply to the County
for CDBG monies and assist with tax exempt financing
for land and/or building purchase and/or lease.
[Existing Program 4.3, modified]
Consult with nonprofits and apply
for funding bi-annually
Encourage the development of 20
units accessible to persons with
developmental disabilities
Implements Policies:

H-4.1
Responsibility:

Planning
Commission, City
Council, City Manager
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Bi-annually
II Persons Experiencing Homelessness
The City shall continue to monitor statistics from
police, county agencies, or private organizations
regarding homeless shelter needs and shall continue
to coordinate with the County and other agencies to
address homeless needs on a regional basis. [Existing
Program 4.5]
Coordinate with regional agencies
annually, and additionally as
needed, throughout the planning
period
Implements Policies:

H-4.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Annually
JJ Extremely Low-income Households
Extremely-low-income (ELI) households are a subset
of very-low-income households who earn 30 percent
or less of the area median income. Many ELI
households face a severe cost burden related to
housing (more than 50 percent of income going
toward housing costs), and they are the income group
most likely to experience a housing crisis when faced
with rent increases, foreclosure, or other adverse
events.

The City shall pay 100 percent of the application
processing fees from the City’s affordable housing
fund for developments in which 5 percent of units are
affordable to ELI households. To be eligible for this
subsidy, the units shall be restricted by an affordability covenant. The waiving or reduction of mitigation fees
may also be considered when an alternative funding
source is identified for these fees. The City shall
promote the benefits of this program to the
development community by posting information on its
website and creating a handout to be distributed with
land development applications. [Existing Program 1.7]
Encourage the development of 59
extremely low-income units
Implements Policies:

H-1.2, H-1.3, H-2.3, H4.1
Responsibility:

Planning Division, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund,
Affordable Housing
Trust Fund, CDBG,
HOME and other
State and Federal
grant programs
Timeframe:
2023-2031

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-30 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
KK Residential Zoning
The City shall retain residential zoning and discourage non-residential uses in residential zones. In mixed use zones, the City shall require mixed use projects within housing opportunity sites to incorporate a residential
component. [Existing Program 5.1, modified]
Retain all existing residential land
Protect existing residents from
displacement
Implements Policies:

H-6.1, H-2.4
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Building Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing
LL Neighborhood Preservation Program
The City shall seek funding to restart the
Neighborhood Preservation program, which provides
low interest loans for rehabilitation of homes owned
or occupied by low to moderate income households.
[Existing Program 5.2]
Encourage the rehabilitation of two
units per year: 10 lower-income,
eight moderate income
Retain all lower and moderateincome units in the City
Provide rehabilitation assistance to
work to protect existing lower and
moderate income residents from
displacement
Implements Policies:

H-5.2, H-5.4, H-6.1, H6.2
Responsibility:

City Manager, City
Council
Potential Funding:

CDBG, HOME and
other State and
Federal grant
programs
Timeframe:
2023-2031
MM Emergency Repair Grant Program
The City shall seek funding to establish and maintain
an Emergency Repair Grant Program. [Existing
Program 5.3, modified]
Support the rehabilitation of five
units per year
Establish an Emergency Repair
Grant Program to work to protect
existing residents from
displacement due to repair costs
Implements Policies:

H-5.2, H-5.4, H-6.2
Responsibility:

Building Division, City
Manager
Potential Funding:

General Fund, CDBG,
HOME and other
State and Federal
grant programs
Timeframe:
2023-2031

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-31
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
NN Rehabilitation Needs Assessment
The City shall monitor housing conditions through
neighborhood surveys and as part of code
enforcement and building inspection activities. The
City shall compile and annually update a list of
funding and resources for residential rehabilitation
and, when housing units in need of repair are
identified, will advise property owners of rehabilitation assistance that may be available. [Existing Program

5.4, modified]
Evaluate residential rehabilitation
needs twice within the planning
period
Implements Policies:

H-5.1, H-5.2, H-5.4
Responsibility:

PW&CDD
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Annually
OO Capital Improvement Program
The City shall review the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) to determine priorities to maintain
infrastructure in the City’s neighborhoods.

Through this review, the City shall verify that those
areas needing improvement are scheduled for funding
to address the identified need at a specific time in the future. [Existing Program 5.7]
Complete a Capital Improvement
Program bi-annually
Identify funding for needed
improvements in older
neighborhoods
Implements Policies:

H-5.1, H-5.2, H-5.4
Responsibility:

Finance Division,
Engineering Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
Timeframe:

Bi-annually, 2023-
2031
PP Assisted Housing Units
The City shall continue to prohibit the conversion of
assisted housing units to market rate for as long as
possible and no less than 55 years after initial
occupancy. [Existing Program 6.1]
Ensure assisted units retain
affordable status for a minimum of
55 years
Preservation of all assisted
affordable housing units
Protect existing residents from
displacement
Implements Policies:

H-6.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-32 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
QQ Units At-Risk of Conversion to Market Rate
The City shall identify assisted dwelling units at risk of conversion to market rate and work with property
owners to preserve the units for low-income families.

The City shall explore a variety of tools for preserving assisted units, including monitoring at-risk units,
participating in acquisition of below-market rental
units by tenants or non-profits, facilitating refinancing or purchase of developments from owners who file a
notice indicating that they intend to opt out of a
subsidy agreement, and providing technical and
relocation assistance to tenants. [Existing Program

6.2]
Preservation of all assisted
affordable housing units: 193 units
Protect existing residents from
displacement
Fair housing enforcement and
outreach: Engage with property
owners and tenants of at-risk units
one year prior to conversion to
market rate
Implements Policies:

H-6.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund, HCD,

LIHTC, CDBG, HOME
and other State and
Federal grant
programs
Timeframe:
2023-2031
RR Resale and Rental Controls for Affordable Units
The City shall continue to require resale and rental
controls on below market rate units provided through
the inclusionary housing provisions or through public
assistance. [Existing Program 6.4]
Ensure long-term affordability of all
inclusionary and assisted units
Protect existing residents from
displacement
Implements Policies:

H-6.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing
SS Condominium Conversion Ordinance
The City shall continue to enforce the existing
Condominium Conversion Ordinance and will prohibit
further conversions unless the threshold percentage
of apartments is above 20 percent and the apartment
vacancy rate is below 5 percent.

The City shall evaluate the proportion of rental
apartments in the city to ensure appropriate
implementation of the condominium conversion
ordinance. [Existing Program 6.6]
Evaluate the proportion of rental
apartments annually
Preserve existing multifamily units
Prohibit conversion of multifamily
rental housing to moderate- or
above moderate-income
condominiums
Protect existing residents from
displacement
Implements Policies:

H-6.2, H-6.3
Responsibility:

Planning
Commission, City
Council, Planning
Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-33
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
TT Assisted Unit Reporting
The City shall continue to require all assisted housing units to submit reports on a timely basis
demonstrating compliance with the recorded
affordability agreements. [Existing Program 6.8]
Preserve all existing affordable
housing units
Implements Policies:

H-1.3, H-6.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing
UU Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The City shall address disparities in housing needs
and access to opportunity for all persons regardless
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, disability gender, gender identify, gender expression,
sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, veteran or military status, source of income, and genetic
information as protected categories by the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
[commencing with Section 12900] of Division 3 of
Title 2), Section 65008, and any other State and
Federal fair housing and planning law.

The City identified barriers to fair housing through the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis. Actions the City will take to address the identified barriers and foster an inclusive community, include:
• Address the need for affordable housing in high
opportunity areas: Programs F, I, P, Q, R, V, Z, and
FF
• Protecting existing residents from displacement:

Programs F, I, K, R, FF, KK, LL, MM, PP, QQ, RR,
and SS
• Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach:

Programs QQ, UU, WW, and VV
Continuously encourage regional
cooperation and administration of
vouchers through portability and
shared waiting lists
Work with the Regional Center of
the East Bay to implement an
outreach program informing
residents of the housing and
services available for persons with
developmental disabilities. The City
shall make information available on
the City website by 2025, with
annual updates as necessary.

Develop accessibility programs by
2023 to focus on improving access
to housing, public buildings and
facilities, sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, and businesses
Fair housing enforcement and
outreach
Implements Policies:

H-7.1, H-7.2, H-7.3, H7.4
Responsibility:

Planning Division, CC
Potential Funding:

General Fund
Timeframe:

Ongoing
Outreach program: by
2025
Accessibility
programs: by 2023

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-34 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
VV Fair Housing Services
The City shall continue to refer all reports of housing discrimination to the local fair housing-related nonprofit that is funded by the County CDBG program.

The City shall cooperate in local and regional fair
housing outreach efforts and shall provide staff-time,
as necessary, to support the fair housing service
provider(s).

The City shall work with ECHO and the Bay Area Legal
Aid to provide fair housing and tenant/landlord
services, including fair housing counseling and
education and tenant/landlord counseling and
mediation.

The City shall distribute literature identifying fair
housing service provider(s) and documenting
available resources. These materials shall be made
available in City offices and on the City website.
[Existing Program 7.1, modified]
Compile and distribute fair housing
information annually.

Support regional agencies to
provide training for property owners
and managers to ensure that they
are knowledgeable of the
requirements of Federal, State and
local real estate, housing
discrimination, tenant protection,
housing inspection, and community
preservation laws; and promote
training of tenants in the
requirements of Federal, State, and
local laws so that they are aware of
their rights and obligations.

Support regional agencies to
annually conduct one workshop
with targeted populations to allow
for meaningful discussions and
dissemination of useful
information. Education and
outreach activities to be conducted
as a multi-media campaign,
including social media such as
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram,
as well as other
meeting/discussion forums such
as chat rooms and webinars.

Information gathered from these
workshops will be further analyzed
by staff and results will be used to
influence changes to programs and
policies as necessary, with any
changes made within one year of
the identification of barriers to fair
housing.

Fair housing enforcement and
outreach
Implements Policies:

H-7.1
Responsibility:

Planning Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
Timeframe:

Ongoing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-35
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
WW Reasonable Accommodation for Special Needs
Housing
The City shall continue to follow the City guidelines for implementing the reasonable accommodation
ordinance and shall periodically review the Zoning
Ordinance to identify other provisions that could pose
constraints on the development of housing for
persons with disabilities and reduce or eliminate
constraints through appropriate ordinance
amendments. [Existing Program 7.2]
Encourage the development of 20
units for those with special housing
needs
Evaluate zoning code provisions by
2027
Fair housing enforcement and
outreach
Implements Policies:

H-4.1, H-7.1
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Planning
Commission, City
Council
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Evaluate zoning code:
by 2027
XX Amenities for Households with Special Housing
Needs
The City shall continue to encourage developers to
provide amenities for single heads of households, the
disabled, and senior citizens.

For example, an amenity that would encourage
housing opportunities for single heads of households
would be the provision of childcare centers. An
amenity in a new residential community for the
disabled might be walkways to accommodate
wheelchair access. And a housing development could
promote social interaction among residents of all
ages with the addition of a clubhouse or other
recreational facility. [Existing Program 7.4]
N/A Implements Policies:

H-1.3, H-4.1, H-7.1
Responsibility:

Architectural Review
Commission,
Planning Commission
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing
YY State Standards
The City shall continue to enforce the State’s Energy
Conservation Standards for new residential
construction and additions to existing structures and
shall amend the Building Code as needed to ensure
consistency with further revisions to the State of
California Green Building Standards Code. [Existing
Program 8.1]
N/A Implements Policies:

H-8.1
Responsibility:

Building Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-36 Public Review Draft November 2022
Implementation Program Objectives Additional
Information
ZZ Innovative Design
The City shall encourage innovative designs to
maximize passive energy efficiency and shall
encourage use of sustainable and innovative building
practices and materials. [Existing Program 8.2,
modified]
N/A Implements Policies:

H-8.1, H-8.2
Responsibility:

Architectural Review
Commission,
Planning Commission
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing
AAA Energy Conservation Outreach
The City shall provide information to the public, and
support efforts by public utilities, to encourage home
conservation practices. Educational materials and
information on available funding or rebates shall be
posted on the City website and made available at City
Hall. The City shall also provide public information
concerning accepted and available sustainable
building practices. [Existing Program 8.3, modified]
N/A Implements Policies:

H-8.1, H-8.2
Responsibility:

Planning Division,
Engineering Division
Potential Funding:

General Fund
(Staff time)
Timeframe:

Ongoing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-37
Quantified Objectives
Quantified Objectives by Type
One of the requirements of State law (California Government Code, Section 65583[b]) is that the Housing Element contains quantified objectives for the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

The City has established quantifiable objectives in implementation programs throughout the policy document. This section summarizes new construction, conservation, and special needs housing objectives for the 2023-2031 planning period.

New Construction Objectives
Extremely low-income 109 units
1,182 lower-income
units
2,419 total units
Very low-income 429 units
Low-income 644 units
Moderate-income 580 units
1,237 moderate and
Above moderate- above-moderate units
income 657 units
Rehabilitation and Conservation Objectives
Conservation of all existing affordable housing units.

Conservation of all manufactured homes at manufactured home parks.

Rehabilitation of 15 very low-, and 8 low-income units
State law recognizes that the total housing needs identified by a community may exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy this need. Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs, however, the quantified objectives shall establish the number of housing units by income category that can be realistically constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Policy Document
4-38 Public Review Draft November 2022
Special Needs Households New Construction Objectives
110 units of senior housing
70 units for persons with a disability
40 SRO units for extremely low-income households
Quantified Objectives Summary Table
The City will strive to exceed the following targets for affordable housing development in Pleasant Hill.

Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
New Construction 109 429 644 580 657 2,419
Rehabilitation 0 15 8 0 0 23
Conservation/Preservation Preserve all 193 assisted affordable units 0 193

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) 4 4. Housing Element
Public Review Draft 1 4-1

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
This page is intentionally left blank.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..........................................................................................4-i Tables........................................................................................................................................ 4-iii Figures........................................................................................................................................ 4-v

1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 4-1 Housing Element Purpose ........................................................................................................4-1 Authority .....................................................................................................................................4-1 Status..........................................................................................................................................4-1 Consistency with the General Plan...........................................................................................4-2 Changes to State Law ...............................................................................................................4-2 RHNA Allocation Methodology.................................................................................................4-6 Public Participation ...................................................................................................................4-7

2. Evaluation of Previous Housing Element ............................................... 4-22 5th Cycle RHNA Housing Production Progress.....................................................................4-22 Progress in Implementation ...................................................................................................4-23

3. Population, Housing, and Employment Trends ...................................... 4-28 Key Findings.............................................................................................................................4-28 Population ................................................................................................................................4-29 Race and Ethnicity ...................................................................................................................4-32 Households ..............................................................................................................................4-34 Employment Trends ................................................................................................................4-38

4. Housing Needs ...................................................................................... 4-45 Key Findings.............................................................................................................................4-46 Age............................................................................................................................................4-47 Seniors......................................................................................................................................4-49 Peoples with Disabilities .........................................................................................................4-51 Developmentally Disabled.......................................................................................................4-52 Large Households and Overcrowding....................................................................................4-54 Female-Headed Households ..................................................................................................4-59 Homelessness .........................................................................................................................4-62 Farm Workers...........................................................................................................................4-69 Income and Overpayment.......................................................................................................4-70 Housing Affordability...............................................................................................................4-76 Extremely-Low-Income Households.......................................................................................4-80 Housing Supply........................................................................................................................4-84 Housing Vacancy Rate ............................................................................................................4-85 Housing Conditions and Rehabilitation Needs......................................................................4-85 Affordable Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion...................................................4-87

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-ii

5. Housing Constraints .............................................................................. 4-90 Key Findings.............................................................................................................................4-90 Governmental Constraints ......................................................................................................4-90 Non-governmental Constraints ............................................................................................4-108

6. Opportunities for Energy Conservation................................................ 4-110

7. Housing Resources.............................................................................. 4-113 Future Housing Need.............................................................................................................4-113 Current & Projected Credits Towards RHNA .......................................................................4-113 Underutilized Site Redevelopment Trends...........................................................................4-121 Residential Sites Inventory....................................................................................................4-124 City-Owned Surplus Sites......................................................................................................4-161 Availability of Infrastructure..................................................................................................4-161 Financial Resources ..............................................................................................................4-162 Community Resources..........................................................................................................4-164 Appendices.............................................................................................. 4-169 Appendix A: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).........................................................A-1 Appendix B: Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element .....................................................B-1 Appendix C: Public Comments .................................................................................................C-1

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-iii
Tables
Table 4-1 2023-2031 Regional RHNP Allocation...........................................................................4-7 Table 4-2 Key Concerns Raised in Public Comments .................................................................4-21 Table 4-3 Progress Toward 5th Cycle RHNA, July 2021.............................................................4-22 Table 4-4 Population Growth Trends............................................................................................4-29 Table 4-5 Population Estimates and Projections, 2010-2040 ....................................................4-31 Table 4-6 City Household and Group Quarters Population.........................................................4-32 Table 4-7 Household Projections, 2010-2040..............................................................................4-34 Table 4-8 Household Size and Ownership, 2020.........................................................................4-34 Table 4-9 City Share of Regional Housing Need, 2023-2031......................................................4-46 Table 4-10 Senior Residential Care Facilities, 2022 ......................................................................4-51 Table 4-11 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ...................................................4-53 Table 4-12 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ........................................4-53 Table 4-13 Adult Residential Facilities, 2022 .................................................................................4-54 Table 4-14 Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness................................4-67 Table 4-15 Affordable Housing Cost by Income Category ...........................................................4-76 Table 4-16 Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion...........................................................................4-87 Table 4-17 Affordable Unit Inventory..............................................................................................4-88 Table 4-18 Single Family Development Review Procedures.........................................................4-97 Table 4-19 Residential Subdivision Approval Procedures ............................................................4-97 Table 4-20 Multifamily Development Review Procedures ..........................................................4-100 Table 4-21 Residential Development Standards Summary ........................................................4-102 Table 4-22 City Residential Parking Requirements......................................................................4-103 Table 4-23 Separation Requirements for Group Homes or Care Facilities................................4-104 Table 4-24 Development Fees by Type, Effective September 1, 2022 .......................................4-105 Table 4-25 Building Permit Fee Schedule – Pleasant Hill...........................................................4-107 Table 4-26 Entitled or Approved Residential Projects.................................................................4-115 Table 4-27 Pending Residential Projects .....................................................................................4-117 Table 4-28 ADU Affordability Assumptions for the Sixth Cycle..................................................4-118 Table 4-29 List of Approved Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), 2016-2022 .............................4-118 Table 4-30 Recent Underutilized Sites Redeveloped for Residential uses, 2017-2022.............4-122 Table 4-31 Site A Summary...........................................................................................................4-130 Table 4-32 Site B Summary ...........................................................................................................4-132 Table 4-33 Site C Summary...........................................................................................................4-134 Table 4-34 Site D Summary...........................................................................................................4-136 Table 4-35 Site E Summary ...........................................................................................................4-138 Table 4-36 Site F Summary ...........................................................................................................4-140

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-iv
Table 4-37 Site G Summary...........................................................................................................4-142 Table 4-38 Site H Summary...........................................................................................................4-145 Table 4-39 Site I Summary ............................................................................................................4-147 Table 4-40 Site J Summary ...........................................................................................................4-149 Table 4-41 Site K Summary ...........................................................................................................4-151 Table 4-42 Site L Summary ...........................................................................................................4-153 Table 4-43 Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites ....................................................................4-154 Table 4-44 Vacant Sites.................................................................................................................4-156 Table 4-45 Summary of 6th Cycle RHNA Capacity.......................................................................4-160 Table 4-46 Housing Successor Subsidized Units........................................................................4-163 Table 4-47 Upcoming Successor Subsidized Units.....................................................................4-164

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-v
Figures
Figure 4-1 Population Growth Trends............................................................................................4-30 Figure 4-2 Population by Race, 2000-2019....................................................................................4-33 Figure 4-3 Housing Tenure .............................................................................................................4-35 Figure 4-4 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder....................................................................4-36 Figure 4-5 Housing Tenure by Age.................................................................................................4-37 Figure 4-6 Housing Tenure by Housing Type................................................................................4-38 Figure 4-7 Jobs in a Jurisdiction....................................................................................................4-39 Figure 4-8 Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence.....4-40 Figure 4-9 Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group...........................................................................4-41 Figure 4-10 Jobs-Household Ratio ..................................................................................................4-42 Figure 4-11 Resident Employment by Industry ...............................................................................4-43 Figure 4-12 Unemployment Rate......................................................................................................4-44 Figure 4-13 Population by Age, 2000-2019 .....................................................................................4-48 Figure 4-14 Senior and Youth Population by Race..........................................................................4-49 Figure 4-15 Senior Households by Income and Tenure .................................................................4-50 Figure 4-16 Disability by Type ..........................................................................................................4-52 Figure 4-17 Household Size by Tenure............................................................................................4-55 Figure 4-18 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms......................................................................4-56 Figure 4-19 Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity .........................................................................4-57 Figure 4-20 Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity...............................................................4-58 Figure 4-21 Overcrowding by Race ..................................................................................................4-59 Figure 4-22 Household Type ............................................................................................................4-60 Figure 4-23 Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status .........................................................4-61 Figure 4-24 Child Care Supply and Demand In 2017 ......................................................................4-62 Figure 4-25 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County.........4-63 Figure 4-26 Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County..4-64 Figure 4-27 Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County .............4-65 Figure 4-28 Characteristics for Population Experiencing Homelessness, Contra Costa County4-66 Figure 4-29 Unsheltered Persons in Pleasant Hill...........................................................................4-68 Figure 4-30 Migrant Worker Student Population ............................................................................4-69 Figure 4-31 Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Contra Costa County .........................4-70 Figure 4-32 Cost Burden by Tenure .................................................................................................4-71 Figure 4-33 Cost Burden by Income Level.......................................................................................4-72 Figure 4-34 Cost Burden by Race.....................................................................................................4-73 Figure 4-35 Cost Burden by Household Size...................................................................................4-74 Figure 4-36 Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level .................................................4-75

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-vi
Figure 4-37 Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units ......................................................................4-77 Figure 4-38 Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)..................................................................................4-78 Figure 4-39 Median Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units.....................................................4-79 Figure 4-40 Median Contract Rents .................................................................................................4-80 Figure 4-41 Households by Household Income Level ....................................................................4-81 Figure 4-42 Household Income Level by Tenure.............................................................................4-82 Figure 4-43 Poverty Status by Race .................................................................................................4-83 Figure 4-44 Housing Type Trends....................................................................................................4-84 Figure 4-45 Housing Vacancy Rate..................................................................................................4-85 Figure 4-46 Housing Units by Year Structure Built..........................................................................4-86 Figure 4-47 Pleasant Hill Interactive Permit Guide.........................................................................4-96 Figure 4-48 Zoning Map of All Identified Sites..............................................................................4-125 Figure 4-49 Map of All Identified Sites by Type of Site.................................................................4-126 Figure 4-50 Zoning Map of All Low-Income Sites.........................................................................4-127

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-1

1. Introduction
Since 1969, California Housing Element Law has required that local governments develop plans to accommodate and facilitate housing for current and future residents, at all income levels. California planning law provides more detailed requirements for the housing element than for any other element of the general plan. The State Legislature has found that "the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order. The Housing Element consists of two parts, the Housing Needs Assessment (Needs Assessment) and the Housing Element Policy Document.

This document, the Needs Assessment, identifies and analyzes the existing and projected housing needs, provides a list of sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation, documents constraints to housing production, and analyzes fair housing issues and contributing factors. In short, the Needs Assessment provides the context for the City's housing action plan.

In response to this thorough analysis and public outreach, the Housing Element Policy Document outlines the City’s goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to meet the identified housing needs through development, rehabilitation, and preservation. The Policy Document is the action plan that responds directly to the findings of the Housing Needs Assessment and input from the community. The City will implement the actions specified in the Policy Document throughout the eight-year planning period.

Housing Element Purpose
The purpose of the Housing Element is to establish a comprehensive plan to address housing needs in Pleasant Hill over the eight-year planning period between January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031. The Housing Element sets the policies surrounding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing units that meet the needs of Pleasant Hill residents.

Authority
Housing Elements are required by California Government Code § 65403(c) as one of the seven mandatory General Plan Elements. Housing Element requirements are set forth beginning in § 65580 with guidance provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which serves as the regulatory body for reviewing Housing Element for compliance. The combination of the Housing Needs Assessment and the Housing Element Policy Document will address all applicable requirements of state law.

Status
The City of Pleasant Hill last updated its Housing Element in 2015 for the 5th Housing Element Cycle covering the planning period from January 31, 2015, to January 31, 2023. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a letter of compliance to the City of Pleasant Hill on April 23, 2015. In accordance with State law, this new Housing Element covers the planning period from January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031, also known as the 6th Housing Element Cycle.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-2
Consistency with the General Plan
California Government Code § 65300.5 requires that a general plan and all its elements comprise an “integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies,” meaning that no conflicts exist between different elements. Additionally, this distinction of internal consistency goes beyond not only ensuring a lack of conflicts but stipulates that each element supports one another to achieve the broad goals and vision of the general plan. Government Code § 65583(C) requires that a housing element describe how consistency has been achieved between elements.

In preparing the 2023-2031 Housing Element, the City is also concurrently drafting a comprehensive General Plan update. Throughout the development of the Housing Element and General Plan updates, City staff, the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), and decision-makers reviewed each element to ensure consistency amongst elements as well as with the General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles. Additionally, if the General Plan is amended during the planning period, the City will review the Housing Element for internal consistency and make any necessary revisions.

Changes to State Law
The following items represent substantive changes to State housing law since the City's last Housing Element was adopted and certified. While this is not an exhaustive list, these items are state mandates that must be addressed in the Housing Element.

Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process: Senate Bill 35 (2017) SB 35 requires a streamlined, ministerial review process, including objective design standards, for qualifying multifamily, urban infill projects in jurisdictions. Among other requirements, to qualify for streamlining under SB 35, a project must incorporate one of two threshold levels of affordable housing: (1) 10 percent of the project units in jurisdictions that have not approved housing projects sufficient to meet their RHNA for above moderate‐income housing or have failed to submit an annual progress report as required under state law; or (2) 50 percent of the project units in jurisdictions that have not approved housing projects sufficient to meet their RHNA for below moderate‐income housing. Additionally, the Housing Element must describe the City's processing procedures related to SB 35.

The City adopted Objective Design and Development Standards in March 2022 and has established a process for streamlining affordable development applications in compliance with SB 35.

Program P commits the City to continue to apply streamlined permit processing for affordable housing developments and to evaluate and revise the streamlined application review process and the objective design and development standards, as appropriate, to further streamline projects that provide affordable housing.

Additional Housing Element Sites Analysis Requirements: Assembly Bill 879 (2017) and Assembly Bill 1397 (2017)
These bills require additional analysis and justification of the sites included in the sites inventory of the City Housing Element. The Housing Element may only count non‐vacant sites included in one previous housing element inventory and vacant sites included in two previous housing elements if the sites are subject to a program that allows affordable housing by right. Additionally, the bills require additional analysis of non‐vacant sites and additional analysis of infrastructure capacity, and by place size restrictions on all sites. The Housing Element sites inventory has been prepared in compliance with AB 879 and AB 1397.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-3
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Assembly Bill 686 (2017) AB 686 requires the City to administer its housing programs and activities in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and not take any action that is inconsistent with this obligation.

The City must take actions to overcome patterns of segregation, address disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, and foster inclusive communities. The Housing Element must include an assessment of fair housing practices, an examination of the relationship of available sites to areas of high opportunity, and actions to affirmatively further fair housing. This Housing Element includes Program UU, addressing fair housing and AFFH directly, and objectives to affirmatively further fair housing in programs throughout the Element. Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing includes an analysis of fair housing in Pleasant Hill.

No-Net-Loss Zoning: Senate Bill 166 (2017)
SB 166 amended the No‐Net‐Loss rule to require that the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. When a site identified in the Housing Element as available to accommodate the lower‐income portion of the RHNA is actually developed for a higher income group, the City must either (1) identify, and rezone, if necessary, an adequate substitute site or (2) demonstrate that the land inventory already contains an adequate substitute site. This Housing Element has been prepared in accordance with the No-Net-Loss rule and identifies sites that can accommodate 312 units in addition to the City's RHNA requirement of 1,803. The Housing Resources section includes a detailed discussion of the sites inventory process.

Safety Element to Address Adaptation and Resiliency: Senate Bill 1035 (2018) SB 1035 requires the General Plan Safety Element to be reviewed and revised to include any new information on fire hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies with each revision of the housing element. The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive General Plan update and is preparing a Safety Element in compliance with SB 1035 for adoption in early 2023.

By Right Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing: Assembly Bill 2162 (2018) and Assembly Bill 101 (2019)
AB 2162 requires the City to change its zoning to provide a “by right” process and expedited review for supportive housing. The bill prohibits the City from requiring a conditional use permit or other discretionary review for the approval of 100 percent affordable developments that include a percentage of supportive housing units, either 25 percent or 12 units, whichever is greater. The change in the law applies to sites in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including in nonresidential zones permitting multifamily use. As defined by Municipal Code §

18.15.020: Residential use classifications, transitional and supportive housing are residential uses subject only to the same requirements as apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, in compliance with state law. Moving forward, Program HH further commits the City to continuing to encourage supportive housing for persons with developmental disabilities.

Additionally, AB 101 requires that a Low Barrier Navigation Center development be a use allowed by right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. California Government Code Section 65660 defines low barrier navigation centers as facilities that focus on moving people into permanent housing and connecting temporary residents with opportunities for income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. The City does not currently comply with AB 101. Program R commits the City to update the Municipal code to comply with state law.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-4
Accessory Dwelling Units: Assembly Bill 2299 (2016), Senate Bill 1069 (2016), Assembly Bill 494 (2017), Senate Bill 229 (2017), Assembly Bill 68 (2019), Assembly Bill 881 (2019), Assembly Bill 587 (2019), Senate Bill 13 (2019), and Assembly Bill 671 (2019) In recent years, multiple bills have added requirements for local governments related to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulation. The 2016 and 2017 updates to State law included changes pertaining to the allowed size of ADUs, permitting ADUs by right in at least some areas of a jurisdiction, and parking requirements related to ADUs. More recent bills reduce the time to review and approve ADU applications to 60 days and remove lot size and replacement parking space requirements. AB 68 allows an ADU and a junior ADU to be built on a single-family lot, if certain conditions are met. The State has also removed owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs, created a tiered fee structure that charges ADUs based on their size and location, and prohibits fees on units of less than 750 square feet. In addition, AB 671 requires the Housing Element to include plans to incentivize and encourage affordable ADU rentals. The City updated Municipal Code § 18.20.095: Accessory dwelling units for compliance with state law.

Density Bonus: Assembly Bill 1763 (2019) and AB 2345 (2020) AB 1763 amended California’s density bonus law to authorize significant development incentives to encourage 100 percent affordable housing projects, allowing developments with 100 percent affordable housing units to receive an 80 percent density bonus from the otherwise maximum allowable density on the site. If the project is within half a mile of a major transit stop, a jurisdiction may not apply any density limit to the project. AB 2345 further amended California’s density bonus law to allow residential projects with some on-site affordable housing to receive a density bonus of up to 50 percent. Specifically, a residential development is eligible for a 50 percent density bonus if 11 percent of the units are very low-income, 20 percent are low-income units, or 40 percent are moderate-income units. The affordable units must remain affordable for a minimum of 55 years. In addition to the density bonus, qualifying projects will receive four regulatory incentives or concessions, depending on how much of the development includes affordable units. Specifically:
▪ One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 10 percent of the total units for lower-income households, at least 5 percent for very low-income households, or at least 10 percent for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. ▪ Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17 percent of the total units for lower-income households, at least 10 percent for very low-income households, or at least 20 percent for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. ▪ Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for lower-income households, at least 15 percent for very low-income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. ▪ Four incentives or concessions for projects where one hundred percent of all units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, but exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, are for lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, except that up to 20 percent of the units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, may be for moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. For these projects, if it is located within onehalf mile of a major transit stop, the applicant also receives a height increase of up to three additional stories (33 feet).

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-5
The City ‘s density bonus ordinance (§ 18.20.150 Density bonus) was last updated in 2016 and is currently out of compliance with state law. Program S commits the City to updating the municipal code with AB 1763 (2019) and AB 2345 (2020).

Housing Crisis Act of 2019: Senate Bill 330
SB 330 enacts changes to local development policies, permitting, and processes that will be in effect through January 1, 2025. SB 330 places new criteria on the application requirements and processing times for housing developments; prevents localities from decreasing the housing capacity of any site, such as through downzoning or increasing open space requirements, if such a decrease would preclude the jurisdiction from meeting its RHNA housing targets; prevents localities from establishing non-objective standards; and requires that any proposed demolition of housing units be accompanied by a project that would replace or exceed the total number of units demolished. Additionally, any demolished units that were occupied by lower-income households must be replaced with new units affordable to households with those same income levels. The Housing Element must describe the City's processing procedures related to SB 330. The City has adopted objective design and development standards for residential development and a process for streamlined review of SB 35/SB 330 projects, in compliance with state law.

Surplus Land Act Amendments: Assembly Bill 1486 and AB 1255 (2019) AB 1486 refines the Surplus Land Act to provide clarity and further enforcement to increase the supply of affordable housing. The bill requires the City to include specific information relating to surplus lands in the Housing Element and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports, and to provide a list of sites owned by the City that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of in the prior year. AB 1255 requires the City to create a central inventory of surplus and excess public land each year. The City is required to transmit the inventory to the Department of Housing and Community Development and to provide it to the public upon request. The City is required to transmit the inventory to the Department of Housing and Community Development and to provide it to the public upon request. The City has committed to transmitting the required information to HCD each year with their annual report in Program A.

Housing Information Transparency: Assembly Bill 1483 (2019) AB 1483 requires the City to publicly share information about zoning ordinances, development standards, fees, exactions, surplus public lands, fair housing resources, and affordability requirements. The City is also required to update such information within 30 days of changes. The Housing Element will report on the City’s compliance with these requirements. Program G specifically commits the City to providing updated information on a range of housing issues through their website and at City offices.

Emergency and Transitional Housing Act of 2019: Assembly Bill 139 (2019) AB 139 established new criteria for evaluating the needs of the homeless population. The analysis must assess the capacity to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count by comparing that to the number of shelter beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of beds that go unused on an average monthly basis, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing (Chapter 1, subsection Persons Experiencing Homelessness). The bill also established new parking standards for emergency shelters. Lastly, the bill requires the Housing Element to include a review of the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meeting the jurisdiction’s special housing needs (see Appendix B). The City does not comply with the new parking standards. Program DD commits the City to adopting revisions to §18.20.085 Special housing for compliance with state AB 139.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-6
Standardization of Sites Inventory Analysis and Reporting: Senate Bill 6 (2019) SB 6 requires the City to electronically submit the sites inventory to HCD. The City will submit the final sites inventory to HCD with the adopted Housing Element. Program C commits the City to submitting an electronic copy of the inventory to HCD.

Evacuation Routes: Senate Bill 99 and AB 747 (2019)
Two recent bills, AB 747 and SB 99, require the General Plan Safety Element to be updated to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios and to include information identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. The bill requires these updates to occur with the 2021 Housing Element Update. The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive General Plan update, including updates to the Safety Element for compliance with SB 99 and AB 747. The 2040 General Plan is expected to be adopted in 2023.

RHNA Allocation Methodology
The fair share regional housing needs for this Housing Element were determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) using a methodology developed through numerous public hearings. The methodology considers many factors, such as projected increases in jobs, housing/jobs balance, vacant land and historic growth patterns. These and other figures are derived from the California Department of Finance and ABAG’s annual projections. The following table shows the Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP), which describes the fair share of housing needs for the entire Bay Area region. The RHNP also provides a distribution of housing units needed for four income categories: very-low, low, moderate and above- moderate. Typically, the above-moderate units are regarded as “market-rate” units and do not require the use of affordability covenants.

As a part of ABAG’s work on the RHNP, the regional allocation is split into smaller allocations for local jurisdictions called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA for Pleasant Hill is provided in the Housing Resources section. It is important to note that the City of Pleasant Hill is not required or expected to produce all the units identified in the City’s RHNA. Production of housing will be carried out by the private sector and is affected by market conditions and other factors beyond the City’s control. However, the City must create conditions through zoning and land use policies that promote the production of housing units in all income categories.

Table 4-1 displays the RHNP for the Bay Area and the RHNA for Pleasant Hill.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-7
Table 4-1 2023-2031 Regional RHNP Allocation
Income Group
Pleasant Hill Bay Area
Housing Units Percent Housing Units Percent
Very Low1
(<50% AMI) 566 31.4% 114,442 25.9%
Low
(>50%-80% AMI) 326 18.1% 65,892 14.9%
Moderate
(>80%-120% AMI) 254 14.1% 72,712 16.5%
Above Moderate
(>120% AMI) 657 36.4% 188,130 42.6%
TOTAL 1,803 100% 441,176 100%
AMI - Average Median Income
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022
1 While the RHNP includes four income categories, a fifth category – extremely-low-income (ELI) must also be addressed in housing elements. The ELI category is considered a subset of the very-low category.

Public Participation
Section 65583(c)(5) of the Government Code states that "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all the economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Public participation played a critical role in the formulation and refinement of the City’s housing goals and policies.

Housing issues affect the entire community – residents, employers, and the public and private sectors. The public participation requirement of housing element law presents an opportunity to engage constituents in a dialogue – defining problems and creating solutions. The inclusion of community stakeholders in the housing element public participation process helps ensure appropriate housing strategies are more efficiently and effectively evaluated, developed, and implemented. An inadequate public participation process may lead to community conflict or in worse case scenarios, anti- development initiatives, and NIMBYism. Successful public participation is important because a diverse cross section of the population can be engaged in defining the housing problem and in crafting community sensitive solutions. Another benefit of broad participation and true engagement of the public is that when it is time to adopt housing strategies and approve housing developments, a greater portion of the community has been involved and participated in the plan and more frequently will support its implementation. Meaningful participation creates stakeholders in the ultimate outcome of the process.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-8
In response to the need for public participation, City planning staff worked with the consultants to develop a robust community engagement program tailored to ensure the community and other stakeholders are engaged in the process and are given ample opportunities to provide input. The key objective of the community engagement program is to maximize opportunities for everyone interested in the Housing Element to participate. The engagement program included branding, a project website, newsletters and e-blasts, announcements on the City website and social media, a workshop and a townhall meeting, General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings, and Planning Commission and City Council study sessions and hearings. This section summarizes our engagement program.

Branding
A branding package was prepared for the General Plan Update.

This included a project logo and style templates for all work products, maps, presentations, and publicity materials. The common branding helps to build recognition for the project and ensure that this effort is distinct in the minds of the community.

The logo to the right will be used on all materials developed for all elements being updated during the 2040 General Plan update process, which includes the Housing Element.

Project Website
During the development and review of the Housing Element, the City created and maintained a website to the 2040 General Plan Update with a webpage dedicated to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. This webpage provided easy access to information on the project, including the Housing Element information and details about the Housing Element workshop. Project documents were posted to the website and comments were encouraged through the provided "Comments" button on each page. A link on the website allowed residents to sign up for the email list.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-9
https://pleasanthill2040.com/

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-10
https://pleasanthill2040.com/housing.html

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-11
https://pleasanthill2040.com/documents
A: Email and Contact Buttons: These buttons allow users to join the project email list or provide a comment to the Project Team.

B: Element Draft Progress: These buttons on the Documents page allow users to view the various drafts of the Housing Element as the project progresses.

A
B

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-12
Factsheet
During the Housing Element
development, the Housing
Element Team produced
informational materials to
inform the public about the
Housing Element Update and
associated events. During the
development period, a fact
sheet was created to give the
community a better
understanding of the Update
process and the draft Housing
Element.

The fact sheet describes what
a housing element is, how and
why it is being updated, what
the RHNA is, and how to get
involved in the Update process.

The fact sheet also includes
information about the City’s
obligations to fulfill HCD
regulations and consequences
if requirements are not fulfilled.
eMail Notifications (e-Blasts)
The City sent multiple email notifications (e-blasts) to announce upcoming events and the release of project-related documents. Email addresses were compiled from those requesting notification from the City and from those signing up on the project website and at project events. As of May 2022, the General Plan email list has 325 subscribers.

Images of three e-Blasts, one providing notification of GPAC Meeting #13, one notifying about the Housing Element Townhall, and one summarizing the events of the Housing Element Workshop are included on the following page.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-13

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-14

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-15
GPAC Meetings
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) is a special City committee which facilitates active, direct communication between City councilmembers, the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Commission, special interest groups, and the public to effectively create a unified vision for updating all the elements of the City’s General Plan. Five GPAC meetings have been held to discuss housing issues in Pleasant Hill to inform the drafting of the Housing Element. Each meeting included an opportunity for public comment. All comments received from the public during GPAC meetings are available in Appendix C.

GPAC Meeting #13
The first GPAC meeting that focused on the Housing Element was GPAC meeting #13, which was held on May 11, 2021. The meeting included an introduction to housing elements and the RHNA; a discussion of GPAC focus areas, buildout assumptions, potential housing opportunity sites; and opportunities for public comment.

GPAC Meeting #14
GPAC Meeting #14, held on June 23, 2021, included an initial review of potential housing opportunity sites and a discussion of potential housing capacity. During this meeting, significant amounts of public comment were received, particularly regarding the consideration of the Mangini site as a housing opportunity site.

GPAC Meeting #15
GPAC Meeting #15, held on November 17, 2021, included review and consideration of sites recommended by the GPAC at the June 23, 2021, meeting and a discussion on a recommended approach for land use alternatives that incorporates housing opportunity sites. The GPAC recommended moving forward with the Housing Element sites inventory based on the GPAC Preferred Alternative Land Use Plan.

GPAC Meeting #16
GPAC Meeting #16, held January 26, 2022, included an overview of the Alternatives process and the incorporation of Housing Element Opportunity Sites, a discussion of the changes to Focus Areas based on the Housing Element sites inventory, and a summary of potential housing capacity under the revised GPAC-preferred Alternative.

GPAC Meeting #20
GPAC Meeting #20, held on June 29, 2022, focused on the Draft Housing Element Policy Document.

The meeting included a discussion of key findings from the Needs Assessment and program requirements; and a review of each program contained within the Draft Policy Document. Following the meeting, the Policy Document was revised based on GPAC direction and feedback.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-16
Public Workshop
On July 14, 2021, the City held a virtual community
workshop to discuss the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update with interested residents. The event was advertised to the public with virtual flyers and online posts on social media.

The workshop focused on the intersection of the Housing Element and the 2040 General Plan, specifically the
evaluation of potential sites for housing to satisfy the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. A presentation of potential housing sites was presented as a part of the workshop, and the meeting concluded with a live question and answer session.

During the Workshop, participants were prompted to
comment on housing needs, issues, and constraints in the community. A large amount of public comments were
received and are documented in Appendix C. These
comments and information provided during this discussion was used to inform the Needs Assessment.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-17
Housing Element Townhall
On October 27th, 2021, Mayor Sue Noack and Councilmember Ken Carlson held a virtual Townhall meeting to discuss the Housing Element Update, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and incentives for Housing Element compliance. The virtual meeting included an introductory presentation, visual examples of local mixed use and higher-density multifamily developments, a walkthrough of each Housing Element Opportunity Site, and opportunities for public questions and comments.

The full PowerPoint presentation and meeting video are available on the Project website. Two slides from the 62-slide presentation and a preview of the video of the meeting are shown as images below and on the next page.

A large amount of public comments were received during the meeting, which are available in Appendix C. These comments and information provided during this discussion were used to inform the selection of Housing Opportunity sites.

A slide from the Housing Element Townhall presentation explaining the grants associated with compliance with Housing Element law.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-18
A slide from the Housing Element Townhall presentation depicting architectural renderings of a multi-family residential development at 85 Cleaveland Road, the former Wells Fargo office site.

Fair Housing Survey
The City prepared and distributed a seven-question fair housing survey inquiring about housing needs and barriers, access to resources, and experiences with discrimination. On June 20, 2022, the survey was sent directly the following groups:

Organization Name Type
Las Trampas Maureen House Adult Residential / Special Needs Las Trampas Shiela House Adult Residential / Special Needs Stonehedge (Alegria Community Living) Adult Residential / Special Needs Abode Services Affordable Housing
Bay Area Community Land Trust Affordable Housing
BRIDGE Housing Affordable Housing
Community Housing Development Corporation Affordable Housing EAH Housing Affordable Housing
East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation Affordable Housing East Bay Housing Organizations Affordable Housing
Eden Housing Affordable Housing
Front Porch Affordable Housing
Habitat for Humanity East Bay / Silicon Valley Affordable Housing Hope Solutions Affordable Housing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-19
Housing Consortium of the East Bay Affordable Housing
Human Good Organizations Affordable Housing
Mercy Housing Affordable Housing
MidPen Housing Affordable Housing
Monument Impact Affordable Housing
Northern California Land Trust Affordable Housing
Resources for Community Development Affordable Housing
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates Affordable Housing Spanish Speaking Unity Council (dba Unity Council) Affordable Housing Winter Family Shelter, Inc. Affordable Housing
Youth Homes Affordable Housing
Buddha Gate Monastery Congregation
Chabad of Contra Costa Congregation
Contra Costa Jewish Community Center Congregation
Grace Chinese Alliance Church Congregation
Indonesian Christian Community Church Congregation
Islamic Center of Contra Costa Congregation
Oakland Diocesan Task Force for Racial Justice Congregation Japanese Christian Church of Walnut Creek Congregation\Japanese Speaking Hamonah Presbyterian Church Congregation\Korean Speaking Mission Pointe Church Congregation\Korean Speaking
Igreja Adoradores Gerados Em Cristo (AGC Brazillian
Church)
Congregation\Portuguese
Speaking
Iglesia Adventista Hispano Americana de Pleasant Hill Congregation\Spanish Speaking Ministerio Hispano de la Iglesia Bíblica de la Gracia en Pleasant Hill Congregation\Spanish Speaking
DVC-Chinese Students Association Diablo Valley College Club DVC-Hong Kong Student Association Diablo Valley College Club DVC-Japanese Student Association Diablo Valley College Club DVC-Kabayan Kaibigan Diablo Valley College Club
DVC-Muslim Student Association Diablo Valley College Club Puente Project Education Program
Empowered Aging Elder Interest Group
Causa Justa
Local Interest Group\Spanish
Speaking
La Clinica de la Raza
Local Interest Group\Spanish
Speaking
United Latino Voices of Contra Costa County (ULV)
Local Interest Group\Spanish
Speaking
Maharlika Cultural Troupe, Inc.

Local Interest Group\Tagalog
Speaking
Showing Up for Racial Justice Other AFFH Affinity Group

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-20
Aegis Living Pleasant Hill Senior Facility
Carlton Senior Living Downtown Pleasant Hill Senior Facility Carlton Senior Living Pleasant Hill - Martinez Senior Facility Carlton Senior Living Poets Corner Senior Facility
Choice in Aging Senior Facility
Hookston Senior Homes Senior Facility
Pleasant Hill Gardens II Senior Facility
Pleasant Hill Oasis Senior facility
Better Living Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Boyd Senior Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Dysico Care Home, RCFE Senior Facility (Small)
Elisabeth Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Heavenly Care Elderly Home Senior Facility (Small)
Ramona Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Redwood Home Senior Facility (Small)
In addition to the initial email request, the project team sent reminder emails to each group in July 2022. The survey was closed after 54 days on August 22, 2022.

Survey responses included the following major themes:
▪ Desire for publicly funded/supported, permanently supportive housing as opposed to public subsidy of private rental units for vulnerable households; ▪ High cost of rental housing even for households with public subsidies or housing choice vouchers;
▪ Affordable housing is needed in proximity to public transit, schools, groceries, and services; and
▪ Housing discrimination and cost were reported as barriers to housing access.

Responses to the Fair Housing Survey informed the Fair Housing Analysis, distribution of sites in the available sites inventory, and program actions and objectives within the policy document. For more information, please see the Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

Public Input Summary
The following is a summary of comments that commonly emerged through the public discussion and comment period of the workshop and townhall. The City has taken all public comments into consideration and will continue to encourage public participation throughout the Housing Element Update program implementation process.

Table 4-2 contains key concerns that emerged through the public comment process. Among the most pressing issues brought up by a vast majority of residents is the potential inclusion of the Mangini-Delu site, which is referred to as “Location six – Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road” in the 5
th Cycle Housing Element. Residents cited concerns over traffic, parking, neighborhood compatibility, water, and the environment. The City has shown capacity to meet the RHNA in the sites inventory and is not proposing to rezone this site.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-21
All received public comments will be available verbatim in Appendix C of the Housing Element.

Table 4-2 Key Concerns Raised in Public Comments
We oppose the redevelopment of the Mangini Farm with high-density housing due to the historical precedence of the agricultural and lower density character of the neighborhood. Pleasant Hill was founded as an agricultural town and the Mangini Farm is one of the few remaining remnants of that heritage. As such, it shouldn’t be up zoned or intensively developed. The area has been historically zoned as R-10 in the past and should remain R-10 for the future. The area should be preserved or converted into a public use park.

When building new housing in the community, please consider the effect higher density projects will have on traffic conditions, especially along major thoroughfares, such as Contra Costa Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road.

We understand the difficult position the City faces in developing housing in the current moment and as a result, we support the development of the Mangini Farm under the “Agrihood” model, which honors the history of Pleasant Hill as a farming town. The Agrihood model, as described by the California Native Garden Foundation, integrates “affordable, medium density housing within a self-sustaining environment that includes a working farm and offers numerous programs for wellness education.” The current model of the Agrihood is the currently in-progress development of the “Core Companies’ Agrihood" at 82 N Winchester Blvd, Santa Clara, CA 95050.

Please consider the parking requirements of new developments in Pleasant Hill. The proposed developments do not have sufficient parking for residents who may bring their vehicles into the community.

Please consider the water requirements of new developments in Pleasant Hill. The State is facing a water crisis and water availability should be considered when building new housing.

Please consider the preservation of riparian habitats along Pleasant Hill’s creeks. Pleasant Hill faces occasional flooding along waterways and development should consider the preservation of riparian habitats and easements. Waterways, such as the Contra Costa Canal, should be actively rehabilitated.

Please consider if local schools have enough capacity for new development.

We encourage active opposition of the Association for Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) and HCD’s allocation of housing units to Pleasant Hill. We commend the City for sending an appeal to ABAG to refute the allocation of housing need to Pleasant Hill. We recommend using legal action to fight against the requirements of the State in tandem with the methods used by the cities of Moraga and Lafayette.

We encourage the development of the Diablo Valley College Overflow Parking lot as it is clearly underutilized and could support student housing.

We oppose the development of the Diablo Valley College Overflow Parking Lot as there should be more parking to accommodate commuter students who attend the school. The school does not have enough parking as-is.

We believe that five parcels that abut existing neighborhoods on the Grayson Woods Golf Course property should be added to the City’s open space designation.

Please encourage the construction of more ADUs throughout the community.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-22

2. Evaluation of Previous Housing Element
An important component of the Housing Element update is a review of prior programs and accomplishments. The City of Pleasant Hill has an excellent track record in addressing affordable housing needs, with the City being awarded top marks by the Bay Area Council for producing affordable housing in 2006. The City has actively continued work towards fulfilling this commitment, even with the initial hardship faced with the dissolution of redevelopment agencies.

The goals and policies contained in the previous Housing Element are mostly appropriate to meet the housing needs of the City. This updated element builds on that foundation, while taking into account the complex situation the City faces during this new planning period with few vacant sites and several underdeveloped sites. This element contains specific implementation programs and quantified objectives consistent with the City’s available resources for both new construction on underdeveloped and vacant sites and the conservation and rehabilitation of the City’s increasingly existing homes.
5th Cycle RHNA Housing Production Progress
The City’s RHNA for the 2015-2023 planning period (also known as the 5th cycle) was for 118 units affordable to very low-income households, 69 units affordable to low-income households, 84 units affordable to moderate income households, and 177 units affordable to above moderate-income households, for a total of 448 housing units. Table 4-3 compares units permitted and constructed to the 5th cycle RHNA.

Between 2015 and 2021, the City approved building permits for a total of 153 units, including 48 moderate income and 105 above moderate-income housing units. In addition to these units, the City expects the completion of Choice in Aging, an 82-unit affordable senior facility, and 85 Cleaveland (189 units, nine very low, 10 moderate) in late 2022 or 2023. These projects will be completed during the upcoming RHNA cycle and will be counted toward the City’s 6th cycle housing goals.

Table 4-3 Progress Toward 5th Cycle RHNA, July 2021
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
5th Cycle RHNA 118 69 84 177 448
Permitted Units 0 0 48 105 153
Source: 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report, Table B, City of Pleasant Hill, 2021.

Progress Toward Affordable Housing Goals
During the 5th cycle, the City made significant progress in producing market rate housing, particularly in the moderate and above moderate-income categories. The City permitted 105 units of above moderate-income housing and made significant progress toward moderate-income goals by approving 48 units, primarily through the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Despite progress toward moderate- and above moderate-income goals, no lower income units were permitted in the previous planning period. This total, however, does not include the expected gain of 81 low-income senior housing units being added from the 490 Golf Club Road (Choice in Aging, Aging in Place Campus) project, which is expected to be completed in late 2022 or the 189 units at 85 Cleaveland Road. The City has worked diligently with developers of these sites in the 5th cycle and expects the units to be occupied early in the 6th cycle.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-23
Although the City has struggled to meet lower income housing goals, the City has accumulated approximately $2,480,000 in dedicated housing funds attributable from in-lieu funds paid pursuant to the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance (Fund 34) and housing successor agency assets (Fund 78). These funds are available for the assistance in the production of very-low-income units when opportunities arise. The City, through the Successor Agency of the now defunct Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency, has also agreed to sell a site (85 Woodsworth Lane) to an affordable housing developer with the added incentive of a $285,000 forgivable loan for the construction of these affordable income units.

Progress in Implementation
The 2015 5th Cycle Housing Element established nine key focus areas with coordinated goals, policies and implementing programs:
▪ Sufficient housing supply
▪ Housing diversity
▪ Housing opportunities
▪ Special needs housing
▪ Housing stock
▪ Affordable housing
▪ Equal housing
▪ Energy conservation
▪ Public participation
This section provides a discussion of implementation measures established in the previous Housing Element. For a detailed evaluation of the implementation programs that support each goal, please see Appendix B.

Sufficient Housing Supply
Maintain a housing supply sufficient to meet the housing needs of all Pleasant Hill residents.

The first goal has four accompanying policies (1A thru 1D) and eight accompanying programs (1.1 thru 1.8) which commit the City to actively maintaining a sufficient supply of residential land for locally generated housing needs (1B), maintaining supply and demand for housing (1A), and actively participating in programs that create regional growth of affordable housing (1D).

During the 2015-2023 planning period, the City worked diligently to maintain and encourage development of housing in the city. The City notably worked with Contra Costa County to fund critical upgrades at Mercy Garden Park Apartment Community and to amend agreements with Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA) for the Hookston Senior Apartments, which has 99 low to very low-income units for seniors. The City also continued to promote and approve Planned Unit Development zoning districts for projects to allow for more flexible development standards for projects. Pleasant Hill also worked with the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (TRANSPAC) and the Contra Costa Transportation Agency (CCTA) to monitor and limit traffic congestion within the city when considering housing.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-24
Housing Diversity
Promote diversity in tenure, type, size, location and price to permit a choice of housing for persons of all economic levels
The second goal has four accompanying policies (2A thru 2D) and five accompanying programs

2.1 thru 2.5), which commit the City to allowing diverse housing types on residential sites (2.2), removing constraints where feasible (2.3, 2.4), facilitating fast-track processing for affordable projects (2.5), and encouraging mixed-use development (2.3) .The City also has committed to the practice of encouraging planned unit developments (PUD), which allows for sites to have flexible consideration for lot lines, setbacks, and other details which may be less stringent than development on traditionally zoned lots. Planned Unit Developments have been a staple of development in Pleasant Hill with major projects such as 401 Taylor Boulevard (PUD 947) and the Choice in Aging Campus (PUD 942) choosing to develop as PUDs.

During the 2015-2023 planning period, Pleasant Hill made significant progress in producing diverse housing options through further affirming the city’s commitment to encouraging design-standard compliant manufactured homes, adopting an ordinance amendment that allows and establishes development provisions for single-room occupancy (SRO) projects, and maintaining Mixed Use land designations. The City also approved parking reductions across the City to help encourage the development of more housing on the city’s limited remaining vacant and underutilized sites. The City continues to ensure that projects with affordable housing will be processed efficiently, with those that exceed affordable housing targets being granted expedient processing.

Housing Opportunities
Increase housing opportunities for people of limited incomes.

The third goal has four accompanying policies (3A thru 3D) and fourteen accompanying programs (3.1 thru 3.14), which commit the City to increasing and preserving affordable housing stock through favoring low-income construction, actively searching for low-income development, participating in government programs, and providing residents with direct assistance, where feasible. Among the myriad of affordable housing programs include the City’s density bonus for affordable housing and senior housing, the ability for developers to pay an in-lieu fee when affordable housing under special circumstances and when partial units are required for affordable housing calculations, the promotion of the construction of accessory dwelling units, fast tracking affordable housing permit processing, and the allowance of easier lot consolidation.

During the 2015-2023 planning period, Pleasant Hill made significant progress in its goals for increasing affordable housing through the adoption of a consistent, State law compliant accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance, the direct funding of several affordable housing projects, and substantial collection of in-lieu fees. With the City’s adoption of State requirements for ministerial approval of accessory dwelling units, the City was able to add substantial amounts of moderateincome housing to its inventory. The City, through the Pleasant Hill Successor Agency, continues to spend $235,000 annually to help fund the 100 percent affordable Grayson Creek Apartments. The City also is in the process of selling two lots to affordable housing developers to affirmatively further access to affordable housing.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-25
Special Needs Housing
Improve housing conditions for people with special needs.

In order to improve housing conditions for residents with special needs, the City’s established fourth goal, with its accompanying two policies (4A and 4B) and five programs (4.1 thru 4.5), commits the City to encouraging the development of temporary shelters for the homeless and housing for seniors and those who are developmentally, mentally, and/or physically disabled. The five programs include provisions for providing density bonuses for senior housing, monitoring the needs of the homeless, and encouraging compliant, supportive housing for special needs groups.

Among the various actions performed by the City, the Zoning Code was updated during the planning period to comply with SB2’s amendments to California Government Code 65583, which allows for emergency homeless shelters to be considered as ministerially allowed residential uses.

Beyond regulatory changes, the City has made great progress in providing much needed special needs housing through the approval and upcoming construction of the Choice in Aging Campus at 490 Golf Club Road. The facility includes 81 units of low-income housing that will provide caring, safe housing for the developmentally disabled.

Housing Stock
Protect and rehabilitate the existing housing stock.

The fifth goal has five accompanying policies (5.A thru 5.E) and seven programs (5.1 thru 5.7), which commit the City to maintaining neighborhoods, preserving housing stock, ensuring compatible development, encouraging remodeling, and providing public services. Given Pleasant Hill’s aging housing stock with most homes being built in the 1980s, this goal has been and will continue to be an important part of the City’s housing strategy. During the 2015-2023 planning period, Pleasant Hill has continued its commitment to preserving existing housing stock throughout the City through enforcement of the City’s Community Preservation Ordinance and biannual analysis of citywide improvements eligible for the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Due to funding constraints, Pleasant Hill no longer provides the Low Income Home Rehabilitation Loan Program or the Emergency Grant Repair Program for local homeowners. The City also hasn’t surveyed older neighborhoods during this period. However, the City is always working to provide information to assist homeowners with staying up to code and ensuring safe living conditions.

Affordable Housing
Preserve the City’s affordable housing stock whenever and wherever feasible.

The sixth goal has three accompanying policies (6A thru 6C) and eight programs (6.1 thru 6.8) which commit the City to preserving the precious resource of affordable housing stock citywide through the general prohibition of the conversion of multifamily rental units to market rate condominiums, the assurance that units low- and moderate-income units are maintained and accessible, and the general discouragement of conversion of older residential units to other uses.

During the 2015-2023 planning period, Pleasant Hill preserved 19 low-income rental units for 55 years following the lapse of a prior affordable housing covenant at Ellinwood Apartments. In addition, during the planning period, the City had no conversions of assisted housing units, no conversions to condominiums, and continues to enforce necessary protections to ensure qualified residents are living in affordable housing complexes.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-26
Equal Housing
Ensure equal housing opportunities for all.

The seventh goal has one accompanying policy (7A) and four programs (7.1 thru 7.4), which commit the City to ensuring that individuals and families seeking housing in the city are not discriminated against on the basis of age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, family structure, national origin, ethnicity, religion, lawful occupation, or other similar factors. During the 2015-2023 planning period, the City continued its commitment to ensuring equal housing opportunity through diligently addressing all housing discrimination complaints and reasonable housing requests, promoting diverse recreational facilities, participating in CDBG grants thru Contra Costa County, and producing annual reports to ensure compliance.

Energy Conservation
Require energy conserving practices in the maintenance of existing dwellings and in new residential development, additions and remodeling.

The eighth goal has two accompanying policies (8A and 8B) and four programs (8.1 thru 8.4), which commit the City to encouraging energy conservation and green practices for all residential developments. The programs include enforcing State Energy Conservation Standards, encouraging innovative passive design, encouraging home conservation practices, and encouraging sustainable building practices. The City has made progress on all these programs, most notably through compliance with Title 24, or California’s Green Building Requirements, and implementing provisions that require electric vehicle chargers for certain development projects. The City continues to be an advocate for sustainable practices through inter-agency cooperation with Pacific Gas & Electric, Contra Costa Water District, and East Bay Municipal Utilities District. The City also promotes green sustainability from the start of development projects with helpful design guideline recommendations to incorporate design tweaks that can result in energy and cost savings.

Public Participation
Facilitate public participation in the formulation and review of the City’s housing and development policies.

The ninth goal has one accompanying policy and program, which commit the City to implementing procedures to provide the public with enhanced public notification for housing development projects. The City continues to progressively inform the public through enhanced noticing regarding housing and development policies.

Effectiveness of the 2015 Housing Element
As discussed in the preceding section and in Appendix B, the City implemented many policies and programs to preserve and facilitate affordable housing. The City has preserved significant amounts of housing through the renewal of Ellinwood Apartments’ affordability covenant, allowing the City to have an outstanding zero low income units in moderate or above risk in being converted to other uses. The City has made significant progress in incentivizing housing growth within its primarily low-density single family communities through accessory dwelling units, which accounted for a significant amount of moderate income housing units. The City also has actively been working with and supporting local organizations, such as Habitat for Humanity and Choice in Aging, to develop low-income housing. Additionally, the City has accumulated some funds ready to

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
-
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-27
be used for low-income projects once the opportunity arises. For a vast majority of programs, the City has been working hard to accomplish goals, and in some cases, has surpassed expectations.

However, there have been some deficiencies, such as the zero growth of low-income housing during a vast majority of the 2015-2023 reporting period and a lack of surveying of older neighborhoods for needed rehabilitation. The City recognizes these problems and has made necessary adjustments to goals, policies, and programs in the 6th Cycle Housing Element to better prioritize and allocate resources for the next planning period.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-28

3. Population, Housing, and Employment Trends
During the 6th Cycle, ABAG and their technical assistance consultants provided all jurisdictions in the region with an HCD-preapproved Housing Needs Report for use in the housing element update.

This section relies upon preapproved population, household, and employment projections provided in the Housing Needs Report for Pleasant Hill.

Data from the Housing Needs Report is primarily sourced from the U.S. Census, the California Department of Finance (DoF), and Plan Bay Area. Additional data specific to Pleasant Hill is used when available (typically from Plan Bay Area 2040) and is supplemented by regional projections for Contra Costa County and the Bay Area, available through the recently (2021) released Plan Bay Area 2050.

Please note: pre-approved datasets require research, review, and approval by the State and can require one to two years to develop. Because of this delay, 6th Cycle housing elements rely heavily upon approved 2019 ACS data. The City has incorporated additional data from 2020 and 2021 as available and appropriate.

Key Findings
▪ Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of Pleasant Hill increased by 4.4% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay Area.
▪ Age – In 2019, Pleasant Hill’s youth population under the age of 18 was 6,701 and senior population 65 and older was 5,598. These age groups represent 19.2% and 16.1%, respectively, of Pleasant Hill’s population.
▪ Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 64.4% of Pleasant Hill’s population was White while 2.1% was African American, 12.8% was Asian, and 14.6% was Latinx. People of color in Pleasant Hill comprise a proportion below the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole. ▪ Employment – Pleasant Hill residents most commonly work in the Health & Educational Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in Pleasant Hill decreased by 3.5 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 520 (3.2%). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in Pleasant Hill has increased from 1.11 in 2002 to 1.24 jobs per household in 2018.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-29
Population
The U.S. Census data used in this Housing Element are from the 2010 Census and American Community Surveys (ACS) from 2014 to 2020. Most projections are from Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Some data and estimates are from the State Department of Finance (DOF).

ABAG and DOF estimates can differ from the Census data due to differences in methodology.

The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population from 1990 to 2019, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Since 2019, the Bay Area’s population has experienced significant stagnation and some loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the advent of remote work. However, overall, the Bay Area has experienced significant growth in jobs and population over the last three decades. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2010, Pleasant Hill’s population has increased by 4.4 percent; this rate is below that of the region as a whole, at 9.1 percent.

Table 4-4 Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Pleasant
Hill 31,583 31,497 32,837 33,407 33,152 34,254 34,267
Contra
Costa
County
803,732 863,335 948,816 1,016,372 1,049,025 1,113,341 1,153,561 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

In 2020, the population of Pleasant Hill was estimated to be 34,267 (see Table 4-4). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 4.0 percent, while it increased by 1.0 percent during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 3.4 percent. The population of Pleasant Hill makes up 3.0 percent of Contra Costa County.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-30
Figure 4-1 Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year.

For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts. DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

Since Pleasant Hill is mostly “built out,” the projected population growth is limited and rises less than one-half of a percent per year over the projected time period as shown in Table 4-5. By 2040, the final year in Table 4-5, Pleasant Hill is expected to have a population of about 35,925. 90 100
110
120
130
140
150
1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Index (Year %s = Index 100)
Index
Pleasant Hill
Index
Contra Costa County
Index
Bay Area

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-31
Table 4-5 Population Estimates and Projections, 2010-2040 Population 2010 2020 2030 2040
City of Pleasant Hill 32,990 33,590 35,065 35,925
Increase from prior year 600 1,475 860
Percent Increase 1.81% 4.39% 2.45%
Annual Rate of Increase 0.18% 0.44% 0.25%
Source: ABAG Projections 2040, 2017, U.S. Census
For 2010 data, a tabulation from the 2010 pre-run microdata, designed to approximate (but may still differ from) Census 2010 counts is presented.

In evaluating housing needs, it is important to distinguish between the household population (those people living in single family homes, condominiums, apartments, mobile homes or other housing units) and the group quarters population (those living in institutions such as nursing homes, dormitories, or shelters). Pleasant Hill has about 608 people living in group quarters, a noticeable increase from 463 in 2010 (see Table 4-5). The largest segment of the group quarters population (340 persons or 55.9 percent) is represented by persons in nursing homes. Because group quarters are not considered housing units, this segment of the population is not factored into the Regional Housing Needs Plan.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-32
Table 4-6 City Household and Group Quarters Population
Population 2000 2010 2020
In Households 32,377 32,689 34,005
Increase 312 1,316
Percent Increase 0.96% 4.03%
Annual Rate of Increase 0.10% 0.40%
In Group Quarters 460 463 608
Increase 3 145
Percent Increase 0.7% 31.31%
Annual Rate of Increase 0.07% 3.13%
Total Population 32,837 33,152 34,613
Source: U.S. Census
Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today.

Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Pleasant Hill identifying as White has decreased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by

14.8 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 22,448 (see Figure 4-2). In absolute terms, the Hispanic or Latinx population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-33
Figure 4-2 Population by Race, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-02. 10% 14% 13%
79% 68% 64%
6%
9% 12% 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2019
Share of Population
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic Asian / API, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic Hispanic or Latinx

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-34
Households
The Census Bureau defines a household as “a person or group of persons who live in a housing unit.” The people who make up a household do not have to be related. ABAG projections show the number of households increasing in the City from 13,710 in 2010 to 14,305 in 2040 (see Table 4-7).

The number of households is projected to stabilize, and possibly slightly decrease starting in 2030.

Table 4-7 Household Projections, 2010-2040
Households 2010 2020 2030 2040
Total Households 13,710 13,815 14,330 14,305
Increase 105 615 -25
Percent Increase 0.77% 3.73% -0.17%
Annual Rate of Increase 0.07% 0.37% -0.02%
Source: ABAG Projections 2040, 2017
For 2010 data, a tabulation from the 2010 pre-run microdata, designed to approximate (but may still differ from) Census 2010 counts is presented.

Two-person households are the most common in Pleasant Hill (33 percent), with single- person households second (28 percent). In 2020, about 23 percent of all households had more than four persons (see Table 4-8). The 2020 American Community Survey also showed that owners occupied 64.2 percent of housing units.

Table 4-8 Household Size and Ownership, 2020
Persons/ HH Owner Renter Total Percent
1 1,905 1,973 3,878 28.2%
2 3,036 1,515 4,551 33.1%
3 1,434 741 2,175 15.8%
4 or more 2,460 698 3,158 22.9%
Totals 8,835
(64.2%)
4,927
(35.8%) 13,762 100%
Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, S2501 Occupancy Characteristics Housing Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – the ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Pleasant Hill there are a total of 13,817 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 34.6

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-35
percent versus 65.4 percent (see Figure 4-3). By comparison, 34.1 percent of households in Contra Costa County are renters, while 44 percent of Bay Area households rent their homes.

Figure 4-3 Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16 Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities. In Pleasant Hill, 25.6 percent of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 66.1 percent for Asian households, 50.9 percent for Latinx households, and 68.6 percent for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.
65% 66%
56%
35% 34%
44%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-36
Figure 4-4 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20. 1,065 85 723 537 7,355 6,825
30 545
247
698
591
3,362
3,073
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-37
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In Pleasant Hill, 50.3 percent of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while

18.4 percent of householders are over the age of 65 (see Figure 4-5).

Figure 4-5 Housing Tenure by Age
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18 In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multifamily housing. In Pleasant Hill, 88.9 percent of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 13.7 percent of households in multifamily housing are homeowners (see Figure 4-6). 38% 60%66%71% 79%
89%
81%
54%
97%
62%
40%
34%
29%
21%
11%
19%
46%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 15-
24 Age 25-
34 Age 35-
44 Age 45-
54 Age 55-
59 Age 60-
64 Age 65-
74 Age 75-
84 Age 85+
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-38
Figure 4-6 Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-22 Employment Trends
Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Pleasant Hill increased by 10.1 percent (see Figure 4-7).
89% 84%
14%
68%
49%
11% 16%
86%
32%
51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Detached SingleFamily HomesAttached SingleFamily HomesMulti-Family Housing
Mobile Homes Boat, RV, Van, or
Other
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-39
Figure 4-7 Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018
Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.

There are 18,064 employed residents, and 17,075 jobs in Pleasant Hill - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 0.95; Pleasant Hill is a net exporter of workers.

Figure 4-8 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low-income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. Pleasant Hill has more low-wage jobs than low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city has more highwage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000) (see Figure 4-8).
13,000
13,500
14,000
14,500
15,000
15,500
16,000
16,500
17,000
17,500
18,000
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Jobs
Year

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-40
Figure 4-8 Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.

Figure 10 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of one means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above one indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 4-9).

1.4k

2.4k

2.9k

3.0k

8.3k

2.9k

3.3k

3.9k

2.9k

4.1k
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Less than $9,999 $10,000 to
$24,999
$25,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 or more
Worker Population
Place of Residence Place of Work

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-41
Figure 4-9 Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.

Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community. New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate, it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high job to household ratio. After considering housing, the jobs-household ratio in Pleasant Hill has increased from 1.11 in 2002, to 1.24 jobs per household in 2018, indicating a jobs-rich city (see Figure 4-10).

0.50 0.70

0.90 1.10

1.30 1.50

1.70 1.90

2.10 2.30
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ratio
Wages Less Than $1,250/Mo Wages $1,250-$3,333/Mo
Wages More than $3,333/Mo

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-42
Figure 4-10 Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households) Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.

Sector Composition
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which Pleasant Hill residents work is Health & Educational Services, and the largest sector in which Contra Costa residents work is Health & Educational Services (see Figure 4-11). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers.

0.70 0.80

0.90 1.00

1.10 1.20

1.30 1.40

1.50 1.60
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ratio
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-43
Figure 4-11 Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030 Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables:

Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail: C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information: C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services:

C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06.

Unemployment
In Pleasant Hill, there was a 3.5 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020 (see Figure 4-12). 5% 7% 6%
29% 25% 26%
33% 31% 30%
4%
13% 14% 17%
12% 10% 9%
7% 9% 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area
Share of Employed Residents
Agriculture & Natural Resources Construction
Financial & Professional Services Health & Educational Services Information Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation
Retail Other

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-44
Figure 4-12 Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.

Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonally-adjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15. 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Percent of Labor Force that is Unemployed
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-45

4. Housing Needs
As part of Housing Element law, the State has adopted a process for determining each local jurisdiction’s fair share of regional housing needs. The process begins with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) meeting with each regional council of governments to determine the need for new housing in that region. The regional council of governments is then required to determine what share of that regional housing need should be assigned to each city and county. The requirements for each jurisdiction include a share of housing needs for all income levels.

For housing planning and funding purposes, HCD uses five income categories to evaluate housing need based on the Area Median Income (AMI) for the metropolitan area:
• Extremely-Low-Income Households earn between 0 and 30 percent of AMI • Very-Low-Income Households earn between 31 and 50 percent of AMI • Low-Income Households earn between 51 and 80 percent of AMI • Moderate-Income Households earn between 81 and 120 percent of AMI • Above-Moderate-Income Households earn over 120 percent of AMI ABAG and HCD determined that the nine-county Bay Area has a need for 441,176 new housing units during the period from 2023 to 2031. ABAG allocated shares of this need to cities by calculating each city’s share of the projected increase in the number of jobs and households during that period. Pleasant Hill’s share of regional housing needs is 1,803 units over the 2023- 2031 period: 31.4 percent of the units are assigned to very-low-income households, 18.1 percent to low-income households, 14.1 percent to moderate- income households, and 36.4 percent for above-moderate-income households (see Table 4-9).

Cities are not required to produce this number of units; it is assumed that production of housing will be carried out primarily by the private sector and will be affected by market conditions and other factors beyond the City’s control. Instead, the City must create conditions through zoning and land use policies that would allow the private sector to construct the targeted number of units.

If the Housing Element shows that current conditions would not accommodate the targets, the City is expected to develop policies and programs to create conditions under which the units could be constructed. These policies and programs can include rezoning or other changes in land use policies, direct City subsidies to developers, or participation in County, State, or federal programs to assist in the production of housing.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-46
Table 4-9 City Share of Regional Housing Need, 2023-2031 Income Category Percent of RHNA Assigned Units
Very Low (<50% median) 31.4% 566
Low (50-80% median) 18.1% 326
Moderate (80-120% median) 14.1% 254
Above Moderate (>120% median) 36.4% 657
Total 100% 1,803
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments; City of Pleasant Hill Although not shown as a category in the RHNA distribution, state law also requires cities to identify existing and projected housing needs for extremely-low-income (“ELI”) households.

Jurisdictions may use one-half of the very-low-income RHNA allocation to calculate ELI need, which results in an estimated need of 283 ELI units for this planning period.

Key Findings
▪ Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Pleasant Hill increased, 0.4% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for Contra Costa County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period. Programs C, H, and T work to facilitate higher density development, and Program N works to provide residential development opportunities in commercial areas through the implementation of mixed-use zoning.
▪ Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all Pleasant Hill residents to live and thrive in the community. ▪ Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $500k-$750k in 2019. Home prices increased by 116.3% from 2010 to 2020. Program EE works to increase affordable homeownership opportunities in Pleasant Hill through the pursuit of mortgage credit certificates and Program FF commits the City to investigating concepts and funding sources for additional homeownership assistance measures. ▪ Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in Pleasant Hill was $1,900 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 55.2% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $76,280 per year. Programs V through DD work to assist the development of affordable housing. ▪ Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 59.9% of homes in Pleasant Hill were single family detached, 10.9% were single family attached, 7.0% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 21.6% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more than multi-family units. Generally, in Pleasant

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-47
Hill, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region. Programs aimed at addressing the lack of affordable housing types include H, L, M, N, and S.
▪ Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Pleasant Hill, 15.7% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 15.5% of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing. Programs including P, S, V, X, Z, AA, CC, DD, and HH work to reduce the costs of production or create more affordable housing opportunities by streamlining development approvals, incentivizing affordable housing types, generating funds, or reducing fees. ▪ Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, 0.0% of households in Pleasant Hill live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification.

27.6% of households in Pleasant Hill live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. The Housing Element includes a variety of programs aimed lowering the cost of production, increasing density in low-density zones to relieve displacement pressures, and providing opportunities for affordable housing development in low-density, high opportunity areas.
▪ Special Housing Needs -- Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In Pleasant Hill, 10.2% of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally,

5.0% of Pleasant Hill households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 10.5% of households are femaleheaded families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

Age
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to agein-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.

In Pleasant Hill, the median age in 2000 was 38.5; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 40 years. More specifically, the population of those under 24 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-and-over population has increased (see Figure 4-13).

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-48
Figure 4-13 Population by Age, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.

Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing. People of color make up 19.3 percent of seniors and 32.3 percent of youth under 18 (see Figure 4-14).

2.0k

3.9k

3.5k

4.7k

5.9k

5.5k

3.0k

2.0k

1.7k

0.6k

1.8k

3.6k

4.4k

4.3k

4.6k

5.3k

4.6k

2.2k

1.5k

0.9k

2.1k

3.4k

3.9k

5.3k

4.5k

4.7k

5.2k

3.4k

1.4k

0.8k
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Age 0-4
Age 5-14
Age 15-24Age 25-34Age 35-44Age 45-54Age 55-64Age 65-74Age 75-84 Age 85+
Population
2000 2010 2019

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-49
Figure 4-14 Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G) Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02.

Seniors
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0 percent-30 percent of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100 percent of AMI (see Figure 4-15). 11% 13% 14%
20% 10%
68%
73%
81%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 0-17 Age 18-64 Age 65+
Population
White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-50
Figure 4-15 Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), OaklandFremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-01.

Elderly individuals on fixed incomes may find themselves in need of affordable housing and/or housing cost assistance. Seniors may also require assistance with domestic chores and activities, such as driving, cooking, cleaning, showering or even climbing stairs. For elderly people who live alone, or who don’t have relatives able to care for them, the need for assistance may not be met.

The City offers a door-to-door senior van service on weekdays for a minimal cost.

There are 645 assisted residential housing units for seniors in Pleasant Hill (see Table 4-10). There also are at least 15 smaller senior care facilities located throughout the city with a combined capacity of 88 beds. The total senior care capacity in Pleasant Hill is 645 compared to the 2020 American Community Survey report that there are 5,750 residents aged 65 or older. This means that there is approximately one senior care space for every eight senior residents in Pleasant Hill.

This change is a major deficit from 2010 where there was one senior care space for every four senior residents in Pleasant Hill. Senior residential care facilities are in great demand in Pleasant 310 340 385 370
1,315
280
150
255 55 185
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-51
Hill, and especially with trends towards a rapidly aging population, there may be more significant unmet senior housing needs in the future.

In meeting these needs, the following factors must be considered:
• Limited remaining sites suitably zoned for senior housing; • Decreasing State and federal funding to provide additional housing for seniors; and • Physical and/or other restrictions that may limit seniors’ ability to maintain their own health and/or the condition of their home.

The City aims to work towards further fulfilling the needs of seniors through the future opening of the Choice in Aging Campus at 490 Golf Club Road, which offers 81 low-income senior units.

Table 4-10 Senior Residential Care Facilities, 2022
Facility Units Location
Carlton Pleasant Hill Downtown 175 175 Cleaveland Road
Carlton Pleasant Hill – Martinez 165 2726-2770 Pleasant Hill Road Aegis Living Pleasant Hill 90 1660 Oak Park Boulevard
Carlton Poet’s Corner 75 540 Patterson Boulevard
Pleasant Hill Oasis 44 40 Boyd Road
Better Living Care Home 8 106 Vivian Drive
Other Small Facilities 88 Various
Total Senior Housing Units 645
Source: California Department of Social Services, April 2022 Peoples with Disabilities
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at an elevated risk for housing insecurity, homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 4-16 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Pleasant Hill.

Overall, as of 2019, 11.4 percent of people in Pleasant Hill have a disability of any kind.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-52
Figure 4-16 Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types: Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing.

Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.

Housing assistance programs for lower-income households also help those whose incomes are limited by work disabilities. State Administrative Code Title 24 requires that places of employment, housing, public accommodation, commercial facilities, transportation, communications, and public services be accessible to persons with disabilities. In addition, the City has adopted reasonable accommodation procedures to facilitate modifications to zoning or building regulations that may be necessary to assist those with disabilities in maintaining use of their homes.

Developmentally Disabled
State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are 4.37% 4.29% 3.98% 2.67% 2.06% 1.65%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

4.50%

5.00%
With a
cognitive
difficulty
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty
With a hearing
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
Proportion of Adult Population Reporting Disability
Type

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-53
at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.

In Pleasant Hill, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 38.1 percent, while adults account for 61.9 percent.

Table 4-11 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group Value
Age 18+ 146
Age Under 18 90
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020) Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.

The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Pleasant Hill is the home of parent / family / guardian.

Table 4-12 Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Value
Home of Parent / Family / Guardian 155
Independent / Supported Living 63
Community Care Facility 11
Other 5
Foster / Family Home 5
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020)
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-54
environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult. The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based services to approximately 360,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers and associated facilities. The Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB), located in San Leandro, is one of 21 regional centers in the State of California that provides point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities. The center is a private, non-profit agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. The state Regional Center of the East Bay estimates that there were 24,481 persons receiving their services in the 2020-2021 fiscal year. Of these, approximately 68 percent were living at home with parents or other guardians. However, there is still a clear and present need to provide suitable, supportive housing for those with disabilities.

Supportive housing can provide opportunities for independent living for persons with developmental disabilities. Consistent with state law, Pleasant Hill has adopted zoning regulations to facilitate supportive housing by allowing this type of use subject to the same regulations and procedures as apply to other housing units of the same type in the same zone.

Table 4-13 Adult Residential Facilities, 2022
Facility Beds Location
Bridge Program – Pleasant Hill 64 550 Patterson Boulevard Las Trampas – Sheila House 4 9 Sheila Court
Las Trampas – Maureen House 4 553 Maureen Lane
Stonehedge 3 1447 Stonehedge Drive
Total Adult Residential Facility Beds 75
Source: California Department of Social Services, April 2022 Large Households and Overcrowding
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In Pleasant Hill, for large households with five or more persons, most units (79.5 percent) are owner occupied (see Figure 4-17). In 2017, 2.5 percent of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50 percent of the area median income (AMI).

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-55
Figure 4-17 Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.

The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community. Large families are generally served by housing units with three or more bedrooms, of which there are 8,726 units in Pleasant Hill. Among these large units with three or more bedrooms,

11.7 percent are owner-occupied, and 88.3 percent are renter occupied (see Figure 4-18). 1,931 3,339 1,743 1,485 544 1,673 1,595 821 546 140
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1 Person
Household
2 Person
Household
3 Person
Household
4 Person
Household
5 Or More Person
Household
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-56
Figure 4-18 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05.

Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than

1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Pleasant Hill, 3.0 percent of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.0 percent of households that own (see Figure 4-19). In Pleasant Hill, 1.0 percent of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to

0.4 percent for those own. 56
163
1,120
7,286
417
531
1,229
1,992
936
87 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 Bedrooms 1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3-4 Bedrooms 5 Or More Bedrooms
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-57
Figure 4-19 Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-01.

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 6.7 percent of low-income households (between 31 and 50 percent AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 0.2 percent of households above 100 percent experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 4-20). 0%
1%
3%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Percent of Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-58
Figure 4-20 Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), OaklandFremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-04.

Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Pleasant Hill, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) (see Figure 4-21).
3%
1%
3%
2%
0%
7%
1%
0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Percent of Households

1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room More than 1.5 Occupants per Room

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-59
Figure 4-21 Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03.

Female-Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In 2%
2%
2%
2%
2%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%
More than 1.0 Occupants per Room
Percent of Households
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
White, Non-Hispanic

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-60
Pleasant Hill, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 50.4 percent of total, while Female-Headed Households make up 10.5 percent of all households.

Figure 4-22 Household Type
Universe: Households
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.

Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

In Pleasant Hill, 21.9 percent of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 9.0 percent of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 4-23).
11% 12% 10%
4% 5% 5%
50%
55%
51%
9%
6%
9%
26% 22% 25%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Female-Headed Family Households Male-headed Family Households Married-couple Family Households Other Non-Family Households Single-person Households

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-61
Figure 4-23 Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status
Universe: Female Households
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.

Planning for housing development to serve single- parent families may require on- site child-care facilities as well, although up to this point Pleasant Hill has done well meeting the demand. A recent assessment by Brion Economics prepared for the Contra Costa Office of Education, the Contra Costa County Conservation and Development department, First five Contra Costa, and the Contra Costa County Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education (LPC) shows that as of 2018, the estimated number of child care spaces in Pleasant Hill was 1,943, while the demand was estimated to be 2,185; a short-fall of 242 spaces.

When broken down into age-specific categories, there was a surplus for children aged 3-4 with a significantly large deficit for children aged 0-2 years and children age 5-12 (Figure 4-24). 516
721
145
71 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
with Children with No Children
Households
Above Poverty Level Below Poverty Level
78%
22%
91%
9%

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-62
Figure 4-24 Child Care Supply and Demand In 2017
Source: 2017 to 2027 Contra Costa Comprehensive Child Care Needs Assessment, August 2018, Table 2-3 & 2-4 Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In Contra Costa County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.9 percent are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelter (see Figure 4-25). 172
788
983
402
654
1128
-230
134
-145
-300
-150
0 150
300
450
600
750
900
1050
1200
Infant Preschool School Age
Supply Demand Deficit

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-63
Figure 4-25 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01.

People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In Contra Costa County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for 45.0 percent of the homeless population, while making up 55.8 percent of the overall population (see Figure 4-26).
159
32 128
359
118
1,499
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Sheltered - Emergency
Shelter
Sheltered - Transitional
Housing
Unsheltered
People in Households
Composed Solely of
Children Under 18
People in Households
with Adults and Children
People in Households
without Children Under 18

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-64
Figure 4-26 Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I)
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table. Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and nonHispanic/Latinx individuals.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02.

In Contra Costa, Latinx residents represent 16.6 percent of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 25.4 percent of the general population (see Figure 4-27).

14.47%

3.09%

33.77%

45.01%

3.66%

0.48%

17.21%

8.72%

55.85%

17.74%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
American Indian
or Alaska Native
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Asian / API
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Black or African
American
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic
and NonHispanic)
Other Race or
Multiple Races
(Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
Percent of Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-65
Figure 4-27 Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I)
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-03.

16.56%

83.44%

25.42%

74.58%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Latinx
Percent of Population
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-66
Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In Contra Costa County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 519 reporting this condition (see Figure 4-28). Of those, some 70.1 percent are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

Figure 4-28 Characteristics for Population Experiencing Homelessness, Contra Costa County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-04.

In Pleasant Hill, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 39 during the 2019-20 school year and decreased by 31.6 percent since the 2016-17 school year. By comparison, Contra Costa County has seen a 4.4 percent increase in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5 percent. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

The number of students in Pleasant Hill experiencing homelessness in 2019 represents 1.8 percent of the Contra Costa County total and 0.3 percent of the Bay Area total. 86 31
377
4 1 4
128
27 364
25 14
75 28
6 80
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter Sheltered - Transitional Housing Unsheltered Persons
Chronic Substance Abuse HIV/AIDS Severely Mentally Ill Veterans Victims of Domestic Violence

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-67
Table 4-14 Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Academic Year Pleasant Hill Contra Costa
County Bay Area
2016-17 57 2,116 14,990
2017-18 29 2,081 15,142
2018-19 73 2,574 15,427
2019-20 39 2,209 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship.

The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.

State Housing Element law requires the analysis of the special housing requirements of persons and families in need of emergency shelter, and identification of adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate the development of emergency shelters.

Pleasant Hill participates in countywide efforts to assist the homeless and those in need of temporary shelter. Contra Costa Health Services (HHSD) develops plans and programs to assist the homeless throughout Contra Costa County. In 2004, the County adopted the “Ending Homelessness in Ten Years: A County-Wide Plan for the Communities of Contra Costa County” (Ten Year Plan). Through the Ten Year Plan, the County adopted a “housing first” strategy, which works to immediately house a homeless individual or family rather than force them through a sequence of temporary shelter solutions. Over the next decade, organizations across the county have recognized and implemented this strategy. The Ten-Year Plan further de-emphasizes emergency shelters by supporting “interim housing” as a preferred housing type. As the plan hit the ten-year mark, HHSD drafted and approved a major update to the Ten-Year plan known as “Forging Ahead,” which uses new data and further affirms the following guiding principle:
“Homelessness is first a housing issue, and necessary supports and services are critical to help people remain housed. Our system must be nimble and flexible enough to respond through the shared responsibility, accountability, and transparency of the community.” As emphasized in both the Ten-Year Plan and Forging Ahead, interim housing is very short-term and focuses on helping people access permanent housing as quickly as possible. Services provided in interim housing include housing search assistance and case management to help address immediate needs and identify longer-term issues to be dealt with once in permanent housing.

As a part of the HHSD, the Contra Costa Council on Homelessness (CCCH) provides a forum for implementation of Forging Ahead and provides advice and input on the operations of homeless

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-68
services, program operations, and program development efforts in Contra Costa County. The CCCH also conducts a “Point-in- Time” survey of homelessness annually. The most recent survey, with a report available, conducted on January 22, 2020, identified a total of 2,277 homeless persons countywide (including both sheltered and unsheltered) and found that Pleasant Hill had 90 unsheltered homeless persons at that time. The 2021 report is not available due to the effects of the Coronavirus pandemic, which may have further increased the number of homeless persons in the city.

Figure 4-29 Unsheltered Persons in Pleasant Hill
Source: Contra Costa Health Services, Annual Point-in-Time Counts (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020) Notes: The actual value for 2019 for Pleasant Hill, specifically, is not available and the average between 2018 and 2020 has been used.

In 2012 and 2015, the City adopted zoning regulations to facilitate the development of supportive, transitional and emergency shelter facilities in specific zoning districts per Section 65583 of the California Government Code (see also the Constraints chapter for further discussion of the City’s zoning regulations for these types of uses).

Outside of government programs, local nonprofit organizations provide important services to the homeless persons of Pleasant Hill. Most notable among local nonprofits is Hope Solutions, founded in 1991 as Contra Costa Interfaith Housing, which is based at 399 Taylor Boulevard, Suite 115. Hope Solutions provides permanent housing and vital support services to thousands of families and individuals across Contra Costa County who are at risk of homelessness. They provide permanent housing through several means, but they also provide housing directly through their own Garden Park Apartments, located at 2387 Lisa Lane, which houses 27 formerly homeless families in Pleasant Hill. Hope Solutions also oversees HUD-funded multi-site housing programs, which includes two units within Pleasant Hill. All vacancies throughout these two units and Garden Park Apartments are filled via the county’s Coordinated Entry system of care.

Shelter, Inc. is a multi-county nonprofit organization that address homelessness issues by providing services to Pleasant Hill residents, including connecting homeless persons to programs to help people re-establish and maintain permanent housing; providing case managers to ensure 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-69
assistance throughout the process of obtaining and maintaining permanent housing; assistance for veterans in obtaining VA benefits; and eviction prevention financial assistance.

Farm Workers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern. Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

In Pleasant Hill, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year.

The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4 percent in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year.

Figure 4-30 Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area 2016-17 0 0 4630
2017-18 0 0 4607
2018-19 0 0 4075
2019-20 0 0 3976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Contra Costa County has decreased since 2002, totaling 450 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 860 in 2017 (see Figure 4-31).

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-70
Figure 4-31 Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Contra Costa County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.

Income and Overpayment
The income earned by a household is an important indicator of the household’s ability to acquire adequate housing. While upper income households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, lower- and moderate-income households are more limited in the range of housing that they can afford. Typically, as household income decreases, the incidence of overpayment and overcrowding increases. The following income categories are used in Housing Element analyses:
• Extremely-low-income households earn 30% or less of the Area (county) Median Income (AMI), adjusted for household size;
• Very-low-income households earn between 31% and 50% of the AMI, adjusted for household size;
• Low-income households earn between 51% and 80% of the AMI, adjusted for household size;
• Moderate-income households earn between 81% and 120% of the AMI, adjusted for household size; and,
730
1,874
578
1,295
509
1,540
450
860
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Permanent Seasonal
Farm Workers
2002 2007 2012 2017

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-71
• Above-moderate-income households earn over 120% of the AMI, adjusted for household size.

A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

Figure 4-32 Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06.

Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas 75%
58%
13%
20%
11%
17%
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Not Computed
9,042 4,775

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-72
renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Pleasant Hill, 19.6 percent of renters spend 30 percent to 50 percent of their income on housing compared to 12.9 percent of those that own (Figure 4-32). Additionally, 17.1 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 10.7 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened.

In Pleasant Hill, 15.5 percent of households spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 15.7 percent spend 30 percent to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (Figure 4-33). For example, 81.7 percent of Pleasant Hill households making less than 30 percent of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Pleasant Hill residents making more than 100 percent of AMI, just 1.1 percent are severely cost-burdened, and

89.7 percent of those making more than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing.

Figure 4-33 Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara 10%
29% 32%
63%
90%
8%
25%
42%
24%
9%
82%
46%
25%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
1,200 885 1,615 1,359
8,305

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-73
County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-05.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability because of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most cost burdened with 20.4 percent spending 30 percent to 50 percent of their income on housing, and American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with 71.4 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing (see Figure 4-34).

Figure 4-34 Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other 29%
64%
75%
68% 70%
64%
12%
6% 16% 9% 20%
71%
9%
20% 16% 21% 11%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native,
Non-Hispanic
Asian / API,
Non-Hispanic
Black or
African
American, NonHispanic
White, NonHispanicOther Race or
Multiple Races,
Non-Hispanic
Hispanic or
Latinx
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Cost Burden Not computed

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-74
racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-08.

Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In Pleasant Hill, 11.5 percent of large family households experience a cost burden of 30 percent – 50 percent, while 2.5 percent of households spend more than half of their income on housing.

Some 15.9 percent of all other households have a cost burden of 30 percent-50 percent, with 16.1 percent of households spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing (see Figure 4- 35).

Figure 4-35 Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing 68%
86%
16%
16% 11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All other household types Large Family 5+ persons
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-75
costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-09.

When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be costburdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for lowincome seniors. 88.1 percent of seniors making less than 30 percent of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100 percent of AMI, 90.0 percent are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing (see Figure 4-36).

Figure 4-36 Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, 37% 32%
78%
90%
8%
15%
35%
12%
10%
88%
48%
33%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-76
San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-03.

Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is determined by the ratio of income to housing costs. According to the U.S.

Census for 2020, the area median income (AMI) for a family of four in Pleasant Hill is $125,573.

Based on state guidelines, income limits for a four-person family along with rents and estimated sales prices generally considered to be “affordable” are shown in Table 4-15.

An affordable housing payment is considered to be no more than 30 percent of a household’s gross income. For rental units, this includes rent plus utilities. Assuming that a potential homebuyer within each income group has acceptable credit, a typical down payment (5 percent to 10 percent), and other housing expenses (taxes and insurance), the maximum affordable home price can be estimated for each income group, as seen in Table 4-15.

Table 4-15 Affordable Housing Cost by Income Category
2020 Areawide Median Family Income
=
$125,573
Income
Limits
Affordable
Rent
Affordable
Price (est.)
Extremely Low (<30% AMI) $37,650 $941 --
Very Low (31-50% AMI) $62,800 $1,750 $260,932
Low (51-80% AMI) $100,450 $2,511 $417,367
Moderate (81-120% AMI) $125,550 $3,139 $521,657
Above moderate (120%+ AMI) $150,700+ $4,395+ $730,513+
Source: U.S. Census

1. Assumes that 30 percent (35 percent for moderate) of income is available for either: monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’ insurance.

2. Assumes 95.0 percent loan at 4.5 percent annual interest rate and 30-year term; assumes taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’ insurance account for 20 percent of total monthly payments.

Home Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in Pleasant Hill was estimated at $851,470 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $500k-$750k (see Figure 4-37). By comparison, the typical home value is $772,410 in Contra Costa County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $250k-$500k (county) and $500k- $750k (region).

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-77
Figure 4-37 Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07. 3%
7% 6%
11%
29%
16%
42%
27%
23%
34%
15%
20%
9%
13%
18%
1%
5%
8%
0%
3%
9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Owner Occupied Units
Units Valued Less than $250k Units Valued $250k-$500k Units Valued $500k-$750k Units Valued $750k-$1M Units Valued $1M-$1.5M Units Valued $1M-$2M Units Valued $2M+

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-78
Figure 4-38 Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to censusdesignated population counts.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.

When home prices are compared to affordable housing costs, it is clear that lower- and moderateincome households in Pleasant Hill have a difficult time finding for-sale housing that is within their means.

Rent Values
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.

Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color.

Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
Bay Area Contra Costa County Pleasant Hill

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-79
In Pleasant Hill, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $1500-$2000 category, totaling 34.8 percent, followed by 23.6 percent of units renting in the Rent $2000-$2500 category (see Figure 4-39). Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the rent for $1500-$2000 category.

Figure 4-39 Median Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.

Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 55.2 percent in Pleasant Hill, from $1,440 to $1,900 per month (see Figure 4-40). In Contra Costa County, the median rent has increased 28.8 percent, from $1,300 to $1,680. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54 percent increase.
2%
5% 6%
3%
10% 10%
16%
24%
19%
35%
30%
23% 24%
17% 17%
15%
7%
12%
5% 6%
13%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Rental Units
Rent less than $500 Rent $500-$1000 Rent $1000-$1500 Rent $1500-$2000 Rent $2000-$2500 Rent $2500-$3000 Rent $3000 or more

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-80
Figure 4-40 Median Contract Rents
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015- 2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.

Based on affordable housing costs shown in Table 4-15, Pleasant Hill rents are generally affordable except to large families or those with extremely low or very-low incomes. Large families would find the rental situation more difficult, since very few apartments with three or more bedrooms are typically available in the city.

Extremely-Low-Income Households
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state.

In Pleasant Hill, 60.6 percent of households make more than 100 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) , compared to 10.9 percent making less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 4-41). Approximately 1,493 households in Pleasant Hill are considered extremely low income.
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
$2,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Dollars
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-81
Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100 percent AMI, while 15 percent make less than 30 percent AMI. In Contra Costa County, 30 percent AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $34,850 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

The City approximates that 657 units of housing will be needed for extremely-low income households during the sixth cycle. This figure is calculated as 50 percent of very-low income households, an accepted calculation defined by HCD (see Housing Resources section).

Figure 4-41 Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located.

Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very lowincome households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of 11% 13% 15%
7%
11% 11%
12%
12% 13% 10%
9% 9%
61%
54% 52%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Households
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-82
projected extremely low-income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA numbers.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01.

Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.

In Pleasant Hill, the largest proportion of renters falls in the Greater than 100 percent of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100 percent of AMI group (see Figure 4-42).

Figure 4-42 Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-21.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. These economic disparities also leave communities of 590 505770 660 5,830 903 395 860 720 2,470 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-83
color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In Pleasant Hill, American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure 4-43).

Figure 4-43 Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I) Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white subgroups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction.

However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.

While homeowners may choose to “stretch” to buy the most expensive home they can qualify for on the expectation of future increases in property value, renters do not enjoy similar advantages.

The needs of ELI households are addressed through programs such as federal Section eight rental assistance and new housing such as secondary units, single-room-occupancy (SRO) developments, transitional and supportive housing, and emergency shelters. The City allows a variety of housing types, by right in residential zones, to meet the needs of extremely low-income individuals and families. For a discussion of specific allowances and programs implemented to ensure zoning for affirmatively furthering fair housing, see the Governmental Constraints section.

37.1%

18.9%

11.1% 9.0%

5.6% 5.4% 4.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%
American Indian or Alaska
Native (Hispanic and NonHispanic)
Asian / API (Hispanic and NonHispanic)
Other Race or Multiple Races
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or Latinx
Black or African American
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic and NonHispanic)
White, Non-Hispanic
Percent of Households in Racial / Ethnic Group

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-84
Additionally, the City has a track record of working with non-profit developers to build affordable housing, including BRIDGE Housing, Affordable Housing Associates, Mercy Housing, and Contra Costa Interfaith Housing. The City is committed to continuing to work with these and other nonprofit developers to provide new affordable housing units, including ELI units.

Housing Supply
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of singlefamily homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

The housing stock of Pleasant Hill in 2020 was made up of 59.9 percent single family detached homes, 10.9 percent single family attached homes, 7.0 percent multifamily homes with two to four units, 21.6 percent multifamily homes with five or more units, and 0.6 percent mobile homes (see Figure 4-44). In Pleasant Hill, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Detached.

Figure 4-44 Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-01. 1,566 8,560 1,002 3,110 83 1,566
8,612
1,002
3,110
83 0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Single-Family
Home: Attached
Single-Family
Home: Detached
Multifamily
Housing: Two to
Four Units
Multifamily
Housing: Fiveplus Units
Mobile Homes
Units
2010 2020

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-85
Housing Vacancy Rate
Pleasant Hill has 554 units of vacant housing, which equates to a 3.8 percent vacancy rate out of the 14,373 total units in the city. Among the vacant units, a majority of the vacant units are those for rent who are currently not occupied. This is followed by “other vacant” units, which are units vacant due to foreclosure, legal proceedings, repairs, being on the market, abandonment, or vacancy due to incarceration or other reasons. 8 percent of vacant units are noted to be recreational or occasional use vacancies, which signifies an owners’ second property for vacations, or a property currently in use for short-term renting through services such as AirBNB and VRBO. Compared to the entire Bay Area, which has an approximate 5.6 percent vacancy rate for rental units as of 2022, Pleasant Hill has a low vacancy rate.

Figure 4-45 Housing Vacancy Rate
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.

Housing Conditions and Rehabilitation Needs
Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Pleasant Hill, the largest proportion of the housing 35%
23% 24%
11%
11% 6%
8%
12% 22%
27% 45% 36%
4% 17% 6%
6% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area
Percent of Vacant Housing Units
For Rent For Sale
For Seasonal, Recreational, Or Occasional Use Other Vacant Rented, Not Occupied Sold, Not Occupied

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-86
stock was built in the 1980s, with 4,744 units constructed during this period (see Figure 4-46).

Since 2010, 2.0 percent of the current housing stock was built, which is 292 units.

Figure 4-46 Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.

The need for rehabilitation of housing is generally a function of age and maintenance level. Nearly half of the homes in Pleasant Hill are at least 40 years old and likely to need rehabilitation unless normal maintenance has been performed (see Figure 4-46). Homes built before 1970 are more likely to need rehabilitation. The one-third of the housing stock built between 1940 and 1959 may require replacement of basic plumbing, heating, and electrical systems (if not already upgraded), and the small number of houses more than 60 years old could be in serious need of rehabilitation.

The maximum life expectancy of a typical roof, concrete driveway, and other housing components is about 40 years.

Rehabilitation needs can also be complicated by an aging population and high housing costs.

Elderly people may be less able to maintain their homes, and people paying a high proportion of their incomes for mortgage may have little left over for maintenance and replacing major building components. High housing costs can also lead to more rapid deterioration as more people crowd into units to afford rents or mortgages. This need can also be addressed by the Housing Rehabilitation loan program.
176
1,429
2,692
2,174
2,527
3,043
1,111
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
1939 or
Earlier
1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 Units

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-87
Affordable Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion
While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.

The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 193 assisted units in Pleasant Hill in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 0.0 percent are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion. No elderly units nor nonelderly units are at-risk of conversion during the next ten years.

Table 4-16 Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Risk of Conversion Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area Low 193 13,403 110,177
Moderate 0 211 3,375
High 0 270 1,854
Very High 0 0 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 193 13,884 116,459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) -While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table.
-Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing developments at-risk of converting to market rate uses. This document provides aggregate numbers of at-risk units for each jurisdiction, but local planning staff should contact Danielle Mazzella with the California Housing Partnership at [email protected] to obtain a list of affordable properties that fall under this designation. -California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:
--Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
--High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
--Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
--Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-88
Table 4-17 Affordable Unit Inventory
Development
Total
Units
Affordable
Units Subsidy Type
Date Deed
Restrictions
Expire
Grayson Creek Apartments
100 Chilpancingo Pkwy 70 70
Housing
Successor, CDBG,
MHP
2070
Hookston Manor Senior
Apartments
80 West Hookston Rd
100 99 Housing
Successor, CDBG 2075
Garden Park Apartments
2387 Lisa Ln 29 27 Housing Successor, CRL 2072
Villa Montanaro
Apartments
203 Coggins Dr
157 12 Housing
Successor 2036
IMT Pleasant Hill (formerly
Lincoln Green Apartments)
225 Coggins Dr
252 4
Housing
Successor Yes, Date Unknown
DVC Triplex Associates
716 Stubbs Rd 21 1 None 2099
Gallery Walk
61 Matisse Ct 133 11 Housing Successor Yes, 45 years
Ellinwood Apartments
400 Longbrook Way 154 19 None 2073
Total 917 244
Source: City of Pleasant Hill, 2022. Pleasant Hill Successor Annual Report, 2019-2020 *Industrial tax bonds with no affordability requirements; units must be occupied by low- or moderate-income households.

Cost and Funding for Affordable Housing Preservation
State law requires the analysis of at-risk housing to identify “the total cost of producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace the units that could change from lowincome use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments.” In 2014, the California Housing Finance Agency (“CalHFA”) along with the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"), the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee ("TCAC"), and the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee ("CDLAC") completed a large-scale affordable housing development cost study within California. The study took a deep dive into the various costs associated with providing new affordable housing across 11 defined regions in California. Pleasant Hill falls into the North & East Bay Region defined in the report, which is reported to have an average cost per unit of $345,000 per unit of affordable housing built.

Therefore, if, for example, 10 units were at-risk and were lost, the total replacement cost would be approximately $3.45 million.

An alternative to new construction is preserving at-risk units through the purchase of affordability covenants. Preservation cost is estimated as the difference between market rent and affordable rent. Assuming an “affordability gap” of approximately $700 to $1,000 per month per unit, the total cost of preserving 10 units would be approximately $8,500 per month or $102,000 per year, a

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-89
vastly lower price than replacing lost units. If needed, the City of Pleasant Hill could finance preservation through federal block grant programs, such as the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which can help maintain and create affordable housing.

Qualified Affordable Housing Management Organizations
After the dissolution of the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency, the Contra Costa Housing Authority and local organizations have taken the primary role of acquiring and managing affordable housing properties. The Housing Authority and local organizations, such as Hope, Inc., have a long history of managing and holistically meeting the needs of housing insecure individuals and families. For a more extensive list of organizations which are qualified to acquire and manage affordable housing, see the Community Resources section.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-90

5. Housing Constraints
Constraints on the development of housing are divided into governmental constraints and nongovernmental constraints. Potential governmental constraints include land use controls, codes and code enforcement, on and off-site improvements, fees and exactions, processing and permit procedures, and regulations affecting housing for persons with disabilities. Non-governmental constraints include the price of land, cost of construction, flooding, conservation easements and long-term vineyard leases, and a lack of rental accessory dwelling units.

Key Findings
▪ Pleasant Hill’s Zoning Code allows for a variety of housing types in the city including multiple-family units, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, manufactured and mobile homes, and accessory dwelling units. However, Pleasant Hill should update the Municipal Code to allow for low-barrier navigation centers, update the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with recent State law, and update the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance also for State law compliance.

Governmental Constraints
Although local governments have little influence on such market factors as interest rates and availability of funding for development, their policies and regulations can affect both the amount of residential development that occurs and the affordability of housing. Since governmental actions can constrain availability and affordability of housing, state law requires the Housing Element to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.”
There are no significant undue or uncommon governmental constraints to housing in Pleasant Hill.

Pleasant Hill allows a variety of housing types by right and continually monitors the effects of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and former Measure B provisions for any possible negative effect on housing production. Pleasant Hill also prioritizes affordable housing projects throughout the discretionary review process to reduce any undue time constraints that may come from review.

The City is committed to reducing and or removing any governmental constraints, where appropriate, to encourage affordable housing development.

Former Measure B Provisions
Various provisions contained in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance originate from a previous City initiative measure termed “Measure B” that ceased to be effective in 1996. This measure, in addition to building height and mass limitations, imposed limitations on rezoning to higher residential densities. While the measure ceased to be effective in 1996, and is no longer applicable, the City Council incorporated various provisions into the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. One of those limitations only allowed increased residential density when 75 percent of the boundary of the area to be re-designated was adjacent to land with the same or higher density.

That provision, incorporated into the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, did not significantly constrain housing potential because the city is substantially built-out, and the majority of vacant residentially zoned land lies in the Downtown and Schoolyard areas, both of which allow higher density multifamily and mixed-use development. The provision was repealed by City Council unanimously in February 2020 as a part of Resolution 20-20.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-91
The Zoning Ordinance also incorporated a provision that limits the height of structures to 35 feet.

Through 2022, that provision did not create any demonstrated impacts on the development of affordable housing as development could exceed this height limitation through approval of a variance or Planned Unit Development District process. The City has approved building heights greater than 35 feet throughout the City on multiple occasions.

According to city staff, no projects have been denied due to former Measure B provisions. In order to ensure that these provisions do not pose an unreasonable constraint to future housing development, Program H commits the City to monitoring development annually. If it is determined that these provisions are preventing the rezoning of parcels needed to accommodate a portion of the City’s needs for lower-income housing, an amendment to those provisions will be initiated.

Inclusionary Housing
The City of Pleasant Hill Zoning Ordinance includes an inclusionary provision to provide affordable housing. This ordinance has been in place since 1996 and was updated in 2004, 2005, 2016, 2017, and 2019. It requires developments of five or more units to provide affordable housing or in extraordinary circumstances, allows payment of a fee in-lieu of building the unit(s). The developer may choose to restrict five percent of the units to very-low income; 10 percent of the units to lowincome; 20 percent of units as accessory dwelling units to low-income; or 25 percent of units to qualifying seniors. Fractional units are addressed through the payment of a corresponding fraction of the in-lieu fee. There are no restrictions on what types of units (i.e., ownership or rental) may be provided to satisfy the Inclusionary Ordinance.

Per the ordinance, “in extraordinary circumstances, the approving body may authorize the payment of a fee in lieu of providing the inclusionary units required under subsection A of this section as follows: (a) for projects of nine units or less; (b) for any fractional unit in projects of 10 or more units; or (c) if the developer demonstrates, in connection with the first approval for the development (tentative subdivision map, or development plan if no subdivision is involved), that specific characteristics of the development site make the site unsuitable for households at the required income levels.”
While the requirement to provide affordable units as part of a housing development could adversely affect the financial feasibility and profitability of a project, the City offers incentives such as density bonus, modified development standards and/or financial subsidies that help to offset these costs. In addition, development entitlements often result in a significant increase in property value. For these reasons, the inclusionary requirement does not present an unreasonable constraint to housing production.

During prior planning periods, a number of low- and very-low-income units were produced as a result of this ordinance including eight very-low and four moderate units at Villa Montanaro and four low-income units at Iron Horse Park Apartments. The City also has $543,000 of in-lieu fees being held in a fund that is dedicated to being used solely for affordable housing. The City recently earmarked $400,000 in December 2020 to assist with a pending affordable housing project at 250 Cleaveland Road.

Through Ordinance No. 928, the Inclusionary Ordinance was amended to allow for new residential developments to satisfy Inclusionary Ordinance requirements through allocating twenty percent of dwelling units as inclusionary accessory dwelling units. Inclusionary accessory dwelling units are defined as deed-restricted low income ADUs on site on a larger residential property or project. The report was approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Several public meetings

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-92
were held to discuss this subject with no public opposition. The new method of fulfilling the Inclusionary Ordinance was used by the 401 Taylor Boulevard multi-family residential project, which included 6 deed restricted units and 0.2 units paid by an in-lieu fee during its planning phase.

Many developers use the accessory dwelling unit option to comply with the inclusionary ordinance.

In fact, some developers have stated that the accessory dwelling units are a positive amenity.

In order to ensure that the inclusionary provisions do not pose an undue constraint to housing production, Program U is included in the Housing Plan to monitor the effect of the inclusionary housing ordinance on the cost and supply of housing. Additionally, the program stipulates such that if the ordinance does present an obstacle to development of the City’s fair share of regional housing needs, the City will revise the ordinance accordingly.

Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home Parks
Manufactured homes, defined by California state law as factory-built housing whereas all concealed parts or processes of manufacturing cannot be inspected before installation, account for 0.6 percent of Pleasant Hill’s housing stock with 83 total units.

California Government Code 65582.3 states that manufactured homes, given that they are certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, shall be subject to the same development standards to which a conventional single family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject to with any additional architectural requirements imposed on manufactured homes being limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material.

Manufactured homes are permitted in all residentially zoned districts with a certificate of compatibility, which is subject to approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The requirements of the certificate of compatibility conforms to the allowable regulations of manufactured homes as defined in California Government Code 65582.3. The following, as detailed in PHMC Section 18.20.090(B) are the requirements for a certificate of compatibility:

PHMC § 18.20.090(B) Manufactured homes – Requirements for certificate of compatibility.

1. Location criteria. Manufactured homes are not allowed:
a. On substandard lots that do not meet the dimensional standards of PHMC § 18.20.030; or b. On a lot with an average slope of more than 10%, or on any portion of a lot where the slope exceeds 15%.

Except as modified herein, all other provisions contained in this section shall remain in full force and effect.

2. Design criteria. A manufactured home shall be compatible in design and appearance with residential structures in the vicinity and shall meet the following standards:
a. It must be built on a permanent foundation approved by the chief building official; b. It must have been constructed after June 15, 1976, and must be certified under the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974;
c. The unit’s skirting must extend to the finished grade; d. Exterior siding must be compatible with adjacent residential structures, and shiny or metallic finishes are prohibited; e. The roof must be of concrete or asphalt tile, shakes or shingles complying with the most recent edition of the adopted building codes under PHMC Title 14;
f. The roof must have eaves or overhangs of not less than one foot; g. The floor must be no higher than 20 inches above the exterior finished grade; and h. Required covered parking shall be compatible with the manufactured home design and with other buildings in the area.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-93
There is only one mobile home park in the city limits, Park Royale Mobile Home Park, which is located on the eastern border of the city adjacent to Concord. As of June 2022, there are 30 travel trailers and 12 mobile homes located in the Park, which accounts to 42 units.

During the planning period, no manufactured home projects were denied as a result of these provisions and no applications for certificate of compatibility were submitted to the City. Program J commits the City to continually allowing the development of manufactured housing subject to applicable State and Federal laws, in addition to local architectural design standards.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as secondary dwelling units, have been identified nationwide and by the State as an important strategy in addressing the needs of low-income households and communities with high rental prices. ADUs are not considered a housing constraint and comply with State law.

With the passage of SB 13 and AB 68 in 2019, ADUs have become an even more important option for homeowners to gain additional income and assist with the Bay Area’s long standing housing crisis. The City of Pleasant Hill has implemented a state law-compliant ordinance that considers various types of ADUs, how they are permitted, and how they are defined.

In Pleasant Hill, there are three primary types of ADUs: Junior ADUs (JADU), Single-Family ADUs, and Multi-Family ADUs. JADUs are dwelling units created within existing single-family dwellings that do not exceed 500 square feet in size. For example, a family could convert a master bedroom in their single-family home, provide a separate entrance, and file through the City to create a JADU that could be rented out. Single Family ADUs can come in three forms: conversion, detached, and attached. Multi-Family ADUs can come in the conversion and detached forms.

The conversion ADU form comes from the conversion of existing space in a home to a housing unit. For example, in a single-family home, a garage can be converted to an ADU, while in a multifamily building, an unused recreation room can be converted into an ADU. The detached ADU form comes from the new construction of buildings on the same lot of an existing structure. This is commonly referred to as a casita or a granny flat in existing communities. Attached ADUs are connected additions to an existing single-family home, such as a new room being built from a yard.

To ensure that ADUs can be built without significant constraints, most ADUs are eligible for a building-permit only review process, which skips the ADU Permit review process. Specific stipulations for skipping an ADU permit are available from the City online or through the permit counter.

Given these various options, the low regulatory barrier of entry, the market demand for housing, and income opportunities, residents in Pleasant Hill have been building ADUs on their lots.

Between 2018 and 2021, 68 ADUs were permitted. Based on two online listings on Craigslist for ADUs for rent in April 2022, the average price is $2,398 per month for ADUs ranging from 754 square feet to 875 square feet. Based on state 2020 income limits for 2-person households, affordable rents are $2,009 for -low-income households and $2,511 for moderate-income households. Based on this market information, secondary units are an important strategy in addressing the needs of low to moderate income residents of the community.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-94
ADUs do not have major constraints outside of standard municipal review procedures in Pleasant Hill. Additionally, Program P commits the City to continuing its advocacy for accessory dwelling units through incentives and education.

Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
SRO housing provides compact, studio-type units suitable for one or two persons with limited incomes such as college students or service employees. SRO housing is not considered a housing constraint and complies by State law. During the 2015-2023 planning period, the City passed an ordinance that allowed and established development provisions for single-room occupancy projects.

Section 18.20.085(A) of the Zoning Ordinance allows SROs in the multifamily, retail business and professional and administrative office zoning districts subject to design review and approval of a use permit. Development standards for SRO housing include a minimum of 150 square feet and a maximum of 400 square feet of floor area, maximum occupancy of two persons, and the provision of common area, laundry facilities, and private or shared kitchen and bathing facilities.

There are no special constraints to SRO housing in Pleasant Hill. Program N commits the City to continuing to allow SRO development in the future.

Emergency Homeless Shelter Management Standards
Senate Bill 2 of 2007 strengthened the planning requirements for local governments around emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing. Pleasant Hill, through PHMC § 18.20.085(B), currently complies with state law related to SB2.

Cities must estimate the number of persons in need of emergency shelter and determine whether adequate capacity currently exists to serve the need. If there is insufficient capacity, cities are required to identify at least one zone where emergency shelters may be established “by right” (i.e., without discretionary review such as a conditional use permit) or enter into a multi-jurisdictional agreement with up to two other agencies to provide adequate facilities. Section 18.20.085(B) of the Zoning Ordinance allows emergency shelters by-right in the Light Industrial (LI) zone subject to the following standards:
• Maximum of 50 beds
• Minimum separation of 300 feet from another emergency shelter, residential care facility or a pre-K through 12 school
• Approval of a management plan
• Maximum length of stay of 180 consecutive days
• Operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
• Location near public transportation, supportive services and commercial services to meet the daily needs of shelter residents
• Within the LI zone district, 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of gross floor area plus 1 space for every 2 employees, and 1 additional space for every facility vehicle. Within other zone districts, parking shall be as specified by use permit.
• External lighting
• Storage lockers and laundry facilities

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-95
The LI zone provides access to transit and commercial services and encompasses approximately 37 acres where shelter facilities could be established to meet the City’s needs. Buildings range in size from approximately 1,000 to 33,000 square feet and include some vacant space. Property records show that there are 19 buildings in this zone, however some of these buildings have been subdivided into small units.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
With the continuing prevalence of the housing crisis and associated homelessness crisis across the state, Assembly Bill 2162 (AB 2162) was passed in 2018 to help reduce the constraints of development for two types of housing, transitional and supportive housing, which are housing types targeted to those experiencing housing insecurity.

Transitional housing is housing defined as a rental housing development operated under program requirements that require recirculated housing units and the termination of assistance that at least allows for six months of assistance for an individual. Supportive housing is housing without a limit on the length of stay that provides support for everyday life and work for specifically vulnerable communities, such as those with mental illness, those with chronic health conditions, those eligible for service under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, veterans, and emancipated minors.1
AB 2162 specifically requires transitional and supportive housing, by right, to be allowed in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted. Through this law, transitional and supportive housing would be required to be subject only to restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings in the same type of zone. Pleasant Hill, through the specifically described residentially allowed uses in PHMC § 18.15.020, complies with state law associated with AB 2162.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
California Government Code Section 65660 identifies low barrier navigation centers as facilities that focus on moving people into permanent housing and connecting temporary residents with opportunities for income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Similar to displaced persons shelters, these facilities are intended to accommodate people with disabilities, pets and their owners, partners (if not a gender-specific site), the storage of possessions, and survivors of domestic violence. Specifically, the State mandates that low barrier navigation centers have services “to meet the diverse needs of (the) population.” By state law, low barrier navigation centers must be allowed by right in multifamily and multiple-mixed-use zones. In addition, local governments may not impose parking requirements on low barrier navigation centers.

The City is not currently in compliance and has included Program O to commit the City to amend the Zoning Code for compliance with California Government Code Program Section 65660. In updating the Code, the City shall list low barrier navigation facilities as allowed by-right wherever multiple-unit dwellings and mixed-use development are allowed.

Development review procedures, fees, and standards
Housing production may be constrained by development review procedures, fees, and standards.

Residential projects proposed in Pleasant Hill may be subject to design, environmental, zoning, subdivision and planned unit development review, use permit control, and building permit approval. 1 For a full list of eligible groups, see California State Code § 65582(i).

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-96
These reviews together typically take from four weeks for a single-family remodel to up to approximately six months for a major multifamily project. The City of Pleasant Hill is committed to assisting developers with the permitting process, processing housing projects expeditiously, and preserving the quality of its neighborhoods.

To assist residents and developers with the process of completing permits for residential structural alterations, ADUs, or the construction of new buildings, the City has provided an online, interactive permit guide through Camino Technologies. This permit guide allows developers to move through the permitting process one step at a time to ensure they have all the materials and forms ready for all city permits. The guide also allows the creation of an account, which allows for easy reference and the saving of progress in the app. Additionally, the City has also provided two instructional videos to assist in the use of the online permit guide.

Figure 4-47 Pleasant Hill Interactive Permit Guide
Table 4-18 describes—for single family residential, multifamily residential, and mixed-use projects—the types of permits issued, typical permit processing times, standard and discretionary approval procedures, and landscaping and design regulations. Since most Pleasant Hill sites are urban infill, categorical exemptions and negative declarations are used extensively to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act.

Discretionary reviews (such as Architectural Review and Development Plan) and Subdivision Review are conducted concurrently. Architectural review involves evaluating discretionary projects for consistency with the City’s adopted Design Standards and Guidelines and/or any other applicable site-specific design standards (e.g., within a specific plan area).

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-97
Streamlined Review. The City adopted Objective Residential Design and Development Standards (ODDS) for single-family and multi-family residential development in March 2022 to comply with the Housing Accountability Act, SB 35, and SB 330. The ODDS establish objective design standards for residential development in the city. Any residential development that complies with the ODDS is approved ministerially by City staff and is not subject to design review and approval hearings. The ODDS are available for public review on the City’s website (pleasanthillca.org/138) and include illustrations to visually communicate required project design features.

Priority Processing. Projects offering more than the minimal number of affordable housing units (as required under the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance) receive priority processing. Priority processing for affordable housing—which is the City’s current but informal practice—is recognized in this Housing Element and implemented administratively by Planning staff.

Table 4-18 Single Family Development Review Procedures
Action Process Time Period

1. Application for new single family
residence submitted
Architectural Review required prior to
issuance of building permit.

2. Completeness & Preliminary
Review
Includes routing of project plans to outside
Agencies and City Departments as needed. 2-4 weeks.

3. CEQA Determination2 Exempt. Concurrent with
permit process.

4. Architectural Review Permit
Processing3
Evaluate compliance with Design
Guidelines (Design Review), prepare staff
report, Architectural Review Commission
public hearing and decision.
4-6 weeks.

Table 4-19 Residential Subdivision Approval Procedures4 Architectural Review Process for ARC Permit Time Period Completeness &
Preliminary Review
Includes routing of project plans to outside
Agencies and City Departments for review and
comment.
3-4 weeks (concurrent with
Subdivision Application
review)
CEQA Determination Dependent on number of parcels created and project impacts.5
Concurrent with permit
process and is not completed
until subdivision permit is
reviewed. It should be noted
that if a Mitigated Negative
Declaration or Environmental
Impact Report is necessary
the timeframe is extended to
complete CEQA review.

City Review of Project
Includes review for project impacts and
compliance with Design and Development
Standards, Design Guidelines (architectural, site
design and landscaping), preparation of staff
report and conditions of approval.
8-16 weeks (can be
concurrent with Subdivision
Review)
2 All single family residences are Categorically Exempt (Class 3). 3 Public hearing includes notices mailed to Owners and Residents within 300 feet of project site. Notices for projects may also be sent beyond a 300 feet distance from the project site.
4 Minor subdivisions are four (4) or fewer parcels. Major subdivisions are five (5) or more parcels. 5 Most minor subdivisions are Categorically Exempt (Class 15) if in conformance with Section 15315 of CEQA. Major subdivisions could be either Categorically Exempt or could require a Negative Declaration.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-98
Hearing and Action If project is of a significant size, expanded noticing occurs.6 10 days
Subdivision Map Process for Map Permit7 Time Period
The following processes for Map Permits run concurrent with each other.

Completeness &
Preliminary Review Review for submittal completeness. 3-4 weeks CEQA Determination Complete CEQA review
Concurrent with permit
process. It should be noted
that if a Mitigated Negative
Declaration or Environmental
Impact Report is necessary
the timeframe is extended to
complete CEQA review
City Review of Project
Ensure compliance with Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan, prepare staff report
and environmental documentation, conduct
Application Coordination Team (ACT) meeting.
8-16 weeks
Public Hearing and
Action
If project is of a significant size, expanded
noticing occurs.8 10 days
Final Map Final map approved by City Council to ensure
compliance with approved tentative map.
2-4 weeks, once final map
submitted to the City, but
occurs after entitlements, but
before physical site work.

Overall Review Time 14-25
Weeks
Optional Permits
Development Plan (if
required)9
Necessary specific application forms including
specific request information needed.

Concurrent with Map permit
process.

Use Permit (if
required)10
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance and General
Plan through public hearing.

Concurrent with Map permit
process.

Minor Exception (if
required)11
Necessary specific application forms including
specific request information needed.

Concurrent with Map permit
process.

Variance (if required)12
Necessary specific application forms including
specific request information needed. Concurrent with Map permit process.

Planned Unit
Development Rezone
(if required)13
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance and General
Plan through public hearing.

Concurrent with Map permit
process, and requires
additional time for review by
City Council review and
approval (four weeks).
6 If a project has significant issues or is of a significant size enhanced public noticing will occur and can include posting of A-frame neighborhood signs, website noticing, newspaper noticing, and a longer noticing period. 7Minor subdivisions may be heard by the Zoning Administrator. Major subdivisions are heard by the Planning Commission. 8 If a project has significant issues or is of a significant size, enhanced public noticing will occur and can include posting of A-frame neighborhood signs, website and newspaper noticing and a longer noticing period. 9 Development plans are required for all new stores, motels, offices, restaurants, and similar structures designed for an occupancy load of 30 persons or more, property zoned PUD, or an addition of 7,000 square feet or more to an existing store, motel, office, restaurant, or similar structure. Construction or modification of single-family residences do not require development plans. (PHMC 18.90.010) 10 Use Permit required for any adjustments in required parking for multifamily. 11 Minor exceptions are subject to approval by the zoning administrator with appropriate and reasonable findings. Minor exceptions may be requested for fence or wall height, floor area ratio, landscaping area, open space, minimum yards, and other development standards subject to PHMC 18.11.020.
12 Variance required if requesting deviations from development standards and special circumstances exist. 13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) or a Precise Plan District (PPD) usually requested as part of a larger development where deviations to development standards will result in an improved project. Permit approval is granted by the City Council.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-99
General Plan
Amendment14
Necessary specific application forms including
specific request information needed
Concurrent with Map permit
process, and requires
additional time for review by
City Council review and
approval (four weeks)
14 A general plan amendment may be required for developments that do not match their underlying parcel’s general plan land use designation. Developments that meet density bonus requirements and receive a density bonus are not required to submit a general plan amendment if they exceed the allowed residential density of their underlying parcel’s general plan land use designation. (PHMC 18.20.150)

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-100
Table 4-20 Multifamily Development Review Procedures
Action Process Time Period

1. Application for
new multi- family
development
submitted
Architectural Review required prior to issuance of
building permit.
--

2. Completeness &
Preliminary Review
Includes routing of project plans to other outside
Agencies and City Departments for comment as
needed.
2-4 weeks.

3. CEQA
Determination15
Exempt. Concurrent with
permit process.

4. Zoning
Administrator review
Staff review for compliance with applicable
development standards.
1 week

5. Architectural
Review Permit
Processing16
Evaluate compliance with Design Guidelines (Design
Review), prepare staff report, Architectural Review
Commission public hearing and decision. A typical
review would include preliminary staff comments to
the applicant regarding project consistency with the
City’s adopted Design Guidelines; submittal of revised
plans by the applicant (if necessary) for review by the Architectural Review Commission; the Commission
would typically conditionally approve a project at the
first hearing if the submittal is complete and the
project is in substantial conformance with the
Guidelines. Review of final design details (e.g. colors, landscape, materials) is often delegated to the Zoning
Administrator to expedite the approval process. The
City has prepared an “Application Guide” for the
architectural review process to assist applicants in
preparing their submittals. The Application Guide, as
well as the City’s Design Guidelines, are posted on the City’s website for convenient reference.
4 to 6 weeks
(concurrently with
Zoning
Administrator
review).
15 All single-family residences are Categorically Exempt (Class 3). 16 Public hearing includes notices mailed to Owners and Residents within 300 feet of project site.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-101
Land use controls and standards for residential development do not adversely constrain the production of affordable housing in Pleasant Hill. Currently, residential structures in the city may be

2.5 stories and 35 feet in height. Open space for multi-family projects is required at 200 square feet per unit and may be provided on private patios or balconies or in shared outdoor areas. The City is currently undertaking General Plan and zoning code updates and has included Program K in this Housing Element committing the City to evaluate development standards to remove constraints to affordable housing development as part of each of these efforts. Additionally, this Programs M, Y, and Z commit the City to providing opportunities for the Zoning Administrator approval of small variances or exclusions from standards to encourage feasibility of construction of affordable units, as well as those for seniors and others with special housing needs and the local workforce. Table 4-21 summarizes Residential Development Standards. PUDs and projects with affordable housing may exceed the standards for building height, FAR, and coverage.

To ensure that requirements for parking do not constrain affordable housing production, the City provides flexibility in its parking standards for higher-density developments (see Program R). Table 4-22 summarizes the Zoning Ordinance requirements for residential off-street parking and the Ordinance language (§35-17.8) that permits the Planning Commission to reduce the required number of parking spaces upon making specific findings.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-102
Table 4-21 Residential Development Standards Summary
PHMC §18.20.030 R-20 R-15 R-10 R-10A R-7 R-6 MRVL MRL MRM MRH Minimum Site Area per Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.)17 20,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 7,000 6,000 3,500 2,500 1,500 1,150 Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Minimum Lot Width (feet) 100 100 80 70 70 60 70 70 80 80 Minimum Lot Depth (feet) 120 100 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Minimum Yards:

Front (feet) 25 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 20
Rear (feet) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Corner Side (feet) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Side (feet) 15 10 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 7
Aggregate Side (feet) 35 25 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 15
Maximum Building Height (feet)1 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Maximum Number of Stories1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Maximum Lot Coverage1 25% 25% 30% 35% 35% 35% 40% 40% 40% 40% Maximum Floor Area Ratio1 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% - - - - Open Space - - - - - - - - - -
Scenic Route setback where applicable 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Minimum Site Landscaping - - - - - - 35% 35% 30% 25%
Fences and Walls - - - - - - - - - -
Supplemental Regulations - - - - - - - - - -
Nonconforming Structures - - - - - - - - - -
Additional development regulations may apply. For guidance, see the official PHMC Schedule 18.20.030. For more information, see PHMC 18.20.040. For creek setback information, see PHMC 18.50.150. For supplemental regulations, see PHMC 18.20.050 through 18.20.140 and Part 4. For nonconforming structures, see PHMC Chapter 18.65.
17 PUDs and/or projects with affordable housing may exceed these standards upon approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-103
Table 4-22 City Residential Parking Requirements
SCHEDULE 18.55.030A OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACES REQUIRED Use
Classification Off-street Parking Spaces
Accessory dwelling
unit
Generally, one off street parking space with several exceptions allowing for no need for dedicated parking. For more details, see PHMC § 18.20.095.

Bed and breakfast 1 per guest bedroom, plus 2 for the primary dwelling unit.

Care facility, small,
licensed Same as single family residential.

Care facility, small,
unlicensed As specified by use permit.

Emergency
homeless shelter
Within the LI zone district, 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of gross floor area plus 1 space for every 2 employees, and 1 additional space for every facility vehicle. Within other zone districts, parking shall be as specified by use permit.

Family day care
home, large 1 per 6 children.

Family day care
home, small 1 per 6 children.

Group residential 1 per sleeping room plus 1 per 100 sq. ft. used for assembly purposes or common sleeping areas.

Multifamily
residential

1.5 per studio or 1-bedroom unit of which 1 must be covered or 2 spaces per 2- bedroom or larger unit of which 1 must be covered; plus 1 guest parking space for every 2 units.

Multifamily senior 1 for each 2.5 units.

Single family
residential
For new construction, 2 spaces per dwelling unit both of which must be fully enclosed.

Single-room
occupancy Same as group residential.

Source: Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Schedule 18.55.030A and Section 18.20.095 Reduced parking for single uses (PHMC 18.55.050)
The zoning administrator may approve a use permit for up to a 10% reduction in the number of parking spaces and the planning commission may approve a use permit for more than a 10% reduction in the number of spaces to less than the number specified in Schedule 18.55.030A or 18.55.030B; provided, that the following findings are made:

A. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in the schedules; and B. The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand.

In reaching a decision, the zoning administrator or planning commission shall consider survey data submitted by an applicant or collected at the applicant’s request and expense. The use permit issued pursuant to this section shall be recorded in the county recorder’s office
Several development projects demonstrate that the cumulative effects of the City’s development standards do not pose an unreasonable constraint to housing, and particularly affordable housing.

Such projects include the following:
• The Choice in Aging Campus, a high-density low-income senior apartment complex built at 73 dwelling units per acre on an underutilized site with 82 units, of which 81 are lowerincome and 1 is above-moderate, reserved for an on-site manager of the facility; • 85 Cleaveland Road, a very high-density apartment complex built at 81 dwelling units per acre on an underutilized site with 189 units, of which nine are very-low income and nine are

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-104
moderate income. This project was granted its own General Plan land use designation, which allows for the highest ever density in the City’s history; • Villa Montanaro, a high-density apartment complex built at 39 dwelling units per acre with 147 units of which 8 are very-low income and 4 are moderate income. This project is located in the MRH/PUD district which has an allowable density range of 30 to 40 units per acre.

Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Since the last Housing Element, the City has addressed concerns about the definition of “Family” in the PHMC constituting a constraint for group housing facilities. The City amended the definition of “Family” in PHMC § 18.140.010 2015 and complies state law.

Chapter 18.112 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes administrative procedures for reviewing and approving such requests from persons with disabilities. In addition, the Building Codes adopted by the City incorporate accessibility standards contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Other zoning regulations that could affect housing for persons with disabilities include the following:
• Separation requirements. The following separation is required between group homes or care facilities.

Table 4-23 Separation Requirements for Group Homes or Care Facilities Type of care facility
Minimum
distance from
another such
facility
Large, licensed intermediate care facility (7 or more residents) for the developmentally disabled (nursing) 300 ft.

Congregate living health facility 1,000 ft.

Residential care facility, but not applicable to a foster family home, residential care facility for the elderly, or transitional care facility. 300 ft.

Residential Care Facilities
California Government Code Section 65583 requires that housing elements provide a program to “address and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.” In line with encouraging the development of housing for those with disabilities, the State requires that small, licensed residential care facilities (defined as facilities with six or fewer residents) be allowed “by right” in all residential zones. Additionally, the State, through HCD, requires that cities consider constraints to reasonable accommodation for large, licensed residential care facilities (defined as facilities with seven or more residents).

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-105
Small, licensed care facilities (6 or fewer residents) are permitted by right in all residential zones and small unlicensed care facilities (6 or fewer residents) are conditionally permitted in all residential zones. Large care facilities (7+ residents), which must be permitted, are conditionally permitted in all multi-family residential zones. As such, the City of Pleasant Hill complies with state law and requirements are not considered a constraint.

Development Fees
Development review regulations and fees are mandated by State law or deemed necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community and protect existing residents from the otherwise external costs of new development. Fees collected by the City in the review and development process are limited to the City’s costs for providing these services.

Development processing and impact fees in Pleasant Hill are summarized in Table 4-24. These fees are comparable to other neighboring jurisdictions and do not pose an unreasonable constraint to housing production. Fees for typical developments represent approximately 12 percent of the total cost of a single-family home and 24 percent of the total cost of a multifamily apartment.

Table 4-24 Development Fees by Type, Effective September 1, 202218

FEE CATEGORY
Planning and Application Fees

FEE AMOUNT
Single Family Multifamily
Site Plan Review N/C N/C
Architectural Review (ARC) $1,319.31 $185.11/hour
Planned Unit Development $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Specific Plan $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Development Plan $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Building Permit (Building, Planning, Engineering) See Table 4-25 See Table 4-25

SUBDIVISION
Certificate of Compliance $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Lot Line Adjustment $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Tentative Tract Map $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Final Parcel Map $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Vesting Tentative Map $185.11/hour $185.11/hour

ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental Impact Report Actual Cost + 10% Actual Cost + 10% Negative Declaration $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
18 All fees include 7 percent Accela technology services fee.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-106
Mitigated Negative Declaration Cost + 10% Cost + 10%
IMPACT
Police N/C N/C
Fire $158
+ $632 for
sprinklers
$790 (per model)
Parks Based on Land
Value
Based on Land Value
Water $32,340.00 (CCWD)
$34,760.00
(EBMUD)
$25,728.00 (MWD)
Site Specific
Sewer Hook-up $9,300.00 to
$10,800
$9,300.00 to
$10,800/unit
Solid Waste N/C N/C
Traffic Mitigation Fee $3,879.00/unit $3,110.00/unit
Drainage Fee $0.92/sq ft $0.92-$1.22/sq ft
School $4.08/sf $4.08/sf
Proportion of Fee in Overall Development Cost for a Typical Residential Development Development Cost for a Typical Unit Single Family Multifamily Typical estimated fees per unit $60,000 $43,000
Typical estimated cost of development per unit $500,000 $175,000 Estimated proportion of fee cost to overall
development cost
12% 24%

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-107
Table 4-25 Building Permit Fee Schedule – Pleasant Hill Building Value Scheduled Price
$1-500 $75
$510-2,000 $75 for the first $500 plus $4 for each additional $100, or a fraction thereof, to and including $2,000
$2,001-$25,000 $115 for the first $2,000 plus $17 for each additional $1,000, or a fraction thereof, to and including $25,000
$25,001-$50,000 $595 for the first $25,000 plus $12 for each additional $1,000, or a fraction thereof, to and including $50,000
$50,001-$100,000 $992 for the first $50,000 plus $9 for each additional $1,000, or a fraction thereof, to and including $100,000
$100,001-$500,000 $1,511 for the first $100,000 plus $4 for each additional $1,000, or a fraction thereof, to and including $500,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $4,905 for the first $500,000 plus $6.0 for each additional $1,000, or a fraction thereof, to and Including $1,000,000
$1,000,001 and up $8,534 for the first$1,000,000 plus $5 for each additional$1,000, or a fraction thereof
Building Permit
Submittal Deposit 50% of Permit Fee
Source: City of Pleasant Hill, 2022.

Pleasant Hill employs the current versions of the California Building Codes. No City amendments to these codes significantly affect housing costs.

Energy conservation measures can add to construction costs but can reduce housing costs for occupants. The City Building Inspection division enforces the State energy building code (Title 24) through its plan checking process. These regulations establish insulation, window glazing, air conditioning and water heating system requirements. The City environmental review may also require measures to reduce energy consumption. City and County rehabilitation programs often include attic and exterior wall insulation, door and window repair or replacement, weather stripping and caulking, duct insulation and water heater blankets in rehabilitation projects.

Pleasant Hill and other agencies also require the installation of certain on-site and off-site improvements to ensure the safety and livability of residential neighborhoods. On-site improvements typically include streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and utilities, and amenities such as landscaping, fencing, streetlights, open space, and park facilities. Off-site improvements typically include:
• Sections of roadway, medians, bridges, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and lighting. • Drainage, including sections of channel, culverts, swales, and pond areas, (Contra Costa County Flood Control District).
• Sewage collection and treatment (Central Contra Costa Sanitary District). • Water systems, including lines, storage tanks, and treatment plants (Contra Costa County Water District, Martinez Water District, and East Bay MUD). • Public facilities for fire, school, and recreation.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-108
• Geological hazard repair and maintenance where appropriate.

The costs of on- and off-site improvements usually are passed along to the homebuyer as part of the final cost of the home.

There are various development fees. These include citywide, planning division, building division, and engineering division fees. As many fees are subject to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual adjustment, please visit pleasanthillca.org/80 for the most up to date city fees. The fees listed in the Table 4-24 and Table 4-25 are according to fees enacted on August 31, 2021.

Pleasant Hill currently complies with all relevant state codes as noted regarding development procedures, standards, and fees. As such, there are no unnecessary governmental fee-based constraints to housing affordability or availability.

Non-governmental Constraints
The availability and cost of housing is strongly influenced by market factors over which local government has little or no control. State law requires that the Housing Element contain a general assessment of these constraints, which can serve as the basis for actions that local governments might take to offset the effects of such constraints. The primary market constraints to the development of new housing are the costs of constructing and purchasing new housing.

Costs associated with the acquisition of land include the market price of land and the cost of holding land throughout the development process. These costs can account for as much as half of the final sales prices of new homes in small developments or in areas where land is scarce, which are both costs that come with heavily built out communities such as Pleasant Hill. Among the variables affecting the cost of land are its location and amenities, the availability and proximity of public services, and the financing arrangement made between the buyer and seller. Although vacant residential land in Pleasant Hill is generally not available for purchase, single- family vacant land would be estimated to sell for about $14 to $16 per square foot. According to Zillow, the most recently sold vacant single family zoned residential parcel within the city limits was sold in June 2020 at a cost of $15.41 per square foot. Just outside the city limits, another vacant residential parcel was sold in July 2021 at approximately $20.42 per square feet. Additionally, multifamily land, if available, is estimated to sell for an average of $25 per square foot.

Another primary nongovernmental constraint is the high cost of housing construction. Feedback from local housing developers indicates that the cost to develop housing (exclusive of profit, but including land, fees, material, labor and financing) in the city averages $500-550 per square foot for a single-family home and $275-325 per square foot for multifamily projects.19 Additionally, if a landowner wishes to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit, from start to finish, the cost of constructing and installing a small, manufactured ADU is approximately $260 per square foot. 20 The cost and availability of capital financing affect the overall cost of housing in two ways: first, when the developer uses capital for initial site preparation and construction and, second, when the 19 Single family home square footage estimate provided via personal communication in April 2022 with Sean Carroll of S&C Construction, Concord, CA., and Maria Campos of KLC Consulting Engineering, El Cerrito, CA. Multi-family home square footage estimate provided by the City of Pleasant Hill, with financing rates provided from Select Commercial Funding, LLC, and land costs calculated from Zillow data of a recent land sale at 170 Cleaveland Road.
20 According to communication with Perpetual Homes of Concord. Figure given was $195,000 for a 750 square foot manufactured accessory dwelling unit (ADU).

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-109
homebuyer uses capital to purchase housing. The capital used by the developer is borrowed for the short-term at commercial rates, which are considerably higher than standard mortgage rates.

Although financing for single family residential development is readily available in the city, financing is difficult to obtain for multifamily construction, which poses a significant constraint on the production of affordable housing in Pleasant Hill. No mortgage- deficient areas or underserved groups have been identified in the city.

Requests to Develop Below Identified Densities
There have been no formal requests to develop a site lower than the required minimum density.

Pleasant Hill’s high cost of producing housing incentivizes denser development that accommodate a better return on investment.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-110

6. Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires the “analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development.” 21 This is important due to the key role played by energy efficiency in determining the relative affordability of housing. Lower rates of energy usage decrease utility costs for residents, making a housing unit more affordable. The discussion that follows outlines current State policies and development standards along with City policies that promote energy conservation for new and existing development in the City of Pleasant Hill.

Given the constant increase in the living costs of Bay Area residents, energy costs serve as another major factor in affecting the affordability of living in the region. With the increased frequency of droughts and wildfires compounded by an antiquated electrical grid, California cities are empowered to do their part in reducing energy costs where possible. Pleasant Hill is committed to pursuing energy conservation holistically to not only provide residents with energy cost savings to residents, but to also promote environmental sustainability.

Title 24 Energy Budget Standards
Opportunities to promote sustainability and energy conservation begin from the very start of housing construction before a foundation is even laid. Pleasant Hill promotes this proactive planning by complying with State law requiring all new construction to comply with “energy budget” standards that establish maximum allowable energy use from depletable sources (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code).

These requirements apply to such design components as structural insulation, air infiltration and leakage control, setback features on thermostats, water heating system insulation (tanks and pipes) and swimming pool covers if a pool is equipped with a fossil fuel or electric heater. State law also requires that a tentative subdivision map provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, including designing the lot sizes and configurations to permit orienting structures to take advantage of a southern exposure, shade, or prevailing breezes.

By adopting building code requirements to consider and implement such designs, energy cost savings can be extended over time, increasing affordability for residents.

Green Building Standards (CalGREEN)
In addition to proactive planning, Pleasant Hill, through Municipal Code § 14.40, the City is in compliance with State law by implementing the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGREEN), which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote healthier places to live and work, and reduce energy and water consumption.

CalGREEN was first effective on August 1, 2009 with five key divisions: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental air quality. Since then, CalGREEN has undergone numerous revisions to meet environmental goals and ever evolving construction standards over the last decade.

Considering requirements brought about by CalGREEN and later the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), the City of Pleasant Hill has integrated standards within its Municipal 21 HCD Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements, “Opportunities for Energy Conservation.” Accessed September 24, 2008. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element/index.html.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-111
Code to promote responsible recycling of construction and demolition debris. According to the California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling, construction and demolition debris (C&D) account for between 21.7 percent to 25.5 percent of California’s waste stream. Reusing and recycling C&D debris are essential to further the city’s efforts to reduce waste and comply with AB 939 goals. C&D debris waste reduction and recycling have been proven to reduce the amount of C&D debris placed in landfills, increase site and worker safety, and is cost effective.

The California Green Building Standards Code requires locally permitted new residential building construction, demolition, additions, and alterations to recycle and/or salvage for reuse at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous C&D debris generated during the project. To ensure compliance, the City requires performance security, which is returned after successful compliance with CalGREEN regulations.

Green Pleasant Hill
Energy conservation involves everyone in the city working together to achieve lower costs and sustainability. To promote this goal, the City runs Green Pleasant Hill, a program that acts as a “bridge between the community and all of the programs and services” that promote community sustainability. This program involves cooperation between all groups, including residents, the private sector, and the public sector.

Green Pleasant Hill incorporates simple ideas such as harvesting rainwater and investing in drip irrigation with larger efforts, such as businesses working towards being certified as a part of the California Green Business Network, to achieve greater community energy cost savings.

Water Resource Conservation
The scarcity of water resources has become an even more pertinent issue with the increasing frequency of droughts across the state. Pleasant Hill recognizes this challenge and is doing its part by using reclaimed (recycled) water for landscaped medians, City Hall, and many local parks. Such water savings can help decrease energy costs citywide and contribute to the health of the local environment, including the nearby fragile Sacramento River Delta.

Solid Waste Reduction & Recycling
In compliance with SB 341 (2011), Pleasant Hill requires that all commercial buildings and multifamily residential complexes provide recycling service. Such requirements help improve sustainability through the substantial reduction of waste being sent to landfills. This program, outlined by PHMC § 13.10.030, complies with state law.

General Plan Goals
Beyond these specific programs, the City prioritizes energy conservation and environmental sustainability across its entire General Plan.

The Environment Element is the heart of the city’s sustainability goals, emphasizing water resource conservation, biological conservation, air quality improvement, historical preservation, and sustainability. The Environment Element includes a program on tree planting and maintenance, which helps reduce local ambient air temperature and reducing energy use that comes with the creation of urban heat islands.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-112
The Mobility Element encourages the development and use of diverse transportation modes to reduce vehicle trips to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and promote accessibility. The Mobility Element also encourages the maintenance and upgrade of the city’s bikeway program.

The Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element emphasizes the responsible use of local resources to promote sustainability and cost savings. For example, the element includes programs to promote education of energy efficiency and green retrofitting, both of which can contribute to city conservation measures.

The Hazards and Safety Element includes provisions regarding the general reduction of toxic waste and the responsible household disposal of hazardous waste, such as batteries, oil, and paint. Such measures can help reduce or eliminate the need for costly environmental remediation for sites.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-113

7. Housing Resources
Future Housing Need
State Housing Element law requires that a local jurisdiction accommodate a share of the region’s projected housing needs for the planning period, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Compliance with this requirement is measured by the City’s ability to providing adequate land with adequate density and appropriate development standards to accommodate the RHNA.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), as the regional planning agency, is responsible for allocating the RHNA to individual jurisdictions within the region.

For the sixth Housing Element cycle, the City of Pleasant Hill has been allocated a RHNA of 1,803 units, divided into four income levels as follows:
▪ Very Low Income: 566 units (31 percent)12F
22 ▪ Low Income: 326 units (18 percent)
▪ Moderate Income: 254 units (14 percent)
▪ Above Moderate Income: 657 units (36 percent)
The City must ensure the availability of residential sites at adequate densities and appropriate development standards to accommodate these units by income category.

Current & Projected Credits Towards RHNA
Projects with housing units approved or permitted that would not be occupied before the start of the planning period can be credited towards meeting the City’s RHNA. These units can count towards the RHNA based on affordability and unit count provided it can be demonstrated that the units can be built within the planning period of February 2023 through February 2031. Affordability (income category) is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability of the units within the project. In addition, the City can project the number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that may be built between 2023 and 2031, based on trends of ADU permitting during the last three years.

Entitled or Approved Projects
Pleasant Hill has a diverse variety of projects that provide housing opportunities for residents across all income ranges. Currently, there are 10 entitled or approved projects that are under construction or are pending construction that are expected to be completed during the sixth cycle RHNA period beginning July 2022. These projects may be under construction but haven’t been given an occupancy permit as of July 2022. These 10 projects account for 96 low income, 10 moderate income, and 255 above-moderate income units. Notably, the pending projects include new single-family homes along McKissick Street near Boyd Road, 80 low-income units for seniors 22 The City has a RHNA allocation of 566 very low-income units (inclusive of extremely low-income units). Pursuant to State law (AB 2634), the City must project the number of extremely low-income housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50 percent of the very low-income units as extremely low. Therefore, the City generally estimates 283 extremely low and 283 very low-income units.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-114
and those with special needs at the new Choice in Aging Campus facility on Golf Club Road, and 189 units at 85 Cleaveland Road, the densest development in Pleasant Hill thus far.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-115
Table 4-26 Entitled or Approved Residential Projects
Application Address & Name APN Zoning Net Units Description Last Motion Status 17-0386 2060 Lisa Ln
“Hendren” 148-061-034 R-7
1 (Above
Moderate)
Building a new single-family home
on vacant land
Building permit
issued Pending
18-0359 85 Cleaveland Rd
“Blake-Griggs” 150-210-059 PUD DSP
189
(9 Low, 10
Moderate, 170
Above Moderate)
Demolish abandoned office building
and build new 189-unit multi-family
complex with 19 deed restricted
units
Building permit
issued
Under
Construction
18-0367 McKissick 149-061-026
149-061-033 R-10 4 (Above Moderate)
Build four new single-family homes
on vacant land
Entitlements
approved
Under
Construction
18-0383
1750 Oak Park Blvd
“Former Oak Park
Elementary”
149-271-017 thru
149-271-056
(except 149-271-
051)
PUD 940 34 (Above
Moderate)
Demolish abandoned public
elementary school and build a 34-
unit single family detached small
unit subdivision
Building permit
issued
Under
Construction
19-0028 401 Taylor Blvd 153-050-057
153-050-058 PUD 947
37 (31 Above
Moderate, 6
Low)
Demolish existing office building
and build a 31-unit residential
subdivision with six deed restricted
lower-income ADUs
Building permit
issued
Under
Construction
19-0104 195 Cortsen Rd
“Eva” 166-070-054 R-10 1 (Above Moderate)
Building a new single-family home
on vacant land
Entitlements
approved Pending
19-0323 1667 Oak Park Bl
“Manor Place” 170-082-009 R-10 2 (Above Moderate)
Two new single-family homes on
vacant land
Building permit
issued
Under
Construction
19-0345 Lot 27 (Janin Pl)
“Nazmi” 154-140-027 PUD 165 1 (Above Moderate)
Building a new single-family home
on vacant land
Entitlements
approved Pending
19-0416 574 Creekside Rd
“Schmitt” 152-091-031 R-7
1 (Above
Moderate)
Building a new single-family home
on vacant land
Entitlements
approved
Under
Construction
21-0294 490 Golf Club Rd
“SAHA” 153-030-004 PUD 942 82 (81 Low and 1Above Moderate) Demolish existing 75+ year old nonresidential use Mt. Diablo Center for Adult Day Care Center and build
three story deed-restricted 81-unit
low-income senior complex with 1
above moderate-unit reserved for
on-site management
Entitlements
approved Pending

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-116
Pending Projects
Pleasant Hill’s optimal location and community has made it a desired destination for many who are moving into the Bay Area. However, a lack of land has restricted much new residential development in the city despite high demand. The following projects are residential developments that haven’t completed the planning review process and are still in the applications phase, under review by the Architectural Review Commission, or at any other stage whereas builders aren’t able to start their construction. All these projects are projected to be completed during the next planning period.

Currently, there are five pending projects in Pleasant Hill that yield net positive housing growth.

Notably, this list includes 85 Woodworth Lane and 250 Cleaveland Road, two properties the City inherited from the Redevelopment Agency that agreed to be sold to Habitat for Humanity.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-117
Table 4-27 Pending Residential Projects
Application
Address &
Name APN Zoning Net Units Description Status
19-0002
230-240 Cleaveland
Rd
“Harb”
149-130-032 PUD 410
7 (7 Above
Moderate, 1
Low and 1 Very
Low)
New three-story multifamily residential
condominium complex
with nine units, of which
one is low-income and one
very low-income housing
Incomplete permit application
20-0144 6200 Alhambra Av
“Sancerre Village”
154-680-008
thru 154-648-
014 (formerly
154-680-002)
PPD 451
8 (6 Above
Moderate and 1
Low and 1 Very
Low)
Six new single-family
homes on vacant land Pending, under review
21-0495 106 Lorenzo Dr
“Harb” 127-063-001 R-7
1 (Above
Moderate)
New multi-family
residential complex
Approved, pending building
permit submittal
22-0063
85 Woodsworth Ln
“Habitat for
Humanity”
150-150-071 PUD 347
4 (1 Above
Moderate and 3
Low)
New four-unit multi-family
residential complex on
vacant land
Pending, comments provided
n/a 250 Cleaveland Rd
“Habitat for
Humanity”
149-130-016 PUD 410 7 (4 Moderate
and 3 Low)
New seven-unit multifamily residential complex
on property with two SF
units
Pending, awaiting application

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-118
Projected Accessory Dwelling Units
During the 5th cycle, Pleasant Hill found substantial housing growth from the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on residential lots across the City. Residents have found ADUs to be a cost-effective way to earn extra income, increase the City’s housing stock, and increase their property values. The City expects that this growth from ADUs will continue in the future to further meet housing needs.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.1, the City can satisfy its regional housing need using ADU and junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) trends and existing resources and incentives that promote their development. In 2019, 2020, and 2021, the City approved an average of 25 ADUs per year. As a conservative total, HCD recommends a minimum assumption equal to the average permitted total for recent years, which equates to 200 units. The City, however, believes a less conservative goal of 320 units is realistic in the planning period due to increasing trends and new incentives provided within the Housing Element.

According to an ABAG report on the affordability of accessory dwelling units, ADUs should be considered a housing type that is available mostly to moderate- and lower-income households.

However, research on ADU rental prices and the constant high rental rates in Pleasant Hill indicate that ADUs are typically rented at market rate and should be considered higher income units. For a more in-depth report on the pricing of ADUs, see the ADU section in Governmental Constraints.

Given this assumption, ADUs are assumed to primarily be moderate-income and above moderateincome units. The calculations used, in comparison to ABAG recommendations are provided in Table 4-28.

Table 4-28 ADU Affordability Assumptions for the Sixth Cycle RHNA Income Group
ABAG Recommended ADU
Affordability Assumption
Selected ADU Affordability
Assumption
Very Low 30% 0%
Low 30% 0%
Moderate 30% 87%
Above Moderate 10% 13%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. “DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units.” 8 September 2021.

Table 4-29 List of Approved Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), 2016-2022 Application Address Permit Approval Date
16-0723 840 Grayson Road 7/7/16
16-0759 1955 Elinora Drive 7/19/16
17-0438 106 Beverly Drive 7/28/16
16-0911 256 Douglas Lane 8/25/16
17-0807 112 Mazie Drive 7/7/17
17-1470 961 Irvin Court 11/22/17
17-1598 16 Capri Lane 12/18/17
14-0371 539 Tananger Heights Lane 2/6/18
14-0371 507 Tananger Heights Court 2/6/18

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-119
Application Address Permit Approval Date
14-0371 532 Tananger Heights Lane 2/6/18
14-0371 511 Tananger Heights Lane 2/6/18
18-0464 181 Devon Avenue 12/6/18
18-0496 1730 Mary Drive 4/23/19
19-0495 4 Kulani Lane 5/10/19
19-0539 2130 Orin Lane 5/20/19
19-0195 331 Boyd Road 5/31/19
19-0761 455 Fensalir Avenue 7/2/19
19-0791 218a Ashton Way 7/9/19
19-0025 10 Barocio Court 8/5/19
19-0334 168 Belle Avenue 9/10/19
19-0312 316 Third Avenue South 9/29/19
19-0404 2033 Hoover Avenue 10/28/19
20-0009 779 Hamilton Drive 1/3/20
19-0569 541 Freya Way 2/13/20
19-0505 247 Douglas Lane 2/21/20
20-0083 1749 Ruth Drive 2/27/20
20-0099 224 Oak Park Lane 4/7/20
18-0383 1750 Oak Park Boulevard 5/11/20
19-1287 206a Ashton Way 5/19/20
19-1289 220a Ashton Way 5/27/20
20-0576 226 Oak Park Lane 6/5/20
20-0076 119a Ashton Way 8/18/20
20-0083 125a Ashton Way 8/25/20
20-0369 1566 Ruth Drive 10/1/20
20-0959 119 Hubbard Avenue 10/5/20
20-0262 1700 Lucille Lane 10/8/20
20-0372 203 Hazel Drive 10/14/20
20-0378 237 Rainbow Lane 11/4/20
20-0431 111 Buxton Circle 11/19/20
20-0395 103a Ashton Way 11/19/20
20-0430 242 Elaine Drive 11/24/20
20-0089 909 Santa Lucia Drive 12/1/20
21-0016 1850 Lucille Lane 1/15/21
21-1219 909 Santa Lucia Drive 2/19/21
21-0017 113 Vivian Drive 2/24/21
21-0176 1686 Pleasant Hill Road 3/18/21
21-0068 1661 Mary Drive 4/19/21
20-1245 100 Mercury Way 4/19/21

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-120
Application Address Permit Approval Date
21-0139 176 Western Hills Drive 4/22/21
21-0038 201 Elderwood Drive 4/27/21
21-0519 20 El Rancho Drive 5/6/21
21-0196 267 Betty Lane 5/6/21
21-0659 174 Agnes Way 5/14/21
21-0756 34 Phyllis Drive 5/26/21
21-0209 261 Rainbow Lane 6/4/21
21-0154 1943 Peggy Drive 6/4/21
21-0166 1661 Mary Drive 6/17/21
21-0561 267 Betty Lane 6/18/21
21-0250 34 Phylis Drive 6/24/21
21-0228 754 Cumberland Court 6/24/21
21-0672 261 Rainbow Lane 6/25/21
21-0224 1655 Merian Drive 7/9/21
21-0975 295 Oakvue Lane 7/16/21
21-1007 754 Cumberland Court 7/21/21
20-0294 204 Poshard Street 7/27/21
20-0399 553 Golf Club Road 8/4/21
21-0834 700 Cumberland Court 8/4/21
21-0108 2988 Dorothy Drive 8/12/21
21-0221 2988 Dorothy Drive 8/12/21
21-1125 1531 Wendy Drive 8/17/21
21-0378 205 Astrid Drive 9/9/21
21-0028 401 Taylor Blvd 9/13/21
21-0251 242 Elaine Drive 9/15/21
21-0265 142 Sylvia Drive 9/30/21
21-0388 49 Pillon Real 10/7/21
21-0357 218 Steven Circle 10/13/21
21-1189 49 Pillon Real 10/18/21
21-0940 1767 Shirley Drive 10/18/21
21-1054 167 Cleopatra Drive 10/18/21
21-1129 218 Steven Circle 10/18/21
21-0469 51 El Rancho Drive 11/8/21
21-0423 2130 Geary Road 11/18/21
21-0334 38 Alan Drive 11/18/21
21-0297 1767 Shelley Drive 12/8/21
21-1277 105 Oakvue Road 12/8/21
21-0463 30 Paradise Lane 12/30/21
21-1711 20 El Rancho Drive 12/31/21

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-121
Underutilized Site Redevelopment Trends
Vacant sites are becoming less common in Pleasant Hill, which means that in response to high demand for new residential housing, underutilized sites across the city are set to redevelop into new, more dense uses that accommodate a larger amount of housing. Table 4-30 provides a list of recently completed or in progress housing developments that have occurred on underutilized sites in the city. These sites are those which meet at least one of the following criteria:
▪ Commercial/office/nonresidential/PUD zoned sites that have been redeveloped for residential uses (dedicated, or mixed-use)
▪ Residential projects that resulted in increased density/upzoning of the existing zone ▪ Redeveloped residentially zoned sites (excluding individual single-family homes) ▪ Subdivision of residentially zoned sites for further housing development ▪ Redevelopment performed towards a mixed-use concept
The two most recently approved large multi-family housing developments, the Choice in Aging Campus and 85 Cleaveland, are both built on previously underutilized sites. These sites provide the basis for typical density assumptions for redevelopment sites by income level.

Choice in Aging, a 100 percent affordable senior development, will provide 81 units of low-income senior housing and one manager’s unit on 1.12 acres of land, creating a density of 73.2 dwelling units per acre. The Choice in Aging property is currently a four-acre site with an existing commercial structure zoned Planned Unit Development. The site is being subdivided into two lots with the residential parcel totaling 1.12 net acres. The residential parcel will be designated as MultiFamily Very High Density, which allows for 40 to 73 dwelling units per acre. The development will build out to 100 percent of its maximum density under its zoning designation. 85 Cleaveland, Pleasant Hill’s largest multi-family housing development, will provide 189 units of mostly market-rate housing on 2.33 acres of land, creating a density of 81 dwelling units per acre. 85 Cleaveland was zoned as a part of Planned Unit District No. 943, which is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan. 85 Cleaveland’s rezoning required an amendment to the 1991 Downtown Specific Plan to remove the parcel from the plan area. Additionally, the City, in preparation for this historic multi-family development, has created a special General Plan land use designation, MultiFamily Cleaveland Very High Density, just for the 85 Cleaveland parcel. This new designation allows for 40 to 93 dwelling units per acre, a new high for the City.

Given the continuing trends towards higher density redevelopment in Pleasant Hill as evidenced by these two projects, it is assumed that, after adjusting for land use controls, the typical density of projects in Pleasant Hill will be at 95 percent of their maximum allowed density under its zoning designation. With the stable high value of land in Pleasant Hill, affordable projects are assumed to have higher density to make up for land expenses and initial capital costs.

Table 4-30 provides a comprehensive review of redeveloping or developed sites that provide evidence of both the market demand and sufficient incentive towards the future growth of redevelopment on underutilized sites in the city.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-122
Table 4-30 Recent Underutilized Sites Redeveloped for Residential uses, 2017-2022 Application Address APN Net Units Existing/Previous Use Project Description Result PLN 21-0294 490 Golf Club Rd
“SAHA” 153-030-004
82 (81 Low, 1
Above
Moderate)
75+ year old office building
currently in use by Mt. Diablo
Center for Adult Day Care
Demolish existing 75+ year old
non-residential use Mt. Diablo
Center for Adult Day Care Center
and build three story deedrestricted 81-unit low-income senior complex with 1 above
moderate-unit reserved for onsite management
Approved, site
improvements
underway
PLN 18-0359 85 Cleaveland Rd
“Blake-Griggs” 150-210-059
189
(9 Low, 10
Moderate, 170
Above
Moderate)
Abandoned Wells Fargo Bank
office building and parking lot
Demolish abandoned office
building and build new 189-unit
multi-family complex with 19
deed restricted units
Under
Construction
PLN 17-0013
2150, 2198 Pleasant
Hill Rd
“Reliez Terraces”
149-051-021
thru 149-051-
037
16 (Above
Moderate)
Molino’s Ravioli commercial
building/ restaurant (2150)
and single-family home (2198)
Demolished commercial building
and single-family home and built
a 17 unit planned unit
development.

Under
Construction
PLN 19-0028 401 Taylor Blvd 153-050-057
153-050-058
37 (31 above
moderate and
6 ADU’s (deed
restricted to
low income)
Office building
Demolish existing office building
and build a 31 small lot single
family with six deed restricted
lower-income ADUs.

Under
Construction
MS 08-002 and
ARC 10-007 297 Cortsen Road
166-050-007
166-060-045
166-070-048
3 (1 existing)
Above
Moderate
Single family residence Four lot subdivision
Map approved;
construction not
started.

PLN 19-0416 574 Creekside Rd 152-091-031 1 Above
Moderate Vacant Single Family Residence Completed
PLN 19-0323 Corner of Oak Park
and Manor Road 170-082-009
Two Above
Moderate
Units
Vacant Two lot subdivision Under construction
PLN 17-0063 2187 & 2189 Pleasant
Hill Road
166-090-068
166-090-069
Two Above
Moderate
Units
Single Family Residence Three lot subdivision Completed PLN 22-0015 255 Rainbow Lane 170-020-020
1 (1 existing)
Above
Moderate
Single family residence Two lot subdivision Under Planning Review
PLN 20-0123 425 Roberta Avenue 149-143-013
1 (1 existing)
Above
Moderate
Single family residence Two lot subdivision Approved
PLN 19-0345 Lot 27 (Janin Place) 154-140-027
1 (1 existing)
Above
Moderate
Vacant New single-family residence Approved

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-123
Application Address APN Net Units Existing/Previous Use Project Description Result PLN 19-0002 230-240 Cleaveland
Rd 149-130-032
7 (two existing
residences) 1
low income, 1
very low
income and 5
above
moderate
Two single family residences
Demolish two SF residential
units, and build nine-unit multifamily residential
Under Planning
Review
PLN 15-0339 100 Mayhew Way 148-070-004
44 Above
Moderate & 15
ADU’s
PGE Office Building
Demolish existing building and
build 44 small lot single family
residential units and 15 ADU’s
Completed
PLN 14-0371 Taylor Blvd and
Mercury Wy
152-070-003
152-070-010
152-070-012
152-070-014
152-070-016
18 Above
Moderate
Units (6 ADU’s
Low Income)
Vacant Develop 18 single family
residential units and 6 ADU’s Completed
PLN 21-0192 Sancerre Village 148-490-049
8 (6 Above
Moderate and
1 low and 1
very low ADU)
Vacant Eight unit single family
residential subdivision
Modification to
previously
approved plan
PLN 19-0216 590 Creekside Rd 152-091-004
2 (1 existing
unit) Above
Moderate
Single family residence Three lot subdivision Final Map approved
PLN 18-0383 1750 Oak Park Blvd 149-271-014
34 Above
Moderate
units & 7
ADU’s
Library
Demolish and relocated library
and build 34 small lot single
family residences with 7 ADU’s
Under construction
PLN 18-0367 0 McKissick Street 149-061-026 &
149-061-033
4 Above
Moderate Vacant Four lot subdivision Under construction

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-124
Residential Sites Inventory
Following the analysis of RHNA credits, specific sites throughout the city were considered for potential for housing development. Site selection for the residential site inventory started with City owned sites where residential development is in line with short-term City goals, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residential use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residential development or residential development at a higher density. Several constraints were considered for each site, including environmental concerns, utility or infrastructure access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realistic capacity assumptions.

Sites identified for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 20 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-125
Figure 4-48 Identified Sites by Zone

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-126
Figure 4-49 Identified Sites by Type of Site

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-127
Figure 4-50 Lower-Income Sites, by Zone

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-128
Housing Opportunity Sites
Demand for non-vacant site redevelopment in Pleasant Hill is still high, as evidenced in Table 4-30, and is expected to continue moving into the sixth cycle. The following housing opportunity sites have been identified as feasible sites for redevelopment within the sixth cycle. These sites are underutilized with low-density uses, large parking lots, old structures, and low improvement values compared to land values.

The City has notified all property owners of housing opportunity sites regarding their property’s inclusion within the sites inventory. Property owners that have felt that redevelopment at the proposed zoning designation was not feasible in the planning period were removed from consideration at this time.

In calculating unit capacity by income category, the sites inventory uses conservative estimates for mixed use housing opportunity sites. Although many of the mixed use sites allow 100 percent residential use, the sites inventory assumes a typical use mix of 75 percent residential and 25 percent nonresidential to ensure that the City provides enough available capacity to realistically meet the RHNA. Housing Opportunity Sites not positioned along Contra Costa Boulevard (sites A, H, I, J, K, and L) allow up to 100 percent residential uses. No mixed-use housing opportunity sites allow for less than 50 percent residential uses.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-129
Site A: Diablo Valley College Overflow Parking Lot
APN(s): 153-030-054 (outlined in blue)
Site A is composed of a large, singular parcel located at 440 Golf Club Road. The property is underutilized as an overflow surface parking lot for Diablo Valley College, which is located immediately south of the parcel. The parcel is owned by the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD). The parking lot, even during school days, often does not reach half its capacity. The current land use designation is School and the zoning is Single-family Residential, The proposed land use and zoning designation is Mixed Use Very High Density, 70-100 dwelling units per acre.

From a fiscal perspective, the property also has an extremely low improvement ratio of 0.16 with the improvement value of the parking lot being $692,298 and the land value assessed at $4,156,736. The site’s proximity to the Choice in Aging site, which is a high-density senior facility currently under construction, makes Site A a prime location for high density housing.

If fully built-out the site can accommodate more than 700 units under definitions of the Mixed Use Very High-Density designation, however, a more realistic capacity assumes development on six acres of the site, which equates to 350 units. Given the public ownership of the property, the City assumes that the property could be used entirely for low-income housing and has allocated 175 units toward low-income capacity and 175 units toward very low-income capacity.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-130
Table 4-31 Site A Summary
Site Description
Site Size 10 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use School
Existing Zoning Single Family – 7,000 Sq. Ft. Lots (R-7), 4.6-7.3 du/ac Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use Very High Density, 70-100 du/ac Current Allowed Density 7 du/ac
Proposed Density 70-100 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 700
Realistic Capacity 350
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 175 Very Low, 175 Low Current Use Institutional – Parking lot
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 0.17 (Extremely low) Year of Construction N/A
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-131
Site B: JCPenney
APN(s): 153-230-003, 153-250-007
Site B is composed of two adjacent parcels that total 6.64 acres, located at 675, 677, and 685 Contra Costa Boulevard. The site is underutilized with three existing commercial buildings and a large parking lot. The largest of the commercial buildings, a two-story vacant commercial building built in 1977, was a JCPenney Home Store that served as the anchor for this northern section of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center. The store closed in 2020 and hasn’t had a permanent tenant since.

The building is currently temporarily used as a COVID-19 testing and vaccination clinic. The two additional buildings on site, also constructed in 1977, are a 3,108 square foot Burger King fast food restaurant (677) and a 4,113 square foot dental office (675). The sites inventory does not assume redevelopment of the Burger King and Dental Office, limiting the area assumed for redevelopment to 5.81 acres.

The site is in a prime area with access to a variety of services, including walkability to Safeway supermarket and Sunvalley Mall. Given the high potential of the site, the advanced age of the buildings present, and the lack of interests in tenants for the old JCPenney building, it is a prime spot for mixed-use development.

With its large size and accessibility, the site has the capacity for 175 lower income units of.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-132
Table 4-32 Site B Summary
Site Description
Site Size 5.81 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Commercial and Retail
Existing Zoning Retail Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 332
Realistic Capacity 175
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 88 Very Low
87 Low
Current Use Commercial – Parking and Vacant Building
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 1.23
Year of Construction 1977
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints 1% Western edge of the site (adjacent to Burger King and dental office) is located in a 100 Year FEMA Flood Zone, however, most of the site is not in the flood zone.

Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-133
Site C: TAP Plastics (TAP 1)
APN(s): 127-050-052 (outlined in blue)
Site C is composed of a single 0.58-acre parcel located at 1476 and 1478 Contra Costa Boulevard.

The site is underutilized with one existing single-story structure and a large parking lot. The 7,897 square foot building built in 1960 is occupied by two tenants: TAP Plastics and Sherwin William’s Paints.

Given the 60-year age of the structure, its prime location along Contra Costa Boulevard, and its proximity to other high density residential development, the site is poised to be a site of high interest for residential development. The site is very underdeveloped compared to existing surrounding structures east of the site. The site has realistic capacity for 20 lower-income units.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-134
Table 4-33 Site C Summary
Site Description
Site Size 0.58 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed Use, 12-40 du/ac
Existing Zoning Retail Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 12-40 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 28
Realistic Capacity 20
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 10 Very Low
10 Low
Current Use Commercial – Community
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 1.29
Year of Construction 1960
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-135
Site D: Estates Consignment (Consignment or TAP2)
APN(s): 127-061-030 (outlined in blue)
Site D is composed of a single 0.95-acre parcel located at 1500 Contra Costa Boulevard. The site is underutilized with one existing single-story structure and a large parking lot. The 11,460 square foot building was built in 1959 and is occupied by Estate Consignments.

Site D has a structure that has just reached 60 years old and has a large parking lot that makes it a much less dense use compared to surrounding properties. Additionally, according to assessor parcel data, the site has a higher land value than improvement value. The land is assessed at $2,192,600 and the improvement value is $1,130,040. This would make an improvement value ratio of 0.52, a very low ratio indicating a high demand for higher value uses. The site can realistically accommodate 33 lower income units.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-136
Table 4-34 Site D Summary
Site Description
Site Size 0.95 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed Use, 12-40 du/ac
Existing Zoning Retail Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 12-40 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 47
Realistic Capacity 33
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 16 Very Low
17 Low
Current Use Commercial – Community
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 0.52
Year of Construction 1959
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-137
Site E: Gregory Gardens Shopping Center
APN(s): 150-052-009
Located at 1601 to 1699 Contra Costa Boulevard, Site E is a singular 3.59-acre parcel composed of a 43,902 square foot single-story structure that makes up the Gregory Gardens Shopping Center, The structure was built in 1950 and has sixteen tenants: California Dining and Barstools furniture store (1601), Donut King dessert shop (1607), Pho Saigon City #2 Vietnamese sit-down restaurant (1617), Pleasant Day Family Spa (1625), Cybercopy print shop (1631), MVP Sportscards specialty store (1637), Park Avenue Cleaners (1643), New York Pizza & Pasta (1649), Escape from Fisherman’s Wharf seafood restaurant (1661), Bay Area Properties real estate office (1663), Grocery Outlet (1671), Green Garden Asian Cuisine (1675), National Liquors (1683), Perfect Haircuts & Nails (1687), Blue Cave Smoke Shop (1691), and Goodwill of the Greater East Bay, Pleasant Hill thrift store (1699).

The site is heavily underutilized, as evidenced by its large parcel size, 72-year-old vintage and expansive parking lot. With access to Contra Costa Boulevard, and a long history of commercial tenants, the site is tailored towards mixed use development. The site’s land value also vastly exceeds its improvement value. The site’s assessed land value is $5,236,880, while its improvement value is $1,696,444. This would create an improvement value ratio of 0.32, indicating a high degree of underutilization and an extremely high demand for higher value uses. With mixeduse high-density zoning, Site E has a realistic capacity of 126 lower-income units.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-138
Table 4-35 Site E Summary
Site Description
Site Size 3.59 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Commercial and Retail
Existing Zoning Retail Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 332
Realistic Capacity 126
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 63 Very Low
63 Low
Current Use Commercial – Shopping Center / Supermarket
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 0.32
Year of Construction 1950
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-139
Site F: Contra Costa Boulevard – Gregory Lane North (CCB-GREG North) APN(s): 150-123-028, 150-123-025, 150-150-066, 150-123-023, 150-023-024 (outlined in blue) Site F is composed of five continuous parcels totaling 2.89 acres located between Vivian Drive and Woodsworth Lane with street addresses 1825, 1845, 1855, 1873, 1881, and 1885 Contra Costa Boulevard; 33 and 41 Woodsworth Lane; and 15 and 25 Vivian Drive. The site is underutilized with seven buildings and a large amount of parking.
41 Woodsworth Lane is a small parcel at the southern end of the site that consists of one single story structure and a parking lot with approximately 15 spaces. The 2,780 square foot structure built in 1954 on the site, is occupied by Sichuan Fortune House sit-down restaurant, which opened at the location in January 2014.

To the east of 41 Woodsworth is a small shopping strip that consists of one single story structure and a parking lot that approximately takes up half of the parcel. The 5,832 square foot shopping strip built in 1963 composes of addresses 1873 thru 1893 Contra Costa Boulevard and 33 Woodsworth Lane. The shopping strip has four tenants: Cigarettes! Outlet (1873), Sue’s Hair Salon (1881), Pleasant Day Spa (1885), and Launderland (33 Woodsworth Lane).

The central portion of Site H Is composed of two parcels which contain two single story structures and a large parking lot. These sites comprise the Pleasant Hill Service Center at 1845 and 1855 Contra Costa Boulevard. All tenants at the shopping center are catered towards car repair and service. 1845 Contra Costa Boulevard is a 6,624 square foot building built in 1985 with one tenant:

Big O Tires. 1855 Contra Costa Boulevard is a 9,965 square foot building built in 1985 with four tenants: Walnut Creek Automotive, Mike’s Automotive Service, and JT Motors.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-140
The northeastern-most parcel of Site F has a singular one-story structure with rear parking that comprise 1825 and 1827 Contra Costa Boulevard. The structure is 5,192 square feet and was built in 1964. There is currently one tenant: Custom Car Alarms.

The northern parcel of Site F has two single-story structures with a large parking lot that comprise 15 and 25 Vivian Drive. The two structures, both built in 1988, total up to 12,168 square feet. There are currently four tenants on the parcel: Leslie’s Pool Supplies (25), I heart art studio (15A), Youth Homes Thrift Shop (15B), and Kunio’s Automotive Repair (15E).

Site F contains many structures are all of an advanced age, with most buildings built in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The site is also fragmented with a large portion dedicated to parking lots, which suggests heavy underutilization. Given the site’s direct access to traffic existing from Interstate 680 South, the site provides ample opportunities for high traffic commercial and highly serviced residential uses. The site also provides walkable access to Pleasant Hill Library, Crescent Plaza, and Safeway, making it an excellent location for sustainable low-income housing. Site F has a realistic capacity of 57 lower income units.

Table 4-36 Site F Summary
Site Description
Site Size 2.89 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed Use, 20-40 du/ac
Existing Zoning Planned Unit District No. 548
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use, 12-40 du/ac
Current Allowed Density 20-40 du/ac
Proposed Density 12-40 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 82
Realistic Capacity 57
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 28 Very Low
29 Low
Current Use Commercial – General
Commercial – Community (1873)
Commercial – Office/Medical (1825)
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 1.48
Year of Construction 1954 (41), 1963 (1873-1893, 33), 1964 (1825, 1827), 1985 (1845, 1855), 1988 (15, 25)
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-141
Site G: Contra Costa Boulevard – Gregory Lane South (CCB-GREG South) APN(s): 150-150-019, 150-150-055, 150-150-058, 150-150-040, 150-150-079, 150-150-080 (outlined in blue) Site G is composed of six continuous parcels totaling 4.18 acres located between Woodsworth Lane and Gregory Lane with street addresses 1907, 1945, 2001, 2045, 2049, 2051, and 2059 Contra Costa Boulevard and 81 Gregory Lane. The site is underutilized with nine buildings and a very large amount of parking. The opportunity site can be split into five distinct sections which have their own parking lots.

The southernmost section is a small shopping center consisting of three buildings. The largest building, a 13,866 three story office building built in 1990 at 81 Gregory Lane, is currently being leased by multiple tenants. Notable businesses in this building include hair salon Hair at the Ritz and the family dentistry practice of Aaron Grafton, D.D.S. and Ronald E. Grafton, D.D.S, and Pleasant Hill Orthodontics. The second building on the site, built in 1989, is a vacant 4,339 square foot former The Original Pancake House sit-down restaurant that closed in 2018 (2059). The third building on the site, built in 1970, is a vacant 3,929 square foot former Pacific Service Credit Union branch that closed in 2019 (2051). The building hasn’t had a tenant since the closing of the credit union branch.

The second section, composed of a singular parcel at 2049 Contra Costa Boulevard, consists of a singular two-story structure built in 1973. The building is currently being leased by two tenants: VIP Smog, Diablo Ink Tattoo, and Pleasant Hill Psychic. The building also contains a small parking lot behind the building that is entirely filled with cars for VIP Smog’s services.

The third section, composed of a singular parcel at 2045 Contra Costa Boulevard, consists of three single story structures built in 1955 that make up the 26-room Sun Valley Inn Motel. The motel has a large portion of its property dedicated to parking for guests.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-142
The fourth section, composed of two contiguous parcels at 1945 and 2001 Contra Costa Boulevard, consists of three single-story structures. 2001 Contra Costa Boulevard, the Pleasant Hill Square shopping center, is composed of two buildings built in 1989 totaling 16,119 square feet. The center has six current tenants: Three Brothers from China sit-down restaurant, INNOVATION. hair salon, Fast & Easy Mart convenience store, Calico Corners furniture store, Dream Luxury Hair salon, and Pleasant Hill Bargain Cleaners dry cleaners. Given the high improvement value of the section, these parcels are assumed to be of above moderate capacity. This site is still suitable for redevelopment given the thirty-year-old age of the structures on the parcels. 1945 Contra Costa Boulevard, immediately north of Pleasant Hill Square, is composed of a singular 6,320 square foot building built in 1966. There are currently two tenants: The Pleasant Hill 94523 United States Post Office and Noni’s Pet Boutique and Grooming pet care. The parcel has significant amounts of parking in the back of the lot only accessible from Woodsworth Lane.

The fifth section, composed of a small parcel at 1907 Contra Costa Boulevard, consists of a singular single-story structure built in 1954. The building is currently being leased by two tenants:

Deb’s Flower Market and Minuteman Press signage printing. The lot has six parking spots.

The site contains aging structures (all over 30 years old) contrast drastically to the manicured appearance and high traffic of Crescent Plaza across Gregory Lane. Additionally, the site’s extremely divided nature with various parking lots makes it a highly underutilized site with high potential for a larger, more unified development with less acreage used for parking. This site is an example of a potential site that can take advantage of Program DD, which commits the City to facilitating affordable housing through lot consolidation. Due to the higher improvement ratio for the total site, a conservate income distribution has been assumed at this site. At Mixed Use High Density, realistic capacity for the site is 146 units; 37 very low-income, 37 for low-income, and 72 for above moderate-income.

Table 4-37 Site G Summary
Site Description
Site Size 4.18 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed Use, 12-40 du/ac
Existing Zoning Planned Unit District No. 347
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 12-40 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 209
Realistic Capacity 146
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 37 Very Low
37 Low
72 Above Moderate
Current Use Commercial – Community (1945, 2001, 2049)
Commercial – General (1905)
Commercial – Motels (2045)
Commercial – Office/Medical (81)
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 1.51
Year of Construction 1954 (1907), 1954 (1907), 1966 (1945), 1970 (2051), 1973 (2049), 1989 (2059, 2001), 1990 (81)

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-143
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint Site H: Monument Triangle
APN(s): 148-010-012, 148-010-013, 148-010-019, 148-010-020, 148-010-021, 148-010-022, 148-010-023, 148-010-024, 148-010-026, 148-010-028
Site H is a site composed of ten parcels totaling 4.55 acres roughly aligned to a triangle bounded by Monument Boulevard, Lisa Lane, and Iron Horse Trail, located at 2060 thru 2290 Monument Boulevard. The site is underutilized with fifteen structures across commercial, residential, and vacant land uses. A vast majority of the site is composed of parking lots, making it an extremely underutilized site.

At the far northwestern point of the site is a parcel currently occupied by Caliada Motors located at 2060 Monument Boulevard. On site, there are two structures, one which is a small attendant booth and the other, which is a small office, which is less than 500 square feet. The site is almost entirely occupied by parking for the dealership. The lot was formerly a gas station built in 1982.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-144
Directly south of Caliada Motors is a series of three small parcels totaling 0.59 acres. These three parcels make up the majority of the parking lot and contain the main 1,920 square foot single story structure for the Pleasant Hill Xpress branch of Cresco Equipment Rentals. The building was built in 1960.

Behind Cresco Equipment Rentals are three successive parcels shaped in an “L,” which contain nonconforming uses. 2082 Monument Boulevard is a 1,669 square foot single family home built in 1949 with half of its property being used as a parking lot for Cresco Equipment Rentals. 2084 Monument Boulevard is a vacant parcel being used entirely as further storage for Cresco Equipment Rentals. 2086 Monument Boulevard is a 1,065 square foot single family home built in 1949 with most of its property vacant and undeveloped. There are also three storage sheds on the property. All three of these parcels do not have direct access to Monument Boulevard and are instead serviced by an alley shared by Park Royale Mobile Home Park that is on the property of 2080 and 2082 Monument Boulevard.

South of Cresco Equipment Rentals is the Pleasant Hill Medical Center, which is composed of two parcels with five separate buildings, all built between 1958 and 1960. The center encompasses all even addresses between 2100 thru 2258. Pleasant Hill Medical Center is composed of four buildings totaling 15,624 square feet and 2250 Monument Boulevard is composed of one single story 4,198 square foot building. The center contains more than twenty businesses centered around medical and veterinary care.

The southwestern most parcel of the site is a single-story strip mall totaling 4,198 square feet located at 2290, 2294, and 2298 Monument Boulevard. The strip mall was built in 1958 and currently has two tenants: Tacos El Patron Mexican restaurant (2290) and Lingerie Etc, a branch of Secrets Boutiques, adult merchandise store (2298). The strip mall has an alley with thru access to Lisa Lane.

Similar to Site G, Site H is a site of highly fragmented uses that could benefit greatly from lot consolidation. The site also contains a large number of buildings built in the 1950s, making them between 60 and 70 years old. The site also has a low improvement ratio of 0.5, signaling significant demand for a higher value use of the land. Combined, the sites total to an improvement value of $1.5 million with a land value of $3.08 million. Additionally, the site has uses that do not match surrounding land uses. The site is surrounded by high density and low-density residential development, which juxtaposes the industrial nature of much of the site. The site is near Fair Oaks Elementary School and many services in The Crossroads shopping center. For these reasons, Site H is prime for residential development. At Mixed Use Very High, 40-70 du/ac, realistic capacity for Site H is calculated at 157 lower-income units.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-145
Table 4-38 Site H Summary
Site Description
Site Size 4.55 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Commercial and Retail
Existing Zoning General Commercial
Retail Business (2100, 2250, 2290)
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 227
Realistic Capacity 159
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 79 Very Low
80 Low
Current Use Commercial – Community (2060, 2098, 2290)
Commercial – Office/Medical (2100, 2250)
Commercial – General (2096)
Single Family (2082, 2086)
Vacant (2084)
Miscellaneous (2080)
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 0.50
Year of Construction 1949 (2082, 2086), 1958-1960 (2290, 2294, 2298, 2100- 2258) (2098), 1982 (2060)
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-146
Site I: Gregory Lane Southeast (PH Greg SE)
APN(s): 149-380-007 (with commercial condominiums 149-380-001, 149-380-002, 149-380-003, 149-380-004, 149-380-005, 149-380-006), 149-380-090 (outlined in blue)
Site I is composed of two large parcels, and six commercial condominiums, totaling 1.13 acres.

The Site is located at 670 and 690 Gregory Lane. With two structures over 30 years old and a large amount of parking (approximately half the surface area), the site is considered underutilized.

The western parcel, 690 Gregory Lane, has one 4,309 square foot structure built in 1969. The building currently has four tenants: Grace Cleaners (690 #1), State Farm Offices of JP Reed (690 #2), Pleasant Hill Florist (690 #3), and Little Red Bistro (690 #4).

The eastern parcel, 670 Gregory Lane, has two single-story structures totaling to 7,042 square feet built in 1981. 670-A and 670-B are in the one structure and are one, combined condominium. 670-C thru 670-G are in the second structure and each is an individual, separate condominium. Seven businesses are operating out of the shopping strip: Teamwork Nail Spa (670-A), Myrna Casco Insurance Agency (670-B), Higher Ground Chiropractic (670-C), Diablo Stereo and Video (670-D), Diablo Boxing (670-E), Thai Village Restaurant (670-F), M.J. Studios Art and Music (670-G). The commercial condominium on site isn’t an additional constraint on the redevelopment of the property since all of the condominiums are owned by a singular owner.

The site is underutilized with the large amount of parking on site and the advanced age of the two structures on site. Site I is also located adjacent to high density residential uses, which makes the site prime for more high-density residential housing. The site south of the parcel, Grayson Terrace Condominiums, has approximately 26 units of housing. With the proposed land use and zoning designation of Mixed-Use High Density, Site I could realistically have 36 units on site, including nine very low-, nine low-, and 18 above moderate- income units.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-147
Table 4-39 Site I Summary
Site Description
Site Size 1.03 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Neighborhood Business
Existing Zoning Precise Plan District #460
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 51
Realistic Capacity 36
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 9 Very Low
9 Low
18 Above Moderate
Current Use Commercial – Condominium (670) 23
Commercial – Community (690)
Miscellaneous
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 1.54
Year of Construction 1969 (690), 1981 (670)
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint 23 Incorrectly noted in city data as Multifamily – Condominium. 670 Gregory is a Commercial Condominium.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-148
Site J: Gregory Lane Southwest (PH Greg SW)
APN(s): 166-081-031, 166-081-051, 166-081-052 (outlined in blue) Site J is composed of three contiguous parcels totaling 1.03 acres located at 2367 Pleasant Hill Road, 2397 Pleasant Hill Road, and 710 Grayson Road. The site is underutilized with three structures and lots of parking.

The southernmost parcel, 2367 Pleasant Hill Road, has one 776 square foot single story structure built in 1999 currently occupied by American Family Hot Tub and Therapeutic Massage. This business shares a parking lot with 2397 and has a large, fenced yard full of wares.

The largest parcel of the three, 2397 Pleasant Hill Road, which is directly on the southwest corner of Gregory Road and Pleasant Hill Road, has one 5,570 square foot two story structure built in 1951 with a large parking lot and wide setbacks. The anchor of this small shopping strip is Pleasant Hill Market, a small local produce-focused grocery store. Along with the market is junior tenants Siren’s Deli and Juice Bar and The Hot Spot Pizza and Sandwich.

The westernmost parcel, 710 Grayson Road, has one 4,234 square foot single story structure built in 1984 with a small parking lot. The structure is currently being used for the dental offices of Michael E. Huget, D.D.S. and Associates.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-149
Site J is underutilized as evidenced by the large amount of parking and the 70-year-old age of 2397 Pleasant Hill Road. This shopping center is located at a major intersection and sticks out in a lush, green residential area due to its large parking lot with undivided access from the road. This lack of a barrier, green or not, also inhibits safety through its lack of a protected sidewalk on both Grayson Road and Pleasant Hill Road. The site could be redeveloped more intensely with a mix of housing and commercial uses in a manner that would better reflect the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood while working to meet local housing needs.

Table 4-40 Site J Summary
Site Description
Site Size 1.13 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Neighborhood Business (2637, 2397) Office (710)
Existing Zoning Neighborhood Business (2367, 2397)
Planned Unit District #519 (710)
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 56
Realistic Capacity 39
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 19 Very Low
20 Low
Current Use Commercial – Community (2367, 2397)
Commercial – Office/Medical (710)
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 1.12
Year of Construction 1951 (2397), 1984 (710), 1999 (2367) Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-150
Site K: Gregory Lane Northwest (PH Greg NW)
APN(s): 164-131-027 (outlined in blue)
Site K is composed of a singular parcel totaling 0.42 acres located at 2401 Pleasant Hill Road. The site is underutilized with one gas station and accompanying convenience store on site. The Shell Gas Station was built in 1987 with the approximately 900 square feet Shell Food Mart convenience store. As with Site J, most of Site K is pavement. Site K’s pavement is used for cars queuing for gas and parking for the convenience store, sticking out from the green, residential nature of the surrounding community.

Site K is a highly underutilized parcel with its current use. The gas station’s improvement value ratio is 0.5, with the improvement value assessed at $323,435 and the land value assessed at $646,875.

The low improvement value ratio indicates demand for a higher land use at the location. The site’s location at a major intersection makes it an excellent choice for mixed use development.

Realistically, the site can hold 14 units of housing at mixed-use high-density zoning. Due to the small size of the parcel (less than 0.5 acres), the site’s units have been allocated toward the City’s moderate-income goal.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-151
Table 4-41 Site K Summary
Site Description
Site Size 0.42 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Neighborhood Business
Existing Zoning Neighborhood Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 21
Realistic Capacity 14
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 14 Moderate
Current Use Commercial – General
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 0.5 (Low) Year of Construction 1987
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-152
Site L: Gregory Lane Northeast (PH Greg NE)
APN(s): 152-132-047 (outlined in blue)
Site L is composed of a singular 1.06-acre parcel located at 611 Gregory Lane. The site is underutilized with one commercial building and two parking lots taking up much of the parcel’s acreage. The only building on site is the 8,680 square foot Zio Fraedo’s Italian sit-down restaurant built in 2003. Zio Fraedo’s has operated in Pleasant Hill since the 1970s and relocated to its location from its previous location (701 Gregory) in 2003 after a fire.

The site’s underutilization is attributed to the large amount of parking that is present on the parcel.

Parking accounts for approximately 60 percent of the site, making it prime for high value or higher density uses. Similarly, to Site I, Site L is adjacent to high density residential uses, which makes it an optimal site for further high-density residential growth. The parcel north of Site L contains Creekside Park, a condominium community that has approximately 36 units of housing. In the same acreage of Site L, Creekside Park has 18 units spread across three buildings. With a slightly higher density, buildings on Site L can easily meet the 37 assumed capacity. At Mixed Use High Density, the site has the capacity for 37 units. Due to the age of the existing structure (2003) and higher improvement value, site capacity has been assumed as above moderate.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-153
Table 4-42 Site L Summary
Site Description
Site Size 1.06 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Neighborhood Business
Existing Zoning Neighborhood Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 52
Realistic Capacity 37
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 37 Above Moderate Current Use Commercial – General
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 4.68
Year of Construction 2003
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint Table 4-43 summarizes Housing Opportunity sites and RHNA capacity.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-154
Table 4-43 Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites
Site Total
Size
(Acres)
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Improvement
Ratio
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
Realistic
Capacity
Income
A 10.00 Single-Family – 7,000 sq.
ft. Lots
Mixed Use Very High
Density 0.17 70 du/ac 100 du/ac 350 175 Very Low175 Low B 5.81 Retail Business Mixed Use High Density 1.23 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 175 88 Very Low 87 Low
C 0.58 Retail Business Mixed Use High Density 1.29 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 20 10 Very Low 10 Low
D 0.95 Retail Business Mixed Use High Density 0.52 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 33 16 Very Low 17 Low
E 3.59 Retail Business Mixed Use High Density 0.32 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 126 63 Very Low 63 Low
F 2.89 Planned Unit District No.
548 Mixed Use 1.48 12 du/ac 40 du/ac 57 28 Very Low29 Low G 4.18 Planned Unit District No.
347 Mixed Use High Density 1.51 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 146
37 Very Low
37 Low
72 Above Moderate
H 4.55
General Commercial (7
parcels); Retail Business
(3 parcels)
Mixed Use High Density 0.5 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 159 79 Very Low 80 Low
I 1.03 Precise Plan District No.
460 Mixed Use High Density 1.54 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 36
9 Very Low
9 Low
18 Above Moderate
J 1.13
Neighborhood Business
(2 parcels); Planned Unit
District No. 519 (1 parcel)
Mixed Use High Density 1.12 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 39 19 Very Low 20 Low
K 0.42 Neighborhood Business Mixed Use High Density 0.5 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 14 14 Moderate L 1.06 Neighborhood Business Mixed Use High Density 4.68 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 37 37 Above Moderate TOTAL 36.19 1,192
524 Very Low
527 Low
14 Moderate
127 Above Moderate

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-155
Vacant Sites
Pleasant Hill is almost entirely built out and contains little room for new development. Within the City limits, there are scattered vacant parcels that have potential for residential development that can provide capacity to meet and exceed the income-based allocation goals established by the RHNA.

In total, there are 37 identified vacant parcels that have a high likelihood of being developed during the planning period (Table 4-44). These 37 parcels are spread out across a large portion of the city and can accommodate a variety of housing types. In total, these sites can accommodate 232 new housing units. As a conservative assumption, all sites are assumed as above moderate capacity toward the City’s housing goal.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-156
Table 4-44 Vacant Sites
Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Land Use
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental
Constraints
Morello Terraces
Morello Ave and
Paso Nogal Rd /
Netherby Pl
154-140-015 6.55 Single Family Low
Density
Single Family Low
Density
15 15 Above
moderate
Vacant site None
Paso Nogal
Hillside
Paso Nogal Rd
and Pillon Real
north of 5 Pillon
Real
152-010-004 3.40 Single Family Low
Density
Single Family Low
Density
7 7 Above
Moderate
Vacant site Site is located on a
steep, hilly location
that will require
grading. However,
site is for above
moderate-income
capacity, so not
deemed as a
constraint to
development
Beatrice /
Cleaveland
Parcels
Interior parcel
Cleaveland Rd
west of 270
Cleaveland; 576,
590, 564, 570
Beatrice Road;
Northeast corner
Cleaveland Rd /
Beatrice Rd west
of 240 Cleaveland
Rd
149-130-020,
024, 021,
022, 023,
029, 030

5.13 (by
parcel:

2.47,

0.38,

0.36,

0.37,

0.36,

1.19,

2.19)
Planned Unit
District
Multi-Family
Medium Density
149
(by parcel: 51,
8, 7, 7, 7, 24,
45)
149 Above
Moderate
Sites do not need to
undergo lot
consolidation for
development
In a FEMA
designated 100-year
flood plain; creek
runs through sites
and may require
setbacks according
to PHMC
Mayhew Way and
Buskirk Ave
148-090-008 0.21 Professional &
Administrative
Offices
Office24 5 5 Above
Moderate
Consider lot
consolidation with
148-090-028
None
1900 Oak Park
Blvd
149-284-007 0.32 Neighborhood
Business
Mixed Use
Neighborhood
4 4 Above
Moderate
Vacant commercial
site on the corner of
two arterials
None
24 This site will require a conditional use permit (CUP) for use as a residential site.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-157
Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Land Use
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental
Constraints
1680 Oak Park
Blvd
149-260-020 0.45 Single Family–-
7000 sq ft Lots
Mixed Use
Neighborhood
6 6 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood on a
major arterial
None
Interior Parcel
Topaz Ln abutted
by: 216
Devonshire,
100/150 Topaz
152-021-016 2.12 Single Family–-
15,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
4 4 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
On a steep hill
Paso Nogal Road
southwest of 10
Pillon Real
152-010-028 0.29 Single Family–-
15,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
On a steep hill
5 Pillon Real 152-010-016 0.93 Single Family–-
15,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Flag parcel
between 2048
and 2060 Buttner
Road
164-052-029 0.50 Single Family–-
20,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
20 Donkey Flats
Court
164-052-026 0.46 Single Family–-
20,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Slater Avenue and
Taylor Boulevard
164-060-017 0.32 Single Family–-
20,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
1986 Geary Road 170-242-073 0.35 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
170-242-072 was
split between 170-
242-073 and 170-
232-035
Next to creek, may
require appropriate
setbacks according
to PHMC
2272 Pleasant
Hill Road
149-010-095 0.29 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-158
Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Land Use
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental
Constraints
24 Waterberry
Court
166-070-044 0.29 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
30 Oakvue Lane 149-172-038 0.26 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
83 Roberta
Avenue
149-171-026 0.23 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Oakvue Lane
north of 295
Oakvue Lane
149-172-023 0.36 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Approximately
600 Block
Gregory Lane
149-010-036 0.62 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood on a
major arterial
None
South corner
Taylor Blvd and
Pleasant Hill Rd
164-030-008 1.17 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Semi-Public and
Institutional
3 3 Above
Moderate
Vacant site adjacent
to Oasis Christian
Fellowship
None
389 Camino Las
Juntas
152-092-027 0.33 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
On a steep hill
387 Camino Las
Juntas
152-092-026 0.33 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
On a steep hill
North of
westward curve
on Iron Hill Street
164-560-049 0.73 Hillside Planned
Unit District
Single-Family
High Density
3 3 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
Portion of site is on
a very steep hill with
a flatter section
adjacent to Reliez
Valley Rd

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-159
Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Land Use
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental
Constraints
Reliez Valley
Road at city limits
164-560-048 0.19 Hillside Planned
Unit District
Single-Family
High Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Adjacent to 406
Kahrs Avenue
149-032-038 0.19 Single Family–-
7000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
High Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Approximately
1755 Roche Drive
153-060-011 0.41 Single Family–-
7000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
High Density
2 2 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
Next to Grayson
Creek, may require
appropriate
setbacks according
to PHMC
245 Gregory Lane 150-141-002 0.19 Single Family–-
7000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
High Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
243 Gregory Lane 150-141-003 0.19 Single Family–-
7000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
High Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Interior parcel
bounded by
Camino Las
Juntas and
Tanager Heights
Ln
152-070-053 0.76 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Multi-Family Very
Low Density
6 6 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
On a steep hill
Flag parcel on
Topaz Lane east
of 685 Paso
Nogal Road
152-030-053 0.73 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
6 6 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Southeast corner
Taylor Blvd /
Morello Ave
152-352-027 0.30 Planned Unit
District
Multi-Family Low
Density
4 4 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site at the corner of
two arterials
None

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-160
Environmental Constraints Associated with Vacant Sites
The Beatrice / Cleaveland vacant sites (PUD 410) are in a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain and are bounded by a creek. However, flood risk can be mitigated when the site is developed.

Some other sites identified in Table 4-44 have environmental constraints, such as being adjacent to creeks, adjacent to floodplains, and being on steep hills. However, each of the sites with these constraints are reserved for above income units which can reasonably mitigate risks and challenges when the site is developed.

Sites Identified in Previous Housing Elements
The Beatrice / Cleaveland vacant sites are the only identified sites from the 5th cycle Housing Element. All of the sites are identified as above moderate-income sites given the extra development cost of addressing flooding constraints based on the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain.

Summary of RHNA Credits and Sites Inventory
In combination with the City’s pending projects and ADU development trends, the site inventory provides adequate sites to meet the City’s RHNA allocation and buffer requirements. Between these three methods, the city can accommodate a total of 2,124 housing units, including 1,157 lower-income, 308 moderate-income, and 659 above moderate-income units. Table 4-45 shows a summary of the number of housing units accommodated by pending projects, vacant sites, mixed use redevelopment, and ADU trends.

Table 4-45 Summary of 6
th Cycle RHNA Capacity
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 892 254 657 1,803 CREDITS
Assumed Accessory Dwelling
Units 0 280 40 320
Pending and Approved Projects 106 14 260 380
SITES

INVENTORY
Housing Opportunity Sites 1,051 14 127 1,192
Vacant Sites 0 0 232 232
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 1,157 308 659 2,124
RHNA with 20 percent buffer 1,070 305 65725 2,032
Surplus (beyond RHNA with buffer) 87 3 2 92
Percentage of RHNA Planned 130% 121% 100% 118%
25 The additional 20 percent buffer is only required for lower- and moderate-income categories.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-161
City-Owned Surplus Sites
When the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency was dissolved in January 2012, the City of Pleasant Hill, through the Redevelopment Successor Agency, inherited three vacant parcels in 2011 and 2012, two of which were viable for residential development. The City is in agreement to sell two parcels, 250 Cleaveland Road and 85 Woodsworth Lane, for development of low- and very lowincome housing to Habitat for Humanity. 250 Cleaveland Road (APN 149-130-016) was agreed to be sold in October 2019 for $1026 and 85 Woodsworth Lane (APN 150-150-071) is pending sale set for the end of the year 2022. These two parcels are currently pending development and are expected to provide six low-income, four moderate-income, and one above moderate-income units that were counted towards the 5th cycle Regional Needs Housing Allocation credits.

The third parcel, located at the corner of West Hookston Road and Contra Costa Boulevard (APN 149-110-087), is currently still owned by the City and is unsuitable for residential development due to its small size and triangular shape.

The City no longer owns any surplus vacant properties or underutilized properties fit for residential development.

Availability of Infrastructure
Water, sewer, and storm drainage capacity will be sufficient for any housing development within the City of Pleasant Hill during this planning period.

Water Supply
Three different Agencies supply potable water to the residents of Pleasant Hill. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) provides service to most of the City, while the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) provides service to southwestern Pleasant Hill (mainly bounded on the east by Pleasant Hill Road), and Martinez Water District provides service to a small northwestern portion of the city close to Paso Nogal Park.

CCWD, according to its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, is expected to increase its usable capacity with greater use of recycled water systems and importation of water from the Central Valley Project. These changes are expected to help CCWD meet projected population growth in the region. EBMUD, according to its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, is expected to meet all its projected customer demand projected until 2040 with affordances made for two years of drought conditions. There are approximately ten housing units projected in the Martinez Water District’s service area in this housing element. These additional units are not expected to make a significant impact on water demand for the utility.

All three districts have the capacity to serve development through the build-out of this Housing Element. Consistent with State law, affordable housing projects will be given priority for water services.

Water Treatment
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District provides water treatment service for the entire city.

Wastewater treatment is provided at one centrally located plant, which is three miles north of 26 CBS San Francisco. “Habitat For Humanity Buys Pleasant Hill Lot For $10 To Build Housing.” October 4, 2019.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-162
Pleasant Hill at the junction of Interstate 680 and Highway 4 in unincorporated county land. The district is currently processing 34 million gallons of wastewater per day and has a total capacity of 54 million gallons per day.

Storm Drainage
The City’s storm drainage system consists of underground pipes, surface culverts and open ditches that empty into several local creeks and their tributaries. The main creeks are Grayson Creek, Murderer’s Creek, and Walnut Creek. Recent improvements have been approved for storm drains across the city as a part of funding from Measure K, passed in 2016. System-wide storm drainage capacity will not impose a constraint on residential development. Further, the City requires new development projects to comply with a “zero net runoff” standard. That is, post-project hydrologic conditions must not exceed pre-project levels. This can be accomplished by reducing impervious surface areas (for example, installing more landscaping, or pervious surfaces as an alternative to concrete and asphalt), or by storing and metering runoff so as not to exceed previous levels.

Electricity
MCE, which offers sufficient additional capacity and connections for any new development in Pleasant Hill, provides electric service to the entire city. Residents may also choose to opt for service through PG&E instead of MCE.

Gas
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides gas services, electric delivery, billing, and power line maintenance in Pleasant Hill.

Telephone
The city is served by all four major cellular telephone providers: Verizon Wireless, American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T), T-Mobile, and Sprint. The City is also served by a variety of Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVMOs), such as Cricket Wireless, MetroPCS, and Boost Mobile, which offer service to lower income households.

Landline telephone service is provided through internet service providers, such as Xfinity and AT&T.

Internet
The city is served by a variety of internet service providers that provide access to internet for households of all income levels. Pleasant Hill is served by Xfinity and AT&T Internet. Xfinity offers Internet Essentials for low-income households that are a part of certain public assistance programs.

Financial Resources
The City of Pleasant Hill does not have significant financial resources to expend directly towards housing development, however, it is continually looking for new ways to increase funding to help create and maintain affordable housing.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-163
Housing Trust Fund
The Affordable Housing Trust Fund is a fund that receives in-lieu fees from developers who do not include prescribed affordable units in their development. The Trust Fund is the City’s primary source for funding affordable housing. The City primarily uses these funds to loan developers funding for new construction in exchange for enforcing deed restrictions when their property is ready for tenants. The City also has the option of using Trust Fund monies in other ways as the City sees fit to proactively support demand for affordable housing.

As of the beginning of the sixth cycle, the housing trust fund currently has low reserves. however, Program T commits the City to amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which sets in-lieu fees.

The City hopes to update the ordinance to better reflect the true price of developing affordable housing in this hot housing market.

Housing Successor Agency
The Pleasant Hill Housing Successor Agency, which was established in 2012 as redevelopment agencies were abolished under state law, has the responsibility of winding down the commitments of its predecessor. The Housing Successor Agency no longer owns any property; however, it still honors previously established loans issued to multi-family developments in Pleasant Hill. The Housing Successor Agency also receives housing rehabilitation loans. Table 4-46 shows the breakdown of the 224 affordable units the Housing Successor’s subsidizes as of the beginning of the sixth cycle. Table 4-47 shows inventory of 27 upcoming units the Housing Successor has committed to subsidizing.

Table 4-46 Housing Successor Subsidized Units
Development Total Units
Affordable
Units Deed Restrictions
Grayson Creek Apartments 71 71 2070
Hookston Manor Senior
Apartments
100 99 2075
Garden Park Apartments 29 27 2072
Villa Montanaro Apartments 157 12 2036
IMT Pleasant Hill (formerly
Lincoln Green Apartments)
252 4 Yes, Date Unknown
Gallery Walk 133 11 Yes, 45 years
Total Redevelopment Agency Subsidized Units 224
Source: City of Pleasant Hill, 2022; Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency Successor Annual Report, 2019-2020.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-164
Table 4-47 Upcoming Successor Subsidized Units
Development Total Units
Affordable
Units
Successor Agency
Subsidized Units
Choice in Aging Campus 82 81 27
Source: Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency Successor Annual Report, 2019-2020.

Community Resources
Several organizations are operating across Contra Costa County to provide holistic resources to people experiencing housing insecurity. Public organizations help administer government-funded programs, such as Section 8, that aim to address homelessness. Many non-profit affordable housing organizations help not only help people have access to housing, but also provide a system of support through community, case workers, and employment.

Public Affordable Housing Resources
Important resources, including housing and healthcare, available to people experiencing homelessness through public agencies in Contra Costa County. A majority of programs are operated through the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa.

Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa, shortened as Contra Costa Housing Authority, is a public agency that provides rental subsidies, manages, and develops affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities in the county. The Housing Authority operates much like a special district, operating separately from county government organizations, however still under the purview of the state government. The Housing Authority offers a variety of vouchers and programs which aim to help provide housing to people in need.

Housing Choice Voucher
The Housing Choice Voucher, better known as Section 8, is a federally funded program for assisting very-low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled with access to housing. The Housing Authority is the local administrator of Housing Choice Voucher program. The program allows qualified applicants to use their voucher at low-income housing properties that allow for a subsidized rate of rent. Housing Choice Vouchers have the additional property of being portable, which means that if a family chooses to move to another property, their voucher can be transferred to their next home.

Project Based Voucher
A major component of the larger Housing Choice Voucher program, the Project Based Voucher Program is a federally funded program that encourages property owners to construct new or upgrade substandard rental housing for low-income families. The Housing Authority is the administrator of this program and issues Request for Proposals to notify property owners of housing funding opportunities. Property owners who participate in the program are subject to a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contract that lasts for up to a term of up to 20 years of rental subsidy. 726 units have been assisted by the voucher, including Hookston Senior Homes in Pleasant Hill, which provides 44 units of senior housing.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-165
Shelter Plus Care
Shelter Plus Care, federally created under the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, is a program that aims to promote permanent housing with supportive services to persons with disabilities coming that are experiencing homelessness. The program distinguishes itself from the Housing Choice Voucher program by requiring supportive services that match equal to, or greater than the rental assistance award. Shelter Plus Care is administered by the Contra Costa Housing Authority with funding directly from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Shelter Plus Care is a program eligible to homeless people with mental illness, a substance abuse problem, HIV/AIDS, or a dual diagnosis, and have inadequate nighttime residence.

Veterans Affairs Supporting Housing Voucher Program
The Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Voucher Program (VASH) is a federally administered housing program aimed to provide chronically homeless veterans with housing and access to case management. VASH vouchers are distributed to public housing agencies, such as the Contra Costa Housing Authority, based on geographic need and administrative performance. The Contra Costa Housing Authority currently holds 93 VASH vouchers earned from three awards. The recipients will need to be deemed eligible by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Martinez in addition to being deemed eligible by the Contra Costa Housing Authority under Housing Choice Voucher guidelines.

Mainstream Voucher Program
The Mainstream Voucher Program provides rental assistance to non-elderly persons with a disability. There are currently 55 Vouchers active, all administered by the Contra Costa Housing Authority, which are available through the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list.

State of California Homekey Program
Homekey is a state-administered program that aims to develop a variety of housing types for those experiencing homelessness, including hotels, motels, hostels, single-family homes, and multifamily apartments. The program also includes funding top convert commercial properties to permanent or interim housing. Homekey is available to public agencies, such as the Contra Costa Housing Authority, to fund needed projects.

Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS)
Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) is a department of Contra Costa County which provides public healthcare to all people in Contra Costa County with special attention to those who are most vulnerable to health problems. CCHS operates the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez, which is the County’s only public hospital. CCHS is funded almost entirely by state and federal programs. CCHS also administers the Continuum of Care (CoC) program of Contra Costa County, which helps coordinate resources for those who are experiencing homelessness. As a part of this program, CCHS operates the annual Point in Time (PIT) count, which counts the number of homeless people across Contra Costa County. Such data is important for cities across the County to make informed decisions for policies that generate affordable housing.

Non-Profit Affordable Housing Resources
In addition to public agencies and resources, Pleasant Hill is served by many non-profits which aim to help provide and support affordable housing across the city. Many of these agencies have been operating for decades in collaboration with civic leaders and local stakeholders.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-166
Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Successor Agency
The Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Successor Agency is, as its name implies, the successor to the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency that was abolished by state law in 2012. The successor agency aims to wind down the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency and pay off any debt obligations incurred by the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency has a significant role in helping fund many local low-income housing developments.

Choice in Aging
Choice in Aging is a non-profit organization focused on fighting against ageism and providing highquality, essential services to seniors across Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, and Solano counties.

Choice in Aging offers Home-based services, Alzheimer’s care, day programs, and caregiver support to create a more holistic senior care system. The organization also hosts Intergenerational programs which aim to help educate preschoolers with interaction and friendship with elder members of their communities. Choice in Aging has been an active member of Pleasant Hill’s community for years and is a major provider in affordable, senior housing for the sixth cycle RHNA through their Choice in Aging Campus project.

Hope Solutions
Hope Solutions, formerly known as Contra Costa Interfaith Housing, is a non-profit aiming to combat poverty and homelessness by providing housing solutions and support services. Hope Solutions has a long history of high impact projects that help the estimated 15,000 people who experience homelessness each year in the county. Hope Solutions also hosts their annual Gala which helps raise funds for homeless families and individuals. Hope Solutions provides housing directly through Garden Park Apartments, which houses 27 formerly homeless families in Pleasant Hill. Hope Solutions also oversees HUD-funded multi-site housing programs, which includes two units within Pleasant Hill.

Shelter, Inc.

Shelter, Inc. is a non-profit that provides “wrap-around services” that allow for long-term impact to not only provide housing but allow for success in regaining and maintaining a home. Shelter, Inc. also actively provides services that help prevent homelessness from the start with case managers ensuring the safety and security of people at risk of homelessness. The organization also helps individuals find employment to truly create a solid foundation for self-sufficiency. With 35 years of service, Shelter, Inc. has been an important partner in helping end homelessness in Contra Costa County.

Eden Housing, Inc.

Operating for more than 50 years, Eden Housing is a local non-profit aiming to provide safe and affordable housing for families with a focus on long-term development and justice. Eden Housing helps provide not just housing, but stability to those in need of their services. Eden operates a large inventory of affordable housing located across California, with a large concentration in the Bay Area. Eden is continually focused on helping provide housing access and has two affordable housing projects adjacent to Pleasant Hill: Belle Terre in Lafayette and Virginia Lane in Concord.

Mercy Housing California
Mercy Housing California is a division of Mercy Housing, the largest nonprofit affordable housing developer in the country. Mercy Housing develops and operates affordable, service enriched housing for families, seniors, and people who have been homeless. Mercy Housing operates

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-167
Garden Park Apartments on Lisa Lane in Pleasant Hill, which provides 29 units of affordable lowincome housing.

BRIDGE Housing Corporation
BRIDGE Housing is a corporation that helps provide affordable homes that display the same quality of design and construction as market-rate housing. BRIDGE housing helps develop a variety of projects, such as family and senior affordable housing, transit-oriented developments, mixed-use developments, and supportive housing facilities. BRIDGE operates the 70-unit Grayson Creek Apartments, one of Pleasant Hill’s largest affordable housing developments. BRIDGE also operates multiple properties near Pleasant Hill, including Coggins Square in Walnut Creek and Sycamore Place in Danville.

Brilliant Corners
Brilliant Corners is a non-profit agency that develops affordable housing, manages over 200 affordable housing properties, provides individual case management, and is a part of the highly successful Los Angeles County Flexible Subsidy Pool (FHSP). Brilliant Corners helps develop and operate residential care homes, multi-family developments, and other housing solutions across the state.

Christian Church Homes of Northern California
Christian Church Homes of Northern California (CCHNA) is a non-profit branch of Christian Church Homes (CCH) that develops and operates affordable senior housing across several western states.

CCH has served more than 100,000 residents since its establishment in 1961 and currently operates over 5,000 affordable apartment homes across 59 communities. CCHNC aims to provide senior residents with housing and resources that allow for aging-in-place with dignity and a feeling of being of more than a home.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-168
This page is intentionally left blank.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-169
Appendices
Appendix A: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)
Appendix B: Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element
Appendix C: Public Comments

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft 4-170
This page is intentionally left blank.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) September 2022 Administrative Draft B-1

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-2 Public Review Draft November 2022
Table of Contents

1.1 Introduction And Overview of AB 686......................................................................A-3

1.2 Analysis of Impediments Findings...........................................................................A-5

1.3 Analysis of Fair Housing ...........................................................................................A-6

1.4 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity.................................................A-8

1.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends..................................................A-9

1.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities...................................................................A-30

1.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs...........................................................................A-46

1.8 Contributing Factors................................................................................................A-56

1.9 Local Knowledge .....................................................................................................A-60

1.10 Sites Inventory Analysis ..........................................................................................A-65

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-3
Tables
Table A-1 TCAC Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps.................................A-7 Table A-2 Organizations Active in Contra Costa County .........................................................A-9 Table A-3 Contra Costa County and Pleasant Hill Demographics, 2019 5-year Estimates A-12 Table A-4 Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill ...............A-14 Table A-5 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill .....................A-14 Table A-6 Neighborhood Income Segregation .......................................................................A-18 Table A-7 Population with Developmental Disability by Residence......................................A-25 Table A-8 Tenure by Household Type, Contra Costa County ................................................A-27 Table A-9 Tenure by Household Type, Pleasant Hill ..............................................................A-28 Table A-10 Employment Status by Disability Status (Contra Costa County) .........................A-38 Table A-11 Employment Status by Disability Status (Pleasant Hill) .......................................A-39 Table A-12 Summary of Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions.................................A-57 Table A-13 Units by TCAC Opportunity Areas ..........................................................................A-69 Table A-14 Number of Units by Income Characteristics of Census Tract..............................A-69 Table A-15 Number of Units by Demographics of Census Tract ............................................A-70 Table A-16 Number of Units by Housing Need Factors of Census Tract...............................A-71 Table A-17 Sites inventory by Fair Housing Factors of Census Tracts ..................................A-72 Figures
Figure A-1 Neighborhood Segregation, UC Berkeley, 2019 (Contra Costa County)..............A-12 Figure A-2 Racial Demographics (Contra Costa County)........................................................A-13 Figure A-3 Neighborhood Segregation, UC Berkeley, 2019 (Pleasant Hill)............................A-15 Figure A-4 Racial Demographics (Pleasant Hill) .....................................................................A-16 Figure A-5 Median Household Income (Contra Costa County)..............................................A-19 Figure A-6 Median Household Income (Pleasant Hill)............................................................A-20 Figure A-7 Low to Moderate Income Population (Contra Costa County)..............................A-21 Figure A-8 Low to Moderate Income Population (Pleasant Hill)............................................A-22 Figure A-9 TCAC Area of High Segregation and Poverty and Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ("R/ECAPs").........................................................A-23 Figure A-10 Persons with Disabilities (Contra Costa County)..................................................A-25 Figure A-11 Persons with Disabilities (Pleasant Hill)................................................................A-26 Figure A-12 Percent of Children in Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner Present Households, (Contra Costa County) ......................................................................A-29

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-4 Public Review Draft November 2022
Figure A-13 Percent of Children in Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner Present Households, (Pleasant Hill) ....................................................................................A-30 Figure A-14 Walkability Score, Contra Costa County ................................................................A-33 Figure A-15 Walkability Score, Pleasant Hill ..............................................................................A-34 Figure A-16 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Contra Costa County) ..........A-36 Figure A-17 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Contra Costa County) ..........A-37 Figure A-18 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Contra Costa County).............................A-40 Figure A-19 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Pleasant Hill)...........................................A-41 Figure A-20 Jobs Proximity Index, 2014-2017 (Contra Costa County)....................................A-42 Figure A-21 Jobs Proximity Index, 2014-2017 (Pleasant Hill)..................................................A-43 Figure A-22 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Contra Costa County)..........................................................A-45 Figure A-23 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Pleasant Hill) .......................................................................A-46 Figure A-24 Overpayment by Homeowners (Contra Costa County) ........................................A-47 Figure A-25 Overpayment by Renters (Contra Costa County) ..................................................A-48 Figure A-26 Overpayment by Homeowner (Pleasant Hill) ........................................................A-49 Figure A-27 Overpayment by Renters (Pleasant Hill)................................................................A-50 Figure A-28 Overcrowding (Contra Costa County)....................................................................A-51 Figure A-29 Overcrowding (Pleasant Hill)..................................................................................A-52 Figure A-30 Sensitive Communities (Contra Costa County).....................................................A-55 Figure A-31 Sensitive Communities (Pleasant Hill) ..................................................................A-56 Figure A-32 Housing Choice Vochers as a Precent of Renter-Occupied Units, by Census Tract .........................................................................................................................A-65 Figure A-33 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Category ...................................................A-67 Figure A-34 Census Tracts..........................................................................................................A-68

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-5

1.1 Introduction And Overview of AB 686
In January 2017, Assembly Bill (AB) 686 introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing into California state law. AB 686 redefined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The bill added an assessment of fair housing to Housing Element requirements, which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities; an assessment of contributing factors; and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.

1.2 Analysis of Impediments Findings
Recipients of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development must prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years. This analysis is an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures that will be pursued to mitigate or remove identified impediments.

The 2020-2025 Contra Costa Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) provides indepth looks at a number of areas relevant to fair housing, including: demographic trends and characteristics; patterns of segregation and integration; identification of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs); disproportionate housing needs (including cost burden and the adequacy and safety of housing); disparities in access to opportunity (education, employment, low poverty exposure, and environmental health); disabilities and access; publicly-supported housing; and fair housing enforcement, outreach, and capacity. In addition to data, maps, and policy analysis, it examines barriers to fair housing and their underlying causes (“contributing factors”). Most importantly, its data and analyses (including community input) provide the foundation for meaningful fair housing goals that address specific local issues.

The AI identifies the following impediments to fair housing in Contra Costa County (region):
▪ Segregation in the county, the Bay Area, and the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek is primarily an inter-jurisdictional rather than an intra-jurisdictional phenomenon (that is, it is more apparent when comparing various jurisdictions rather than within the jurisdictions). ▪ Using an expanded definition of Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) based on local knowledge that includes all census tracts that meet the racial/ethnic composition threshold and have a poverty rate of 25 percent or more, the AI identifies R/ECAPs in Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Concord. ▪ Hispanic and Black residents face particularly severe housing problems. These housing burdens are greatest in portions of Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Hercules, Concord, Martinez, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley.
▪ There are significant disparities in the rates of renter and owner-occupied housing by race/ethnicity in Contra Costa County, although Antioch and Pittsburg have significantly higher homeownership rates by Hispanic and Black residents than in the county as a whole.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-6 Public Review Draft November 2022
▪ Access to opportunity is highest for non-Hispanic whites in Contra Costa County. The various report measurements show that county neighborhoods with the most whites have the most access to opportunity. Access to opportunity is lowest for non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics.

The various report measurements show that census tracts with the highest numbers of Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest scores in the categories that measure access to opportunity. ▪ Access to opportunity is lowest in western and north-eastern sections of the County, specifically in the cities of Richmond, Pittsburg, and in Antioch. Access is highest in central Contra Costa County, including Walnut Creek, Danville, Alamo, San Ramon, Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga. ▪ The amount of affordable, accessible housing across the region, the county, and cities within Contra Costa County is insufficient to meet the total need among low-income persons with disabilities who need accessibility features.
▪ Private discrimination is a significant contributing factor in Contra Costa County.

1.3 Analysis of Fair Housing
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires the City of Pleasant Hill to analyze areas of segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. These areas of impediment are analyzed below.

Resources
To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) AFFH Viewer, Urban Displacement Project (UDP), CalEnviroscreen, and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).

Housing and Community Development’s AFFH Data Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group- and tract-level data from an expansive collection of sources including American Community Surveys (ACS), U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), Urban Displacement Project (UDP), and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS).

The Data Viewer serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing.

The Data Viewer is intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination and increase access to safe and affordable homes.

Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
The UDP was developed as a research initiative by the University of California, Berkeley in partnership with the University of California, Los Angeles. The UDP developed a mapping tool to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts qualifying as disadvantaged neighborhoods per UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college-educated residents, non-Hispanic white population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-7
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. This tool is called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). CalEnviroScreen utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, the higher the score, the more impacted a community is by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities. Designated disadvantaged communities under Senate Bill (SB) 535 (2012) are those communities that scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California (CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher).

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
To assist in the analysis of integration and segregation in the context of race and income status, HCD and TCAC convened the California Fair Housing Task Force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains (economic, environmental and education) with each including a set of indicators. Table A-1 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
▪ Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line ▪ Racial Segregation: Tracts with a higher percentage of for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all people of color in comparison to the County
Table A-1 TCAC Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, Adult Education, Employment, Job Proximity, Median Home Value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values Education Math Proficiency, Reading Proficiency, High School Graduation Rates, Student Poverty Rates 2020 Contra Costa County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice As described above, the Contra Costa County Regional AI is a countywide effort to increase fair housing choices for residents across the county, developed by a regional collaborative with the County of Contra Costa as lead agency. The City of Pleasant Hill is a participating agency in this regional collaborative. The AI addresses fair housing issues on a countywide level and in each jurisdiction. The AI provides an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures to mitigate or remove identified impediments.

AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that explores data related to transit opportunity. The AllTransit performance score evaluates the social and economic impact of transit on a community, using metrics such as connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-8 Public Review Draft November 2022
Community Engagement and Outreach
The following section summarizes the various methods of community engagement the City used as part of the Housing Element Update. The engagement program included branding, a project website, newsletters and e-blasts, announcements on the City website and social media, a workshop and a town hall meeting, General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings, and Planning Commission and City Council study sessions and hearings. For more information see Chapter 1: Introduction, and Appendix C.

The City created and maintained a website for the 2040 General Plan Update with a webpage dedicated to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Project documents were posted to the website, comments were encouraged through the provided "Comments" button on each page, and visitors were given a link to sign up to receive email updates. The City sent multiple email notifications (e-blasts) to announce upcoming events and the release of project-related documents.

The City held five public meetings, a public workshop, and a town hall meeting to discuss the Housing Element Update. The City received numerous comments as a result of these meeting which informed the housing element process including the selection of housing opportunity sites. A full list of these comments is available in Appendix C.

1.4 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
This analysis of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity evaluates the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are informed of fair housing laws and tenants’ rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.

Regional Trends
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits all housing providers, including local governments, from discriminating in housing development and all actions related to the provision of housing based on a wide variety of characteristics including sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, familial status, disability, or genetic information. Contra Costa County does not have an ordinance on fair housing. Of the incorporated cities within the county, only Concord has a comprehensive fair housing ordinance. Richmond has a housing ordinance that specifically prohibits discrimination based on past criminal conviction. Walnut Creek has a reasonable accommodation ordinance requiring that people with disabilities have equal access to housing.

Several organizations provide fair housing services in Contra Costa County. ECHO Housing conducts fair housing testing and provides counseling, mediation, and education in Antioch, Concord, Walnut Creek, the other cities in the County (except Pittsburg) and unincorporated Contra Costa County. Bay Area Legal Aid also works to eliminate housing discrimination through education, outreach, and enforcement throughout Contra Costa County while Pacific Community Services works in Pittsburg.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-9
Table A-2 Organizations Active in Contra Costa County
Organization Services
ECHO Housing Housing counseling, fair housing services, tenant/landlord services, rent review/eviction harassment program, fair housing investigations.

Pacific Community
Services
Fair housing pre-purchase education workshops, mortgage delinquency and default resolution counseling, rental housing counseling, and pre-purchase counseling for homebuyers Bay Area Legal Aid Civil legal advice, counsel, and representation to low-income individuals Source: Contra Costa County Regional AI, 2019
In 2021, there were a total of seven Fair Housing Equal Opportunity (FHEO) cases filed with HUD per 100,000 individuals residing in the county. Of these cases, four of every 100,000 individuals were cases of disability bias, one of every 100,000 individuals was a case of familial status bias, and one of every 100,000 individuals was a case of racial bias.

1.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics.

Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This can include two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area. ▪ Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20 percent Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80 percent Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.
▪ City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.

Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments.1 Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.

Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety.2 1 Rothstein 2017
2 Trounstine 2015

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-10 Public Review Draft November 2022
This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates.3
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).

ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.

To adequately assess the patterns of integration and segregation, this section identifies trends at the regional scale (Contra Costa County) and at the local scale (Pleasant Hill). To identify socio-economic and demographic spatial trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis utilizes HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, which provides an expansive collection of data from sources including the 2015-2019 ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other regional and federal agencies. In its AFFH guidance document published in April 2021, HCD describes the importance of segregation and integration analysis in relation to fair housing:

Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race, ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, practices, and procedures—both public and private—that have had enduring and pervasive negative impacts. Overt and covert housing discrimination through land use policy, shifting housing markets, and patterns of investment and disinvestment, have restricted meaningful fair housing choice and equitable access to opportunity, particularly for communities of color. Historic patterns of segregation persist in California despite the longstanding federal mandate, established by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further the purposes of the FHA.

Past and present discriminatory policies and practices, including long-term disinvestment, have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock, limited access to opportunity, unsafe environmental conditions, underfunded schools, dilapidated infrastructure, and other disproportionately experienced problems. In addition, governmental policies have subsidized the development of segregated, high-resourced suburbs in metropolitan areas by constructing new highway systems—often through lower income communities of color— to ensure access to job opportunities in urban centers. This physical and policy infrastructure supports patterns of discrimination and high levels of segregation that continue to persist in California and across the country. All of these conditions persist despite the over 50-year-old obligation to prohibit discrimination and affirmatively further fair housing.4 For persons with disabilities, as explored below in Disability and Access, segregation also includes residents in congregate and/or institutional facilities that allow for limited interaction with people who do not have disabilities, regardless of where those dwellings are located. Integration, by contrast, consists of both relative dispersion or lack of concentration of protected class members and, for 3 Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013 4 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-11
persons with disabilities, residence in settings like permanent supportive housing that provide opportunities for interaction with persons who do not have disabilities. As the passage of the Fair Housing Act by Congress in 1968 was, in large measure, a response to pervasive patterns of residential segregation to which government action contributed significantly, segregation and integration are essential topics in any fair housing planning process.5 Race and Ethnicity
Historic exclusionary governmental policies, biased mortgage lending practices, and other tactics have caused racial and ethnic segregation and spatial inequities. The ethnic6 and racial7 composition of a region can correlate to other demographic characteristics that can affect access to opportunity. The existence of concentrations of minorities living in one location may be an indicator that some minority groups in Pleasant Hill do not have as many housing choices as nonminority residents.

Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates (Table A-3), white8residents comprised the largest racial/ethnic group in Contra Costa County followed by Hispanic or Latino residents, and then Asian residents. Within Contra Costa County, segregation exists both within individual cities and between cities. The City of Concord is an example of a city with intra-city segregation: non-white residents make up over 95 percent of residents in census tracts on the west side, compared to around 30 to 40 percent in census tracts located in central Concord.

Figure A-1 highlights neighborhood segregation by a single racial group or by two to four group mixes.

There is a stark contrast between communities in the eastern and western parts of the county with high Black and Hispanic populations concentrated in cities such Antioch, Pittsburg, and Richmond, and white residents concentrated in the central parts of the county.

Figure A-2 highlights segregation by showing the percentage of the non-white population by block group in Contra Costa County. High percentages of non-white populations are concentrated in east and west county, and high percentages of white populations concentrated in central and south county. Two of the most racially segregated white neighborhoods in the entire Bay Area are located in Walnut Creek, which is 63 percent white.

There are also high concentrations of white residents in Martinez (69 percent white) and Lafayette (77 percent white). Along with these three cities, the communities of Clayton, Danville, Moraga, Pleasant Hill, and Orinda are also segregated, majority white cities. 9 5 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6-11-19 6 Ethnicity determines whether a person is of Hispanic origin or not. For this reason, ethnicity is broken out in two categories, Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics may report as any race. 7 Race is defined by the Census Bureau as a person’s self-identification with one or more social groups. An individual can report as white, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or some other race. Survey respondents may report multiple races.
8 The data sets used in this report include slightly varying definitions for racial and ethnic categories. This report uses the following definitions:
• White: Non-Hispanic White
• Latinx: Ethnically Hispanic or Latino of any race
• Black: Non-Hispanic Black or African American
• Asian: Non-Hispanic Asian
• People of Color (POC): All who are not non-Hispanic White (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)
9 Segregation in the Bay Area Part 1, 2021, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-1

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-12 Public Review Draft November 2022
Table A-3 Contra Costa County and Pleasant Hill Demographics, 2019 5-year Estimates Race/Ethnicity
County
Population
Percent County
Population
Pleasant Hill
Population
Percent Pleasant
Hill Population
White (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) 637,904 55.8 25,600 73.5 Non-Hispanic white 500,592 43.8 22,448 64.4
Black or African American 99,642 8.7 896 2.6
American Indian 5,506 0.5 62 0.2
Asian 190,983 16.7 4,285 12.3
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander
5,631 0.5 265 0.8
Some other race 124,629 10.9 1,389 4.0
Two or more races 77,956 6.8 2,343 6.7
Hispanic or Latino 292,298 25.6 5,102 14.6
Total Population 1,142,251 100% 34,840 100%
Source: 2019: ACS 5-year Estimates, Demographic and Housing Estimates, Table DP05

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-13
Dissimilarity and Isolation Indices
The Dissimilarity and Isolation indices, developed at the University of Chicago, are methods of measuring segregation. The Dissimilarity Index measures whether one particular group is distributed across census tracts in the metropolitan area in the same way as another group. The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (e.g., they tend to live in different neighborhoods). A high value indicates that the two groups tend to live in different tracts. A value of 0.6 (or above) is considered very high. It means that 60 percent (or more) of the members of one group would need to move to a different tract in order for the two groups to be equally distributed. Values of 0.4 or 0.5 are usually considered a moderate level of segregation, and values of

0.3 or below are considered fairly low.10
As measured by the Dissimilarity Index, Black residents face the highest levels of segregation of any racial or ethnic group in both the county and the region. Hispanics are the next most segregated group, followed by Asian or Pacific Islanders. While levels of Black-white segregation are above thresholds that social scientists would consider high segregation, index levels for Hispanics and Asians and Pacific Islanders suggest moderate segregation. The lower level of segregation for Asians and Pacific Islanders in the County than in the region is consistent with the relatively smaller concentration of 10 https://s4.ad.brown.edu/projects/diversity/index.htm

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-14 Public Review Draft November 2022
Asian or Pacific Islander residents in the county than in the region. In general, less populous groups tend to face lower levels of segregation.

Table A-4 Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill Race/Ethnicity
Pleasant Hill Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.195 0.234 0.196 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.271* 0.293* 0.312* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.118 0.141 0.126 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.147 0.177 0.148 0.168
Source: Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022.11 Within City of Pleasant Hill, the most isolated racial group is white residents. Pleasant Hill’s isolation index of 0.610 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is

61.0% white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Pleasant Hill for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table A-5 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

Table A-5 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill Race/Ethnicity
Pleasant Hill Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.104 0.157 0.174 0.245
Black/African American 0.020 0.025 0.033 0.053
Latinx 0.087 0.127 0.147 0.251
White 0.777 0.702 0.610 0.491
Source: Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022.12 Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates (Table A-3), white residents comprised the largest racial/ethnic group, at 64.4 percent of the population. This is approximately 20 percent higher than County as a whole, indicating an exclusion of non-white individuals. Hispanic residents follow as the second most prevalent residents at 14.6 percent, and Asian residents make up 12.3 percent of Pleasant Hill.

Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Pleasant Hill identifying as white has decreased—and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased—by 14.8 percentage points. In absolute terms, the Hispanic or Latino population increased the most while the white, non-Hispanic population decreased the most.

Within the city, segregation exists between census tracts (Figure A-3). In every census tract, the population is predominantly white, ranging from 47 to 80 percent. However, various census tracts are identified as mix-group neighborhoods by UC Berkeley’s analysis of neighborhood segregation. In the northern area of the city, as well as a small portion of the eastern area of the city, the population is 11 Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022. Accessed:
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/file/927857388028 12 Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022. Accessed:
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/file/927857388028

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-15
identified as a mix of Asian, Hispanic, and white residents. Centrally, the population is identified as predominantly Hispanic and white.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-16 Public Review Draft November 2022
Dissimilarity, Isolation, and Exposure Indices
Table A-4 provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Pleasant Hill between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020). In Pleasant Hill, the highest segregation is between Black and white residents (see Table A-4). Pleasant Hill’s Black /white dissimilarity index of 0.312 means that 31.2 percent of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and white residents. However, it should be noted that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size.

According to the Isolation Index, the most isolated racial group in Pleasant Hill is white residents.

Pleasant Hill’s isolation index of 0.610 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 61 percent white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Pleasant Hill for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table A-5. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-17
Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in low-income households must have actual choice in housing opportunities—that is, when they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.

This section identifies household income disparities using data based on median household income and low- or moderate-income (LMI) geographies. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI, which means the household’s annual income is up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), as defined by HUD.13 Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, the median household income in Contra Costa County was $99,716. Figure A-5 shows the median household income by block group for Contra Costa County using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Lower-income block groups are generally concentrated in the northwest, east areas of the county and in Concord. LMI populations by block group for Contra Costa County are displayed in Figure A-7. Census tracts within the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, Martinez, Concord, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Concord contain the highest LMI populations in Contra Costa County. LMI populations are in communities that had a relatively greater percentage of children living in singleparent, female-headed households (Figure A-12) and a higher percentage of non-white population (Figure A-2).

The Bay Area has lower levels of income segregation compared to Pleasant Hill, according to the Isolation Index. Above moderate-income residents are the most segregated, receiving a score of 0.507.

This means that the average above moderate-income individual lives in a census tract that is 50.7 percent above moderate-income. However, according to the Dissimilarity index, the Bay Area has higher rates of segregation between groups below 50 percent of the AMI and above 120 percent of the AMI compared to Pleasant Hill (Table A-6). This may be because there is a higher percentage of lower income individuals in the Bay Area region than in Pleasant Hill. 13 HUD Exchange 2021: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-18 Public Review Draft November 2022
Table A-6 Neighborhood Income Segregation
Race/Ethnicity
Pleasant Hill Bay Area
2010 2015 2020
Isolation Very Low Income 0.193 0.234 0.269
Low Income 0.149 0.157 0.145
Moderate Income 0.181 0.184 0.183
Above Moderate Income 0.573 0.520 0.507
Dissimilarity Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.253 0.180 0.198 Below 50% AMI vs Above 120% AMI 0.279 0.192 0.253
Theil’s H Multi-Racial All 0.041 0.040 0.043
Source: Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022.14 Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, the median household income in Pleasant Hill is higher than the county, at $140,121. Figure A-6 shows the median household income by block group for Pleasant Hill. Within Pleasant Hill, median household income varies greatly by block group. Generally, western and central Pleasant Hill are higher income, with block group median income ranging from $91,930 to $190,000. Lower income households are concentrated in southern Pleasant Hill, with block group median income ranging from $54,214 to $80,515.

LMI populations by block group for Contra Costa County are displayed in Figure A-8. The block groups with the highest LMI populations within Pleasant Hill are located in the northern and southern areas of the city. Notably, a northern block group with a proportionally higher median income ($97,892) compared to the rest of the city also has one of the highest LMI scores in the city (54 percent). This may indicate that income segregation happens at a smaller scale than block groups. LMI populations are also in communities that had a relatively greater percentage of children living in single-parent, female-headed households (Figure A-13) and a higher percentage of non-white population (Figure A-4). 14 Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022. Accessed:
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/file/927857388028

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-19

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-20 Public Review Draft November 2022

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-21

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-22 Public Review Draft November 2022
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) R/ECAPs are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations.15 HUD has developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAPs. In terms of racial or ethnic concentration, R/ECAPs are defined as census tracts with a non-white population of 50 percent or more of the population belonging to a given racial or ethnic group. With regard to poverty, R/ECAPs are census tracts in which 40 percent or more of individuals are living at or below the poverty limit or that have a poverty rate three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.16 Identifying R/ECAPs facilitates understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty.

Regional Trends
There is only one area within Contra Costa County that meets HUD’s criteria for R/ECAPs. It is located in the Monument Corridor area of Concord. However, according to the countywide AI, the current R/ECAP criteria are not well-suited to this area because they use the national poverty rate. Due to the high cost of living in the San Francisco Bay Area, use of the national poverty rate severely 15 Office of the Secretary, HUD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, Sections 5.160 through 5.180 appear at 80 FR 42363, July 2015, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title24-vol1/pdf/CFR-2016-title24-vol1-sec5- 152.pdf. 16 133 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Open Data for R/ECAP Tract Current and Historic, https://hudgishud.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/56de4edea8264fe5a344da9811ef5d6e_0/explore?location=44.635862%2C58.263972%2C3.90

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-23
underestimates whether an individual is living in poverty. The AI expands the definition of R/ECAPs to include majority-minority census tracts that have poverty rates of 25 percent or more. Using those criteria, 12 census tracts in the county qualify as R/ECAPs.

The twelve identified R/ECAPs are located in the areas of Antioch, Bay Point, Concord, Pittsburg, North Richmond, Richmond, and San Pablo (Figure A-9). The cities of Richmond and Concord have the largest concentrations of census tracts living in poverty, with three each. As of the 2012-2016 ACS, 69,326 people lived in these R/ECAPs, or 6.3 percent of the county’s population as of that date.

Hispanics make up a disproportionately large percentage of residents who reside in R/ECAPs compared to the population of the county, comprising approximately 53 percent of all individuals living in R/ECAPs. Black residents also constitute a disproportionate percentage of R/ECAP residents in the county, making up nearly 18 percent of all R/ECAP’s but only nine percent of the county’s population.

Local Trends
Using the both the definitions used in the AI and by HUD, there are no identified R/ECAPs located in Pleasant Hill.

Disabilities and Access
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-24 Public Review Draft November 2022
on fixed incomes and need specialized care, often relying on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are often in need of not only affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity and homelessness, particularly when they lose aging caregivers.

State law requires housing elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities specifically. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and live with family members.

Regional Trends
According to the 2016 ACS, 60,768 residents of Contra Costa County have ambulatory17 disabilities, which represents 5.9 percent of the county’s population; 3.1 percent of residents have hearing disabilities; and 1.9 percent have vision disabilities. People with ambulatory disabilities may not need a fully accessible unit, particularly if they do not use wheelchairs. They may require a unit on the ground floor or in an elevator building, perhaps with some architectural modifications. The regional and County averages for ambulatory difficulties are both lower than any of the surrounding areas, suggesting that people with ambulatory difficulties are more likely to live in large cities where they may have more resources available.

Approximately 20 percent (20.9 percent) of people with disabilities have incomes below the poverty line, as opposed to 13.1 percent of individuals without disabilities. Another indicator of disability and limited income are the number of people receiving SSI, which is limited to people with disabilities. In the county, 26,494 residents receive SSI which is such a small subsidy that all recipients are extremely low income.18 Not all SSI recipients have the types of disabilities that necessitate accessible units, but due to the typical income level of people with disabilities, the need for affordable housing is greater than it is among people without disabilities.

People with disabilities in the county tend to be concentrated in the areas of the greatest population density. These areas include the bayside metropolitan area around Richmond, the cities to the north along the San Joaquin River such as Antioch, and the communities that run through the center of the county like Concord and Walnut Creek. However, while there is a correlation between areas of population density and areas where people with disabilities live, the relationship is far less apparent than one might expect. A comparison of the hard data the conclusion that R/ECAPs in Contra Costa have higher concentrations of people with disabilities than the general population of the county or the region.

Local Trends
According to the 2019 ACS data, there are a total of 3,525 individuals with a disability in Pleasant Hill, approximately 10.2 percent of the population. Of the population with a disability, 234 individuals, or 17 The definition of ambulatory disabilities is “having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.” 18 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments, Contra Costa County. Accessed: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/FinalBOS-Approved-AI-6-11-19

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-25
approximately six percent, have developmental disabilities. Of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 38.1 percent, while adults account for 61.9 percent.

As shown in Table A-7, the most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Pleasant Hill is the home of a parent, other family, or guardian. As shown in Figure A-10, households including individuals with disabilities are concentrated in the northernmost and southernmost areas of Pleasant Hill.

Table A-7 Population with Developmental Disability by Residence Residence Type Value
Home of Parent / Family / Guardian 155
Independent / Supported Living 63
Community Care Facility 11
Other 5
Foster / Family 5
Intermediate Care Facility 0

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-26 Public Review Draft November 2022
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 and the martial status of the head of the household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining child to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Households with children are protected by fair housing law.

A 2016 HUD study studied the effects of housing discrimination based on familial status. The study found that landlords presented households with children fewer housing options, and the units shown were generally larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.19 Additionally, female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

Regional Trends
Contra Costa County had 394,769 households in 2019. According to the 2015-2019 ACS estimates, households with children comprised 33.5 percent of the total households in Contra Costa County. 19 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-27
Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table A-8. Married couple families with children comprised the largest share of both owner- and renter-occupied households.

Single-parent, female headed households comprised approximately 2.7 percent of owner-occupied households and 12.2 percent of renter occupied homes. Of the 23,648 single-parent, female-headed households, 69.5 percent rented, and 30.5 percent owned their home.

Table A-8 Tenure by Household Type, Contra Costa County Household Type
Owner
Occupied
Percent of total
Owner-Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Percent Owner
Occupied
Total Households 260,244 100% 134,525 100%
Total Households with Children
Present
77,477 29.8% 54,827 40.8%
Married couple, with own children of
the householder under 18 years
66,588 25.6% 29,188 21.7%
Single-Parent, Male Household 3,674 1.4% 9,206 6.8%
Single-Parent, Female Household 7,215 2.7% 16,433 12.2% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.

As shown in Figure A-12, children living in female-headed households are concentrated in Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. Those communities are also areas of high combined Black and Hispanic population. By contrast, central county, and in particular the portions of central county to the south of the City of Concord, have relatively low concentrations of single mothers. These areas tend to be more heavily White or White and Asian and Pacific Islander communities.

Local Trends
Pleasant Hill had a total of 13,817 households in 2019. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, households with children comprised 27.5 percent of total households. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table A-9 and Figure A-13. Married couple families with children comprised the largest share of both owner- and renter-occupied households.

Compared to the county, single-parent, female-headed households comprised a smaller portion of total households in Pleasant Hill. Single-parent, female-headed households comprised approximately 3.4 percent of owner-occupied households and 5.8 percent of renter-occupied homes. Of the 582 singleparent, female-headed households, 48 percent rented, and 52 percent owned their home.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-28 Public Review Draft November 2022
Table A-9 Tenure by Household Type, Pleasant Hill
Household Type
Owner
Occupied
Percent of total
Owner-Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Percent Owner
Occupied
Total Households 9,042 100% 4,775 100%
Total Households with Children Present 2,720 30% 1,086 22.7% Married couple, with own children of
the householder under 18 years
2,297 25.4% 669 14%
Single-Parent, Male Household 120 1.3% 138 2.9%
Single-Parent, Female Household 303 3.4% 279 5.8%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.

As shown in Figure A-12, in Pleasant Hill, children living in female-headed households are concentrated in the northern area of the city. Those communities are predominantly white. As shown in Figure A-3, however, these areas have a higher proportion of Hispanic and Asian community members then the rest of the city.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-29

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-30 Public Review Draft November 2022

1.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
According to HCD guidance, land use policies and urban planning impact the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far-reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.20
This section analyzes the following place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators: quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment. The primary objective is to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.
20 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-31
Transit Access
Reliable public transit access and active transportation options, such as walking and biking, are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities and medical appointments. Lack of transportation options can impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for low-income communities in accessing housing and employment opportunities.

Regional Trends
Contra Costa County generally has widespread access to public transit, although it is less accessible than in the surrounding Bay Area region. According to AllTransit, 74.9 percent of households in Contra Costa County are within a half mile of transit.21 In terms of fixed-route transit, the county is served by AC Transit, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), County Connection, Tri Delta Transit, and WestCAT.

Programs offered by other organizations include three adjacent city-operated paratransit programs in West County, the Lamorinda Spirit Van, and Walnut Creek’s Lyft Pilot Program.

The participating jurisdictions in the county received an average AllTransit performance score of 5.022 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling few people to take transit to work.
23 Performance scores vary greatly across the County. Performance scores are generally highest in areas of cities with access to BART, which includes Richmond, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Martinez, and Antioch. Areas on the outskirts of cities generally have limited access to transit, as do the cities of Danville and San Ramon. According to AllTransit, 17.2 percent of households are underserved by transit, meaning there is a mismatch between the strength of the transit market and the quality of transit service available to the households of that community.

Eighty-two percent of jobs in the county are located within a half-mile of a transit stop. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Some residents with unique needs, such as households with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home due to childcare needs, access to schools, and other considerations.

Areas that have concentrations of people with disabilities generally have high AllTransit performance scores, with Lafayette being an exception. Proximity to public transit does not necessarily mean it is accessible, however. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority released the Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan in March of 2021.24 This plan identified the growing senior population as leading to an increase in demand for paratransit services.

Contra Costa County has a wide range of walkability. The National Walkability Index, developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is a nationwide geographic data resource that ranks block groups according to their relative walkability. The data is based on measures of the built environment that affect the probability of whether people walk as a mode of transportation: street intersection density, proximity to transit stops, and diversity of land uses.25 Areas in the county that are densely 21 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
22 AllTransit Performance Scores range from 1 to 9+, with 1 being the lowest score and 9+ being the highest. 23 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
24 Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, 2021. https://ccta.net/wpcontent/uploads/2021/05/d212e7_17065ead5e7a4124bf45a8401ff0e23a.pdf 25 National Walkability Index, Methodology and User Guide, Accessed: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 06/documents/national_walkability_index_methodology_and_user_guide_june2021.pdf

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-32 Public Review Draft November 2022
populated, such as Concord, Walnut Creek, and Richmond have high walkability, while more rural areas in the county receive lower walkability scores (Figure A-14).

Local Trends
According to AllTransit, 88.9 percent of households are located within a half-mile of transit.26 Pleasant Hill is serviced by the following transit systems and programs:
▪ Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART): BART is a heavy-rail public transit system that connects the San Francisco Peninsula with communities in the East Bay and South Bay. BART service currently extends as far as Millbrae, Richmond, Antioch, Dublin/Pleasanton, and Berryessa/North San José. BART operates in five counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara) with 131 miles of track and 50 stations, carrying approximately 405,000 trips on an average weekday (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). There is one station near Pleasant Hill, located just south of the city. BART, buses, Highway 680 and the Iron Horse pedestrian and bicycle trail all converge to make this one of BART's most easily accessed stations. ▪ County Connection: provides fixed-route and paratransit bus service throughout the communities of Concord, Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Walnut Creek, Clayton, Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, San Ramon, as well as unincorporated communities in Central Contra Costa County. ▪ Senior Van: The Senior Van Service is operated by the City of Pleasant Hill and provides an alternative means of travel for seniors run entirely by friendly, reliable, capable volunteers. The fare is $1.50 each way. Priority is given to seniors travelling to medical or dental appointments on certain days of the week.
▪ 511 Contra Costa: 511 Contra Costa has a variety of programs to assist individuals in riding public transit. Programs include Guaranteed Ride Home, which reimburses individuals for rides home during unexpected emergencies, and e-bike rebates. Youth programs include Pass2Class, which provides free transit to students riding to school and Summer Youth Pass, which provides discounted rides over the summer.

Pleasant Hill receives an average AllTransit performance score of 5.2, which equates to a moderate combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling moderate number of people to take transit to work. Performance score in Pleasant Hill varies greatly by location. The southeast area of Pleasant Hill as well as the northeast area receives the highest performance score. The northwest area of the city, where bus service is reduced, receives the lowest performance score. According to AllTransit, 52.8 percent of households are underserved by transit. While the overall performance score in the city is higher than the county, there are significantly more households in Pleasant Hill that are underserved by transit. This indicates a higher disparity in transit access within the city of Pleasant Hill.

Areas with concentrations of individuals with disabilities (Figure A-10) vary in terms of transit access.

There is a higher concentration of individuals in the southern area of the city, which has a high AllTransit performance score. The northern area of Pleasant Hill also has a higher concentration of individuals with disabilities but receives a lower AllTransit performance score. The Senior Van and the County Connection LINK program provide transportation services to seniors and individuals with disabilities.

Generally, Pleasant Hill receives high walkability scores (Figure A-15), however two census tracts receive below average scores. These census tracts are located in the northern and southwesters area of the city.
26 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-33

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-34 Public Review Draft November 2022
Access to Quality Education
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.27 Therefore, educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. To assess educational opportunities by geography, this analysis uses California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) education domain scores, which incorporates math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates at the census tract level.

The TCAC opportunity maps help to identify patterns of negative and positive economic, educational, and environmental outcomes across the state. Census tracts are ranked from low (negative outcomes) to highest resource (positive outcomes) based on TCAC’s Opportunity Maps analysis.

Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Contra Costa County in 2021 is illustrated in Figure A-16.

Educational attainment varied geographically, with lower outcome scores concentrated in jurisdictions on the outskirts of the county, and higher outcome scores concentrated central Contra Costa County jurisdictions. The disparities in access mirror the patterns of racial segregation in the county. Areas that received a higher education score generally line up with areas that have a higher percentage of 27 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-35
white and Asian individuals. Areas receiving low education scores are generally located in areas with a higher percentage of Black and Hispanic residents.

According to kidsdata.org, a data compilation program from the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, graduation rates in Contra Costa County vary by race. As of 2020, Asian students have the highest graduation rate at 96.4 percent, closely followed by white students at 93.1 percent.

Black students have the lowest graduation rate at 78.8 percent. The high school graduation rate across all populations is 88.7 percent.

The HUD School Proficiency Index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating the presence of higher quality neighborhoods schools. In California, the HUD School Proficiency Index uses data from the Great Schools 2013-14 dataset. While the index is initially computed for census block groups, HUD also estimates the index for protected classes at the jurisdiction level. The HUD School Proficiency Index relies on the geographic proximity of local schools to persons residing in the designated census block groups. These are not necessarily the same schools that individual children are assigned to (the HUD index does not use actual school assignment zones), but since all the school districts in Contra Costa County primarily assign children to their neighborhood schools, the HUD index serves as a good proxy.

Overall, there is considerable divergence across racial and ethnic groups in neighborhood access to high-performing elementary schools. The elementary schools to which Black and Hispanic students have access are lower performing than those of all other racial groups. By contrast, schools attended by non-Hispanic whites are the highest-performing, followed closely by Asian/Pacific Islanders. Similar results are evident at the regional level.28
Local Trends
The city of Pleasant Hill is served by Mount Diablo Unified School District, which has 31 elementary schools, nine middle schools, and five high schools. Mount Diablo also has 16 alternate schools and programs, as well as two adult education centers. The district boundaries include Pleasant Hill, Concord, Bay Point, and unincorporated Contra Costa County south of Concord. Pleasant Hill students generally attend one of seven elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school.29 According to kidsdata.org, the Mount Diablo Unified student body’s racial and ethnic demographics are

42.8 percent Hispanic/Latino, 29.5 percent white, 7.8 percent Asian American, 7.7 percent multiracial,

4.6 percent Filipino, 3.3 percent African American/Black, 0.6 percent Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 0.1 percent American Indian/Alaskan Native. Compared to the region, there is a slightly higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino students and slightly lower percentage Asian American students. The high school graduation rate for Mount Diablo Unified is slightly lower than the County, at 86.4 percent.

Data on suspensions by race and ethnicity show disproportionately high percentages of African American/Black (128.6 students per 1,000), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (80.8 students per 1,000), and Hispanic/Latino students (51.3 students per 1,000) compared to white (31.4 students per 1,000) and Asian American (14.1 students per 1,000) students. Suspensions also disproportionately impact students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, with 70.3 students per 1,000 Suspensions compared to 20.9. and expulsions disproportionately affect children of color (particularly African 28 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6- 11-19
29 Mt Diablo Unified School District, Our Schools. https://mdusdca.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2/view_page?d=x&group_id=1397285363646&vdid=iie4a1krm82y6cy

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-36 Public Review Draft November 2022
American/black and American Indian/Alaska Native students), those with disabilities, and LGBTQ youth.30
As shown in Figure A-16, education outcomes vary slightly within Pleasant Hill. Education scores are slightly higher in the southern area of the city.
30 Students Suspended from School, by Race/Ethnicity. 2019-2019.Kidsdata.org

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-37
Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations to direct funding for housing and transportation equity. 31 The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

Regional Trends
Economic outcomes vary across Contra Costa County, as shown in Figure A-18. Areas identified with more positive economic outcomes are located in cities such as San Ramon, Danville, Moraga, 31 MTC, 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-38 Public Review Draft November 2022
Lafayette, and Walnut Creek. Conversely, cities on the outskirts of Contra Costa County, such as Richmond, San Pablo, Concord, and Antioch have large concentrations of less positive outcomes.

According to ACS data,32 64.9 percent of the population over 16 is in the labor force.33 Table A-10 shows employment status by disability estimates for ACS 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. The total number of individuals in the workforce increased from 2014 to 2019. Over time, the portion of employed individuals that have a disability increased marginally by 0.7 percent, while the portion of individuals that were unemployed and had a disability increased by 3.6 percent.

Formerly incarcerated people face disproportionately high barriers to employment. Nearly all of the top employers in the county ask applicants on their initial application whether they have been convicted of a felony. In a study done by the Safe Return Project, a Richmond-based research and action initiative aimed at improving community reintegration after incarceration, one in three respondents to a survey of formerly incarcerated residents in west Contra Costa County had worked since being released from prison. At the time of the survey, 78 percent of the respondents were unemployed, an unemployment rate that is nearly seven times that of the state of California. 34 Table A-10 Employment Status by Disability Status (Contra Costa County) Household Type
Employed
2010-2014
Unemployed
2010-2014
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015-2019
Total in Labor Force 489,476 (100%) 41,590 (100%) 521,656 (100%) 28,980 (100%) With a Disability 20,831(4.3%) 3,829 (9.2%) 25,970 (5%) 3,704 (12.8%) Without a Disability 468,645 (95.7%) 37,761(90.8%) 495,686 (95%) 25,276 (87.21%) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010-2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.

Local Trends
Economic outcomes vary geographically within Pleasant Hill, as shown by Figure A-19. The northwest area near Ridgeview Open Space and the neighborhoods east of the Sinclair Freeway receive more positive economic scores, while the remainder of the city receives less positive economic outcomes.

Two of the four census tracts receiving the less positive economic scores are also the census tracts that are predominantly a Hispanic-white mix (Figure A-3). The two census tracts receiving the more positive economic outcome score are predominantly Asian-white-Hispanic mix.

According to 2015 to 2019 ACS five-year estimates, 66 percent of the population over 16 was in the labor force in 2019, totaling to 19,115 individuals.35 Of the population aged 16 and over, 63.3 percent were employed, 2.6 percent were unemployed, and 34 percent were not in the labor force. Table A-11 shows employment status by disability status in Pleasant Hill in 2014 and 2019. The total number of individuals in the workforce increased from 2014 to 2019. Over time, the portion of employed 32 2019 5-year Estimates, DP03, Selected Economic Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP03&g=0500000US06013&tid=ACSDP1Y2019.DP03 33 The labor force includes all people aged 16 and older who are classified as either employed or unemployed. People waiting to start a new job must have actively looked for a job within the last 4 weeks in order to be classified as unemployed. Otherwise, they are classified as not in the labor force
34 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6- 11-19
35 2019 5-year Estimates, DP03, Selected Economic Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP03&g=0500000US06013&tid=ACSDP1Y2019.DP03

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-39
individuals that have a disability increased marginally by 0.7 percent, while the portion of individuals that were unemployed and had a disability increased by two percent.

Table A-11 Employment Status by Disability Status (Pleasant Hill) Household Type
Employed
2010-2014
Unemployed
2010-2014
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015-2019
Total in Labor Force 15,851 (100%) 1,192 (100%) 17,129 (100%) 687 (100%) With a Disability 687 (4.3%) 107 (9.2%) 842 (5%) 77 (11.2%) Without a Disability 15,164 (95.7%) 1,085 (90.8%) 16,287 (95%) 610 (90.8%) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010-2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.

Access to employment opportunities has a significant impact on the type and size of housing a household can afford. HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index utilizes origin-destination employment statistics to examine the distance from a given neighborhood to all job locations in the San Francisco Bay Area and assess the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. Because the size of employment centers and the supply of labor differ across the San Francisco Bay Area, the distance from any single job location is positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location.36 Accessibility in Pleasant Hill varies by location, as shown in Figure A-21. Areas with closest proximity to jobs are in the western and eastern part of the city. Generally, the majority of the areas zoned Residential Business, Commercial, and Professional and Administrative Office are located on the northeast side. Areas with the furthest proximity are in the western side of the city. 36HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-40 Public Review Draft November 2022

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-41

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-42 Public Review Draft November 2022

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-43
Healthy Environment
Assessment of a healthy environment examines patterns in the environmental and health-related disparities found in different neighborhoods and among protected classes. These disparities can include air quality, water quality, safe neighborhood, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws—AB 1550 (2016), SB 535 (2012) and SB 1000 (2016)— emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental justice, according to HUD, means ensuring that the environment and human health are protected fairly for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, and considering how federally assisted projects may have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations.37 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Residents in census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores (shown as percentages) are more burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects.

Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Contra Costa County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure A-22 and Figure A-23 show that generally, the urbanized 37 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-44 Public Review Draft November 2022
outskirts of the county, particularly Richmond, San Pablo, Pittsburg, and Antioch experience the highest pollution burdens.

Environmental justice concerns are especially high in Richmond and neighboring areas of west County.

Richmond is surrounded by oil refineries, chemical plants, superfund sites, highways, rail yards, and ports which contribute to pollution. Residents of Richmond are also exposed to a wide array of industrial contaminants including benzene and mercury. Pollution likely contributes to higher risks of death from heart disease and stroke and greater rates of hospitalization due to asthma in Richmond.

North Richmond, an unincorporated part of the county, is located near the Chevron refinery and other hazards. The community is predominantly populated by low-income people of color and is one of the most affordable parts of the Bay Area but suffers from high poverty and a lack of services. North Richmond may suffer from disinvestment and depressed housing prices due to its reputation as a community that is exposed to greater environmental hazards. 38 Local Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Pleasant Hill identifies scores relatively high in the Toxic Releases from Facilities indicator, likely due to facilities located in nearby Martinez. According to the Toxic Release Inventory, developed by the EPA, these facilities include the Martinez Refining Company, Central Concrete Supply Company, Shell Chemical LP - Martinez Catalyst Plant, Eco Services Operations Corporation, and Air Products and Chemicals Incorporated.39 The Traffic Impacts indicator is high along Interstate 680. The eastern area in Pleasant Hill scores high in the Cleanup Sites indicator, likely due to the cleanup sites located in close proximity in Concord. Central Pleasant Hill scores in the 80- 90th percentile for groundwater threats due to the groundwater threats located on Contra Costa Boulevard. North Pleasant Hill is in the 73rd percentile for hazardous waste. There are multiple hazardous waste generators in central Pleasant Hill, located along Contra Costa Boulevard.

The area with the highest pollution burden in the city is located along Contra Costa Boulevard and extends into the eastern central area of the city. This area is comprised of 43.98 percent non-white individuals, one of the highest concentrations of people of color in the city. 38 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6- 11-19
39 Toxic Release Inventory. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 2022: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-45

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-46 Public Review Draft November 2022

1.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs in Pleasant Hill, this section reviews data on housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.

Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered cost burdened, and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems. Housing problems are households that has

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-47
one or more of the following problems: lacks a complete kitchen facility, lacks complete plumbing facility, a household that is overcrowded, or a household that is cost burdened.

Regional Trends
Figure A-24 shows areas of Contra Costa County where homeowners experienced housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of their income on mortgage). As shown, overpayment is most prevalent in the Richmond and Danville, with high rates in Pittsburgh, Antioch, Brentwood, and San Ramon. Figure A-25 shows the housing cost burden amongst renters (spending over 30 percent of income on rent). There are more concentrations of renter households experiencing cost burden than homeowners. Renter cost burden is most common in the Camino Tassajara area, with additional concentrations in Richmond, Martinez, Concord, and Antioch.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-48 Public Review Draft November 2022
Local Trends
Figure A-26 shows the rate of homeowner overpayment in Pleasant Hill. Homeowners in the northernmost area of the city experience the highest rates of cost burden. Renters experience significantly higher rates of housing cost burden compared to homeowners. Figure A-27 shows the concentrations of renters who experience housing cost burden. High rates of renters experiencing cost burden are concentrated in the southern area of the city, with high rates centrally as well.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-49

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-50 Public Review Draft November 2022
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Large families generally have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms, resulting in overcrowding.

Some households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding is reflective of various living situations: housing unit is inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs; the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families share a single housing unit.

Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes. As a result, some landlords or apartment managers may be more hesitant to rent to larger households, thus making access to

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-51
adequate housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with higher proportion of overcrowding.

Regional Trends
Figure A-28 shows the rates of overcrowding in Contra Costa County. Across the majority of the County, rates of overcrowding are lower than the Statewide average of 8.2 percent. However, in Richmond, Concord, and Pittsburg, individuals in overcrowded households are concentrated in percentages over 15 percent.

Black households experience the highest rate of severe housing cost burden in Contra Costa with approximately 28 percent of households having a burden. Hispanic households have the second highest rate of housing cost burden, followed by Native Americans and Whites. Asian or Pacific Islander households have the lowest rate of severe cost burden with slightly more than 15 percent of households being cost burdened. Since Black households experience the highest rate of severe cost burden but have a lower rate of overall housing problems as compared to Hispanic households, Hispanic households are disproportionately likely to experience overcrowding.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) Public Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-52 Public Review Draft November 2022
Local Trends
Figure A-29 shows the levels of overcrowding in Pleasant Hill. The entirety of Pleasant Hill has overcrowding rates below the state average.

Housing Problems
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they are in compliance with local building codes.

Many federal and State programs use the age of housing as a factor to determine a community’s housing rehabilitation needs. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include replacing plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Some older housing units may have health risks such as lead paint (especially in homes built before 1978) and asbestos.

Housing issues such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma. Residents who rent are at greater risk of exposure to deteriorating housing conditions due to the desire to keep their rents from rising or fear of losing their housing.

3.1.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: A - Draft Housing Element (Draft Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft A-53
According to the AI report, among all households, 43.90 percent of Contra Costa households experience any of four housing problems: 1) incomplete kitchen facilities; 2) incomplete plumbing facilities; 3) overcrowding – more than one person per room; and 4) household is cost burdened – monthly housing costs exceeding 30 percent of monthly income.

In the County, 57.58 percent of Hispanic households experience at least one of the four housing problems. A slightly lower share of Black households (56.36 percent) in Contra Costa experience at least one of the four housing problems. Asian Americans or Pacific Islanders experience approximately the same rates of housing problems as households as a whole, with 42.14 percent of Asian households experiencing a problem. Non-Hispanic Whites have a lower rate of housing problems than every racial/ethnic group in Contra Costa. These housing burdens are greatest in portions of Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Hercules, Concord, Martinez, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley.

There are significant disparities between the rates of housing problems that larger families (households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems that families of five or fewer people experience. Both small and large families in Contra Costa experience lower rates of housing problems than families in the region overall. In the County, 59.04 percent of large families experience any one of the four defined housing problems, compared to 62.57 percent in the region. In contrast, 38.51 percent of smaller family households experience housing problems in the County while

38.67 percent of smaller family households in the region have problems. Non-family households in Contra Costa and the region experience housing problems at a higher rate than smaller family households, but at a lower rate than larger family households. Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg all have higher percentages of large, small and nonfamily households with problems than the Consortium and region.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
State law (Section 65583(a)(7)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes the condition of an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
▪ Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and ▪ Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
▪ A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
▪ An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
▪ A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.