Pleasant Hill City Council
December 13, 2022

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,

TRANSPAC
N/A Ongoing The City has worked with the
Regional Transportation Planning
Committees (TRANSPAC) and
actively participates with the
regional transportation agency
(CCTA), both of which are tasked
to limit traffic congestion
throughout the City and larger
region.

Keep program.

Continue to work with
and participate with
TRANSPAC and
CCTA to address
traffic congestion
related to new
development.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-2
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.3. Continue to
provide zoning categories that allow a
range of housing densities sufficient to
meet the City’s share of Regional
Housing Needs, as required by ABAG,
and encourage a mix of land uses and
residential densities when compatible
with the neighborhood and
environmental impacts are mitigated.

The City will monitor residential
development and progress in
implementing the Housing Element
annually and report the findings to the
City Council and the Department of
Housing and Community Development.

Current data indicate that the City has
enough residentially zoned land to
meet housing needs during the 2015-
2023 period. The City will comply with
the “no net loss” provisions of
Government Code Sec. 65863 and
ensure that adequate sites for housing
are maintained throughout the planning
period.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing Review proposed changes to
zoning districts to ensure a range
of densities to accommodate
single and multi-family residential
development.

Continue to monitor and report on
residential development on an
annual basis to the City Council
and Department of Housing and
Community Development through
the annual housing update.

Keep program and
modify to include
sites inventory, sites
form, and no-net loss
of housing inventory.

Maintain and respond
to future housing
needs by rezoning
appropriate sites
throughout the City
as needed and
continue to monitor
residential
development in the
City and report back
to the City Council
and Department of
Housing and
Community
Development
annually.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-3
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.4. Continue to
utilize Planned Unit Development
zoning.

PUD (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.30)
allows for flexible development of large
and/or contiguous parcels that may
include housing along with other uses.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing The City has approved new
Planned Unit Development zoning
districts and various projects
within the Planned Unit
Development zoning designation.

This includes a PUD to allow
development of a single-family
development and other
commercial and residential
projects throughout the City.

Keep program and
add a similar
program for utilizing
mixed use.

Continue to utilize
planning unit
development zoning
when appropriate.

Housing Program 1.5. Continue to
allow residential development on land
designated for office uses. Encourage
affordable housing in every proposed
residential development, and for every
non-residential proposal, consider a
mix of uses that includes housing.

City staff will inform developers of
Pleasant Hill’s inclusionary ordinance,
objectives for affordable housing and
the need of affordable housing in
projects of five or more units. The City
will provide incentives such as density
bonus, modified development
standards, and financial subsidies to
encourage and facilitate the production
of affordable units, including extremelylow-income when feasible.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
2 Low
28 Moderate
2015-2023 The existing zoning ordinance
allows residential uses in the PAO
(office) zoning district through a
use permit process. The City
approved a change in land use
from PAO-Office to a small lot
single family residential project.

Modify program to
address mixed use as
the City is moving
towards mixed use
zoning designations.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-4
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.6. Continue to work
with the County and neighboring cities
to increase the opportunity to jointly
develop affordable housing.

The City worked with the County on the
BRIDGE Grayson Creek project (2001-
2003) and the agreement for Mixed Use
development of the former Oak Park
Elementary School site (1700 Oak Park
Boulevard - 1999). The City also worked
with all Contra Costa communities on
the “Shaping our Future” (Smart
Growth) study, completed in 2003.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
Contact
County and
surrounding
cities on a
semi- annual
basis to
explore
opportunities
for affordable
housing.
2015-2023 The City continues to work with
Contra Costa County where
possible.

In 2016, the City and County
provided grant funds to the Mercy
Garden Park Apartment
Community (GPAC) to fund critical
capital upgrades and enable it to
qualify for additional federal
funding.

The property has 28 units
affordable to extremely low to lowincome households. In 2018, the City collaborated with the County
to amend agreements with
Satellite Affordable Housing
Associates (SAHA) for the
Hookston Senior Apartments, a
property with 99 units affordable
to very low- and low-income
seniors.

The amended agreement
extended the affordability term for
22 years, from 2053 to 2075.

In 2019, the City worked with the
County to amend an Intercreditor
Agreement for the BRIDGE
Grayson Creek project to preserve
an annual welfare tax exemption.

Without the amendment, BRIDGE
would have been unable to cover
its operating expenses for this 70-
unit complex affordable to very
low- to moderate- income
households.

In 2021, the City approved PUD
Concept Plan and Specific Plan to
allow 81 senior affordable housing
units.

Keep program.

Continue to
collaborate with the
County regarding
affordable housing.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-5
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.7. Extremely-lowincome (ELI) households are a subset of very-low-income households who
earn 30 percent or less of the 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 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
59 ELI units 2015-2023 The City completed an analysis of local ELI housing needs and
determined that 50% of the very
low-income need is at the
extremely low-income level. The
City provided a refundable loan to
Rehabilitation Services of
Northern California (RSNC), now
Choice in Aging (CiA), in 2016 to
support its predevelopment
activities related to a proposed 81-
unit affordable senior housing
project that will include ELI units.

Required program,
keep program.

Complete the posting
of information/
creation of a handout
promoting permitting
assistance for
affordable housing
proposals.

Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-6
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.8. To ensure that
the provisions of Measure B that were
adopted into the Zoning Ordinance do
not pose an unreasonable constraint to
achieving the City’s housing objectives,
the City will monitor development and
report in its Annual Progress Reports
required pursuant to Government Code
Section 65400, and 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
N/A Each year as
part of the
annual
monitoring
reports
The City continues to monitor the
impact of the former Measure B
provisions on achieving the City’s
housing objectives. The City has
modified various provisions that
resulted from the former Measure
B provisions, that better allowed
rezoning of parcels for residential
uses.

Remove program.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-7
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 2. Promote diversity in tenure, type, size, location and price to permit a choice of housing for persons of all economic levels.

Housing Policy 2A. Allow a variety of housing types to be built on residential sites.

Housing Policy 2B. Remove constraints to production and availability of housing when consistent with other General Plan policies.

Housing Policy 2C. Facilitate priority “fast track” processing by shortening the review process where appropriate for affordable, below market rate and special needs housing projects.

Housing Policy 2D. Encourage mixed-use development at underutilized sites, where appropriate.

Housing Program 2.1. Continue to use
the City-wide Design Guidelines to
facilitate small-lot development, small
single-family units and single-family
attached units through consideration of
decreased setbacks, zero-lot lines, lot
clustering through the Planned
Development process, and/or shared
parking provisions in appropriate
locations.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
24 Very Low
34 Moderate
40 AboveModerate
Units
2015-2023 The city allows this type of small
lot development through the
Planned Unit Development
process.

Small developments have taken
advantage of the flexible
development standard allowances
to cluster the development.

The City also completed an update
to its City-Wide Design guidelines
that include guidelines for small
and cluster development
proposals, especially in the hillside
areas, with the goal to preserve
existing natural areas and provide
for the maximum amount of open
space.

Keep, but modify to
discuss “small lot
infill projects” and
remove references to
single family
designations. Revise
to discuss objective
design standards.

Housing Program 2.2. Allow
manufactured housing in residential
districts in accordance with applicable
State and federal laws 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
6 Very Low
Units
2015-2023 The City allows manufactured
housing provided that it meets
certain design standards related
to architecture including siding,
roofing, etc.

Keep program.

Modify program to
discuss compliance
with the City’s Design
Guidelines and
Objective Design and
Development
Standards (ODDS).

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-8
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 2.3. Amend the
Zoning Ordinance to provide standards
for including housing in locations that
allow mixed-use development in
appropriate locations, and work with
developers to facilitate housing
production.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
Zoning
Ordinance
Amendment
Within one year
of 5th Cycle
Housing
Element
Adoption, 2015
The City continues to maintain a
Mixed-Use land use designation in
the General Plan.

Keep program.

Modify and expand
based on proposed
zoning changes.

Housing Program 2.4. Continue to
provide appropriate flexible parking
requirements that allow shared use in
locations being considered for higherdensity housing development.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing Shared use and reduced parking
can be granted through a use
permit pursuant to Section 18.55
of the Zoning Ordinance.

The City has reviewed and
approved various parking
reductions in locations throughout
the City.

Modify program to
include an incentive
for projects with an
affordable housing
component.

Continue to
implement ordinance
amendments that
allow parking
reductions for multifamily residential
within transit and
priority development
areas and consider
parking reductions
elsewhere as
warranted.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-9
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 2.5. Planning staff
shall evaluate existing development
review regulations and procedures to
further streamline and give priority to
projects that provide affordable
housing. Building and Engineering staff
shall 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing Projects that include affordable
housing are processed in an
efficient manner.

The City would give priority for
projects that exceed the minimum
affordable housing requirement.

The City works with developers to
look for ways to reduce the cost of
construction, including not
requiring sidewalks and allowing
narrower streets.

The City has considered and
approved alternative materials
that may be more cost effective
than traditional methods and
materials.

Keep program.

Continue to be
flexible with City
requirements
affecting the cost of
construction
materials.

Review and modify, if
appropriate,
engineering
standards to reduce
public infrastructure
costs for affordable
housing projects.

Housing Program 2.6. Continue to
encourage single-room occupancy
(SRO) housing in the MRVL, MRL, MRM
and MRH 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
20 SRO units 2015-2023 The City achieved compliance with this program by adopting an
ordinance amendment that
allowed and established
development provisions for singleroom occupancy projects.

Keep program,
however update
based on next steps
as the City has
already achieved
compliance with the
initial goals of this
program.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-10
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 3. Increase housing opportunities for people of limited incomes.

Housing Policy 3A. Facilitate construction of affordable housing by favoring new projects that include units for lower-income segments of the community.

Housing Policy 3B. Look for opportunities to promote the development of housing affordable and available to those who work in Pleasant Hill.

Housing Policy 3C. Participate in programs assisting production of affordable units in order to provide housing for low- and moderate-income households.

Housing Policy 3D. Provide direct assistance to individuals and households needing affordable housing.

Housing Program 3.1. Continue to
provide a density bonus for
development of affordable and senior
housing. The City’s Density Bonus
Ordinance, provides a minimum 5% to
20% increase in density with additional
density bonuses up to a maximum
increase of 35% in density if additional
target units are provided, and up to
three additional incentives, or
financially equivalent incentives, if the
development provides additional target
units.

Planning
Commission
and City Council
10 Very Low
30 Low
(Senior)
2015-2023 The City adopted a density bonus
ordinance that complies with the
State requirements (See Section

18.20.150 of the Zoning
Ordinance).

Modify program for
compliance with
current state law.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-11
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.2. 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.

Planning
Commission
and City Council
N/A Ongoing The City allows an in-lieu fee to be
paid instead of providing the
actual affordable housing units
within the project. This money can
be used to provide units elsewhere
in the City. The money collected
through the in-lieu fee has been
placed in a dedicated interestbearing account (not co-mingled), and can only be used to fund
affordable housing per the City
Municipal Code. The December
2021 fund balance was
approximately $568,000, of which
$400,000 is encumbered for a
pending affordable housing
project pending at 250 Cleaveland
Road.

Modify program to
specify in-lieu fees.

Continue to
implement the
inclusionary housing
ordinance, including
allowing in-lieu fees
as appropriate.

Continue to review
the in-lieu fees every
odd year to
determine whether
the fees are
appropriate.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-12
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.3. 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, or
10 percent for low-income households,
or
25 percent for qualifying senior
residents, or
20 percent second units (in singlefamily projects).

In order to ensure that this policy does
not pose an undue constraint to
housing production, the City will
continue to evaluate impacts to market
rate housing related to current market
conditions, project applications,
estimated affordable housing
requirements, fee collection and actual
construction of affordable housing
units. 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
5 units per
year, 13 VL
25 L
Feasibility
analysis in
2014 and 2015-
2023
The City continuously approves
residential projects that provided
affordable housing consistent with
the adopted inclusionary
ordinance.

Keep program.

Continue to
implement the
inclusionary housing
ordinance.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-13
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.4. Continue to
publicize the opportunity to construct
secondary units.

The City’s secondary unit ordinance
(adopted 1989) was amended in 2003
to comply with State law making the
process ministerial. Secondary units
help to address the needs of very-lowand extremely-low- income households.

The City will continue to inform the
public about this process with
advertising such as articles in the City’s
newsletter, which is mailed to all
homeowners on a bi-monthly basis. A
secondary unit brochure and other
outreach materials could be made
available to residents and/or posted on
the City’s website.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
16 Secondary
Units
2015-2023 The City updated its ordinance to
be consistent with recent State
law and allows accessory dwelling
units in all single-family residential
zoning districts.

The City has provided information
to its citizens through various
media methods including handouts and newsletters.

The City continues to process
ADU applications throughout the
City.

Modify program for
compliance with
current state law.

Add incentives for
ADWU production,
particularly
affordable rental
ADUs, and those in
high resource areas.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-14
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.5. Seek State and
federal funds, and encourage the use of
private financing mechanisms, to
assist in the production of affordable
housing. 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 apply for State and
Federal monies for direct support of
low-income housing construction and
rehabilitation, and shall continue to
assess potential funding sources, such
as, but not limited to, the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), and
HOME. The City shall also seek State
and Federal funding specifically
targeted for the development of
housing affordable to extremely-lowincome households. 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
$100,000 per
year, 10 L and
10 M per year
Apply for
available
funding
annually
As noted previously, the City
provided funding to two affordable
housing projects in 2016 (GPAC
and CiA) and 2017 (GPAC). The
City funds to GPAC will leverage
federal Rental Assistance
Demonstration and Project-Based
Voucher funds. The City funds to
CiA are supporting
predevelopment of a project that
is envisioned to eventually be
substantially supported by lowincome housing tax credits.

In 2018, the City amended an
agreement with SAHA to extend
the term of an existing loan.

The amendment was made in
conjunction with new financing
SAHA obtained from CalHFA and
LIHTC to rehabilitate the Hookston
Senior Apartments.

The City recently obtained a SB2
HCD Grant to support the SAHA
senior affordable housing project.

In addition, the City recently made
a submittal to HCD for TOD funds
in support of the SAHA senior
affordable housing project
Keep program.

Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.

Continue to work with
County staff
regarding the
development of
affordable housing
where feasible.

Housing Program 3.6. 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
Successor
Agency
$285,000 per
year; $2.28
million total
between 2015
and 2023
2015-2023 The Pleasant Hill Redevelopment
Successor Agency spends
$235,000 per year funding
Grayson Creek Apartments which
are 100% affordable. The City has
committed $2.5 million in Housing
Delete program.

The City will Continue
to fund Grayson
Creek; and continue
to assist non-profit
organizations that

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-15
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
development of the Grayson Creek
Apartments affordable housing project.

This amount will recur annually until
the debt is paid in full (2031).

Successor funds to SAHA to
assist with an 82-unit affordable
housing development and
$285,000 to Habitat for Humanity
to develop 4 affordable units. The
City has also entered into
agreements to sell two former
redevelopment agency properties
to Habitat to Humanity to develop
affordable housing units.
provide affordable
housing in Pleasant
Hill using proceeds
from previously
approved loans as
they are paid off and
any other new grant
funding sources that
may become
available.

Housing Program 3.7 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing The City is currently working with
SAHA on development of a new
82-unit project.

The City is also listed former
Redevelopment Agency properties
for sale in 2018, inviting proposals
from developers to develop
affordable housing on two sites.

The City has agreed to sell one of
these properties at 250 Cleaveland
to Habitat for Humanity and
provide a forgivable loan to
encourage affordable housing at
this location.

Keep program.

Continue to work with
affordable non- profit
housing developers
to provide affordable
housing in Pleasant
Hill.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-16
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.8. Provide
developers with the opportunity to
utilize tax-exempt revenue bonds.

Table H1127 lists three senior
developments where the City provided
tax exempt financing: Ellinwood and
Chateau I and III.

The City will continue to offer support
to developers through tax exempt
financing where affordable housing will
be produced.

Table H11 lists three senior
developments where the City provided
tax exempt financing: Ellinwood and
Chateau I and III. Through the
remainder of the Housing Element
Planning Period, the City will continue
to offer support to developers through
tax exempt financing where affordable
housing will be produced.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
50 L 2015-2023 During this reporting period, the
City did not use/issue any taxexempt revenue bonds.

Keep program
The City will continue
to offer support to
developers through
tax-exempt financing
when affordable
housing will be
produced and where
feasible.

Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
27 This references Table H11 on the 5th cycle Housing Element. The corresponding existing table for the current revision of the document is Table 4-17.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-17
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.9. Use monies in
the Housing Trust Fund to assist in the
development of affordable housing.

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, etc.

Planning
Commission
and City Council
Annual
outreach to
developers
and other
nonprofit
housing
agencies
Ongoing The City collects inclusionary
housing in lieu fees in an
affordable housing fund, which it
considers a Housing Trust Fund.

In October 2019, the City
committed $400,000 in Housing
Trust Fund monies to Habitat for
Humanity to develop 6 to 7
affordable units at 250 Cleaveland
Road.

Keep program. Refer
to in-lieu fees as
opposed to the
Housing Trust Fund
by name.

Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.

Continue to research
ways to assist
development of
affordable housing
with the use of
housing in-lieu funds.

Housing Program 3.10. Continue to
participate in the Contra Costa County
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
for first-time homebuyers.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
10 M 2015-2023 The City provides information
about the County’s Mortgage
Credit Certificate Program on the
City website.

Keep program. The
program responds to
a constraint.

Continue to refer
prospective buyers to
the MCC program as
long as funding
remains available.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-18
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.11. Continue to
investigate concepts and funding
sources for a homeownership
assistance program.

The City will continue to explore the
possibility of providing assistance to
people who cannot afford to buy a
home with priority given to those who
work in the city, but cannot afford the
cost of housing, 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Investigate and
apply for
available
funding
annually
No action was taken during this
reporting period.

Keep program. The
program responds to
a constraint.

Continue to search
for funding sources
to assist low-income
families purchase
homes.

Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.

Housing Program 3.12. Maintain
appropriate standards for use by the
Architectural Review Commission in
the processing of affordable housing
developments.

The Architectural Review Commission
reviews all new residential proposals. It
typically reviews development plans for
landscaping, design of buildings, and
provisions for accessibility for the
disabled.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
N/A Ongoing Design Guidelines have been
adopted and were recently
updated and the City started the
process to have residential
objective design standards that
would apply to all residential
projects throughout the City.

Delete program.

The City is
transitioning to
Objective Design and
Development
Standards (ODDS).

Housing Program 3.13. Continue to
provide fast-track permit processing for
affordable housing developments.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
N/A Ongoing Policies have been established to
expedite affordable housing
projects through the City’s various
processes.

Modify program.

The City has reduced
possible issues with
permitting new
developments
through the transition
to Objective Design
and Development
Standards (ODDS).

Continue expediting
affordable housing

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-19
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
projects when
submitted to the City.

Housing Program 3.14. Lot
Consolidation for Affordable Housing.

The City will play an active role in
facilitating lot consolidation for the
parcels listed in Table H2228,
particularly for parcels on Site 1(Jewell
Lane) and Site 4 (Cleaveland and
Beatrice). For example, the City will
work with non-profit developers and
owners of smaller sites to identify and
consolidate parcels to facilitate the
development of housing affordable to
lower-income households. The lot
consolidation procedure will also 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.

Incentives offered for lot consolidation
could include higher densities on
consolidated parcels, flexibility in
development standards, expedited
processing and/or reduced fees related
to consolidation. The City will provide
marketing materials for residential
opportunity sites and technical
assistance to interested developers,
including technical assistance to
acquire necessary funding. The City will
encourage and facilitate development
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
N/A Ongoing To comply with this program, the
City adopted a voluntary parcel
merger ordinance. The City
encourages lot consolidation on
smaller and under-utilized lots
where appropriate. The City has a
density bonus ordinance in place
to provide incentives for
development of affordable
housing. The City also currently
has a mechanism for providing
flexible development standards
through its Planned Unit
Development regulations and
through various adopted Specific
Plans.

Keep program.

Update program
based on new sites
and lot
consolidations
needed.

Consider additional
incentives to
encourage lot
consolidation.

Monitor development
on City
underdeveloped
parcels and report to
the City Council and
the Department of
Housing and
Community
Development.

Provide marketing
materials for
residential
opportunity sites and
provide technical
assistance to
interested
developers, including
technical assistance
to acquire necessary
funding.

Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
28 Table H22
Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-20
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
on underdeveloped sites on Site 1
(Jewell Lane) by providing assistance
with entitlement processing, and
provide marketing materials for
residential opportunity sites, and
offering to pay the fees from the
affordable housing fund for affordable
housing projects, and providing
financial support when available. The
City will 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.

California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-21
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 4. Improve housing conditions for people with special needs.

Housing Policy 4A. 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.

Housing Policy 4B. Support efforts to provide temporary shelter for homeless persons.

Housing Program 4.1. Continue to
provide a density bonus for senior
housing. Incentives must be created to
encourage developers to build senior
housing. The current density bonus
ordinance provides a density bonus of
up to 20 percent if any development
includes at least 35 units.

Planning
Commission,
City Council
Ongoing Ongoing The City’s adopted density bonus
ordinance notes that a density
bonus is granted for any senior
housing project.

The City also updated the Density
Bonus ordinance consistent with
recent Federal and State law
changes.

Keep program.

Responds to a
constraint.

Modify program to
incentivize senior
housing.

Housing Program 4.2. Facilitate
projects that provide units meeting
federal, State and local requirements.

Population groups in the City with
special needs include the physically
handicapped. Currently, the City
enforces State-mandated requirements
for rental housing units (Title 24). The
City will 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
department,
Planning
Commission
Ongoing Ongoing The City has approved and
continues to facilitate projects
that meet federal, state and local
requirements specifically related
to reasonable accommodation
requests to allow for housing for
persons with disabilities.

Keep program.

Responds to a
constraint.

Modify program to
incentivize special
needs housing.

Continue to attempt
to assist those
projects that provide
units that meet
federal, State and
local requirements.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-22
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 4.3. Encourage
supportive housing for persons with
developmental disabilities.

The City will work with nonprofit
developers of supportive housing for
the developmentally disabled to
identify and develop adequate sites.

The City will apply to the County for
CDBG monies and assist with tax
exempt financing for land and/or
building purchase and/or lease.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission
Consult with
nonprofits and
apply for
funding
annually
Consult with
nonprofits and
apply for
funding
annually
The zoning ordinance allows
facilities for the mentally disabled.

The city approved a PUD
Concept/Specific Plan for a
redeveloped CIA facility that
provides assistance for those with
disabilities.

Keep program.

Responds to a
constraint.

Housing Program 4.4. Continue to
facilitate the provision of emergency
shelters, transitional and supportive
housing. SB 2 of 2007 requires all
jurisdictions with an unmet need to
identify at least one zone where
emergency shelters may be stablished
by-right, subject to specific
development standards. The Zoning
Ordinance allows emergency shelters
by-right in the Light Industrial zone. In
2013 the City’s zoning regulations for
transitional and supportive housing
were amended pursuant to SB 2. The
City will continue to monitor changes in
state law regarding emergency
shelters, transitional and supportive
housing and amend the Municipal Code
in 2015 to ensure that City regulations
are consistent with current
requirements.

Planning
Commission,
City Council
Code
amendment in
2015 &
Ongoing
Code
amendment in
2015 &
Ongoing
The City adopted an ordinance
amendment for emergency
homeless shelters in compliance
with this program of the Housing
Element and in compliance with
Section 65583 of the Government
Code (SB 2).

Delete program as
the City allows
transitional and
supportive housing
by right in all
residential districts.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-23
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 4.5. Monitor
statistics from police, county agencies
or private organizations regarding
homeless shelter needs. A Point-inTime survey of the homeless in Contra Costa County conducted in January
2017 found 25 unsheltered homeless
persons in Pleasant Hill.

The City will continue to coordinate
with the County and other agencies to
address homeless needs on a regional
basis.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
Ongoing Ongoing The results of the point in time
survey from 2020, showed results
that there were 90 unsheltered
homeless in the City at the time of
the count.

Keep program.

Responds to a
constraint.

The City will continue
to correspond with
local homeless
agencies.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-24
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 5. Protect and rehabilitate the existing housing stock.

Housing Policy 5A. Maintain and enhance the quality of Pleasant Hill’s neighborhoods so they will retain their value as they mature.

Housing Policy 5B. Preserve Pleasant Hill’s existing housing stock in habitable condition.

Housing Policy 5C. Ensure that new residential development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.

Housing Policy 5D. Encourage single-family remodeling, and require additions to reflect the mass and scale of adjacent homes.

Housing Policy 5E. Provide public services and improvements that keep neighborhoods safe and livable.

Housing Program 5.1. Retain existing
residential zoning and discourage nonresidential uses in residential zones.

Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing The City has not approved any
rezoning of property from
residential to non-residential.

Most non-residential uses are not
allowed in residential zonings
districts.

Those allowed are residential
serving and requires substantial
analysis (through a conditional
use permit) before the use is
granted.

Delete program.

The State of
California prohibits
the reduction of
housing units through
SB 166 (2019), The
No Net Loss Law.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-25
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 5.2. Continue the
Neighborhood Preservation program to
provide low interest loans for
rehabilitation of homes owned or
occupied by low to moderate income
households.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
2 units per
year, 5 L, 10 M
2015-2023 The City is no longer enlisting new
participants in the Low Income
Home Rehabilitation Loan
Program.

Modify program with
verbiage “seek
funding to…”
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.

Continue to use the
Neighborhood
Preservation program
as deemed feasible
considering funding
constraints.

Housing Program 5.3. Establish and
maintain an Emergency Repair Grant
Program
Successor
Agency
5 units per
year
2015-2023 The City is no longer enlisting new
participants in the Emergency
Repair Grant Program.

Modify program to
“seek funding to…”
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.

The Rehabilitation
Loan program will be
revised to focus on
emergency repair
grants.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-26
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 5.4. Periodically
evaluate the need for residential
rehabilitation.

The City maintains information about
the neighborhood surveys it has
conducted to determine housing
condition and the need for
rehabilitation. The City will continue to
monitor housing conditions as part of
code enforcement and building
inspection activities. When housing
units in need of repair are identified,
staff will advise property owners of
rehabilitation assistance that may be
available.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing City Staff has not surveyed older
neighborhoods during this
reporting period.

Keep program.

Responds to an
identified need.

Continue to survey
older neighborhoods
as necessary.

Housing Program 5.5. Monitor the
city’s residential districts for housing
suitable for rehabilitation or code
enforcement.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing City staff works in conjunction
with code enforcement when
necessary to assist homeowners
comply with housing code
violations.

Modify program
based on objectives
for compliance
regarding assistance
to homeowners.

Housing Program 5.6. Preserve
neighborhood appearance through the
enforcement of City ordinances.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing The City Code Enforcement Officer
regularly enforces the City
Community Beautification
Ordinance to ensure that the City
maintains an attractive
appearance.

Delete program. This
program is not
required.
.

Housing Program 5.7. Review the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to
determine priorities to maintain the
community’s older residential
neighborhoods.

This review will verify that those areas
needing improvement are scheduled
for funding to address the identified
need at a specific time in the future.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Bi-annually,
2015-2023
On a bi-annual basis, the City
completes a Capital Improvement
Program that includes
infrastructure improvement
projects in all areas of the City.

Because older portions of the City
have older infrastructure, they are
normally targeted for areas of
improvement, including roads,
sidewalks, etc.

Keep program.

Continue reviewing
the CIP on a biannual basis.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-27
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 6. Preserve the City’s affordable housing stock whenever and wherever feasible.

Housing Policy 6A. Discourage the conversion of older residential units to other uses.

Housing Policy 6B. Ensure that units produced for low- and moderate-income households are made available to those households and maintained as affordable units.

Housing Policy 6C. 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.

Housing Program 6.1. Prohibit the
conversion of assisted housing units to
market rate for as long as possible and
no less than 55 years after initial
occupancy.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing No conversions of assisted
housing units to market rate
during this reporting period.

Keep program.

Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.

Housing Program 6.2. Identify assisted
dwelling units at risk of conversion to
market rate and work with property
owners to preserve the units for lowincome families.
56 units 2015-2023 The City maintains a list of
affordable units and periodically
rechecks it. A new affordability
covenant was executed for the
Ellinwood Apartments, replacing a
prior covenant that had expired in
2015.

The new covenant requires 19 lowincome rental units for 55 years.

A prior condition requiring the
property to be restricted to seniors
was lifted in order to expand
affordable housing opportunities
for households of all ages.

Required program.

Keep and expand
program with
objectives.

Continue to monitor
the affordable units
and assist with
keeping them
affordable when and
where feasible.

Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-28
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.

Housing Program 6.3. Ensure that
occupants of below market rate
ownership units meet specified income
requirements at time of purchase.

This program will augment the City’s
requirement to preserve affordable
units for 55 years by ensuring that only
qualified occupants are the
beneficiaries of below market-rate
ownership units.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission
N/A Ongoing The City qualifies all purchasers of
affordable units and conducts
annual monitoring to ensure
properties with affordability
covenants are occupied by
qualified households.

Delete program. This
program is not
required.

Housing Program 6.4. Require resale
and rental controls on below market
rate units provided through the
inclusionary housing provisions or
through public assistance.

The City’s inclusionary ordinance is a
requirement that has been imposed on
all residential development since 1996.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing The City has resale and rental
controls on all assisted units.

The City also updated duration for
rental units to 55 years, consistent
with ownership unit provisions.

Keep program.

Modify verbiage to
“continue to…”
Housing Program 6.5. Explore a variety
of tools for preserving assisted units,
including monitoring at-risk units,
participating in acquisition of belowmarket rental units by tenants or nonprofits, 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.

Public Works &
Community
Development
department
56 L 2015-2023 As mentioned previously, the
Ellinwood Apartments had an
affordability covenant that expired
in 2015.

A new covenant was executed in
2018 making 19 units affordable
to low-income households for 55
years.

City staff continues to explore
ways for preserving assisted units.

Merge program with
Program 6.4.

Housing Program 6.6. Enforce existing
condominium conversion ordinance.

Prohibit further conversions unless the
threshold percentage of apartments is
below 20 percent and if the apartment
vacancy rate is below 5 percent.

Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing No condominium conversion
requests were received during the
most recent planning period.

Keep program.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-29
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 6.7. Regularly
evaluate the proportion of rental
apartments in the city to ensure
appropriate implementation of the
condominium conversion ordinance.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing Rental units account for
approximately 31% of the City’s
dwelling units.

Merge with Program

6.6 Housing Program 6.8. Require all
assisted housing units to submit
reports on a timely basis
demonstrating compliance with the
recorded affordability agreements.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing All assisted affordable housing
complexes and single-family units
submit annual reports
demonstrating compliance.

Keep program.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-30
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 7. Ensure equal housing opportunities for all.

Housing Policy 7A. Ensure that individuals and families seeking housing in Pleasant Hill 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.

Housing Program 7.1. Continue to refer
all reports of housing discrimination to
the local fair housing-related non-profit
that is funded by the County CDBG
program.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing The City falls under the County’s
CDBG “umbrella.” As such,
residents with discrimination
complaints are referred to those
housing counseling services.

Keep program.

Continue to refer
residents to
appropriate agencies.

Housing Program 7.2. Continue to
follow the City guidelines for
implementing the reasonable
accommodation ordinance and
periodically review the Zoning
Ordinance to identify other provisions,
including the definition of “family” that
could pose constraints on the
development of housing for persons
with disabilities and reduce or eliminate
constraints through appropriate
ordinance amendments.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Code
amendment in
2015 &
Ongoing
The guidelines for reasonable
accommodation requests are in
use when the City received
reasonable accommodation
requests.

Keep program.

Modify based on next
steps as necessary.

Continue to use the
guidelines when
reviewing reasonable
accommodation
requests. Periodically
review the
reasonable
accommodation
ordinance to make
additional
amendments as
appropriate.

Housing Program 7.3. Promptly
address complaints of discrimination in
the sale, rent, and development of
housing in Pleasant Hill.

The City’s procedure is to refer these
types of complaints to the County
funded non-profit fair-housing agency,
such as SHELTER Inc., or Pacific
Community Services.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing All complaints of housing
discrimination are promptly
addressed.

Keep program.

Modify verbiage to
“continue to…”

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-31
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
The City will distribute literature
annually in City offices and on the City
website.

Housing Program 7.4. 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.

Architectural
Review
Commission,
Planning
Commission
N/A Ongoing Encourage and recommend multifamily projects to provide recreational facilities, when senior
centers are proposed, appropriate
amenities are encouraged.

Keep program. Move
to Special Needs
section.

Continue to review
appropriate projects
and require amenities
to serve the project.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-32
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 8. Require energy conserving practices in the maintenance of existing dwellings and in new residential development, additions and remodeling.

Housing Policy 8A. Encourage energy conservation practices for new and existing residential dwellings.

Housing Policy 8B. Encourage the use of green building and sustainable practices for new and renovation projects throughout the City.

Housing Program 8.1. Enforce the
State’s Energy Conservation Standards
for new residential construction and
additions to existing structures.

Building
Division
N/A Ongoing Projects are required to comply
with Title 24 standards, which
include the State of California
“Green Building Requirements”
through the building permit
process. The City recently
adopted the latest State Building
Code provisions that include the
latest energy conservation
standards.

Required program.

Keep program.

Modify program to
commit the City to
triannual updates of
California State
Building Code and
CalGREEN.

Housing Program 8.2. Encourage
innovative designs to maximize passive
energy efficiency.

Architectural
Review
Commission,
Planning
Commission
N/A Ongoing The City-Wide design guidelines
include recommendations to
incorporate design that encourage
energy efficiency and other green
methods that result in energy and
cost savings.

Keep program.

Continue to
encourage new
development to
incorporate energy
efficiency techniques
into projects.

Housing Program 8.3. Provide
information to the public, and support
efforts by public utilities, to encourage
home conservation practices.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing The City has worked cooperatively
with utilities (PG&E, CCWD,
EBMUD) to promote energy
conservation and provide
education to the public.

Keep program.

Expand program.

Continue to work with
utilities to support
efforts to conserve
energy. Provide
information to the
public about home
conservation
practices through the
internet, city
newsletter and other
forms of media.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-33
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 8.4. Encourage use
of sustainable and innovative building
practices and materials. Provide public
information concerning accepted and
available sustainable building practices
in partnership with groups promoting
those practices. Amend the City’s
Building Code as needed to be
consistent with further revisions to the
State of California Green Building
Standards Code.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Architectural
Review
Commission,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing The City continues to encourage
incorporating sustainable and
innovative building practices and
materials through the design
review process.

In addition, the City Building Code
requires compliance with the State
of California Green Building
Standards Code.

The City adopted provisions that
requires incorporating electric
vehicle chargers for certain
development projects.

Keep program.

Continue to
encourage
sustainable building
practices through the
design review
process.

Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
November 2022 Public Review Draft B-34
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 9. Facilitate public participation in the formulation and review of the City’s housing and development policies.

Housing Policy 9A. Implement procedures to provide the public with enhanced notification.

Housing Program 9.1. Provide
enhanced public notification for
Neighborhood, Area-Wide and CityWide Projects.

Continue to implement enhanced
public notification for projects based
on the impact of the project; either on a
neighborhood, area-wide or City-wide
level.

Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing The City provides enhanced
noticing for neighborhood, areawide and city-wide projects.

Keep program.

Expand with
Affirmatively Further
Fair Housing (AFFH)
objectives to reach
the whole
community.

Continue to provide
enhanced noticing for
projects when
deemed appropriate.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-1
Appendix C: Public Comments
The following appendix contains verbatim public comments received during community engagement events that addressed housing issues in the community.

Table of Contents
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................C-1 GPAC Meeting #13: May 11, 2021 ...........................................................................................C-2 GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021..........................................................................................C-2 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop..............................................................................C-6 October 27, 2021 Housing Element Townhall.......................................................................C-17 Public Comment......................................................................................................................C-18 Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-2
GPAC Meeting #13: May 11, 2021
GPAC Meeting #13: May 11, 2021
Author Comment
Lynda
Deschanbault
Public
Comment
• GP should reflect climate action plan
• equity needs to be considered
• jobs/transportation access are important
• liked using box store areas for housing
• impacts need to be mitigated
Alan Bade
Public
Comment
• History: Chilpanchango Park was given to city to protect the old Valley Oak trees – to build over this park would go against other goals of GP • Serves an underserved areas
• In an area underserved with parks
• Maybe look in Pacheco?
• Consider old gas station off Hookston
Wendy Gollop
Public
Comment
• Perhaps consider areas north of DVC? Martinez area?
• Seems like a lot of high density concentrated in areas in southern areas of the city
• Salvation Army a good site?
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
Frank Hall
Public
Comment
• Owns 555-559 Contra Costa Blvd
• 4800 sqft space empty
• Wants review of retail commercial designation – hope will allow additional potential uses
GPAC
Discussion
Regarding the RHNA, what about projects underway?
Response: We can only count toward RHNA if permit pulled after June 2022 (6 months before projection period starts on January 2023), including • 85 Cleaveland – 180 units
• Choice in Aging – 89 units (by DVC Overflow Parking Lot) • 401 Taylor Project – would be good above mod units
• 490 Golf Club
Jack Prosek
Public
Comment
• There will be a loss of jobs on JFK and JC Penny sites • Low densities proposed in Mangini – area could support higher densities • Winslow Center – will they sell the site?
• Appreciate efforts to put in increased density in the city GPAC
Discussion
Site A: DVC Overflow Parking Lot
• Could be student housing with smaller units (e.g., studios) • DVC has considered developing housing in the past
• The site backs up to 4 story developments
• Potential for increasing density on this site – but hold off increasing unless needed to meet the RHNA

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-3
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
GPAC
Discussion
Site B: Chilpancingo Site
• Remove from consideratoin
GPAC
Discussion
Site C: Winslow Center/PH-Taylor Intersection
• Would Rec and Park be willing to sell the site for development? • A creek goes through this site – would want to preserve that and may impact amount of available buildable land
• Density could be decreased here.

GPAC
Discussion
Site D: Mangini-Delu
• 3.2 du/ac a little low – the potential to bump up to 5-6 du/ac? • There is community interest in green spaces in this area/on this site • It’s the last vestige of PH’s ag heritage
• Would be great to incorporate park/urban ag(?) part of the site GPAC
Discussion
Site E: JFK University Site
• Building is close to trail and other city amenities
• Maybe a good spot for Mixed Use, first floor retail – would allow to retain some potential for sales tax generation
• Higher density on this site can help offset lower densities elsewhere in the city • Consider 70-100 du/ac MU on this site
GPAC
Discussion
Site F. ACE Hardware
• Extend the site boundary north to include TAP plastics GPAC
Discussion
Site G. Gregory Gardens Shopping Center
• Would be a good Mixed Use area
GPAC
Discussion
Site H. Salvation Army
• Remove from Consideration
GPAC
Discussion
Site I. Pleasant Hill/Gregory intersection
• Concerned about 2 new buildings – Walgreens and Zio Fraedo’s very new • More potential on south side of Gregory or east of Zio Fraedo’s • Would like Mixed Use in this area
• Walgreens could be the anchor
• Consider 40-70 du/ac MU designation for this site
GPAC
Discussion
Site J: Gregory Lane/Contra Costa Boulevard Intersection • Extend the focus area boundary north to Caspers
• Potential site for brewery or brew pub
• Consider 40-70 du/ac Mixed Use
GPAC
Discussion
Site K: Jewel Neighborhood
• Currently there’s an informal housing development proposal in the works • Rezoning would be good for that development project
• Expand the focus area to Include the L-shaped building to the east GPAC
Discussion
L. Beatrice Area
• Part of site is taken by Habitat for Humanity build; remove from site area • Flooding issues on the site
• Not impossible to build, but would cost a lot of money • Most people would go elsewhere before building here
• Remove from consideration – reconsider if having trouble meeting RHNA targets Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-4
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
GPAC
Discussion
Site M: Monument Triangle Area
• Challenging to displace a mobile home park; remove this parcel from consideration within the focus area
GPAC
Discussion
Site N: Former JCPenney Furniture Store Site
• Consider to 40-70 du/ac Mixed Use in this area.

GPAC
Discussion
New suggested areas:

Dunn Edwards –
• On Contra Costa Blvd, basically Target to Pacheco
• Mixed Use should allow for office, retail
• GP needs to make sure city can retain commercial capacity • Taylor/Morello Ave
• Good area for Mixed Use
• All along Taylor, some of these commercial areas would be good for Mixed Use – consider a Mixed Use General Plan Land Use Designation along the corridor.

Danielle Drier
Emailed
Comment
I am making a comment on the proposed Land Use plan that was shared On July 14th, 2021.

I am a local Pleasant Hill resident with 4 young children we’re a very active family in the community- always biking,hiking and using the park space available to us. I was highly alarmed when the discussion of the Mangini Land came up as an option to build living units on it. It only seems natural for the City of Pleasant Hill to want to preserve the very last vestige of Pleasant Hill’s rural roots.

As an active member of our community raising a family here is Pleasant Hill it would be my hope that we can offer our future beings knowledge of land, history and community. Restoring part of the land to its natural being and creating a space for our community-parks, trails, biking area etc. for the health of our people, families and community would be my vote!
LESS HOUSES. More people outside.

Jack Prosek Overall, it was a long but productive GPAC meeting last night.

However, some of the comments on the eight density figure used left a lot to be desired. There was some indication that the numbers represented only one point on a range of values rather than a fixed number, but we do not know what those figures are.

The consultants were vague about the number of stories & building heights that each density range might involve, but the public needs to be provided with a much better sense of this . . . . . for each density, will the buildings need to be 3 to 5, 5 to 7, 7 to 10, or more than ten stories for both Mixed Use & pure residential developments ??? And you need to include any elevated parking levels that may be required in order to meet the overall demands.

My thoughts on the specific sites follow:

A – DVC North Parking Lot
DVC still needs to INCREASE the number of parking stalls for their commuter students. I would see this site as being developed with three story walk-up housing units over a podium of a three-level parking garage – possibly one level underground. ADA accessible units can all be provided on the first residential level. It also should be noted that the residents on the west side of the canal were already concerned about the height of the CiA project to the north . . . . .

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-5
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
C – Winslow Center & D – Mangini/Delu
Given the right terms, the RPD should be interested in a land swap – perhaps a parcel along the creek towards the southern end of this property that could be developed into a park serving this new part of our community. This was strongly suggested (but totally ignored) during their Master Plan process ! The Winslow Center building itself is dilapidated & has been living on borrowed time ever since they needed to bring in a Structural Engineer TEN YEARS ago. It was good to see that “D” was revised to include the entire site; you also must recognize the slopes of the east & north parts of this site. I always envisioned a more dense development of this site than what is being proposed.

E – JFK University
Chad’s comments about the loss of jobs here was inappropriate – just because JFKU is leaving does not make this site less attractive to other office tenants. At the very least, serious consideration should be given to a multi-use development as the AC suggested. And do remember the numerous objections that were made for the FOUR story hotel project to the north – portions of that building were reduced to 2 & 3 stories in order to gain approval !!
I – PH Road / Gregory Lane
For the RHNA study, you might want to consider excluding the Walgreens site; the larger area discussed seems appropriate for the 2040 GP.

L – Beatrice Area
Development of a significant portion of this area would likely require the construction of a large retention pond for stormwater control – far too heavy a burden for even Moderate Housing. (The Library could have been constructed here elevated over a parking garage that could be allowed to flood during critical times since it is not essential that a Library be open every day; however, the opponents to this concept carried the day. The City or County Staff also gave the LTF a very bleak picture of the cost to purchase the three existing homes).

N – JC Penney
Here, as at “E”, adding a multi-use component makes a great deal of sense.

O – CCB North (added)
Adding the retail areas along CCB north of Chilpancingo (including Dunn-Edwards & Target) to the GP 2040 for a future MU development makes good sense.

P – Hillcrest Shopping Center (added)
Same as “O” but do note that a portion of the site is occupied by the very active Hope Center Church.

All of the Multi-use developments will need to consider the potential need for parking on elevated level(s) to accommodate the more intense site development.

Many areas along CCB are unlikely to be very conducive to underground parking solutions due to the naturally high groundwater elevations. Note that a MINIMUM of three residential floors are needed to be cost effective for the proposed developments.

Please provide a listing for all the vacant lots including the proposed density & type of development.

Just my thoughts in the hours following . . . . .

Jack Prosek Your Memorandum for the June 23rd meeting of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) included a great deal of valuable information about potential Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-6
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
sites for additional housing within the City of Pleasant Hill. After making a brief review, I have one major issue & found a few minor clarifications that are needed.

First, the major issue is that I could not follow the information shown in going from the details for the individual sites to Table 17 under the Site Summary. The only number that is directly supported is the TOTAL of 1,898 new units on the twelve (of 14) listed Sites. Nothing in this Memorandum appears to support the distribution of these units into the various Income Categories shown nor the numbers shown for the Vacant Sites & the Assumed ADUs . . . . . please connect the dots !!! A Chart showing the number of each type of units from each of the 12 sites would be helpful.

Minor items noted include:
- which are the “two additional sites” referred to on the third page (numbering of the pages would be helpful for references) ?
- Figure 4 shows the Winslow Center site (not Chilpancingo Park). - for Table 6 – there are one or more existing housing units on the Mangini-Delu property that would be displaced which would reduce the net increase. - the site boundaries shown in Figure 5 are significantly different than shown in the aerial view ... why is the land area shown on the East side not included ? - the development of site “E” (JFK University) as shown would result in a significant loss in the number of JOBS available in the local area; smaller numbers of jobs would also be lost on sites “C” (Winslow Center) and “N” (JC Penney). This conflicts with the objective to locate housing near jobs . . . . . - sites such as the Flood Control District property “L" Beatrice Area may be cheap to acquire, but will be very expensive to develop due to the potential flooding here & elsewhere.

One final note for today: with all these new housing units, will there also be a need to increase the areas available for new retail spaces ... especially at sites C, D, E and/or N ????
I would hope that you will clarify all of these items prior to the meeting on Wednesday !
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Darcy Please consider historic homes and work to preserve them.

Karen Consider parking, we may not need so many parking spots in the future.

Walgreens is brand new and won't work.

Jack Requested via email and in person types of data and would like that request filled.

Please provide density range for each density.

Clarify what the density levels look like. This would be helpful for the public.

JFK University and JC Penney site. We don't want to lose jobs.

Alex Contra Costa Boulevard has congestion. Be mindful when placing units here.

ADUs present an opportunity to reach housing goals. How can we get the word out?

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-7
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Mixed use: be mindful of our character when choosing where to allow Mixed Use.

Max If businesses are profitable, they may not want to sell. Let's make sure those owners are willing to sell. Can we use a confidence number within the methodology?
RE: congestion: We can reduce parking by locating units near transportation routes.

Alan Older commercial centers have cheaper rents and are valuable for small businesses compared to new developments that have higher rents.

Concerned about congestion and parking. It will be a complex issue.

Thank you for removing Chilpancingo.

Beatrice has environmental constraints.

Winslow, Mangini, and Beatrice have our last remaining open creeks. We need to plan for creek corridors with public access and restored riparian areas. They will enhance the property value and will be a benefit to residents. Please identify creeks on maps and diagrams.

Open Space/Parkland standard: consider this when planning units.

Wendy Surveys show that people want smaller low density areas.

Schools, how can we deal with added capacity? Where would new schools be built? Childcare: is there enough available?
Open space standard: We need to consider this as part of the process. We need a livable community.

Transportation: consider bus routes. Buses don't run on the weekend. Sometimes run only every 80 minutes.

Existing solar should be considered. New development should not shade existing solar panels.

List the creeks on the map. The city has flooding issues in some areas.

Jack What opportunities does the City have for the areas within the Sphere of Influence, outside the city boundary.

Darcy Housing should be inclusive for all.

Consider tiny homes and other housing formats. Build for the people and the community. We don't need more hotels.

Alan ADU's are really helpful but they may or may not increase our low density numbers.

Martin Gibb
Emailed
Comment
The Housing Element (HE) as a subpart of the General Plan (GP) does not consider the desired future characteristics of PH which are yet to be articulated in a GP draft. The general trend appears to be changing PH toward a higher density, semiurban area. The HE needs to be aligned toward future needs and avoid creating dense residential “islands” where cars are the only viable way to access the daily needs (job, groceries, shopping).

Toward this end I:
· support continued challenge to RHNA targets based on viability; · propose grouping and prioritizing mixed use designations consistent with the long-term vision of the GP. i.e. development of area close to Contra Costa Blvd corridor first;
· propose outlying areas are designated at lower densities (e.g. west PH areas C, D and I);
· propose that an overarching story be included that supports the HE and will help explain its direction, rather than present a seemingly hodgepodge grab-bag of sites of unknown availability or interest.

Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-8
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
My specific area of concern is the west PH areas C, D and I in July 14, 2021 presentation
a. Propose lowering overall density to be more consistent with areas characteristics;
b. Need to Articulate long-term vision for complete area since these three areas are in close proximity and interrelated (housing and shopping). c. These three would be significant traffic adds to area with limited public transit.

C. Winslow Center/Pleasant Hill-Taylor property - Multi Fam -LD – 40 units proposed
and
D. Mangini-Delu Area – mix of designations – 221 units proposed a. In the last HE (April 2015), this site was shown supporting 60 AMI housing units. A change to 221 (and 40 multi family, low density on Winslow) is a significant increase.
b. This would be a significant change to the characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood, generally Single Fam R10, R7 and R6 type. c. Consider no more than 110 units for this area (incl. Winslow) 4/ac consistent with existing zoning.
d. Consider setting aside some of this area as open space/ parkland because higher densities will need this amenity.
e. Continue with community use area for Winslow – adjacent parkland? I. Pleasant Hill-Gregory lane Intersection - Mixed use High density – 309 units proposed
a. Consider how to retain current community shopping area features (vegetable store, drug store, bike shop, café restaurants, etc.) in consideration of total area needs.
b. Significant traffic adds to area with limited public transit c. Consider lower density or height restrictions to keep more in character with area and limit traffic impact
Additional site specific comments based on July 14, 2021 presentation:

A. DVC Overflow Parking Lot – Mixed Use VHD - 350
a. Appears to be a site with potential to create housing on underutilized land.

B. Chilpancingo Park - removed
C. Winslow Center/Pleasant Hill-Taylor property - Multi Fam -LD – 40 a. See above

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-9
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
D. Mangini-Delu Area – (mix of designations – East = Single fam HD) a. See above
E. JFK University
F. ACE Hardware (+adjacent) – Mixed use HD - 120
a. Agree this is an opportunity area with underutilized land area (large parking lots)
b. Propose there be an overarching plan for community shopping needs (groceries, sundries, etc.) in conjunction with areas G, I and J below G. Gregory Gardens Shopping Center (Grocery Outlet) – Mixed User HD – 175 a. Consider how to meet current and future community shopping area features grocery, dining, etc. in consideration of total area needs.

H. Salvation Army - removed
I. Pleasant Hill-Gregory lane Intersection - Mixed use High density – 309 a. See above
J. Gregory-Contra Costa Intersection – Mixed use - HD 115 a. Consider expanding all the way to Woodsworth Lane – the other buildings are not of better stock
b. Extension of “downtown” – walkability and connection to shopping center on east side of Contra Costa Blvd.

K. Jewel lane Area – Mixed use HD - 71
a. Appears to be a site with potential to continue in character of area – Apts and retail
b. Consider adding adjacent triangular area (shopping center/ biz park?) L. Beatrice Area – Mixed User HD
a. Agree the area is an opportunity to develop housing – disagree with the mixed use concept for this area – no existing retail in area
b. Propose changing to housing only option.

M. Monument Triangle – Mixed User HD - 220
a. Agree that this is a potential site
N. Former JCPenney Furniture store Site - Mixed User HD – 281 a. Agree that this is a potential site
Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-10
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Chris Klein My family happily resides at 8 Erin Ct and we are writing you to express our deepest disappointment after hearing about this recent Mangini and Winslow Center proposed high density housing development.

I, alongside everyone in this neighborhood, am 100% against this proposal. I do not support it and will fight it alongside everyone in this area.

It is absolutely ridiculous to even consider adding that many units to that area.

How are we going to support the cars, parking and traffic bottleneck? Among other many issues this would cause.

We just did a beautiful job redoing this corridor. I attended city council meetings and fully supported the planning committee. Great job on that.

Please do not disappoint us long standing citizens of this community and ruin it with a greedy proposal that will crush the charm of Pleasant Hill that we call home.

I will move my family right out of here.

Block this proposal and think about single family or low density housing or just preserve this beautiful land!
Debby Badsky I have lived in PH. for over 30 years. I don’t want PH like WC. PH has a much needed home town feeling- I worked in SF and and
loved to come home and feel like I lived in a homey community. I don’t want 261 units in the Mangini area. more traffic more problems
with the sewer lines- Not to mention redoing the sewer lines on PH RD. twice in a couple of years. I never really found out why you
had to redo the sewers. The bikes lanes, the congestion of more people in 261 units, and cars in the morning will be a nightmare.

Please stop zoning for condo- high density areas in PH.

Thank You,
Debby Badsky
I’ve paid property tax for a PH home for 35 years- trying to make PH a community I want to live in- PH you get enough
money from downtown. Stop trying to make it a WC apartments complex Mark de Wit Opposition to proposed land use changes to high density for the Mangini-Delu and Winslow Center properties
My family and I are strongly opposed to the proposed changes for the ManginiDelu and Winslow Center properties as described in the virtual community workshop because the proposed housing density changes are in gross conflict with the General Plan and the values of Pleasant Hill. The proposed plan for the properties changing the current single-family medium density (63 dwelling units) to high-density housing (221 dwelling units) will severely negatively impact existing residential neighborhoods and families.

The proposed increase in housing density is does not comport with the General Plan, which states retaining the character and charm of residential neighborhoods is a top priority for Pleasant Hill residents. The proposed plan with rezoning from SF Medium Density to a combination of SF High Density and Multi-Family Low and Medium Density will change the area and negatively impact the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. (It is quite disturbing how the presentation glossed over the proposed changes, neglected to identify the current and proposed zoning changes, and did not make clear the overall change from 63 dwelling units to 221 high density units). The proposed changes for these properties do not protect and

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-11
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
maintain the character of Pleasant Hill’s residential neighborhood and quality of life. To the contrary, the proposed changes will degrade the residential neighborhoods with looming multi-story story structures and increases of congestion and traffic, hazards to bicycles and pedestrians, and noise impacts.

The proposed plan is not compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. The General Plan says that multifamily developments generally are separated from singlefamily neighborhoods. The properties are surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposed plan would be in conflict with Community Development Policy to encourage aesthetic enhancement of residential areas, while retaining the charm and character of individual neighborhoods.

The proposed high density plan would greatly increase impacts to Grayson Creek beyond those of a single-family medium density development. The General Plan emphasizes preserving and reclaiming streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to function as open space and requires reclamation of degraded streams. High density housing on both sides of Grayson Creek will dimmish its potential as riparian habitat and surely increase the quantity of pollutants entering waters of the creek.

Rezoning to high density housing is not justified on any transit basis. The properties are not near public mass transit as BART is 3 miles away, too far to walk. The local CCC Transit bus route runs so infrequently (every 80 minutes), that proximity to a high-quality bus corridor cannot be claimed.

Pleasant Hill has long prided itself on being a wonderful community to live in and raise families in safe single-family residential neighborhoods that have charm and character. It is the City’s responsibility per the General Plan to protect and preserve our residential neighborhoods. The proposed housing high density changes for the two properties fly in the face of this top priority and should be dropped.

Jack Prosek Today's email did absolutely NOTHING to actually ANSWER the questions that I raised . . . . .

Rather, the only real new information is the inclusion of 13 du's on the Salvation Site "H". The Staff Recommendation for the June 23rd GPAC meeting was that this site should be removed from inventory - maybe I missed it, but I did not hear anything during the public meetings about keeping this site - much less increasing its density from 6 units.

Also, I believe that I acknowledged up front that there is no hard & fast way to determine the possible number of stories & the likely building heights for each density being proposed, especially since the size of the units is also unknown. But ranges for these numbers can be reasonably estimated; I recognize that many of the general public will be unable to evaluate your proposals without having some idea of these parameters.

You must have had some methodology to go from the densities at each site to the total number of units for each income category. With the proper incentives I can even see the potential for Moderate or Above Moderate Income units on the upper floors of taller buildings (likely over ten stories) that are along the freeway given the views that they would have - sites E & N in particular especially if they have separate entrances !! And how did you get MINUS 8.45 Acres for MF-MD ? Still looking for the City's List of Vacant Properties as well . . . . .

Bruce Irion Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Housing Element of the PH 2040 General Plan. The RHNA goals for the General Plan represent an audacious goal, Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-12
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
one that will take ingenuity, creativity, and a different mindset to solve - As Albert Einstein said, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
My comments and questions fall into several categories:

Agreement on overriding objectives,
Comments on 2040 trends impacting housing, and
Specifics on the 2040 Housing Element presented in the July 14, 2021 meeting.

Agreement on overriding objectives:

While RHNA mandates that all California cities, towns and counties must plan for the housing needs of residents regardless of income, it sets the backdrop that this will be done in a way that protects the environment; encourages efficient development patterns; achieves greenhouse gas reduction targets; and improves intra-regional jobs-to-housing relationship. In a nutshell, the RHNA mandate seeks to optimize the quality of life for the maximum number of people by encouraging sustainable development.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) used the RHNA methodology to set housing targets for each city in CCCounty. It did so on the projected growth in population which presumes a growth in jobs.

QUESTION #1 – ABAG used RHNA to set income specific city housing targets. But how did RHNA address the recognized need to improve intra-regional jobs-tohousing relationship? More specifically, did RHNA do an assessment of the current housing need in Pleasant Hill based on local jobs or address the jobs imbalance in the Bay Area that has allowed job growth in SF and the Silicon Valley to impacting housing and transportation infrastructure around the Bay Area? Comment #1 – RHNA says it recognized the need to “improve intra-regional jobsto-housing relationship” yet it seems to focus exclusively on housing and setting targets for the distribution of income specific housing. The housing/housing distribution crisis can equally be described as a jobs/jobs distribution crisis. Yet there is no focus or assessment of jobs. If, as Einstein said, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it", then this need to change! During the July 14 th teleconference, one of the PH officials asked how to manage Sacramento. The Bay Area housing crisis was created because there was no regional jobs planning, and a regional housing plan alone will NOT solve that problem!!!
Further comment – Pleasant Hill is a great place to live! People live in Pleasant Hill by choice – they do not resign themselves to live here. And that is because Pleasant Hill is an actively managed and planned community for all residents. It values parks and open space, maintains its infrastructure, provides activities for all ages from children through seniors, all while being fiscally responsible. In short, I think Pleasant Hill does a great job of sustainable development and optimizing the quality of life for the maximum number of people, something I can’t say for all communities in the Bay Area. If there is credible data to show that Pleasant Hill is not fairly treating residents who live and work here, please show it to me. But I do not see why Pleasant Hill should be tasked with solving problems that were created elsewhere. (FYI – I see where Pleasant Hill has sent an appeal to ABAG on the RHNA target for Pleasant Hill. I have sent an email supporting the city’s appeal.)
Comments on 2040 trends impacting housing:

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-13
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
While I recognize the agenda of the July 14, 2021 meeting was the Housing Element of the 2040 General Plan, I believe it would have been helpful to have summarized this against the backdrop of trends which are and will impact the Housing Element. Specifically, here are a few trends that I believe have significant impact on housing:

Growth in e-commerce and a commensurate reduction in brick and mortar stores Trend toward tele-commuting for jobs
Trend toward on-line learning
Automation is/will reduce the number of lower income service industry jobs Let’s look at each of these trends and the potential impact it would have on housing needs for the 2040 General Plan.

Growth in e-commerce and a commensurate reduction in brick and mortar stores As this trend continues, there will be less need for retail stores freeing up space for more housing.

Comment #2 – I saw some conversion of business to housing in the proposed 2040 General Plan but I think considerably more is possible. Further, while I saw some leverage of the idea in the 2040 General Plan, I think there is room for considerably more conversion of retail space to mixed use. This would allow for retail owners and employees to live above retail space which, in line with RHNA goals, would reduce commuting and minimize carbon footprint Trend toward tele-commuting for jobs
As this trend continues, more people working in SF and the Silicon Valley will be working from home. This trend helps to mitigate the deficiency of the failure of RHNA to address the jobs imbalance in the Bay Area.

Comment #3 – The RHNA income specific housing target disproportionately emphasized lower income housing. As telecommuting allows higher income workers to choose where they elect to live, more will move to suburbs and Pleasant Hill reducing the apparent “over-abundance” of higher end housing.

Trend toward on-line learning
As this trend continues, there will be less need for classrooms, especially at colleges. This means DVC will need fewer classrooms.

Question 2 – Has this been discussed with DVC, and since the trend is true for the state as a whole, has the issue been addressed with the state who set the RHNA mandate? More pointedly, as the demand for classrooms declines, to what degree is the state prepared to use this windfall to build on-campus housing and thus reduce the housing impact colleges have on their surrounding communities? Automation is and will continue to reduce the number of lower income service industry jobs
As this trend continues, there will be fewer low income jobs and less need for low income housing.

Comment #4 – As previously commented, the RHNA income specific housing target disproportionately emphasized low income housing. The need for low income housing will decline as the number of low income jobs declines.

Additionally, this further supports my belief that the 2040 General Plan MUST start with an assessment of current and future jobs in the Pleasant Hill vicinity so that equal weight is given to jobs as to housing.

Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-14
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Specifics on the 2040 Housing Element presented in the July 14, 2021 meeting.

I will provide comments on specifics in the 2040 Housing Element presentation by the letter corresponding to the specific site in the plan.

COMMENTS:

A – DVC Overflow Parking lot
As stated above, given the trend for on-line learning, I believe there will be an opportunity to repurpose sites on-campus for student housing.

B – Chilpancingo Park
While I applaud conserving open space, given the magnitude of the housing goal set by RHNA, it seems early in the process to categorically eliminate the whole of this site
C & D – Winslow Center & Mangini Delu Area
The Winslow, Eastern, Northern and Southern areas are respectively targeted for

13.9, 4.8, 8.3, & 21.0 du/ac. With closer access to the greater capacity of Taylor Blvd (vs PH Road), it would seem the higher density housing would be better suited for the Winslow or Northern site as opposed to the Southern Site.

With such a large area, the General Plan should provide for a park or other open area.

E – JFK University
No comment
F – ACE Hardware
No comment on this site
Given previous comment about trend toward e-commerce and ability to leverage additional retail to residential or mixed use sites, what other sites can be considered? Thoughts around the Orchard Hardware site?
G – Gregory Gardens
No comment
H – Salvation Army
Given the magnitude of the housing goal set by RHNA, it is not clear why this site would be eliminated.

I & J – Gregory/PH & Gregory/Contra Costa Intersections Both are targeted to average 49 du/ac. With closer proximity to freeways, the Gregory Lane/Contra Costa Blvd intersection would seem to warrant higher density what Gregory Lane/PH Road intersection would seem to warrant lower density development.

K – Jewel Lane
No comment
L – Beatrice Area
GPAC recommendation is to “Review and use if needed to meet RHNA”. – QUESTION 3 – What does this mean??? Where does this site sit in the prioritization for use and at what density?
M – Monument Triangle
As with many other areas, this area is targeted to average 49 du/ac. This site would seem the most appropriate to consider for even higher density should that be required.

N – Former JCPenney
Again, as with many other areas, this area is targeted to average 49 du/ac. This site would seem the most appropriate to consider for even higher density should that be required
Jack Prosek Second Effort - The morning light brought out some additional comments as follows:

I. Sites F, G, I, J, K, L & M - these smaller MU sites should be limited to a maximum of six stories & about 80' in height.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-15
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
II. Think that I heard a comment about developing around the existing Winslow Center building - that structure has been living on borrowed time for TEN YEARS now & definitely will need to be demolished within the next few years. The RPD will be much better off trading that prime land for a new park elsewhere - my choice would be on the Mangini/Delu property along the creek.

We should continue to fight to maintain our suburban environment - the well planned, small town atmosphere that has been included in the City Council's stated GOALS for a number of two year cycles now - not the urban one that the politicians in Sacramento want us to have !!!
Jack Prosek Overall, it was a good meeting tonight on the Housing Element despite the small number of residents who spoke . . . . .
but it was extremely disappointing to find that the consultants did NOT respond either before or during the meeting to my requests for additional information that were made before, during and/or immediately following the June 23rd meeting. 1- A listing of the vacant properties, their assigned densities & the potential number of units.
2- Descriptions of what the various densities (now six) would likely represent in terms of the numbers (ranges okay) of stories & building heights. 3- A spreadsheet showing the transition from the various parcels A thru N to the counts in Table 2 of the June 23rd Staff Report.

In my opinion, many of the interested citizens would need some or all of these documents in order to provide meaningful comments on the plans being presented ! Thanks Ken for your support on the typical density build-outs !! In addition, I have the these thoughts on the various sites following the presentation:

A. Another reminder that DVC needs to ADD parking for their current number of commuter students while many residents - especially those living nearby - would object to having dormitory TOWERS there.

C & D. Consider allowing multi-use developments on these two sites. Also, I think that these are the best locations for Moderate & Above Moderate Income level - hence larger - units, so that should be reflected in the building sizes. Also need to allow landscape area for the creek riparian area.

E & N. Noted that these were changed to allow multi-use - as previously suggested to retain jobs close to the new housing.

G. There was some discussion during the June 23rd meeting about expanding this area to include the houses immediately west of the shopping center - which I support.

We also note that the densities for sites F, G, I, J, K, L & M were all increased from 30 units per acre to a range of 40-70 units per acre - not sure what the justification is for this especially since these all are the smaller MU sites ?? This might be too much to expect !
Of course, ample PARKING will be a big issue as each of these sites are developed so there is not a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods !!! Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-16
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Looking forward to receiving the requested documents sooner rather than later (needed NOW - not after August 11th) !!!

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-17
October 27, 2021 Housing Element Townhall
October 27, 2021 Housing Element Townhall Public Comments Author Comment
David Blau
Public
Comment
Mangini site: to dense, no transit, no jobs. Traffic issue is likely most critical. Public safety, environmental, school and water issues.

Reconsider to keep R-10 (with the inclusion of expected ADUs).

Bruce
Public
Comment
Mangini: The proposed density will change the neighborhood. Also, single family homes are in demand, and this focus area is the only area left to develop single family homes in Pleasant Hill. Please do not change the zoning.

Max
Public
Comment
Re: Mangini: Why is everyone saying 500 new cars? Can a developer choose no parking? Please would ride transportation, rather than all bring 2 cars. Suggest allowing developments to come in below parking requirements; let the developer decide.

Jonathan
Public
Comment
I echo the Mangini comments. Please reconsider the density increase here.

Bobby
Public
Comment
HCD does this to try to fix the issues with housing, but with those large numbers, can we have to approve that many units in the planning period? Consider Diversity Equity and Inclusion. Stop putting up barriers to housing.

Eric
Public
Comment
ADUs: No parking required within 0.5 miles of transit. They may be a solution to addressing the RHNA.

Joyce
Public
Comment
How can the public be involved? When will the zoning changes happen? How can the public be involved in the zoning amendments?
There is a site on Cleaveland to explore further.

Dave
Public
Comment
Consider active transportation. A built-out bike network is needed if we are to meet our RHNA goals.

Shereen
Public
Comment
Concerned with Mangini site. What if a developer wants to do something different than the proposed zoning changes?
David Blau
Public
Comment
Concerned that the State's goal of spreading out density throughout the community is not right for Pleasant Hill.

Denise
Gudzikowski
I listened with interest to tonight's session with the consultant on the Housing Element update, and look forward to the General Plan update workshops on the Housing Element. One idea that did not come up in the discussion of possible ways to get to the current draft 1803 number. And that is - ADUs. Perhaps it is possible to come up with a city wide number of potential ADU additions (5%? 2.5%?) that might be built over the next 8 year RHNA period? Given there is data on the number of ADUs permitted in the past few years, there is data to support and a reasonable assumption could potentially be made there. That could be several hundred units, easily. As was mentioned, we are going to have to get creative and realistic on this next 8 year plan. I look forward to public input on under-utilized properties (Winslow Center, many church parking lots, DVC parking lots, etc etc) thanks, Denise Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-18
Online Public Comment
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Sharron
Breedlove
I reside at Steven Circle/Linda Lane across from the Mangini property for the past forty years. After viewing the housing video, what I can determine from all lettered general plan proposals for the next 8 years to satisfy the state's various housing quota, we are 382 units short of low density housing by 8 years' end & at a surplus of high density housing beyond the state's requirements.

The Mangini land tract was initially zoned years ago for low density housing & was the only remaining open space on PH to build so many single family homes in one place.

Now the city has rezoned it for mixed density. The Molino's property that was recently built with only low density housing, it does makes a resident wonder why one project requires mixed density & another builds only million dollar single family homes.

As a resident, I do ask the question what's the differences between the two properties that warrants the rezoning changes?
When the city has already designated so many other possible sites for high density housing why consider this Mangini/Delu site for mixed density? However, working with the current status of mixed density of the Mangini/Delu properties here is what I propose, a couple alternative solutions to deal with this massive land tract previously known as the Mangini/Delu farms. Hopefully, a fresh view on how to divide it up may be considered.

Two alternate rezoning plans to consider with the Mangini/Delu property:

First alternate Mangini/Delu plan proposal:

If you have to build high density units on the Mangini property consider totally rezoning it by rearranging the areas. (High density) to the center area as a long strip for apartments/condos rather than placing them along PH road & then surround them with single family homes on all sides. In other words, have single family homes along the back side of the property like in the original drawing but add them also along side PH Rd then place a strip of apartment/condos no taller than two stories in the center portion ( middle area section long strip) place them all the way up to Taylor Blvd.

Restricting the height to only 2 story apartments/condos which would be more eye appealing & it would be no worse than looking at a two story home. Plan to have three roads exiting the entire Mangini property (the current intersection at Linda Lane, close the road at the Winslow center, then create a new road out to Taylor Blvd right turn only & then create another exit on Mercury ( optional may be needed for emergency fire exit). If you place apartments/condos as in the city's original drawing with 2-3 stories ( high density) along PH Rd the city may devalue the current properties facing across the street(on PH Rd). If those current homeowners move away with significant loss of property value it may domino into the surrounding streets which could be catastrophic.

By placing the high density in the center of Mangini property the future( low density ) single family homeowners will buy knowing their (high density) neighbors, it will make for a more cohesive neighborhood.

In the current drawing, the city gives the current homeowners across the street on PH Rd a long strip of high density apartments/condos with the potential of 2-3 stories height ( based on the video's chart original drawing ) that may reduce their property values. This is something to consider when the developer presents their plans to the city council, planning commission, etc.

The city could encourage the developer to "enclose" or surround the high density with low density housing because the city could rezone and specify in "new" drawings redrafted by the city by my proposal(s) to streamline and hide the high density units within the entire complex. The "current" drawing lacks imagination & doesn't takes into account the surrounding neighborhoods' character, integrity & maturity. My proposal

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-19
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
integrates the high density smoothly within the new neighborhood without making the units unsightly and noticeable.

A high rise apartment/condo complex placed all along PH RD may contribute significantly to the current PH Rd homeowners' property value reduction. The city should consider concerns about property values maintained as it benefits from taxes paid to city coffers.

Second alternate Mangini/Delu plan proposal:

Rezone Delu Winslow center property to "high density" housing from its current low density status. Placing a high density complex (reasonable height of 2 stories max) there makes sense & would not devalue the church property value across the street as most churches are not generally on the real estate market. Also plan to close off the Winslow center street exit/entrance onto PH Rd & create a new exit further up the road onto Taylor Blvd as a right turn only exit which would eliminate traffic off of PH Rd. The new road right turn exit onto Taylor Blvd from the high density units (no traffic light needed) will allow traffic to flow easier easing onto Taylor Blvd freeing up PH RD commuter traffic which was supposedly the purpose of the recent repaving project. If this Delu property corner is done with high density & Mangini property is entirely kept as single family homes (low density) this could satisfy the state's requirements by concentrating each property with only one type of building structure. This would require one intersection at Linda Lane probably needing a traffic light, a new exit right hand turn lane onto Taylor Blvd between the two existing stop lights-no traffic light needed, closing existing entrance/exit at Winslow center, adding exit on Mercury( optional) but probably needed for emergencies with that much housing density.

Either proposal satisfies state's housing density requirements. Hopefully, the city will consider the current residents input as possible alternatives or adjustments to the general plan.

With the recent repavement, new LED lights, low water landscaping & new traffic lights added on PH Rd, I would hope that the Mangini/Delu project would not jeopardize all the forward strides toward reducing our carbon footprint & dealing with climate change. The city has many sites stated in the video proposed to the state that could be used for high or mixed density. I would like to see each location become a possible project since the city missed that opportunity with the Molino's property so now the it's playing catchup to hit goal.

There also should be some designated open space for kids to play & adults to walk about under trees within this complex. In the UK, in a neighborhood there is a center garden square park area where only residents can enjoy...it's something to consider instead of wall to wall homes. If the city mandates it, the developers will have to build something similar as well as mandating how many trees, what kind need to be planted & what the landscape should look like. Again this may address climate change & reduce our carbon footprint.

Generally, for every one resident's email or input it represents ten unspoken opinions.

Thank you for your consideration and time.

Be safe.

John
Cumbers
I placed a call to you during the December 16, 2020 GPAC meeting asking the committee to include the Grayson Woods Golf Course Open Space parcel into the General Plan alongside the other open space land parcels in our community.

Thank you on behalf of the 5 neighborhoods bordering this land for formally including this open space parcel in the City of Pleasant Hill’s General Plan.

Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-20
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
We are grateful that you honored your commitment to exchange the increased housing density for the open space in perpetuity designation. Thank you for protecting this open space land for us and for future generations. We genuinely appreciate your efforts and dedication.

Karen
Panico
Hi Rick and Troy,
I’m still getting up to speed on all things related to Pleasant Hill Planning. In the meantime here are my comments (I’ve piggybacked on others) for the Housing Element.

I believe we have a great community and want to continue our success.

Please let me know if you have questions or need more input. ______
Comments on Housing Element for General Plan update
Challenge the imposed RHNA targets of 1800 units.

Articulate the drivers for the imposed RHNA targets (1800 units) PH is not adding jobs so why should our community bear the burden of already scarce resources.

Articulate the consequences if we do not meet the targets? Is ‘no’ a viable option? The proposed Housing Element (HE) Workshop ‘opportunities’ do not represent Pleasant Hill’s (PH) community for many reasons:

Pleasant Hill does not have an updated articulated General Plan (GP) to which this proposal can be tested. We’re addressing a sub-element (housing) before broader trends.

The proposed opportunities change some quiet suburban neighborhoods to a semiurban environments.

Limited natural resources including water are a real concern. Adding more units directly threatens our environment and resources.

I have similar comments to those submitted by another resident as follows:
· support continued challenge to RHNA targets based on viability; · propose grouping and prioritizing mixed use designations consistent with the longterm vision of the GP. i.e. development of area close to Contra Costa Blvd corridor · propose outlying areas are designated at lower densities (e.g. west PH areas C, D and I);
· propose that an overarching story be included that supports the HE and will help explain its direction, rather than present a seemingly hodgepodge grab-bag of sites of unknown availability or interest.

Specific area of concern, west PH areas C, D and I

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-21
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
a. Propose lowering overall density proposed to be more consistent with area b. Need to Articulate long-term vision for complete area since these three areas are in close proximity and interrelated (housing and shopping). c. These three would be significant traffic adds to area with limited public transit.

C. AND D. Winslow Center (40 units) /Pleasant Hill-Taylor Mangini (221 units) properties
a. In the last HE (April 2015), this site was shown supporting 60 AMI housing units. A change to 221 (and 40 multi family, low density on Winslow) is a significant increase. b. This would be a significant change to the characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood, generally Single Fam R10, R7 and R6 type. c. Consider no more than 110 units for this area (incl. Winslow) 4/ac consistent with existing zoning.
d. Consider setting aside some of this area as open space/ parkland because higher densities will need this amenity.
e. Continue with community use area for Winslow – adjacent parkland? I. Pleasant Hill-Gregory lane Intersection - Mixed use High density – 309 units proposed
a. Consider how to retain current community shopping area features (vegetable store, drug store, bike shop, café restaurants, etc.) in consideration of total area needs. b. Significant traffic adds to area with limited public transit c. Consider lower density or height restrictions to keep more in character with area and limit traffic impact
++++++++++++++++++++
A. DVC Overflow Parking Lot – Mixed Use VHD - 350
a. Appears to be a good site with potential to create housing on underutilized land.

B. Chilpancingo Park - removed
C.
a. See above
D.
a. See above
E. JFK University
F. ACE Hardware (+adjacent) – Mixed use HD - 120
Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-22
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
a. Agree this is an opportunity area with underutilized land area (large parking lots) b. Propose there be an overarching plan for community shopping needs (groceries, sundries, etc.) in conjunction with areas G, I and J below G. Gregory Gardens Shopping Center (Grocery Outlet) – Mixed User HD – 175 a. Consider how to meet current and future community shopping area features grocery, dining, etc. in consideration of total area needs.

H. Salvation Army - removed
I.
a. See above
J. Gregory-Contra Costa Intersection – Mixed use - HD 115 a. Consider expanding all the way to Woodsworth Lane – the other buildings are not of better stock
b. Extension of “downtown” – walkability and connection to shopping center on east side of Contra Costa Blvd.

K. Jewel lane Area – Mixed use HD - 71
a. Appears to be a site with mixed-use potential
b. Consider adding adjacent triangular area (shopping center/ biz park?) L. Beatrice Area – Mixed User HD
a. Agree the area is an opportunity to develop housing – disagree with the mixed use concept for this area – no existing retail in area
b. Propose changing to housing only option.

M. Monument Triangle – Mixed User HD - 220
a. Agree that this is a potential site
N. Former JCPenney Furniture store Site - Mixed User HD – 281 a. Agree that this is a potential site
Alan Bade I'd like to share my comments on the preferred alternatives presented. I hope we can support open space, riparian corridors, and creek restoration as we develop our new GP. Certainly there is ample support in the community for this as evidenced by comments during the planning and scoping sessions. I believe these are compatible, even complimentary, with other planning goals.

Focus area 1 (DVC);
I fully support the idea of opening a multi-use trail along Grayson creek all the way from Pacheco to the Viking Bridge. Part of this is supposed to be opened as part of DVC Plaza's approval. I'm hopeful that this actually happens. This would be an

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-23
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
excellent bike and pedestrian trail that can also be used for north/south non-motorized commuting, helping alleviate traffic issues.

This concept is also being articulated in the bike and pedestrian path plan update that will come to the GPAC later this summer.

Encouraging businesses to see the creek as an asset and opening up towards the creek I also support. Many communities have found their creeks to be economically and aesthetically beneficial to restaurants and other businesses. With a multi-use trail nearby and grand oaks in Chilpancingo Park, a restored creek could be very attractive and stimulate economic growth in the area. This concept is true for other areas as well.

Focus area 2 (Mangini);
This area also has a creek that needs to be carefully looked at if this area is developed.

It is important to allow enough setback from the creek to achieve several goals. First, the creek needs to be publicly accessible with walking trails. Second, the Contra Costa Flood Control Agency has a goal of using more environmentally friendly flood control solutions than it has used in the past. Constrictive channels are not consistent with these goals. It is important to adopt policies that are not in conflict with the better flood control practices being advocated by CCFCA for the future.

The map for this area only had two colors in the legend, so it was hard to know where the multi-family low and single family-high densities were proposed. Was the gray Multi-family and the orange yellow the single family- high? This should have been clearer in the legend.

Focus area 3 (Downtown);
I agree with leaving as is, with the idea that mixed use here allows for housing/commercial combinations.

Focus area 4 (Hookston);
Light industrial is important to retain as it allows for diversity possibilities in employment. Expanding the definition could spur new economic development.

Focus Area 5 (Contra Costa Blvd);
I share the concerns of some about the East Vivien neighborhood being changed to mixed-use. These homes are probably more affordable than other housing stock in the city. Will we encourage these units to be bought up and removed from our housing stock with a mixed-use designation? Care should be taken to protect the residential character further east from Contra Costa Blvd frontage.

Focus areas 6 and 7 (Gregory and Taylor);
I agree with the discussion on traffic safety being a priority.

Focus area 8 (Oak Park);
I very much disagree with changing a row of single-family homes along the southern side of Oak Park Blvd to mixed use, especially west of the EBMUD trail. I believe this would be counter to the goal of easing traffic, parking, and congestion along Oak Park Blvd. These are narrow lots, so consolidating an aggregate of them would NOT be amenable to creating parking in association with whatever business went in. This would lead to more street parking, exacerbating the existing problem. This area is already seeing a lot of development with the new Oak Park subdivision, a new library, etc. Also, these homes are once again lower priced in general and rezoning them to mixed use may lead to conversion of good, more affordable housing stock. They also back up to other similar homes, even if they are in Walnut Creek.

Focus area 9 (Pleasant Hill Plaza); makes sense to incorporate into Downtown, as it's immediately adjacent.

Additional identified area; I agree with the stated goal of preserving the mobile home park, as it is also an affordable housing option in the city.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Dr. Quy Tran,
Chair, on
behalf of the
The Pleasant Hill Commission on Aging recognizes the challenges of securing adequate and affordable housing for all communities. We appreciate the careful deliberation of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) as the City attempts to Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-24
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Pleasant Hill
Commission
on Aging
move forward. As part of our advisory role, we wish to present some information that may assist the GPAC in this purposeful process and to ensure that the needs of the fast-growing senior population are taken into account.

1. As we have previously advised the Pleasant Hill City Council, the population of older adults will exceed the population of children by 2035. In Pleasant Hill, that will mean that over 40% of all residents will be over the age of 55 and 10% of all residents will be over the age of 75. Moreover, about 2/3rd of seniors will have at least 1 medical limitation and about 1/4th could be considered disabled by In-Home Support Services standards. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) projects that about 30% of adults are or will be living alone, which exceeds the 20% of residents who live in an idealized nuclear family. Yet the AARP also notes that the US housing stock to house these single older adults for studio accommodations are <1% and 1 bedroom accommodations are <12%. In contrast, 2 bedroom homes are 27%, 3 bedroom homes are 40%, and 4 bedroom homes are 17%. As a mainly suburban community, this distribution is likely very similar in Pleasant Hill.

2. Given the above, we are supportive of the GPAC’s concept of Flexible Density Options that potentially allow for a wide variety of intermingled housing choices and mixed-income housing that may not fit in the traditional single family residential planning rubric. In the 2018 AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey, 76% of respondents aged 50 and over expressed a preference to stay in both their current community and residence. This number jumps to 86% in respondents aged 65 and older. The vast majority of older adults wish to age in place and remain integrated within their current community. In order to make this possible, we support the GPAC’s suggestion to include a wide mix of housing options that seniors may find attractive like Missing Middle housing options, Accessory Dwelling Units, multigenerational and intergenerational housing, shared housing, cohousing, and tiny homes (in addition to traditional senior housing options of assisted living, residential care, and skilled nursing facilities).

3. We have also presented data to the Pleasant Hill City Council that the majority of single older adults in Contra Costa County are housing cost-burdened. 54% of single older adults who rent and 65% of single older adults with a mortgage spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Over half of these older adults depend solely on Social Security for their income while about a quarter live below the 200% Federal Poverty Line. This presents a gap as the median Social Security income is about $1800 per month while the Elder Economic Security Index notes that living and housing costs in Contra Costa County total about $2300 per month. Given that, we strongly support GPAC’s efforts to make Very Low and Low Income housing stock a priority. In addition, we are proponents of affordable housing policies and practices that may potentially take into account rent stabilization, sustainable low income funding sources, and more flexible planning and permitting processes. We are hopeful that many of these decisions and practices will support the needs of Pleasant Hill’s senior population.

4. Finally, we support the promotion of an age-friendly community that includes agefriendly housing, services, and businesses. Age-friendly communities constitute a wide variety of concepts. In general, we feel that the 8 domains of the World Health Organization and AARP Age-Friendly Cities Framework may be helpful for the GPAC in ensuring inclusivity and equity for the senior population. The 8 domains include:
• Health Care and Health Promotion which may include local community activities and services that support wellness and greater access to health, mental health and home health care;
• Transportation which may include increased public transit, reduced-cost ride services, walkability, mobility, and accessibility;

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-25
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
• Housing and other Building Design which may include building standards for affordable, adaptive and accessible housing, increased age-friendly planning practices and multi-generational options;
• Social participation and Services which may include local meal delivery, adult day programs, and caregiving support;
• Social Inclusion which may include activities and initiatives that meaningfully engage seniors to keep them connected within the community;
• Outdoor Spaces which may include accessible, equitable and inclusive green spaces that are safe and secure for the older population;
• Civic Participation and Engagement which may include intergenerational initiatives and opportunities for meaningful volunteering and paid work that benefit older people; and
• Communication and Information which may include effective systems and technology that is accessible and available to residents of all ages.

We are appreciative of the time and effort that the GPAC commits to this process. We are optimistic that as the General Plan moves forward, we will continue to have a welcoming community for all Pleasant Hill residents, including our older population.

We remain available if the GPAC wishes to access any expertise within the Pleasant Hill Commission on Aging.

Friends of
the Pleasant
Hill Creeks
Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks (FPHC) is a nonprofit organization of Pleasant Hill residents who care about our creeks. Since 2017, FPHC volunteers have participated in creek cleanups, wildlife surveys, water quality monitoring, habitat restoration, and educational activities in our community. FPHC appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the General Plan Housing Element.

General Comments

1. At the Pleasant Hill General Plan Planning and Design Workshops, the community expressed strong support for restoration of creeks, riparian corridors, and open space areas, all of which improve our urban environment for both people and wildlife.

2. Five of the 14 potential housing sites reviewed in the Preliminary Housing Sites Memorandum (June 23, 2021) and Workshop (July 14, 2021) are adjacent to or crossed by creeks. We offer specific comments on these sites below. Where creeks are adjacent to or cross a development site, we support designation of a Creek Protection Zone, a riparian corridor/buffer zone that extends 50 feet from the top of each bank, with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. This is consistent with Pleasant Hill’s Draft Environment Element (ENV3) as well as Contra Costa County’s policies for new development along natural watercourses (General Plan, Conservation Element, Section 8.12).

3. Access to natural open space, parks, and walking/biking trails is important for residents at all income levels and should be a priority when evaluating and planning potential housing sites. This priority is consistent with General Plan Guiding Principles, which call for protection of the environment and open space resources as part of the sustainable development of our City.

Specific Comments to Preliminary Housing Sites Adjacent to or Crossed by Creeks Site B: Chilpancingo Park
• We support GPAC and staff recommendations to remove this site from inventory due to its current use as a community park, with multiple heritage oaks and deeded restrictions, in an underserved area.

Site C: Winslow Center
• The site description and map should indicate that Grayson Creek flows through this site. The creek channel is in a natural state and includes mature native oaks and other riparian species. Native and migratory bird species, including raptors, have been observed at the site.
• We recommend designation of the riparian corridor extending at least 50 feet from each creek bank as a Creek Protection Zone with adjacent open space and public Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-26
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
access trails serving as a benefit for future residents and the Pleasant Hill community.

This site also has potential for creek restoration as part of a future mixed-use / housing development.

Site D: Mangini-Delu Area
• The site description and map should indicate that Grayson Creek flows through this site. The creek channel is in a natural state and, as an extension of the creek that flows through the Winslow Center, is likely to include mature native oaks and other riparian species. Native and migratory bird species, including raptors, are likely to be present at the site.
• We recommend designation of the riparian corridor extending at least 50 feet from each creek bank as a Creek Protection Zone with adjacent open space and public access trails serving as a benefit for future residents and the Pleasant Hill community.

This site also has potential for creek restoration as part of a future mixed-use / housing development.
• Please note that the creek corridors on Sites C and D are connected and should have equivalent levels of protection.

Site E: JFK University
• The site description and map should indicate that this site is adjacent to Ellinwood Creek, a section of historic Walnut Creek. The creek channel is in a natural state and includes mature native oaks and other riparian species. The southwest corner of this site currently has an open space area (with benches) adjacent to the creek. • We recommend that the existing creekside open space area be retained and improved as part of a future mixed-use / housing development to serve as a benefit for residents and the Pleasant Hill community. This site also has potential for creek restoration as part of a future mixed-use / housing development.

Site L: Beatrice Area
• We support the GPAC recommendation to hold this site outside of inventory due to hydrology/flooding issues and sensitivity of habitat. Grayson Creek flows through this site.

The creek channel is in a natural state and includes mature native oaks and other riparian species. This site is part of an ongoing avian biodiversity survey that has documented more than 80 species of native and migratory birds, including multiple raptor species.
• We recommend this site for consideration as protected open space. This site has outstanding potential for restoring riparian habitat and enhancing public access via connectivity to the existing East Bay MUD trail and school/park/library sites.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Betsy Webb Thank you very much for the very informative Housing Element meeting last night. It was professional yet relaxed; open and engaging. I learned a great deal. I wonder if parking lots, school yards and parks could be looked at as housing possibilities. Just small slices of properties that would help to increase housing. As example, Christ the King church on Gregory rarely fills its parking lot, even in the best of times. When College Park was built, the DVC football field was shared. School yards are important, but many could be whittled down a bit. The cash strapped school district might welcome, and benefit, from additional money. Small sections of city parks might be utilized as well, although I can only imagine the uproar that would create. Finally, my parents bought our house in 1948. The Mangini family has been close neighbors for decades. This year has been a very hard for them with the passing of Louie and Marian. It would be difficult to see a wall of tall condos in place of a cornfield or walnut orchard. But time does move along. I understand the city is between that proverbial rock and a hard place. I trust you and other members will do the best for our community. Thanks for reading. And thanks again to you and other staff for a clear presentation last night.

Andrew
Pierce
Councilmember Carlson, I would like to commend you and Mayor Noack for the recent Housing Element Townhall meeting held on 10/27. I learned an immense amount about the upcoming RHNA cycle and what it could mean to the PH landscape.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-27
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Members of the public asked thoughtful questions and those were answered concisely by you, Sue, and staff. I'm hopeful that the virtual meeting will be linked to the city website and the pleasanthill2040 site for residents to view, and that the FAQ page on both sites might be updated to include questions and answers from the meeting specific to the housing element and this sixth RHNA cycle. I think it would behoove all PH residents to have a better understanding of the potential development sites, density, zoning, and why PH and neighboring cities are suddenly faced with a mandatory housing construction increase. I commend the city's transparency, the available resources/ materials for the public's consumption/education, and the council's position on RHNA in the Bay Area (and housing numbers specific to PH). I'm confident that continued transparency and communication with the public will only lead to more thoughtful conversation, understanding, engagement, and involvement.

Thank you again.

Jeremy
Magruder
I noticed that the Mangini property was listed as a focus area in the General Plan feedback report, and that discussion of focus areas was included on last night's GPAC meeting. I had a childcare obligation so I was unfortunately unable to attend but I would like to stay as up to date as possible on any news regarding plans for that property. My house is immediately adjacent to the Mangini farm, and naturally any redevelopment or rezoning choices could have massive implications for my neighborhood and for my family's financial well-being. How can I ensure that I am updated about evelopment and planning choices being considered regarding that property? Also, what is the best venue for me to provide feedback on those choices? If rezoning to high density housing or commercial development is being considered, it would clearly be devastating to the families who own homes in the neighborhood.

Wendy
Gollop
Regarding the Winslow site. If it is decided to be used for RHNA, I think that this site is better for mixed use instead of all residential. It is located at the intersection of two major streets. Any commercial development could be situated to have minimal impact on residential development. In the present plan it is designated all residential.

Jack Prosek Reminder that DVC needs to ADD parking for their current number of commuter students while many residents – especially those living nearby would ogject to having dormitory TOWERS there.

C&D Consider allowing multi-use development on these two sites. Also, I think that these are the best locations for Moderate and Above Moderate income level – hence larger – units, so that should be reflected in the building sizes. Also need to allow landscape area for the creek riparian area.

E&N – Noted that these were changed to allow multi-use – as previous suggested to retain jobs close to the new housing.

G – There was some discussion during the June 23rd meeting about expanding this earea to include the houses immediately west of the shopping center, which I support.

We also note that the densities for sites F, G, I, J, K, L, & M were increase from 30 units per acre to a crange for 40-70 units per acre – not sure what the justification is for this epeically since thes are the smaller MU sites?? This might be too much to expect! Of course, ample PARKING will be a big issue as each of these sites are developed so that there is not a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods!! Nancy
Anderson
I am pleased to hear you are in the process of appealing the RHNA numbers. I attended one of the meetings pre-COVID and heard the city council members/GPAC members place the blame on the state. They then engaged in this exercise in futility by cramming housing into every possible nook and cranny in PH. I think it explains why so many residents are so frustrated with our City Council and their lack of vision. The plan does not reflect the values and wishes of our community. It simply is a check mark to meet the RHNA numbers, and please ABAG.

The correct action is to challenge the requirement. I recently listened to a Podcast about the poor governance in San Francisco. The city has allowed unconstrained Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-28
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
growth in business and jobs without accounting for housing. We in the Bay Area are living with those poor decisions, and now we are asked to solve the problem. However, businesses and residents are leaving the area in considerable numbers. What will that do to the needs in the area? I encourage our city council to be more thoughtful and progressive in their plan. We are a suburb. We moved here to enjoy the benefits of suburban life.

I am particularly concerned about the Winslow Center and Mangini property. To see that you are considering 261 units between those two properties is astounding! The increase in population and vehicles will be unsustainable in this neighborhood. We have yet to see what traffic will be like when COVID has run its course and commutes have resumed full force. The intersection at Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory/Grayson was modified pre-pandemic. I am curious what that intersection will be like when things return to normal -- then add population and cars from Mangini/Winslow -- it will definitely feel like a San Francisco traffic jam!
What about the environmental impact? This area is rich with wildlife. The creeks and native oaks are home to so many birds, animals, reptiles. At a time when we need to be focused on saving, nurturing, and regenerating our natural world, this should not even be under consideration. I urge you to, at the very least, maintain the current zoning of R-10 for the Mangini property.

Lastly, transparency was mentioned at the Housing Element Workshop of July 14, 2021. I did not see any reference to conversations that have occurred with the Mangini Family. Has anyone on the city council, and/or GPAC members been having conversations with them? If so, why was this not disclosed? If so, please direct us to documentation of the context and content of these conversations.

Please do right by the residents of Pleasant Hill.

David Blau I"d like to introduce myself to you. My wife, Jennifer, and I have lived happily in Victoria Crossings since this development was constructed in the late 1970s. We have always loved being located next to a true working farm that has produced an amazing variety of crops year after year. It's one of the main reasons that we moved here from Walnut Creek in 1980.

I served for many years as the Senior VP for EDAW, an internationally renown land planning, environmental, and design firm headquartered in San Francisco. I built and directed the environmental practice for 38 years and retired about eight years ago. I have a career's worth of experience in land planning, site master planning, and EIR/ EIS preparation. I personally have directed the preparation of over 200 EIRs and EISs and understand all the in's and out's of these documents. I have been an expert witness in lawsuits over ill-conceived project proposals.

I have followed the multi-year General Planning process that the City has undertaken and appreciate the pressure that you are under to comply with the State mandate for adding housing. I am also aware of the many communities that are fighting to reduce their mandate as being unreasonable based on limited vacant land supply. (I believe Beverly Hills has a mandate of adding three housing units!) I see that you are currently in Phase 5 of the GP process, "Plan Preparation", and hope that the CEQA process is being done concurrently or at least has begun. Your City website states that the EIR will be released along with the Draft GP next spring. We are anxious to see its content and more specifically, how you address and theme the alternatives in the DEIR. Your 2003 EIR on the GP concluded that Alternative C, the ""Reduced Density/ Open Space Alternative" was the "Environmentally Superior Alternative", which we applaud.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-29
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
I realize that times have changed, but many of us that live in the surrounding area are seriously concerned with the ultimate density and character of housing that would be built on the Mangini property. When and if the owners decide to sell, we want to make sure that the master plan for the site and its associated EIR fully explore the range of alternatives between housing and agricultural/ open space preservation. In fact, we suggest that this theme be the basis for the "reasonable range of alternatives" as defined in CEQA. I number of communities are preserving a component of their developments for a working farm. We, however, do not want to see this as "tokenism" to appease the community but a real, honest and viable component.

The Mangini heirs will make plenty of money regardless of the ultimate number of housing units built on this site, so protecting the creek corridor, providing open space, and including a working agricultural component should be paramount. We do not want to see a crowded, unsightly development like the Molino Ravioli property just down the road where the homes are oversized, the lots are undersized, there are no setbacks from the street, and the architectural design is very poor. One of the ugliest housing developments I have ever seen.

The EIR for the Mangini property will have to address a number of serious environmental impact issues and offer suitable and effective mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. Top of the list will be the significant increase in traffic due to added congestion, increased wait times at intersections, safety crossing issues, turning lanes, etc. Other issues include air quality, climate change, noise, aesthetics, stream corridor protection, soils and erosion, vegetation, etc.

Keeping the density at a moderate level will help to keep the balance that we are all looking for on this property. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on my comments.

David Blau I wanted to thank you for your response and for forwarding my comments to your planning consultant, Rick Rust, at mintierharnish for his consideration. I also wanted to comment that many locals were on vacation during mid-July and missed the opportunity to express their serious concerns about the future use of the Mangini property. Please do not use the low attendance at this event as any indication of the level of interest. In future public meetings, I assure you that there will be much greater attendance and participation by neighbors on all sides of the property and from HOAs.

To be clear, many of us feel very strongly that the current zoning of R-10 should not be changed to allow for increased densities on this 29-acre property. Constructing 100 or so housing units on this site is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Victoria Crossings, for example, has 106 single family homes on 40 acres. The density allowed under the R-10 designation would offer full protection and enhancement of the creek corridor as well as the historic significance of some of the Mangini buildings. We do not want to see anywhere near 261 housing units with multistory structures crowded onto this site as quantified in two of Rick's slides, "Potential Sites C & D".

You owe it to the community to illustrate clearly what different densities might look and feel like. Density is an abstract term to most people. They cannot visualize densities. They need to see examples from other communities of what 4 units/ acre, 6 units/acre, 10 units/ acre, etc., would look like with photo images. Please make sure that your planning consultant illustrates these at all subsequent public meetings.

Finally, as an example of the neighborhood's passion, about five years ago, a fellow from Antioch proposed to construct an 18-hole disc golf course in Paso Nogal Park.

He said that "the use was compatible with other passive park uses" plus he claimed that "nobody uses the Park anyways". The neighborhoods surrounding the Park were incensed and mobilized to defend the Park from a use that forces out all other park Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-30
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
users. We successfully argued that the disc golf course was inappropriate for the Park and had about 250 people attend the Recreation & Parks District public meeting to decide its fate. We received a unanimous decision to decline the proposal from the District Board after illustrating the environmental damage caused by these courses in other communities. In other words, do not underestimate the power of the people (i.e., voters) in this community.

David Blau The PPT slide in the Housing Workshop in mid-July showed a potential for 261 housing units on 29 acres on the Mangini/ Winslow properties. Simple math says that would be an average density of 9 units per acre. If you intend to see a good amount of single family residential homes constructed on this site, the density for the multi-family housing component would have to be considerably higher, I’m guessing maybe as high as 12-15 units per acre and a high number of floors.

This would be totally out of character with the surrounding suburban residential neighborhood. Maybe suitable for the transit-oriented village at the BART Pleasant Hill Station or even for the Cleaveland Road project closer to the town center, but entirely inappropriate for the Mangini/ Winslow property.

Please do not push for a change in zoning for this property. The R-10 designation is entirely appropriate for this site, which would allow for approximately 100 homes.

The community is very upset and is organizing around the banner, “Neighbors for Mangini/ Winslow 100”.

David Blau Troy, thank you for having your planning consultant prepare such an informative set of built housing density examples both within Pleasant Hill and beyond. It is very difficult for the average person to comprehend density and the photos really help visualize what is possible.

We appreciate more than ever how difficult a spot the City is in. Very little vacant land left. All projects will be complex. But I hope the City now understands more about us as well. We are not against housing development. We just want to see it done properly and with a character that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.

The question asked by Dr.Joyce Tang was very direct: "If a developer builds 100 single family homes on that site, how many ADUs could the City get credit for?" The response was, "Well, it depends on the past 3 yrs results'. Not an answer that we understood. Would the number likely be: 10 20, 50? How and who determines the number that the City would be credited with?
I also found it curious that there was no mention of CEQA in the meeting. Even under the last slide on "Next Steps", there was no mention of certifying an EIR before the GP and Housing Element are adopted. I realize there are many State bills floating around to streamline and even pre-empt CEQA, particularly if a project provides affordable housing, is an urban infill project, or is in a transit-rich area. It's difficult to even follow the huge number of proposed bills and what is actually law and what is not.

So, here's my three questions for Brena Weatherby of RINCON, your environmental consultant:

1. What portion of the City's Housing Element needs to address affordable housing to qualify the City as exempt from CEQA?

2. Isn't a full EIR still required to support the General Plan?

3. If the Mangini/ Delu/ Winslow development has a component of affordable housing, does that qualify as exempt under CEQA?

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-31
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Could you please forward these three 'burning" questions to your env. consultant and have her respond with some clear answers? That would be very helpful. And thank Mayor Noack and Council member Carlson for their time and attention.

David and
Veronica
Roche
I was unable to send our comments on the website.

This is ridiculous. You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole How will squeezing more people into PH make it a better city?; more traffic, less parking, more demands on infrastructure (schools/police).

The city needs to fight harder against these mandates put on to us by larger cities and counties that have made mistakes with their own planning.

Having lived in Stockton I have seen the disastrous impact that forced higher density housing (apartments, duplexes, triplexes etc) into single family housing neighborhoods has been. The once nice neighborhoods became "tired", dirty and crime ridden very quickly and bringing down the values of the pre-existing single family homes. The proposed project at 401 Taylor for multi family is a terrible idea and would do a great disservice to the city and the neighborhoods that would be directly impacted. More ADU's would allow for a more organic solution as it would allow for citizens make their own decisions w/ their own property.

The people mandating this do not and will not live in Pleasant Hill and be forced to live with consequences.

Russell
Erickson,
Patty
Erickson
We understand, via a well to do acquaintance who plans to lead some opposition, that the Mangini ''farm" on Pleasant Hill Road, might begin development in the next year. That might entail condominiums or town houses such as sold so well near downtown PH years ago. He and other "NIMBYS" appear against anything other than over $1 Million single homes. The last 3 housing developments allowed in Pleasant Hill all involve single family homes at $1.1 million and up! Where will our children and grandchildren live? Where will city workers, teachers, police, business employees live in the future? Will we drive them all away from Pleasant Hill? Shall they have excessive commutes trying to stay where they grew up or work?
Our acquaintance states Pleasant Hill should follow the path of "Lamorinda" where monied powers and too many lawyers stand off the state mandate for more homes, which he states "has no legal teeth" for compliance. We lived in Moraga once and Lafayette and much prefer Pleasant Hill and its more equal outlook for all citizens.

The Mangini property could easily accommodate clustered townhomes (downtown PH demonstrated their worth and easy salability), or condominiums which likely will still be expensive, but much less so than single family homes. Pleasant Hill Road fronting it was recently redone and can handle the traffic with another stop light at the entry.

Alhambra Avenue is already a small freeway at commute hours, but most splits off at Taylor, though our NIMBYS will use traffic and maintaining home values as the usual excuse for limiting development.

SB9 and SB10, recently passed by the state legislature, allowing up to 4 units per single family lot and up to 10 apartments per lot, will likely influence the city's judgement, though these will doubtless face many court challenges by people dedicated to no change even in the face of increasing population world-wide (more than doubled in our lifetime).

California has 12% of USA population and 28% of its homeless, partially due to our weather, broad outlook on welfare, but also greatly to the fact that the average USA home is $374,000 and the average Bay Area home is over $1 million. Please think in terms of not adding to this with so many good people we have mentioned above! Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-32
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Richard &
Patricia
Albright
We have received information and requests related to subject. While we understand the desire of the Mangini family to maximize the value of its (inherited) property and the (insatiable) desire of Pleasant Hill (and other government entities) to increase the property tax base and consequent revenues, we are opposed to the proposed development and, absent more cogent arguments, any development.

High density housing may improve the property’s value to its current owners and the City’s tax coffers, but it significantly and permanently impairs the value of surrounding single family housing, increases traffic congestion, would reverse the claimed improvements to pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Our opposition to the proposal(s) is not merely the result of ‘NIMBY’. We are philosophically opposed to government officials, whether elected or not, arbitrarily enacting laws, regulations, etc. that effect our lives and the quality of life that attracted us to this community. What this community needs is more open space, safe recreational fields, and restored wildlife and watershed spaces..

The City initiated the Pleasant Hill Road (“PH Rd”)project and trumpeted its promised effect on traffic, and bicycle and pedestrian safety. The Mangini Land Plan would appear to be counter productive to the claimed benefits of the PH Rd project, add to the burden on neighborhood schools and tax the shrunken traffic lanes.

Which brings us to the PH Rd project itself; viz.,
The sidewalk bump-out at Linda Lane remains an invitation to accidents, causing southbound vehicles which are attempting to turn on to Linda Lane to merge back into traffic;
The narrowed lanes increase the risk of accidents as large vehicles (buses, fire engines, 18-wheelers) tend to impinge on the adjoining lane; The reduced speed limit does appear to have materially reduced actual speeds. I have yet to see a vehicle pulled over;
Northbound sign reducing speed to 30 mph is idiotic, at best, since a 35 mph speed limit sign is seemingly yards after the 30 mph sign;
Making a left turn from Linda Lane remains an adventure given the limited visibility and speed of north-bound traffic combined with the narrowed traffic lanes. I remain convinced a traffic light at Linda Lane is needed without the increased traffic the Mangini Land Plan would bring, was and is more needed than the additional (confusing) traffic light on Gregory Lane and Eleanora Drive given that there is no alternative outlet for residences on Linda Lane, Linda Court, Stevens Circle and Erin Court;
The reduction in left-turn lanes at Gregory Lane should be reversed, traffic cones delineating the change were quickly mowed down and vehicles continue making left turns from the now straight only lane;
Prohibition of left turns from southbound PH Road into Walgreens while permitting Uturns to accommodate apartment dwellers was a problem before the PH Rd project and remains problematic and dangerous as drivers make left turns into and out of Walgreens and apartment dwellers make left turns out of their complex onto southbound PH Rd. Moreover, drivers who obey the signage and are then trying to make a left turn into Walgreens from eastbound Gregory Lane frequently find themselves partially or fully obstructing the #1 eastbound lane and in danger of being rear-ended.

Richard &
Patricia
Albright
California is in another drought. Why is Pleasant Hill's government even considering adding homes and the resultant increased demand for water while simultaneously asking current residents to greatly reduce water consumption? Jared Gragg Thank you for taking the time to discuss the future of the Oak Park Shopping Center.

This letter is to reiterate the following points from our conversation:

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-33
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
• We are the owners of the Oak Park Center.
• As the shopping center was built in the 1960’s, the next stage of the property’s life should be considered in planning for the neighborhood.
• We believe the property could become a great mixed use neighborhood amenity, as it makes up the heart of the Oak Park Boulevard GPAC Focus Area. • If zoning were amended to allow such development, Oak Park Property, LLC would pursue a mixed use redevelopment of the site, incorporating neighborhood commercial businesses as well as housing.
• In this scenario, Oak Park Property, LLC would attempt the acquisition of the vacant and underutilized neighboring parcels for incorporation into a unified development. • Mixed use development is feasible from a business perspective, as the property’s existing leases largely expire before 2029.

Please let us know if we may be of additional assistance.

Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
jmagruder0 (at) gmail.com I was unable to attend the 6/23 meeting but noticed that the recommended density for redevelopment on the Mangini/Delu property had increased substantially compared to the
previous preferred alternative. The previous recommendation rezoned the southern section to multi-family low density and the northern section to single-family high, while retaining the section bordering Apollo Way as Single Family Low. This recommendation balanced the need for new housing with the need to protect the community and families who already live in the Apollo/Mercury community. If I'm not mistaken, the new recommendations would further increase the density on both the southern and northern portions substantially. This would substantially harm the families, community, and traffic in and around Apollo/Mercury. I urge the GPAC to return to the previous "preferred alternative" recommendations for this property.
golwern (at) gmail.com Regarding the Winslow site. If it is decided to be used for RHNA, I think that this site is better for mixed use instead of all residential. It is located at the intersection of two major streets. Any commercial development could be situated to have minimal impact on residential development. In the
present plan it is designated all residential.
cathleen.kirk (at) sbcglobal.net So, we're in phase 5. What does preparing the plan mean? Is all of this building a done deal as of today? We can't handle any more traffic in this area. Where is the water coming from for these houses? Pleasant Hill road was just redesigned but this design won't accommodate 200 houses on Mangini
Farm. You'll need a stop light. I'm against all of this development but don't want to waste my time giving input if this is already a done deal. Please contact me and let me know.
briannabeall (at) gmail.com I am not in favor of developing this land with so many houses on it. However, I understand that housing is needed in our area. One solution could be housing in the back part of Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-34
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
Mangini area with a public park/green space along the land that butts up against Pleasant Hill Road.
aprilbush (at) comcast.net Please find a solution that keeps the Mangini Property part of the agriculturally history of Pleasant Hill AND develops needed housing. Be creative! How about a... community
garden and play area along Pleasant Hill Road with housing behind, and a green community with solar, and connecting the walking trails, and thinking about the space for future generations. Building a community not just housing. You have the power to save the last remaining evidence of the heritage of our town and build for future climate friendly needs! csgraham228 (at) yahoo.com HORRORS!! TWO HUNDRED UNITS IN THAT SPACE IS A WAY TO MAKE LIVING IN THIS AREA IMPOSSIBLE. ALL THE

STATE MANDATES INCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
CLIMATE CHANGE ARE REDICULOUS. MAY GOD PROTECT
US FROM MORE 0VERCROWDING, OVERTAXATION AND
BLIGHT IN OUR COMMUNITY.
telzeyhome (at) yahoo.com Worried about the overuse of ADU's in neighborhoods, don't like that idea AT ALL. I am worried about taking away
business property to build housing. I think we need to be very careful and thoughtful about where housing is inserted.

Preservation of our community is vital.
khelfter (at) yahoo.com I live at 44 Erin Court. I am commenting on the proposed use for Mangini and Winslow center areas. I am opposed to the plan to add 261 housing units
**Estimated 500 additional cars / drivers would be added to an already congested area along Pleasant Hill Road
**The city just spent money updating PH road with the new bike lanes. Extra traffic will negatively impact that progress by forcing cars to the green lane.
**Residents and guests would end up parking on our streets We would ask for 33% (?) of this land to be used for low density housing (single family homes) and the rest to be preserved. This land has a rich history of farming and
seasonal activities for our local families to enjoy. It has been a place for: agriculture, outdoor landscape painting, spring Easter events, summer fruit/veg stand, autumn hay
rides/pumpkin patch etc., Christmas tree lot and open space to observe wildlife and nature.

The property contains a canal that we believe should be restored
No High Density!
catherine.boccellari (at) gmail.com We are opposed to the proposed plan for the Mangini Land.

We would like to see the following instead:
-1/3 of the land used for low density housing/single family homes
-The remaining 2/3 preserved for the community and
residents of Pleasant Hill.
-Restore the canal to its natural condition.

There are so many other multi-unit developments in Walnut Creek area that are close to Bart that haven't even been filled

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-35
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
yet- adding yet another one and contributing to more traffic and pollution, not to mention water consumption in droughtsensitive conditions, is not the right path for this plan. nancy.gerber63 (at) gmail.com I think it's a shame how little the city cares about developing soccer fields and ideally a soccer complex. While you can't turn around without running into baseball/softball fields, there are no high quality soccer fields in the entire city of Pleasant Hill. The Mangini space would have been perfect for a
complex, but no, we're putting more houses in an area with massive commuter traffic. With a soccer complex the local clubs could host tournaments that could bring in needed dollars from players and their families, as well as help our kids develop as athletes. Reconsider, PLEASE!
mdwsmw (at) comcast.net I support the general plan in relation to the Mangini development. We have seen too many LARGE single family
homes built recently in PH, and the Mangini development would provide housing for more people, on a corridor that would support the additional traffic and access to public transport. Prior developments of condominiums and
townhouses along Pleasant Hill Rd. seem to me to be
appropriate for the area, and the Mangini Farm can easily fit into this same pattern. Ingress and egress from that
development is straightforward, and utilities are right along that corridor. Please do not capitulate to the single family home cries, and keep to the plan you have developed. Thank you, Mike Weston
paul.boccellari (at) gmail.com I am opposed to the proposed mangini land plan to build 221 total units. The proposed high density development will create additional cars on an already congested area along pleasant hill road. Extra traffic will negatively impact the investment that the city just spent updating PH road with new bike lanes.

It is recommended to use the land for low density housing and the preserve a majority of the land for open space. chicostategrad (at) gmail.com Low density housing along with green space would preserve the character of Pleasant Hill. The sense of community is why I moved back from San Francisco to raise my kids in the shadow of the Mangini’s farm. My children enjoy the Winslow Center and we hope it is greatly expanded. I will leave the city if these plans are realized. Voting with my pocketbook may be all I have at this point
Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-36
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
mdewit (at) sspa.com I am strongly opposed to the proposed plan for the ManginiWinslow properties because the housing density changes are in conflict with the General Plan and the values of PH.

Changing the current SF medium density to high-density
housing will negatively impact existing residential
neighborhoods and families.

The proposed increase in housing density is does not
comport with the General Plan, which says retaining the character and charm of residential neighborhoods is a top priority for Pleasant Hill.

The proposed plan is not compatible with adjacent
neighborhoods. The General Plan says that multifamily
developments are separated from single-family
neighborhoods, which surround the properties.

The proposed high density plan would greatly increase
impacts to Grayson Creek.

It is the City’s responsibility per the General Plan to protect and preserve our residential neighborhoods. The proposed changes for the two properties fly in the face of this top priority and should be dropped.
bpjeas6 (at) comcast.net The southern section of the Mangini-Delu site should be targeted for 4.8du/ac which is consistent with the eastern section. In addition, a portion of this area should be
designated as a park/open space.

The proposed plan of 21 du/ac is inconsistent with the
surrounding neighborhood, inconsistent with the current R10 zoning, and will lead to excessive congestion along Pleasant Hill Road.

As your presentation shows, you are significantly over the RHNA target for low and very low income housing (2154 vs 892) and under for above moderate housing (295 vs 657).

This change can easily be accommodated and will put you closer to RHNA targets.
jskroner (at) pacbell.net Opposed to the plan for the Winslow Center and Mangini farm. This should NOT be high density housing with 261 units.

This would be a crime to the existing residential area-adding too much traffice on our very small streets, erode the quiet nature of the residential area, would not preserve the
canal/wildlife status. Not opposed to similar housing that already exists but NOT condominiums or townhomes, or
apartments. Please be considerate of the already existing neigborhoods and plan something that would appear
seamless and low density to this corner window of Pleasant Hill.
spechtleslee (at) gmail.com I am opposed to the housing proposal for the Mangini property. There will be too much traffic coming through Taylor and Pleasant Hill Rd. I would like to see less houses and children’s park built. Thank you.

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-37
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
shereen56 (at) yahoo.com In general, I would hope that most development could be concentrated near the CC Blvd. corridor.

Regarding the Mangini property: I understand that housing is inevitable, but could we please consider a so-called Agrihood? Let us preserve a small patch of the farm for a community garden for example. Please require that the
design of new housing reflect our town's charm. I wouldn't be opposed to tiny homes for low income people as part of it. kpmg (at) sbcglobal.net The Housing Element (HE) as a subpart of the General Plan (GP) does not consider the desired future characteristics of PH which are yet to be articulated in a GP draft. The general trend appears to be changing PH toward a higher density, semi-urban area. The HE needs to be aligned toward future needs and avoid creating dense residential “islands” where cars are the only viable way to access the daily needs (job, groceries, shopping).

Toward this end I:
• support continued challenge to RHNA targets based on
viability;
• propose grouping and prioritizing mixed use designations consistent with the long-term vision of the GP. i.e.
development of area close to Contra Costa Blvd corridor first; • propose outlying areas are designated at lower densities (e.g. west PH areas C, D and I);
• propose that an overarching story be included that supports the HE and will help explain its direction, rather than present a seemingly hodgepodge grab-bag of sites of unknown
availability or interest.
pwmosher (at) att.net Think the proposal for the Mangini property has too many homes - will overly impact that intersection and property.

Also feel a Starbucks Drive Thru on the old Tahoe Joe's site is overkill - maybe a Sarbucks but NOT a Drive Thru
f.levy (at) comcast.net I am writing to voice my opposition to the city’s plans for Mangini’s. I have lived in P.H. for 56 years and little by little the open spaces where kids used to be able run, play and have fun have been paved over. The field that was at the end of Linda ln where we had 2 creeks meet into a pond and a giant oak tree with a rope swing gone, the field on the other side of Taylor Blvd where kids used to build forts gone, hangman’s hill where we use to go to ride our bike’s gone.

Instead of building more high density housing packing us in like sardines in a can why not use part of the land to teach kids at the local schools how to grow food,rent out other parts of the land to residents who want to grow their own food. vickiweiland (at) gmail.com I understand the City is considering how the land previously held by Mangini Farm on Pleasant Hill Road is going to be developed. Is this correct? If so, I would strongly encourage the City to engage the community with goals that could be to 1) preserve the historical nature of this property; 2) preserve as much open space as possible; 3) be as environmentally conscious as possible. It is NOT ok to keep developing land (like we've done with Molino's on Boyd and Pleasant Hill Road Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-38
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
and like we've done on Taylor and Mercury and now the
homes that are about to be built just down the street on Taylor) with $1.5m++ single family homes. Our City is turning into a cement jungle and the traffic and number of people living in the area continues to explode. And the "privilege" that we continue to attract with housing that only the top 1% can afford, waters down our ability to be inclusive and attract a diverse profile residents. Please respond. Thank you.
debbyclary (at) cs.com Re the Mangini property, I am against high density housing on our already depleted resources, i.e., WATER. We do NOT need more housing, period, in Pleasant Hill.
k.barense (at) comcast.net I’m very concerned about future development to the Mangini property. Traffic is already an issue and adding 221 units will make it unbearable. Please take into concern those of us living in this area.
shari.riffe (at) sbcglobal.net If the Mangini property is up for sale I think the agricommunity idea would be great for P Hill. With the property at the corner of Lucille and Taylor being developed the
congestion will be bad enough. Too bad it can't be a park. gelinasannette (at) gmail.com I was active in the General Plan 2020 process and still stand by my opinion that the Mangini property should stay zoned as it is. Although there will still be a lot of impact to the surrounding area in the way of traffic, schools, and other services, it is much less than the proposed 221 units.

Pleasant Hill road already has traffic issues. Although the city needs affordable housing, placing it closer to the 680 corridor makes more sense. Most will miss the Mangini Farm and
many would like to preserve the land but unfortunately I know that is probably not feasible. Leaving the zoning reduces the impact that will occur when this property is developed.

NormaJ49 (at) gmail.com As a 40+ year resident who lives just blocks from the Mangini Farm, as a local Realtor for 34 years,, I would love to see NO more density than the property is currently zoned for. This is not the area to put high density housing. It would change what we have all loved and enjoyed as long as each of us has lived here. To change it to high density would not appeal to any of the local residents. It would of course create traffic, drowded schools and an ambiance none of us look for in our beloved central Pleasant Hill location! Please keep the Pleasant in Pleasant Hill. I believe Louie Mangini would want it to remine as the area he loved so much! I know I would and my friends and neighbors would. Thank you for listentin.

Adding 120 single family homes is a lot iin itself! Thank you for considering our input.
suzannejo16 (at) gmail.com On Nextdoor someone brought up the idea of an Agrihood.

Sounds fabulous. I would vote for no more houses or density.

More green space please!
estherann11 (at) gmail.com Regarding development of the Mangini property. I fully support the idea of creating a Agrihood on the Mangini
property. It's time for Pleasant Hill planning commission to

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-39
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
embrace ideas that benefit residents and the environment.

Agriculture is a part of our history. Thank you.
amy_email_1 (at) yahoo.com I am opposed to the city approving increased housing units on the Mangini property located between Pleasant Hill Rd, Taylor Blvd, and Westover. Reduced housing would be even better to avoid traffic congestion, keep the area safe for bikes and pedestrians, and potentially avoid a hideous skyline of tall buildings.. I live 2 blocks away and am greatly concerned about traffic, crime and safety. Ideally, the property would be turned into agrihood.

Thank you.
kma751 (at) gmail.com We do not need 221 additional housing units on the Mangini Farm property. We are already dealing with the awful houses being built on the Molino property. The traffic in this area is already much, much worse tban it was even 5 years ago. I will not support any council member who thinks this is a good idea. I would support an “Agrihood”, but not mass housing on this property. You are ruining Pleasant Hill.
kostreet75 (at) gmail.com As a resident of the Mercury and Apollo Way neighborhood I believe it is imperative to the to maintain the R-10 zoning of the Mangini/Delu property to keep with the surrounding area and the character of our neighborhood. Please keep the R-10 zoning for this property for the 2040 General Plan.
helenjcrump (at) gmail.com Thank you for considering comments from residents of Pleasant Hill. The idea of agrihood is very appealing for the Mangini property. It seems to be the new and innovative way to incorporate the agricultural roots of this valley with the need for housing. Please consider an agrihood project when making decisions about the Mangini property.
kphillips101 (at) ymail.com I would like the city to accomplish the following:

1. Please save open space and align with California's 30x30 conservation plan - to permanently protect 30% of open space by year 2030.

2. Incorporate new development with green spaces - trees, community gardens, parks. Plant pollinator plants and
drought tolerant plants. Avoid water-hungry plants.

3. Include affordable housing per the state's requirement.

Thank you.
ronaldred2 (at) aol.com restrict growth! Too many people, too much traffic, noise is ungodly, and it just isn't anything like the town I grew up in.

This is not progress!
dansheridan (at) comcast.net The city should buy the Mancini farm and create some special farm, playground, multi-use community facility
bsuefine (at) outlook.com I love the idea of an "agrihood" that has been suggested, and see no reason why it couldn't work here in Pleasant Hill, a former farm community. I realize that growth is inevitable and feel that we need more affordable housing in town. Also not opposed to some high-density development here, such as the proposed building near the city center, as long as we don't end up looking like downtown Walnut Creek. However, Walnut
Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-40
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
Creek and Lafayette high-rises are being built close to their BART stations. That would be a more appropriate place for PH to build high-rises, rather than on this traditionally agricultural property. I also acknowledge the Mancini's right to profit from their property. Perhaps a compromise could be reached?
karelinnea (at) yahoo.com I'm writing to ask that the Mangini/Delu property not be rezoned. As it already stands, we will suffer the impact of increased school attendance, traffic, and other services. golwern (at) gmail.com There are no documents or other information links to the focus areas that you want comments to on the Pleasant Hill 2040 website. You have to know to go to the General Plan advisory agenda to find them. Perhaps I am just not finding them. Please make links and documents easy to find for
people not following everything that is going on with the General Plan.
pgreid2 (at) gmail.com Leave the property as is. Too many cars and we have no water.
pgreid2 (at) gmail.com Leave the land as is. Too many cars & we have no water. jaykee8 (at) aol.com i think single family homes on the back perimeter of the mangini property whith a small park in front bordering
pleasant hill rd. thank you, dan b.
shereen56 (at) yahoo.com I would like to see a balance of housing and green space on the Mangini property. Ideally, 100-150 dwellings. The
exquisitely beautiful creek corridor should be preserved for all as green space. Other green spaces throughout could be
walkways, playground, a community garden or agriculture. I would like to find a way to pay for this green space — maybe a bond or a land grant. Would you know how I find out more about that? Thanks for listening 👂!
masarweh63 (at) gmail.com Pleasant hill is a beautiful town and it should stay that way. I am opposed to any housing or density housing on the Mangini properties. We don't want our view blocked.
julie39 (at) comcast.net My choices for the Mangini development are:

1. Save the land as is

2. Part Housing/ Part Agriculture
betswebb (at) sbcglobal.net Pleasant Hill is a great place to live; schools, restaurants, parks, housing. Additionally, we cherish what little rural open space we have in our land locked community. The 2040
general plan should preserve as much open area as possible. I understand the need for development income, but there is importance in balance between housing and parkland.

Look into the possibility of an ‘agrihood’
(https://cngf.org/agrihood/) designation as a potential for future development on the Mangini/Delu property. The 2040 general plan calls for more than 200 housing units there in an area already extremely burdened by heavy traffic.

Infrastructure expenditures (police, fire, schools, utilities,

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-41
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
etc.)would increase as well, and not be significantly offset by any garnered income.
2040 is a long way off, but what is planned for the future impacts us all, and our community. When open land is taken away it is rarely replaced. This is much more than just a plan on paper. It is your legacy. Balance.
dani.ferris (at) gnail.com Let’s preserve our limited land in pleasant hill. I’ve recently heard of one of the proposed plans to build on the Mangini property. My family choose to move to Pleasant Hill 15 years ago because we enjoyed the lifestyle of suburban living. If we wanted urban living we wouldn’t have moved here. That being said it is my hope the city does not develop these plots of land into multiple housing units. It is my hope this space can be preserved to some level, a community park and a small
number of single family homes that aren’t on top of each other.

Thank you,
Dan
catwraa (at) msn.com I was born and raised in Pleasant Hill, left for college and came back to buy my home 6 blocks from the house I grew up in that my parents still live in 55 years later. My family and I know what Pleasant Hill used to be like and the farms and ranches were a big part of that. We were so sad to see the Molino’s property turned into urban sprawl and now I am very, very against any developer building on the Mangini property should they choose to sell. I feel this land should be preserved either a community farm or park. Please don’t allow another development on this property. The traffic is already terrible down P Hill road, high density development would be
horrendous here; crime would increase and our homes would depreciate in value. Thanks for listening.

Catherine Beekmann, RN
rgelinas (at) dvc.edu The property on Pleasant Hill Rd commonly known as the Mangini Farm has been zoned R-10 for many decades. While a change in zoning to allow for higher density would benefit the current owners, it would be at the expense of hundreds of others who live in that part of Pleasant Hill. It is not appropriate to subject many hundreds of residents to
increased traffic and noise, to further impacted schools, and to potentially lowered home values so that one property owner can benefit.

As a resident of Pleasant Hill for more than 30 years, I urge you to NOT change the zoning for the Mangini Farm.
golwern (at) gmail.com Since the City is looking for suggestions on where to put RHNA housing, there is a parcel on Woodsworth and Contra Costa Blvd with a laundromat, cigarette store and is next to Big O Tires. This might be suitable for rezoning as there is a large parking lot in the back of the tire store. There is some Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-42
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
residential nearby Perhaps better for mixed use than other areas being looked at.
golwern (at) gmail.com There are large empty lots that front Geary Rd near the fire station that are zoned R 10. The corner of Bonnie and Geary (1 acre and more). Since these front a very busy street, these lots may be more suitable for higher zoning than single family. golwern (at) gmail.com Beatrice Rd site. That is not a good site for mixed use. It is a flood plain and a lot of the parcel is land locked. It is owned by Flood Control. It is surrounded by single family homes.

There is also a creek corridor that has perennial water. The creek area supports wildlife such as birds, otters, and other wildlife. These issues will all need to be considered in developing the area. Any development should include large protected riparian corridor with public access. .
steve (at) saguaroequine.com As much as we would love to see the Mangini farm remain, we understand this may not be practical. An "agrihood" would be a great compromise. At the very least, single family homes, with a neighborhood park, would be in keeping with the
surrounding neighborhoods and have the least impact on
traffic congestion. High density housing would surely cause serious problems in the area, degrade and devalue the
surrounding neighborhoods, and increase crime. It is notable that residents love this area for its quiet atmosphere and low crime rate, in contrast with the downtown area where housing density and crime are proportionately higher. Thank you for taking these ideas into consideration when planning future development.
kandrhogan (at) yahoo.com Thank you for the detailed information. I would greatly prefer that area C/D (Mangini area) plans for low density housing, maintaining the farms as is or be used as a park. I am not in favor of mid or high-density housing. The additional traffic, noise and crime inherent with high-density housing are
certainly all negative factors which would detrimentally affect my family's security and quality of life. This would also have a negative impact on my home's value.

Thank you.
imenegas (at) comcast.net We have lived on Malaga Way for over 30 years. When we bought our home, we knew that the Mangini-Delu Area was zoned for housing at 4 houses to the acre, just like the neighborhood we were buying into. We understood that
Malaga Way could be opened through that development. We recognize the urgent need for housing, but do not believe that land should now have twice the number of housing units as originally zoned. 221 units of housing will destroy the character of our neighborhood & will create terrible traffic & air pollution from all those cars. We have no objection to building 100 houses on the 25.90 acres, but apartments, condos or townhouses to create the density of 221 units would make our streets even more susceptible to car
accidents. Happily, we have many children in the

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-43
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
neighborhood who ride their bikes on Apollo. That would not be possible with the influx of some 500 cars passing through this quiet neighborhood. Please respect the zoning in place when we invested in our home.
scoutmom2wwm (at) gmail.com As much as you messed things up In the past, for fear of Lawsuits or just inviting Boutique hotel development to our city for the tax Money, you need to stop!
Tiny homes and communities are they only way we will meet the RHNA #.

No more HOA, tacky ugly Strip malls, no HOTELs and no
Mansions! You have damaged ALL character this city has no history left! Nothing left to do but partner with Rec and Park, and preserve the 1920’s school house! Your bad decisions have no class , after decades, the Pleasant Hill Historical Society folded. You couldn’t even give us a closet or shelf In the new library! Vallie Jo Whitfield is rolling over in her grave! Get it together- stop chasing money over charm. The crime is horrendous- get license plate readers!
Or don’t run for office again.

Thank you.
size1 (at) sbcglobal.net After living in Pleasant Hill 23 years, and Lafayette the prior 25 years, I am very familiar with the Mangini tract . I believe that the current zoning for single family residential homes should not be changed both to maintain the character of the
neighborhood and that of Pleasant Hill. The increased traffic on Alhambra from the Valley Ridge apartments on Alhambra, near me, is very substantial, and the increased vehicle traffic on Pleasant Hill Road from dense apartments would be a
significant downgrade to the area. Thee is no rapid transit nearby, so residents would all use cars. The population density increase near the Concord, Walnut Creek, and
Pleasant Hill ( actually in Walnut Creek)is acceptable because residents can walk to the nearby BART station if they wish.

There is no penalty to Pleasant Hill to maintain the current zoning.
snfstc19 (at) gmail.com I am concerned about high density housing on the corner of Pleasant Hill Rd and Taylor.
dmg0039 (at) comcast.net the plan must resist the temptation to over build our city. we must retain our small town appeal and not resort to highly dense developments.
willett.jason (at) gmail.com We are at 213 Apollo Way, next to the Mangini property.

Perhaps the most unique thing about Pleasant Hill - and one of aspects that attracted us most to this community - is the fact that the Mangini family farm exists at all. It is rare for a municipality, particularly one in a dense urban area, to be home to an agricultural landmark that continues to generate crops for the local community, and remain highly visible to residents and visitors. It is immeasurably valuable that Pleasant Hill can showcase a working farm so close to its downtown hub. Let's preserve this integral character and charm. In the aftermath of the global quarantine, there are massive quantities of existing commercial office space that Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-44
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
can be repurposed for high-density residential housing.

Explore those options, but don't pave over our agricultural origins. From the plowing tractors and the fruit stand to the pumpkin patch, hayrides, and sunflower fields, Mangini Farm is essential and necessary to our city.
petersymonds (at) kennedyjenks.com When will citizens who are unable to attend meetings be given an opportunity to comment on the draft documents?
golwern (at) gmail.com If looking at rezoning in residential areas, Please consider areas along large roadways such as Contra Costa Blvd, Tayor Blvd near Co Co Blvd. There are residential areas that front or back to those roads that might be better suited to higher density housing than along smaller corridors such as Oak Park Blvd.
cindyXcats (at) gmail.com Please NO MORE HOUSES. No more Car Max, Floor Decor. NO MORE PEOPLE. Leave the land green. Too many people, lines, overcrowded venues and restaurants. Not enough parking.

Too much traffic . Only housing should be tiny homes and limit that. PLEASE.
paulamichael (at) gmail.com Hi there! We live in the Linda Lane neighborhood, directly across from Mangini’s produce stand and farm. We are
incredibly concerned about the plan for new housing,
especially regarding the increase in traffic. Have you ever tried to turn left out of Linda Lane during rush hour? Have you ever used Pleasant Hill Road to connect to Lafayette during rush hour? Have you tried turning left from Pleasant Hill Road on to Gregory Lane, with only one left turning lane instead of two? It’s incredibly challenging with the amount of vehicle traffic today and to increase it would be debilitating for those of us living in the neighborhood, including our first responders. If you must use the Mangini space, please consider single
family homes only. High density housing is a much better fit for downtown areas, which are close to amenities and public transportation hubs. The suburbs are meant to be suburbs.

Thank you for listening and we’ll be sure to continue to speak up. Have a great day!
billfeil57 (at) outlook.com Please consider living conditions for all. Many of us cannot afford these large houses and we also don't want to afford cramped in small houses. Something in between that will incorporate more green ideas so the homes will have the efficiency needed to get us through these tough times.

I see Pleasant Hill losing its small town atmosphere with too many hotels, too many large home, and poorly designed
roadways. I am not sure where you are planning on letting homes being built, but do it smartly, please!
mike_flake (at) yahoo.com Preserve the character and quality of Pleasant Hill by eliminating high density housing goals. Do not eliminate single family housing in favor of any type of development or redevelopment. Increasing density also causes more traffic

4. Housing Element
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-45
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
and negative impacts on city services, and other items such as schools, energy, and water.
storeygianakos (at) gmail.com Regarding development of the Mangini property: Whatever is done, DO NOT PERMIT OPENING OF MALAGA WAY TO
THROUGH TRAFFIC. Please follow the precedent set by
planning for the Lippincott property. An attractive privacy barrier would be a valuable improvement. "Malaga Court" has a nice ring to it!
jocyetangmd (at) gmail.com I oppose development of Mangini's Farm & Winslow Center into 200+ units of high density housing. I’ve lived in the neighborhood across from Mangini's Farm for 19 years. We own the homes at both 39 Erin Ct. & 158 Linda Ln. Our
neighborhood of homeowners on Linda Ln., Linda Ct., Steven Cir. and Erin Ct. all know each other; we are organized, and are unified in vehemently opposing high density housing there.

That would have devastatingly negative effects on our
neighborhood. Our home values will go down and our
location would become less desirable. We don't want the crime that comes with it, like the shooting that had happened in the downtown Pleasant Hill high density housing after a drug deal gone bad, or the drug deals that routinely occur in the parking lots of condos in Lafayette, or more traffic, or visitors of that development parking on our streets. WE WILL OPPOSE IT!!! However, we'll happily support building single family homes on 1/4+ acre lots to match the surrounding area.
khelfter (at) yahoo.com Thank you to the council for the townhall meeting tonight. It was well organized and did a good job explaining the difficult position we are in. I hope we can find a creative way to maybe "spread the units" among as many sites as we can. Thank you for all your hard work.

Housing Element | Public Comments
November 2022 Public Review Draft C-46
This page is intentionally left blank.