Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Norma
Brink
Hello, I just reviewed the new housing implementation water need for these plan and I do not see anything addressing the water needs for all the future housing. It is all very well to say lets add a blank number of homes to the area but where is the water coming from for them? This State is at the beginning of a water crisis and no-one locally seems to be addressing it. I know many seniors who no longer use their pools but they need to to be kept full of water. They are willing to remove but cannot afford the $30,000 price tag to remove them. The CCCWD doesn't seem to address the issue either. They have a program to help owners remove their front lawn but nothing about back lawns or pools.
I hope you are able to propose some solution before people move. thank you
Bruce
Irion,
David
Blau,
Annette
Gelinas, &
Shereen
Motarjemi
We want to compliment staff on their very comprehensive Housing Element document.
Hopefully HCD will be equally impressed although given their track record of rejecting initial submitals that might be too much to hope for.
It is very evident Pleasant Hill’s Housing Element was prepared to comply with HCD’s extensive requirements. Thus, by its nature, the lens of the review is biased toward HCD’s vision which among other things presumes that every city’s housing should be a microcosm of the Bay Area as a whole. Setting aside whether this is desirable, it’s questionable whether this is statistically viable for smaller areas such as Pleasant Hill. As just one example, consider Figure 4-37 on page 123, Home Values of Owner-occupied Units. Compared with Contra Costa County or the Bay Area, home values in Pleasant Hill span a narrower range of values. Given the size of Pleasant Hill, this is what one might expect - a more homogeneous, narrower range of home values. So, while it is true there is less lower-value/more affordable housing, it is also true that there are not the excesses in housing value seen in other parts of the county or Bay Area.
Further HCD’s guidelines set specific expectations for review and focus on finding shortcomings as opposed to highlighting accomplishments. But consider the following:
Pages 77 and 78 detail the success of increasing group housing in Pleasant Hill which is important to service the city’s growing senior population. Yet HCD and RNHA targets do not allow consideration of this class of housing.
Pages 78 and 79 show the significant increase in ethnic diversity which has occurred in Pleasant Hill in the past twenty years. So, while it is true that Pleasant Hill’s population remains predominately white, there has been great progress in increasing ethnic diversity.
Figure 4-10 on page 88, Jobs-Household Ratio shows that Pleasant Hill has maintained a more consistent jobs to household ratio than either Contra Costa County or the Bay Area Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
both of which show trends of adding jobs without adequate additional housing. Thus, Pleasant Hill has done better at balancing housing and economic growth than the county or region.
HCD’s emphasis seems to focus on housing units as opposed to housing people. We mentioned previously that HCD does not consider the increase of persons in group housing. As a further example, consider Figure 4-13, page 94, Population by Age and Figure 4.5, page 83, Housing Tenure by Age. Figure 4-13 shows that Pleasant Hill’s population of persons over 55 years of age increased from 7.3k to 10.8k persons. Figure
4.5 shows that a significant portion of owner-occupied units (which tend to be single family homes) are owned by persons over 55 years of age. Based on experience in our neighborhoods, as these houses turn over, we can expect one or two person households to be replaced by families increasing the number of persons housed.
Thus, reading a Housing Element review drafted under guidelines set by HCD’s lens, it is very easy to focus on shortcomings and lose sight of the positive progress that has actually been made. We're not suggesting that Pleasant Hill change its Housing Element, rather we just wish to provide balance to the perception one might get of housing in Pleasant Hill when viewed through HCD’s lens.
Marlina
Hartley
First of all, thank you to those who put in the amount of work this plan involves. It is impressive. I admit that I didn’t read everything completely or search through every chart and table. Perhaps the items listed below have been considered and are addressed. In case they aren’t, however, these are my thoughts:
In reading that a mix of housing—very low income, low income,, senior, those with special housing needs—is desired in high opportunity areas, I question the houses built by the new library on Oak Park Blvd. The other housing development on Alhambra Ave. at Boyd likewise includes no range of housing units. Every housing development should include a mixture of income levels—not just multi-unit buildings.
The new construction objectives re 1,182 lower income and 1,237 moderate and above moderate units. So many homes in our neighborhoods are being updated for higher sales price or purchased and then remodeled that the number of lower income units should be drastically increased and the other reduced. Our community should strive to blend all economic levels into our neighborhoods.
In looking at low income areas that exist now, it appears that many were placed without any thought to public transportation. For instance, the ones on Grayson require a car.
This should not happen again.
Architectural design is important at every cost level. There is no reason for low income to mean ‘ugly’. Is landscaping considered? Low water needs landscaping should be a part of every new plot plan—not just low income either. New home owners at any new or renovated project should feature low water use.
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
This plan needs to be more proactive about energy efficiency. It is obvious that change is required and this is the time to ensure it is being addressed. Why would new housing use gas heating, gas appliances? Many locations are banning these in new developments. Why isn’t Pleasant Hill?
Does the ‘payment of a fee in-lieu-of building the unit’ in “inclusionary provision to provide affordable housing” mean a contractor does NOT have to build affordable units? This is wrong. There should be no opt out fee.
The use of the Diablo Valley College overflow parking lot for 350 units of low income housing is great! If the old JC Pennys building could be used for housing that is also a plus except for the unattractive location. It would need to be developed to include landscaping, outdoor seating and play areas.
Although a number of underutilized properties are mentioned, the huge parking lot by the Sears store in Sunvalley Mall is not. What is happening to this? Please know that every underutilized area should not be filled with a mix of housing an commercial. We need access to small businesses such as small produce stores, hardware stores, small restaurants, drug stores scattered throughout the residential areas for people to walk/bike to: Definitely not strip malls, but well landscaped with limited parking.
Before more housing is put in the Monument Blvd. area near Crossroads shopping center, the traffic needs to be addressed.
Jack
Prosek
Received the email Notice yesterday evening for the Public Review of the November 2022 Draft version of the Housing Element portion of the General Plan Update for 2040.
After a very brief scan over the 368 pages of documents, I already yhave a number of questions & comments, as follows.
page 4-1 - it would be helpful if these initial paragraphs included explicit references to the Housing "Needs Assessment" AND the "Policy Document". page 4-3 This portion of the document starts with "The Introduction" whereas the Headers on the even numbered pages call it the "Policy Document" - confusing at best ! page 4-4 P. 4.2-1. - should this refer to the Housing Needs Assessment which starts on sheet # 39 ? Also note that it is rather confusing to have two sets of pages numbered 4-1 thru 4-38 in the same document package!!
page 4-1 # 2 (sheet # 39) - where was the photo taken that appears on the cover of the Housing Needs Assessment ? I cannot connect it to any Pleasant Hill location; it looks more like something from Walnut Creek!
page 4-103 - Table 4-22: City Residential Parking Requirements - anyone who participated in the multitude of reviews for the original housing proposed for the 401 Taylor site is well aware of the deficiencies in the current City Municipal Code for multiple single family home developments. Simply requiring a 2-car garage is insufficient for most homes, especially those with ADUs, & guest parking spaces are also needed on the streets nearby without having an overflow into the adjoining neighborhoods! Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Surveys of two mature neighborhoods revealed that the average was less than one vehicle in each 2-car garage since one stall was always occuppied by bicycles, yard equipment, general storage or other uses while homes of 3 or more bedrooms almost always have multiple vehicles. We also note that the County's design team provided an 18' minimum long 2-lane driveway for each of the homes as well as 17 guest parking spaces in the 34 house development (w/ 7 attached ADUs) at 1750 Oak Park in order to obtain City Approval for the small lot sizes!!
page 4-115 - Table 4-26: Entitled or Approved Residential Projects - Application 18-0383 - this housing development is on the site of the old PH Branch Library (NOT the"Former Oak Park Elementary" School site). The obsolete Library buildings there were demolished (NOT an "abandoned public elementary school"). Can we take credit for the seven attached ADUs as well??
page 4-117 - Table 4-27: Pending Residential Projects - please clarify the meaning of "harb". Waiting to see how Habitat is going to meet all the City & other requirements as needed to build 7 units at 250 Cleaveland & 4 at 85 Woodsworth. . . . . pages 4-125, -126 & -127 - Figures 4-48, -49 & -50 - these maps are nearly impossible to read accurately at the scale that they were presented. The detail could be increased by 50% if they were shown in landscape format on 3 pages with 40% of the current vertical on each allowing a 10% overlap above & below the center sheet. page 4-126 - Figure 4-49: Identified Sites by Type of Site - the large vacant lot on the south side of Buskirk (across from DSW) is not shown here; nor is the Mangini-Delu farm property on PH Road!!
page 4-129 - Site A: DVC Overflow Parking Lot - despite multiple requests made to City Staff, we have NEVER seen any documentation on how the separate Community College District might be interested in developing this site!!! We also need to once again note that DVC has a very long history of allowing its student parking demands to overflow - totally flooding the surrounding neighborhoods with their vehicles. It is only during the Covid era that this parking lot has been underutilized ! Since this site is the obvious place to construct additional parking spaces to meet their needs, it is essential that this issue be resolved as part of any new development here.
page 4-129 - Site A : DVC Overflow Parking Lot - given the intensity of the proposed allowable development, it is essential that the height limits also be addressed AT THISTIME - not some later date. This also applies to all other developments that are adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Otherwise, most of the home owners will not be able to appreciate the full impact of what is being proposed !!! page 4-129 - Site A: DVC Overflow Parking Lot - my recollection from all the previous public hearings regarding this property was that half (five acres) of the site were being proposed for development - how did that grow to SIX acres as shown in this Assessment?
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
page 4-131 - Site B: JCPenney - the purple shading for this site continues to include the parking lots on the N&S sides of the existing Wells Fargo Bank building without which the building would be useless. This is a REPEAT comment!!!
page 4-137 - Site E: Gregory Gardens Shopping Center - it would be sensible for the current residential properties that back up to this shopping center be included in the planned development considering that these are older homes& their quality of life would be seriously impacted - did the owners all reject the idea that they should be included??
pages 4-156 thru 4-159 - Table 4-44: Vacant Sites - why are the vacant property on the south side of Buskirk and the Mangini-Delu farm properties NOT included in this Table?? page 4-156 thru 4-159 - Table 4-44: Vacant Sites - since one of the overall planning objectives is to provide homes near JOBS, why would you add housing at a current PAO /Office site? Several other sites, such as 1900 & 1680 Oak Park, might also be more suitable for office or commercial development rather than additional housing!! page 4-159 - Table 4-44: Vacant Sites - are the "vacant" sites at 243 & 245 Gregory Lane actually the overflow parking lot that the City REQUIRED the Rec & Park District to build ten years ago as part of our new Senior Center building project? Are you now backtracking on that requirement??
Minor Corrections: we also noted several minor corrections that are needed in the text such as the reference to Site "H" on page 4-139 which shows Site "F". Also the mention of a business (Green Garden) that disappeared a year or two ago on page 4-137; given the requirements for Business Licenses & City Approvals for occupancy &signage, the City Staff should be fully aware of the current occupants at least as of 7-01-2022.
I do not claim to have any particular expertise with the intricacies of the General Plan Update process . . . . . just noting the observations that I made while doing a quick Common Sense review!!
Bruce
Irion,
David
Blau,
Annette
Gelinas,
Shereen
Motarjemi
We are writing to submit questions and comments on Pleasant Hill’s Housing Element.
Implementation program R on Page 22 describes the implementation program for “missing middle housing”, described on page 2 as “multiple units compatible in scale and form to detached single family homes”. Yet the implementation program calls for revision of development standards including height restrictions, set-backs, and parking ratios. How will development be compatible in scale and form if it modifies the characteristics which define single family homes?
For Implementation program L, Flexible Parking Standards, can you provide more specifics of what is meant to “provide appropriate flexible parking requirements that allow shared use in locations being considered for higher-density housing development”? Our concern lies with parking spillover and traffic congestion that results from failure to provide sufficient parking.
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
We support implementation program KK, Residential Zoning, that discourages nonresidential uses in residential zones. Commercial or mixed-use zones are the appropriate location for non-residential uses.
We would like to understand what is mean by Goal H-1 on page 9 which says “Encourage development at the maximum allowed density to increase the quantity and affordability of the city’s housing stock”. Every zoning and land use designation has a range of allowed densities. While we understand the desire to increase the quantity and affordability of housing, this should be considered when zoning and land use designations are set.
To further layer Goal H-1 on top of this compromises the integrity of the zoning and land use designation process and associated public comment.
Bruce
Irion,
David
Blau,
Annette
Gelinas
We are writing in response to the answer we received on Goal H-1 (see bottom of email). While we understand that the City is trying to show every effort to meet their RHNA target in their Housing Element, Goal H-1 is superfluous and should be removed or at a minimum, modified. The goal does not encourage developers to consider the most appropriate density for a development rather it urges development at the maximum allowed density. Further, because Goal H-1 would develop housing at the maximum allowed density as opposed to the average density, it understates new housing numbers 24% without any credit having been taken in the City's Housing Element (see table below). Hence the goal is unnecessary, pointless, and should be removed or modified.
The GPAC draft from which this Housing Element was taken read as follows:
The original wording (in red) was "Encourage higher density housing". This suggests the City carefully consider higher-density housing in Land Use and Zoning to encourage the quantity and affordability of the city's housing stock. This is in full alignment with state housing policy and the RHNA target. The revised wording (in blue), "Encourage development at the maximum allowed density" implies no such careful consideration.
Rather it suggests City policy is to encourage development at the maximum allowed density without regard to what is appropriate for a site. Surely this was not the GPAC's intent!!!
We therefore encourage removal of Goal H-1 or at a minimum returning it to say "Encourage higher-density housing to increase the quantity and affordability of the city's housing stock".
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
OUR QUESTION:
We would like to understand what is meant by Goal H-1 on page 9 which says “Encourage development at the maximum allowed density to increase the quantity and affordability of the city’s housing stock”. Every zoning and land use designation has a range of allowed densities. While we understand the desire to increase the quantity and affordability of housing, this should be considered when zoning and land use designations are set. To further layer Goal H-1 on top of this compromises the integrity of the zoning and land use designation process and associated public comment.
CITY RESPONSE:
The goal, supported by the GPAC, was, each land use designation has a minimum and maximum density range. This goal is to realize development towards the upper end of the allowed density range. This does not require development at the top, but it does encourage thoughtful thinking as development is proposed and where possible, look to develop towards the higher end of the density range as that usually results in more affordable housing.
Rich and
Julie
Golinski
I am writing to provide comment on Pleasant Hill’s Housing Element.
The original wording of Goal H-1.5 was "Encourage higher density housing". This suggests the City carefully consider higher-density housing in Land Use and Zoning to encourage the quantity and affordability of the city's housing stock. This is in full alignment with state housing policy. The revised wording, "Encourage development at the maximum allowed density" implies no such careful consideration. Rather it suggests City policy is to encourage development at the maximum allowed density for all development without regard to what is appropriate for a site. Surely this was not the GPAC's intent!!!
I therefore encourage removal of Goal H-1.5 or at a minimum returning it to say "Encourage higher-density housing to increase the quantity and affordability of the city's housing stock".
Additionally, several sections in the Housing Element encourage revisions to housing policy and code requirements to facilitate more affordable housing. While the intent is laudable, I encourage the city to proceed carefully especially where parking is Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
concerned. Policy and code set minimum requirements which cannot enforceably be pulled back. Failure to provide adequate parking leads to traffic congestion and blight.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comment
Anamarie
Courey
I am writing to provide comment on Pleasant Hill’s Housing Element.
The original wording of Goal H-1.5 was "Encourage higher density housing". This suggests the City carefully consider higher-density housing in Land Use and Zoning to encourage the quantity and affordability of the city's housing stock. This is in full alignment with state housing policy. The revised wording, "Encourage development at the maximum allowed density" implies no such careful consideration. Rather it suggests City policy is to encourage development at the maximum allowed density for all development without regard to what is appropriate for a site. Surely this was not the GPAC's intent!!!
I therefore encourage removal of Goal H-1.5 or at a minimum returning it to say "Encourage higher-density housing to increase the quantity and affordability of the city's housing stock".
Additionally, several sections in the Housing Element encourage revisions to housing policy and code requirements to facilitate more affordable housing. While the intent is laudable, I encourage the city to proceed carefully especially where parking is concerned. Policy and code set minimum requirements which cannot enforceably be pulled back. Failure to provide adequate parking leads to traffic congestion and blight.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comment
Maxwell
Davis and
the 2500
members
of East
Bay for
Everyone
East Bay for Everyone is a membership organization advocating for housing, transit, tenant rights, and long-term planning in the East Bay. We write to provide comments on the City of Pleasant Hill’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Public Review Draft.
Summary of feedback:
● Pleasant Hill did not plan for housing in line with AFFH and the proposed sites will exacerbate systemic inequality in the region.
● The programs in this draft will not enable more housing production unless revised ● The city must rezone more land for multifamily development throughout the city and reduce barriers to development.
● Site specific feedback
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing concerns:
The draft states: “sites identified for lower income housing are spatially distributed throughout Pleasant Hill and are not concentrated in lower resource areas.” However, the graphic (Figure A-33, copied below) shows the opposite, with Low Income sites concentrated in the lowest resource areas available and along large arterial roads.
Furthermore, while the majority of the census tracts in the city are deemed racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA) by HCD, the draft makes no mention of RCAA or Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
how the site locations will reduce or exacerbate the inequities of the region. The city should make broader rezonings to enable multifamily developments across the city, not just along commercial corridors in the lowest resourced areas of the city.
Increased density in single family zones
It's legal to construct buildings that are the size of duplexes or triplexes but only if they are for a single family. For example, 256 Douglas Lane is a recently constructed 5000 Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
square foot house with 6 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms that just sold for $1.88 million, a price that is out of range of most families.
If it is legal to build a 5000 square foot house for one family it should also be legal to build two 2000 square foot homes or three 1300 square foot homes in the same building envelope throughout Pleasant Hill. Consider amending zoning to permit 5 DUA on all parcels. This can be achieved without an EIR thanks to Senate Bill 10.
Programs are insufficient
Given that Pleasant Hill has built zero Low Income Housing in the last 7 years, the programs for this element must be ambitious. However, the programs in the draft largely begin with language like “The City shall continue to…” or “The city shall monitor…” which are either continuations of existing policies or have no clear goals other than “studying” and “monitoring” existing city policy.
These programs should be modified to have concrete objectives and measurable and trackable results and be ambitious enough to spur new housing production.
In HCD's determination letter to Lafayette, this type of language was deemed insufficient ("Programs containing unclear language (e.g., “consider”; “review”, “conduct a study to assess” “create a plan”, “evaluate impacts” etc.) should be amended to include specific and measurable actions that will lead to actual housing outcomes") , 1 and should instead be replaced with language that relates to actual concrete goals, for example, the production of low-income housing, or reduction of housing costs below some target number.
The city plans to add new mixed-use zones (described as Mixed Use Neighborhood, Mixed-Use, Mixed-Use High-Density, and Mixed-Use Very High-Density in Program F) and references those zones in multiple programs and in the sites inventory, but the city has not provided clear details on those zoning categories and the requirements in the zoning, for example heights, setbacks, or required parking minimums.
Consider zero front setback to permit shade on the sidewalk and a minimum pedestrian travel time, and no more than 5 feet on other sides. Heights should be demonstrated to accommodate the highest allowable density in comparison projects in nearby cities.
Freeways
A large number of apartments in Pleasant Hill are right next to the freeway and a preponderance of sites in the Sites Inventory are concentrated relatively close to the freeway. Pollution from freeways leads to higher levels of stress, respiratory problems, and leads to issues such as low birth weight infants. Students who go to schools near the freeway perform worse on standardized tests than students who don't.
Consider adding a program to upgrade the air filters in existing buildings near the freeway to a MERV 13 standard, subsidize the purchase of air purifiers in apartments and schools, and educate residents about health risks and ventilation best practices.
Analysis of Constraints is insufficient
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
The draft Housing Element does not take a serious look at the constraints to housing development in Pleasant Hill and states “There are no significant undue or uncommon governmental constraints to housing in Pleasant Hill.” which seems unlikely considering the lack of recent development in the city.
Lack of land zoned for multi-family in High Resource areas and the need for by-right development Currently, Pleasant Hill does not have much land zoned for multi-family within its High Resource and Highest Resource areas. The areas that are zoned for multifamily housing are largely located adjacent to I-680. This is not aligned with AFFH, which requires distribution of housing income levels throughout the community.
Rezoning more land for multi-family housing would be a strong commitment to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
Earlier drafts of the Housing Element identified Mangini Farm, a large undeveloped area in the Highest Resource area of Pleasant Hill and the removal of this site over large public backlash shows that Pleasant Hill will have an uphill battle to undo the historical patterns of racial segregation that exist in the region, and to meet its commitments to affirmatively furthering fair housing. This NIMBY opposition is a non-governmental constraint that the city should overcome by allowing by-right development of multifamily sites in the inventory. We urge you to add a program to this effect.
Reduce minimum lot sizes. Pleasant Hill’s minimum lot sizes are very large, even for the region. The smallest minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet with most of the city zoned for 7,000 and 10,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. Much more housing could be built if lot sizes were reduced to 2-3,000 square feet. See for example Gray and Furth, "Do Minimum-Lot-Size Regulations Limit Housing Supply in Texas?" suggesting that lot sizes in this range frequently serve as a constraint to new development. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3381173 Landscaping requirement
Pleasant Hill’s “Minimum Site Landscaping” requirements are uniquely large and constrain the developable area for multifamily housing. Please remove or reduce these requirements, especially to help make lower income housing feasible to construct.
Increase FARs, building heights and eliminate setbacks in current multifamily zones Setbacks decrease the amount of buildable area, increase the distance pedestrians need to travel to reach their destination, and reduce the sidewalk shadow on hot days.
Pleasant Hill’s set-backs requirements are larger than other high income areas in the region. To encourage development and non-car trip modes, Pleasant Hill should increase FARs and amend setbacks to make development more feasible and increase pedestrian comfort.
Remove parking requirements from multifamily developments. Given Pleasant Hill's strict height requirements, parking will likely need to be constructed underground, which can cost $90,000 per space, a cost which gets passed on directly to developers and buyers, who need to take out larger loans and interest payments. Additionally, in the sites inventory the draft specifically mentions that Site B, Site C, Site D, Site F, Site G, Site H, Site L and Site I are considered underutilized specifically because of their large parking Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
lots. Therefore it is clear that Pleasant Hill is “overparked” and the parking requirements do not align with real demands.
Parking minimums also encourage people to buy cars and drive cars, which crowd out other trip modes like walking, cycling or taking the bus. A key goal for Pleasant Hill's General Plan 2040 is to increase the share of non-car trip modes. Parking minimums impede progress toward this goal by subsidizing car usage.
Further, because parking must be cited on the ground floor or underground, high parking minimums make it difficult to offer ground floor retail, which is not only a more beneficial use of ground floor space than car parking, but contributes sales tax revenue that can be used for all sorts of other pro-social programs.
Pleasant Hill must study the impact of parking on development or remove parking minimums, leaving it up to the developer to decide the right balance of parking and housing at a site. Please consider lowering parking minimums to 1 space per unit, with no guest parking, throughout the entire city.
Site specific feedback:
For all non-vacant sites:
● Please provide a copy of a letter from the property owners stating they are open to developing the site at the prescribed density
● Please provide evidence that the existing leases will end in time for development in this housing element cycle
Site A: DVC Overflow parking lot
● Please provide a copy of a letter from DVC stating they are open to developing the site at the prescribed density.
Site B: Former JC Pennys
● Consider shifting density from 40-70 to 70-100 du/acre to increase the feasibility of development, even these higher densities can still be achieved with 5-7 stories of wood frame over concrete and wouldn’t require moving to more expensive concrete or steel construction, and thus would permit optimal development of those sites ● Consider adding the Wells Fargo, Burger King and pediatric dentistry at the corners of the site inventory after consultation with the property owners.
Site H: Monument Triangle
● Consider shifting density from 40-70 to 70-100 du/acre to increase the feasibility of development. These higher densities can still be achieved with 5-7 stories of wood frame over concrete and wouldn’t require moving to more expensive concrete or steel construction, and thus would permit optimal development of those sites.
Mangini Farm
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
● We would like to see this site included in the Sites Inventory with a minimum permitted density of 30 DUA, which would permit the development of affordable housing on this site.
Southwest Pleasant Hill
● In general, the Sites Inventory is concentrated in the north and east of Pleasant Hill which are, comparatively speaking, the lower income parts of Pleasant Hill. All of the sites accommodating lower income housing are in the north and east parts of the city.
Please increase the zoning and add additional sites in the southwest area of the city, which is also the closest area of the city to the BART station.
We look forward to continuing to engage with the City of Pleasant Hill in the Housing Element process.
Peter
Symonds
I have the following comment on the housing element as currently drafted.
First, the introductory sections and the needs assessment fail to discuss this issue regionally. There are substantial negative impacts from the current unmet need regionally including traffic from cars passing through our town from residences far afield, and our inability to find key services due to lack of workers. The true need for housing far exceeds what is identified in the needs assessment; and the latent demand is clear due to the consistently high cost of housing. Failing to fix the true demand issue will ensure that Pleasant Hill changes in character as our children will be unable to afford to live in the city.
Table 4-1 of the needs assessment hints at this but does not fully articulate the issue:
Pleasant hill grows as fast as the available housing stock; and the available housing stock has grown less than 10% in 30 years. When my kids or the neighbors kids want to live on their own they’ll have no where to live in pleasant hill because the housing stock has fallen far behind the growth rate of California and of the average family. Our kids love the community we have in pleasant hill and it’s a shame they won’t be able to continue on with that. The failure to allow for sufficient growth will negatively impact schools, PHBA, soccer clubs, Boy Scout Troops and everything that makes Pleasant Hill special.
East Bay
Municipal
Utility
District
See scanned document included below.
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022