Pleasant Hill City Council
May 18, 2023

4.1.l
Packet Pg. 1855
Attachment: Attachment L - Draft EIR Appendices (General Plan and Housing Element) Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse #2022070095
prepared for
City of Pleasant Hill
Planning Division
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
Contact: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 24, 2023

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1856 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse #2022070095
prepared for
City of Pleasant Hill
Planning Division
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
Contact: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 24, 2023

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1857 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1858 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Environmental Review Process....................................................................................... 1-1 2 Responses to Comments ............................................................................................................ 2-1 3 Errata .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Changes in Response to Specific Comments .................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Staff-initiated Changes.................................................................................................... 3-8

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1859 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
ii
This page intentionally left blank

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1860 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
1 Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Pleasant Hill has evaluated the comments received on the Pleasant Hill General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The responses to the comments and errata, which are included in this document – together with the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – form the Final EIR for use by the City of Pleasant Hill in its review.

This document is organized into three chapters:
 Chapter 1 – Introduction.
 Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments. Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who provided written comments on the Draft EIR. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft EIR and responses thereto are included in this section.  Chapter 3 – Errata. Lists refinements to and clarifications on the Draft EIR.

The Final EIR includes the following contents:
 Draft EIR (provided under separate cover)
 Draft EIR appendices (provided under separate cover)
 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR and Errata (Chapters 2 and 3 of this document)  Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover)

1.1 Environmental Review Process
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

The City of Pleasant Hill distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Program EIR for a 31-day agency and public review period commencing July 7, 2022 and public comment closed on August 8, 2022. In addition, the City held a virtual Scoping Meeting on July 26, 2022. The meeting was aimed at providing information about the proposed project to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders and residents/community members, and at receiving comments on the scope and content of the EIR. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting was held virtually, through an online meeting platform and a call-in number.

The Draft EIR was made available for public review for a 45-day comment period that began on January 30, 2023, and ended on March 15, 2023. The Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR was posted with the County Clerk, sent to the State Clearinghouse, and posted on the City’s website.

The City received written comment letters on the Draft EIR from four agencies, one organization, and five individual commenters. Copies of written comments are included in Chapter 2 of this document.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1861 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
1-2
This page intentionally left blank.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1862 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Responses to Comments
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan as well as responses to such comments.

The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on January 30, 2023, and ended on March 15, 2023. The City of Pleasant Hill received 10 comment letters on the Draft EIR.

Agency letters that were received are labeled with an “A” and numbered in the order they were received. Comment letters received from organizations are labeled with an “O” and numbered in the order they were received. Comment letters received from individual persons are labeled with an “I” and numbered in the order they were received. The comment identification label, as well commentators’ names/associations and the dates comment letters were received, are listed below.

Letter ID and Commentator Name/Association Date Received Agency Letters
A1 Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 02/10/23 A2 East Bay Municipal Utility District 03/01/23
A3 California Geological Survey 02/22/23
A4 California Department of Transportation 03/15/23
Organization Letters
O1 Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks 03/15/23
Individual Person Letters
I1 Bruce Irion 02/25/23
I2 Celia Chiang 03/12/23
I3 Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade 03/15/23
I4 Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade 03/15/23
I5 Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade 03/15/23
The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially, and each separate issue raised by the commentator has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response A1-1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter A1).

In some cases, specific changes to the text of the Draft EIR have been made in response to comments received. In no case do these revisions result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a substantially greater severity than those set forth in the Draft EIR. Where revisions to the Draft EIR text are called for, the page and paragraph are set forth, followed by the appropriate revision.

Added text is indicated with underlined and deleted text is indicated with strikeout. Page numbers correspond to the page numbers of the Draft EIR.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1863 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-2

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1864 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-3

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1865 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-4
Letter A1
COMMENTATOR: Michael Burger, Engineering Technician, Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
DATE: February 10, 2023
Response A1-1
The commentator requests that a map of the watersheds within the General Plan Update area be created.

This comment is acknowledged. In response to this comment, the following revision has been made to Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Sub-Section 3.8.2, Environmental Setting, Page 3.8-2 of the Draft EIR:

The major waterways in Pleasant Hill are Grayson Creek and Contra Costa Canal.

Both waterways are largely paved and channelized, but still provide some habitat in the channel bottoms (see Section 3.3, Biological, Agriculture, and Forestry Resources, for discussion of habitat and vegetation). Existing development throughout the General Plan area is characterized by extensive impervious surfaces such as concrete, asphalt, and structures, as well as the drainage control features implemented to accommodate existing development. An extensive stormwater drainage system is maintained throughout the General Plan area, rerouting surface waters that once meandered across the valley.1 Waterways within Pleasant Hill city limits are shown in Figure 3.8-2.

The following figure was also added to Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Sub-Section 3.8.2, Environmental Setting, Page 3.8-4 of the Draft EIR:

Figure 3.8-2 Surface Water in Pleasant Hill
All subsequent figures in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, have been renumbered sequentially (e.g. Figure 3.8-3 is now numbered Figure 3.8-4). See Section 3 for a full list of errata. This addition of a figure and revisions to the numbering of the figures does not change the analysis within the Draft EIR and does not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Response A1-2
The commentator requests that the EIR discuss payment of drainage area fees for development within formed drainage areas as a mitigation measure.

This comment is acknowledged. Payment of drainage area fees are standard Conditions of Approval and operating procedures in the City of Pleasant Hill, as shown below. Impacts related to drainage under Impact HYD-3 would remain less than significant.
“The Developer shall pay the Drainage Area fee established by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in accordance with regulations establishing the Drainage Area prior to issuance of a building permit. (Reso 53-97 & Reso 124-00)” 1 Contra Costa County Community Development Department and Public Works Department. 2003. Contra Costa County Watershed Atlas.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1866 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-5
Response A1-3
The commentator requests that they be included in the review of all drainage facilities that have a region-wide benefit, that impact region-wide facilities, or that impact FC District-owned facilities.

For projects where the City of Pleasant Hill is the CEQA lead agency, the City of Pleasant Hill will include the FC District in the review of all drainage facilities that have a region-wide benefit, that impact region-wide facilities, or that impact FC District-owned facilities prior to final action on planning entitlement applications.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1867 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-6

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1868 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-7

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1869 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-8

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1870 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-9

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1871 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-10
Letter A2
COMMENTATOR: David J. Rehnstrom, Manager of Water Distribution Planning, East Bay Municipal Utility District
DATE: March 1, 2023
Response A2-1
The commentator requests that all projects being planned within or immediately adjacent to EBMUD property would need to follow EBMUD’s Procedure 718 – Raw Water Aqueduct Right-Of-Way NonAqueduct Uses.

This comment is acknowledged. Projects planned within or immediately adjacent to EBMUD property would follow EBMUD Procedure 718.

Response A2-2
The commentator states that water service for new multi-unit structures shall be individually metered or sub-metered in compliance with California State Senate Bill 7. The commentator further states that main extensions that may be required to serve specific developments within the General Plan area to provide adequate domestic water supply, fire flows, and system redundancy will be at the project sponsor’s expense.

This comment is acknowledged and will be passed on to decision-makers for their consideration.

The City would require implementation of California Senate Bill 7, as applicable, given it is State law.

Response A2-3
The commentator requests that the City include in its conditions of approval a requirement that the project sponsor comply with Assembly Bill 325, Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

This comment is acknowledged. At the time an individual project is proposed within the Pleasant Hill General Plan area, the City would require implementation of Assembly Bill 325, as applicable, given it is a State law. This comment will be passed on to decision-makers for their consideration.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1872 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-11

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1873 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-12
Letter A3
COMMENTATOR: Judith Zachariasen PhD, PG,CEG, Senior Engineering Geologist, California Geological Survey
DATE: February 22, 2023
Response A3-1
The commentator requests that the reference on the liquefaction map provided in the Draft EIR be corrected.

In response to this comment, the following citation revision has been made to Draft EIR Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources, Sub-Section 3.5.2, Environmental Setting, Figure 3.5-4, page

3.5-9:

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1874 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-13
The citation revision to the figure does not change the analysis within the Draft EIR and does not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Response A3-2
The commentator requests that the landslide figure depict landslide susceptibility within the city and reference CGS Map Sheet 58.

In response to this comment the following map revision has been made to Draft EIR Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources, Sub-Section 3.5.2, Environmental Setting, Figure 3.5-5, page

3.5-11. The base map has been changed from historic landslides in the Pleasant Hill area to landslide susceptibility in the area. This revision to the figure does not change the analysis within the Draft EIR and does not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1875 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-14

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1876 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-15

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1877 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-16

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1878 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-17

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1879 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-18
Letter A4
COMMENTATOR: Mark Leong, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation DATE: March 15, 2023
Response A4-1
The commentator acknowledges that the proposed plans vehicle miles traveled analysis is consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory.

The transportation analysis of the proposed plan focuses on vehicle-miles of travel, consistent with the Caltrans Transportation Impact Study Guide. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the proposed plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact as stated under Impact TRA-2. No revisions to the EIR would be required in response to this comment.

Response A4-2
The commentator requests that Section 3.12.3 of the Draft EIR be updated to reference Caltrans Director’s Policy 37 (DP-37).

In response to this comment, the following revisions have been made to the Draft EIR Section 3.12, Transportation, Sub-Section 3.12.3, Regulatory Framework, Page 3.12-12. The revision would not alter the impact analysis or findings of Section 3.12 and, as such, would not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

CALTRANS DEPUTY DIRECTIVE 64-R1: COMPLETE STREETS – INTEGRATING THE

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
In 2001, Caltrans adopted Deputy Directive 64; a policy directive related to nonmotorized travel throughout the State. In October 2008, Deputy Directive 64 was strengthened to reflect changing priorities and challenges. Deputy Directive 64-R1 states:

The Department views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system. Providing safe mobility for all users, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders, contributes to the Department's mission/vision: "Improving Mobility across California.” Successful long-term implementation of this directive is intended to result in more options for people to go from one place to another, less traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, more walkable communities (with healthier, more active people), and fewer barriers for older adults, children, and people with disabilities.

CALTRANS DIRECTIVE POLICY 37: COMPLETE STREETS
In 2021, Caltrans adopted Director’s Policy 37, a policy directive related to nonmotorized travel throughout the State. Director’s Policy 37 states:

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1880 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-19
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes that walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail are integral to our vision of delivering a brighter future for all through a world-class transportation network. Additionally, Caltrans recognizes that streets are not only used for transportation but are also valuable community spaces. Accordingly, in locations with current and/or future pedestrian, bicycle, or transit needs, all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved. When decisions are made not to include complete streets elements in capital and maintenance projects, the justification will be documented with final approval by the responsible District Director. Opportunities for complete streets exist in all phases of project development from planning and design to construction, operations, and maintenance. Complete streets projects should prioritize underserved communities that have been historically harmed and segmented by the transportation network and should serve people of all ages and abilities. Furthermore, Caltrans commits to removing unnecessary policy and procedural barriers and partnering with communities and agencies to ensure projects on local and state transportation systems improve the connectivity to existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, and accessibility to existing and planned destinations, where possible.

Response A4-3
The commentator requests that Section 3.12.3 of the Draft EIR include review of the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan.

The City of Pleasant Hill will review the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan for their feasibility and implementation as part of the upcoming City of Pleasant Hill Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. This comment is acknowledged and will be passed on to decisionmakers for their consideration.

Response A4-4
The commentator states that if Caltrans facilities are impacted by the proposed plans, those facilities must meet Americans Disabilities Act Standards.

Transportation facilities that are constructed in support of the proposed plan would conform to all requirements for ADA standards and maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during related future projects construction. No revisions to the EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A4-5
The commentator states that if permanent work or temporary traffic control encroaches onto Caltrans’ Right of Way, it would require a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit.

Projects that would result in encroachment onto Caltrans’ right of way would seek Caltrans-issued encroachment permits prior to the beginning of work. No revisions to the EIR are required in response to this comment.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1881 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-20

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1882 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-21

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1883 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-22

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1884 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-23

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1885 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-24
Letter O1
COMMENTATOR: Heather Rosmarin, Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks DATE: March 15, 2023
Response O1-1
The commentator states appreciation for the Draft EIR’s recognition of the creeks and riparian corridors in Pleasant Hill and their importance to the local environment. The commentator also states appreciation for the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and programs aimed at supporting protection and restoration of these features.

This comment is informational and is not related to the adequacy or conclusions of the EIR. No revisions to the EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response O1-2
The commentator opines that the Draft EIR does not adequately describe the level of biodiversity present in Pleasant Hill’s creek system. The commentator requests that the Draft EIR be revised to include further information describing the diversity of native and migratory birds, salmonid species, western pond turtle, beaver, river otters, and newts present in Grayson Creek and other creek systems.

Common species (i.e., species with no protected status) are not required to be addressed as part of CEQA assessment. The environmental setting of EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, does describe the General Plan area in its larger context as generally representing an ecologically diverse area supporting many plants and animal species, including special-status species. While only some special-status species are named in the section, Table B-2 in EIR Appendix B includes listed salmonids and species of special concern, such as the western pond turtle. Grayson Creek and the other creek systems within the General Plan area are noted as providing wildlife movement corridors and riparian habitat for fish and other aquatic and terrestrial species. No revisions to the EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response O1-3
The commentator opines that the statement in the Draft EIR regarding Grayson Creek being largely paved and channelized is inaccurate. The commentator opines that Grayson Creek, and its tributaries are natural creeks that are mostly in a natural state. The commentator recommends that the Draft EIR be revised to state that Grayson Creek is largely natural or flowing through earthen channels rather than “largely paved”. The commentator also notes that the habitat value of a creek is not limited to the channel bottom and that many creeks in the area provide important wildlife habitat.

The commentator recommends that the statement in the Draft EIR on page 3.8-2 be revised to clarify the habitat value.

Drainage areas are described in general in the Riverine section of the Setting section as consisting of rock, cobble, gravel, or sand, consistent with what the commentator has stated. Additionally, the Draft EIR identifies the streams as habitat under special-status species and movement corridors. No revisions to the EIR are required in response to this comment.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1886 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-25
Response O1-4
The commentator requests a revision to the Draft EIR on page 3.3-1 to clarify that the although the General Plan area is primarily developed, it includes open space, parkland, and riparian corridors that provide suitable habitat for special-status species and other special-status biological resources.

In response to this comment, the following revisions have been made to the Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, Sub-Section 3.3.2, Environmental Setting, Page 3.3-1 to clarify the character of the General Plan Area:

The General Plan area is primarily developed and does not offer suitable habitat for special-status species or other special-status biological resources. However, riparian stream corridors and open space and parks within the General Plan area, though intersected by streets, still offer habitat and corridors for movement for a variety of plant and wildlife species, including some special-status species. Additionally, Pleasant Hill is located south of Suisun Bay and east of San Francisco Bay and generally representing an ecologically diverse area supporting many plants and animal species, including special-status species.

This revision to the Draft EIR text would not change the impact analysis or the findings of the Draft EIR and would not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Response O1-5
The commentator states that Figure 3.3-1 is incorrect because it classifies most of Pleasant Hill’s creek system as “urban” and requests that the streams and corridors be re-classified and included in the percentage classified as “Valley Foothill Riparian”. Additionally, the commentator notes that Figure 3.3-2 accurately shows the creek system as “Riverine”.

Figure 3.3-1 is a map of vegetation communities and land cover types depicting a small-scale (large area, limited detail) open-source data set from CalFire, while Figure 3.3-2 is a map of wetlands and aquatic resources depicting the open-source National Wetlands Inventory data set. While Figure

3.3-2 shows some area of Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland along Walnut Creek, it does not depict the associated upland riparian corridors for any of the streams. Therefore, combining the NWI data with the CalFire data does not address the issue. These are standard datasets used for large geographic areas, and mapping at the level of detail to depict and calculate acreage of riparian corridor within the urban land cover type is neither feasible nor practicable. Furthermore, the acreages are provided simply for reference and do not affect the analysis. No revisions to the EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response O1-6
The commentator claims that a statement that the development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would occur as development and infill within existing developed areas where infrastructure is already in place and would minimize the need for construction of new utilities and infrastructure is not accurate because there are two multi-acre undeveloped areas that are currently designated for development, the Mangini-Delu and Beatrice sites. They request that additional information be provided for these two future development areas because they are the last significantly undeveloped privately and publicly owned sites, respectively, in the General Plan Area, and they are both intersected by Grayson Creek.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1887 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-26
The commentator specifically recommends for the privately-owned Mangini-Delu site that the Creek Protection Zone be extended beyond the current ordinance requirement of 25 feet from top of bank and that the creek corridor be restored. For the County-owned Beatrice site, they state they do not believe that development of this site is feasible because of frequent and severe flooding. They believe that the site offers substantial habitat value as open space containing sensitive riparian and wetland habitat, and that it is an excellent candidate for restoration that would benefit multiple species. They recommend that if the site is to be developed, the Creek Protection Zone should reflect the 100-foot setback from top of bank, consistent with the County’s current draft General Plan provisions. They believe this larger setback would serve to protect the riparian corridor, provide for flood water management, and preserve the sensitive habitats.

The statement about development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan is a general statement and not inaccurate. Even though the two sites identified by the commentator are partially developed, they are surrounded by developed areas, which still minimizes the need for construction of new utilities and infrastructure. The General Plan provides policies specific to the Mangini-Delu site that promote a comprehensive planning process that includes preservation of natural habitat, creation of open space and walking trails, and creek preservation and incorporation (Policies LU-6.7, LU-6.10, LU-6.12, and LU-6.13). Also, the General Plan identifies Program I, which would provide for creation of a Mangini-Delu Master Plan that incorporates those policies.

For future development at either site further discretionary approvals would be needed. For sites that may have effects that were not examined in this program EIR, further environmental review would be required such as a site-specific biological resources assessment, and/or a site-specific initial study, supplemental or subsequent EIR. Issues such as the habitat value of these specific sites, which may differ from each other and from other identified future development sites with or without adjacency to a stream, would be further analyzed at that time. However, the minimum size of Creek Protection Zones is dictated by policies and ordinance. While larger setbacks may be desirable, the size of setbacks only become a CEQA issue when the project-specific proposed setbacks would conflict with local policies or ordinances. It should also be noted, General Plan 2040 Policy ENV-2.6 promotes setbacks that exceed the minimum regulatory setback guidelines. No revisions to the EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response O1-7
The commentator notes that allowable increases in density may negatively impact adjacent or intersecting creeks and that Section 3.3 should analyze the potential environmental impact of increased lighting on nocturnal and migrating wildlife and on dark skies and include a mitigation measure to address the issue.

Light and glare impacts from the proposed plan are analyzed in Draft EIR Section 3.1, Aesthetics, beginning on Page 3.1-22. The impact from lighting due to allowable density increases on adjacent or intersecting creeks cannot be reasonably known at this time. However, City Wide Design Guidelines 2017 require that lighting levels are minimized to preserve the night (dark) sky, light sources are shielded to prevent glare or direct illumination on adjacent properties, and that wall pack light glare is shielded and minimized. No revisions to the EIR are required in response to this comment.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1888 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-27

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1889 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-28
Letter I1
COMMENTATOR: Bruce Irion
DATE: February 25, 2023
Response I1-1
The commentator expresses a desire for the General Plan to have broad protections of wildlife and open space.

This comment is acknowledged and will be passed on to decision-makers for their consideration.

Response I1-2
The commentator requests that an alternative that did not comply with the state’s housing target.

The commentator questions why all the alternatives had the same significant and unavoidable impacts.

As discussed in EIR Section 5.8, Alternatives Considered but Rejected, an alternative considered was a reduced residential alternative that would not meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements. However, this alternative was rejected, because it would not meet the overall project objectives and also not account for the natural increase of population and result in increased housing need, which in turn would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to land use planning, population, and housing.

Each of the EIR Alternatives may have the similarly formatted conclusionary statement, but as shown in Table 5-2 in EIR Section 5.9.1 of Chapter 5, Alternatives, each of the alternatives’ environmental impacts were analyzed, as well as compared for whether the impacts were greater than, lesser than, or similar to that of the proposed plan for each of the topic areas that were analyzed. No revisions to the EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1890 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-29

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1891 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-30
Letter I2
COMMENTATOR: Celia Chiang
DATE: March 12, 2023
Response I2-1
The commentator expresses a desire to define guidelines and incentives to ensure the diverse housing options would meet the City’s Environment and Sustainability Goals.

The City of Pleasant Hill has already adopted Objective Residential Design and Development Standards that are intended to increase by-right residential project approvals and make the residential development requirements more clear and predictable for developers. As part of General Plan implementation, the City intends to update the Zoning Code to, among other things, make housing development more flexible and provide updated development standards for a diverse range of multi-family development product types in Pleasant Hill.

Response I2-2
The commentator requests confirmation that the current City lighting standards are aligned with the latest CalGreen requirements and voluntary Dark Sky ordinances.

The City of Pleasant Hill implements Title 24, which includes CalGreen provisions. In addition, the City has a parking lot lighting provision that preserves the dark sky by having foot candle provisions and full cutoff fixtures that minimize lighting impacts above the light source.

Response I2-3
The commentator requests consideration of adding bird-friendly standards to city design guidelines.

While not a CEQA comment, this comment is acknowledged and will be passed on to decisionmakers for their consideration.

Response I2-4
The commentator states that some Draft EIR sections refer to the 2019 version of CCR Title 24, whereas others refer to the currently adopted version and requests that they be made consistent.

In response to this comment, all references to the 2019 version of CCR Title 24 have been corrected to the currently adopted 2022 version of CCR Title 24. Please refer to Chapter 3, Errata, of this Final EIR for a full list of corrected references. This revision to the Draft EIR text would not change the impact analysis or the findings of the Draft EIR and would not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Response I2-5
The commentator requests the current count of publicly accessible EV charging stations in Pleasant Hill and the projected count in 2040.

The City of Pleasant Hill does not track publicly accessible EV Charging Stations. However, it is current practice to include EV Charging Stations as part of major site redevelopments pursuant to current building code.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1892 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-31
Response I2-6
The commentator requests the link to the Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan. The commentator further requests information on reach codes on zero net energy building electrification and increased EV charging capacity.

While not a CEQA comment, this comment is acknowledged and will be passed on to decisionmakers for their consideration. For informational purposes, the City does not currently have a Climate Action Plan (CAP); therefore, Mitigation Measure GHG-2 in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy, of the Draft EIR would require preparation of a CAP by Summer 2025.

Response I2-7
The commentator requests the City’s Engineering Department provide specific water management strategies beyond what is listed in the Draft EIR for consideration in providing guidance for singlefamily home permit applicants.

The City of Pleasant Hill is constantly exploring options for water management strategies beyond what is required for stormwater runoff provisions. The City relies on the multiple water providers that serves the City for water management strategies. No revisions to the EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response I2-8
The commentator expresses concern that single family homes in Pleasant Hill would be contested on historic grounds from redevelopment due to their age and the benchmark of 45 years.

In response to this comment, the following revision has been made to Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Sub-Section 3.4.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Page 3.4-21:

MITIGATION MEASURE CR-1: REVISE GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM M TO

INCLUDE PREPARATION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION PRIOR TO APPROVAL FOR PROJECTS INVOLVING BUILDINGS 45 YEARS OR OLDER AND IMPLEMENTATION OF

MITIGATION PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION
The City shall revise 2040 General Plan Environment Element Program M to include that, in addition to updating the existing historical and cultural resources survey, a historical resources evaluation shall be prepared prior to approval of a project carried out under the 2040 General Plan involving the demolition or substantial alteration of a building, structure, object, or other built environment feature that is 45 years of age or older and as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.

The City shall add further details to 2040 General Plan Program M that state the following:
 The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history or history (as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 61). The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1893 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-32
identify potential historical resources within the proposed development site.

All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence. If the property is already listed in the NRHP or CRHR, the historical resources evaluation described above shall not be required.
 If historical resources are identified within the site of a proposed development, efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated. Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professional Qualification Standards, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources evaluation report shall also identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities.
 Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professional Qualification Standards. In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how a project complies with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.  If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken.

Mitigation measures may include documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) report, or equivalent.

The report shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Professional Qualification Standards and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

In addition, while future redevelopment of buildings 45 years or more in age may result in a significant and unavoidable impact, the City is still able to make a Statement of Overriding Consideration when deemed necessary if all feasible mitigation would not reduce impacts to Less than Significant. This revision to the

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1894 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-33
Draft EIR text would not change the impact analysis or the findings of the Draft EIR and would not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Response I2-9
The commentator requests clarification on how the Planning Commission and the City Council are to consider Alternative 2 as part of the evaluation of the Draft EIR, as it has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. The commentator also requests clarification on what the next steps are toward finalizing the EIR.

If, as here, a project will result in significant environmental impacts that will not be avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation measures, the City body which approves the project must consider the environmentally superior alternative identified in the EIR and must find that it is "infeasible" before approving the project. (Public Resources Code §21081(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3).) The City of Pleasant Hill’s finding that an alternative is infeasible must describe the specific reasons for rejecting the alternatives described in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines §15091(a).) The finding must also be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Public Resource Code §21081.5.) "Feasible" is defined as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (Public Resources Code §21061.1; CEQA Guidelines §15364.) The statute also provides that "other considerations" may provide the basis for an infeasibility finding. (Public Resources Code §21081(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3). For instance, in California Native Plant Soc'y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1002 the Court found that when making infeasibility findings an agency determines how competing interests should be resolved, and in No Slo Transit, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 241, 257 the Court found that consideration of feasibility may be based on various factors, including practicality. A conflict between proposed alternatives and agency planning goals may support a finding of infeasibility. In City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, San Diego rejected alternatives to a proposed general plan amendment as infeasible because they would conflict with the City's growth management program. Noting that a determination of infeasibility involves balancing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors, the court concluded that accommodating these factors with a staged growth management program was appropriate. 133 CA3d at 417. An agency may also find alternatives infeasible because they do not adequately accommodate its policies. In California Native Plant Soc'y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001, the city found the alternatives to the proposed project infeasible because they would not accomplish its policy goals of promoting transportation alternatives and access for persons with disabilities. The court upheld the city's findings, concluding the statutory language providing that an agency may consider social and other considerations allows the agency to find an alternative infeasible because it is impractical or undesirable as a matter of policy.

Next steps for the certification of the EIR would be recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council followed by City Council certification of the EIR.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1895 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-34

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1896 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-35
Letter I3
COMMENTATOR: Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade
DATE: March 15, 2023
Response I3-1
The commentator requests that noise from street sweeping be added to the list of noise generating activities in Goal HS-7 of the General Plan.

In response to this comment, City staff recommend the City Council consider the following revision to 2040 General Plan Health and Safety Element Program R:

Program R Noise in Residential Areas
Amend the City noise ordinance to prohibit during late night and early morning hours excessive noise-generating activities (e.g., garbage and recycling pickup, parking lot vacuuming, etc.), including the use of all landscape equipment on commercial properties located adjacent to existing residential areas.

This proposed revision to the 2040 General Plan text would not change the Draft EIR impact analysis or the findings of the Draft EIR and would not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1897 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-36

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1898 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-37
Letter I4
COMMENTATOR: Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade
DATE: March 15, 2023
Response I4-1
The commentator requests that the effects of light and glare on biological resources be analyzed as well.

Given that the wildlife in the urban environment of the General Plan area has been exposed to light at night (e.g., light from residences, street lighting, and car lights), the wildlife is habituated to lighting at night. Further, development facilitated by the proposed plan would be required to comply with lighting standards as set forth by the City of Pleasant Hill. Compliance with the City Lighting Standards Study Findings as a result of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would also help to reduce potential impacts related to light and glare. Development facilitated by the proposed plan would also be required to landscape in accordance with City requirements and, coupled with lighting standards, would result in less-than-significant lighting impacts to wildlife.

Response I4-2
The commentator requests that policies be added to the General Plan that address artificial light and light pollution.

In response to this comment, City staff recommend the City Council consider the following new 2040 General Plan policy to address light exposure:

Blue Light Spectrums
Consider installation of new lighting systems, when replacing existing lighting systems, that minimize the negative effects of blue light spectrums on animals and human beings.

This proposed revision to the 2040 General Plan text would not change the Draft EIR impact analysis or the findings of the Draft EIR and would not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1899 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-38

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1900 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-39
Letter I5
COMMENTATOR: Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade
DATE: March 15, 2023
Response I5-1
The commentator requests that the EIR should discuss the air quality and greenhouse gas impacts of idling trucks in residential neighborhoods.

Potential construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts from implementation of the proposed plan are discussed in EIR Sections 3.2, Air Quality, and 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy, respectively. The potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors such as residences are discussed in EIR Section 3.2, Air Quality, and were found to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 (implementation of a Construction Health Risk Assessment) and AQ-4 (implementation of a General Plan Policy to reduce operational toxic air contaminants). Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response I5-1
The commentator requests that the EIR should discuss the noise impacts of idling trucks in residential neighborhoods.

Potential noise impacts resulting from idling trucks would be related primarily to construction noise as discussed in EIR Section 3.10, Noise. As discussed therein, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (construction noise reduction measures) would help to reduce some construction noise but not all. Construction noise would remain significant and an unavoidable impact as stated under Impact NOI-1. However, idling trucks would not be the greatest contributor to noise. Greatest contributors to noise would be equipment-intensive phases of initial construction (i.e., demolition, site preparation, and grading work), as discussed in the impact analysis discussion.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1901 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-40
This page intentionally left blank.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1902 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Errata
The following are revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Update. These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document and do not change the significance of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by the Draft EIR section and page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined), and all deletions from the text are stricken (stricken).

3.1 Changes in Response to Specific Comments
Section 3.3, Biological Resources
Sub-Section 3.3.2, Environmental Setting
Draft EIR Page 3.3-1:

The General Plan area is primarily developed and does not offer suitable habitat for specialstatus species or other special-status biological resources. However, riparian stream corridors and open space and parks within the General Plan area, though intersected by streets, still offer habitat and corridors for movement for a variety of plant and wildlife species, including some special-status species. Additionally, Pleasant Hill is located south of Suisun Bay and east of San Francisco Bay and generally representing an ecologically diverse area supporting many plants and animal species, including special-status species.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1903 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-2
Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
Sub-Section 3.5.2, Environmental Setting
Draft EIR Page 3.5-9:

Figure 3.5-4 Liquefaction Potential within the General Plan Area

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1904 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3
Draft EIR Page 3.5-11:

Figure 3.5-5 Landslide Potential Susceptibility within the General Plan Area

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1905 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-4
Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Sub-Section 3.6.3, Regulatory Framework
Draft EIR Page 3.6-20:

PART 6 – BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
CCR Title 24 Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new energy-efficiency technologies and methodologies as they become available. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards through submission and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the California Energy Commission. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016 standards, and residential buildings will be seven percent more energy efficient. When accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, residential buildings would use 53 percent less energy compared to buildings built to the 2016 standards.

The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, adopted on May 9, 2018, became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Standards move toward cutting energy use in new residential units by more than 50 percent and will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of three stories and less. The 2019 Standards focus on four key areas: 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements. Under the 2019 Standards, non-residential buildings will be 30 percent more energy-efficient compared to the 2016 Standards, and single-family homes will be seven percent more energy efficient. The 2022 Standards have been adopted and will come into effect January 1, 2023. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be subject to the 2022 latest Standards.

Sub-Section 3.6.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Draft EIR Page 3.6-43:

Operation
Relevant plans and policies that aim to increase energy efficiency and the production of renewable energy include SB 100, the 2022 current California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen or Title 24 Part 11), and the 2022 current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6). SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program and requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1906 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-5
Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality
Sub-Section 3.8.2, Environmental Setting
Draft EIR Page 3.8-2:

The major waterways in Pleasant Hill are Grayson Creek and Contra Costa Canal. Both waterways are largely paved and channelized, but still provide some habitat in the channel bottoms (see Section 3.3, Biological, Agriculture, and Forestry Resources, for discussion of habitat and vegetation). Existing development throughout the General Plan area is characterized by extensive impervious surfaces such as concrete, asphalt, and structures, as well as the drainage control features implemented to accommodate existing development. An extensive stormwater drainage system is maintained throughout the General Plan area, rerouting surface waters that once meandered across the valley.1 Waterways within Pleasant Hill city limits are shown in Figure 3.8-2.
1 Contra Costa County Community Development Department and Public Works Department. 2003. Contra Costa County Watershed Atlas.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1907 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-6
Figure 3.8-2 Surface Water in Pleasant Hill
Draft EIR Page 3.8-7:

Figure 3.8-32 Groundwater in and Adjacent to General Plan Area Draft EIR Page 3.8-9:

Figure 3.8-43 Flood Hazard Areas in and Adjacent to General Plan Area

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1908 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-7
Section 3.12, Transportation
Sub-Section 3.12.3, Regulatory Framework
Draft EIR Page 3.12-12:

CALTRANS DEPUTY DIRECTIVE 64-R1: COMPLETE STREETS – INTEGRATING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM In 2001, Caltrans adopted Deputy Directive 64; a policy directive related to non-motorized travel throughout the State. In October 2008, Deputy Directive 64 was strengthened to reflect changing priorities and challenges. Deputy Directive 64-R1 states:

The Department views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system. Providing safe mobility for all users, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders, contributes to the Department's mission/vision: "Improving Mobility across California.” Successful long-term implementation of this directive is intended to result in more options for people to go from one place to another, less traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, more walkable communities (with healthier, more active people), and fewer barriers for older adults, children, and people with disabilities.

CALTRANS DIRECTIVE POLICY 37: COMPLETE STREETS
In 2021, Caltrans adopted Director’s Policy 37, a policy directive related to non-motorized travel throughout the State. Director’s Policy 37 states:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes that walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail are integral to our vision of delivering a brighter future for all through a world-class transportation network. Additionally, Caltrans recognizes that streets are not only used for transportation but are also valuable community spaces. Accordingly, in locations with current and/or future pedestrian, bicycle, or transit needs, all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved. When decisions are made not to include complete streets elements in capital and maintenance projects, the justification will be documented with final approval by the responsible District Director.

Opportunities for complete streets exist in all phases of project development from planning and design to construction, operations, and maintenance. Complete streets projects should prioritize underserved communities that have been historically harmed and segmented by the transportation network and should serve people of all ages and abilities. Furthermore, Caltrans commits to removing unnecessary policy and procedural barriers and partnering with communities and agencies to ensure projects on local and state transportation systems improve the connectivity to existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, and accessibility to existing and planned destinations, where possible.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1909 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-8

3.2 Staff-initiated Changes
Executive Summary
Page ES-9 through ES-12:

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1. The 2040 General Plan has the
potential to result in significant impacts if
development carried out under the plan
would cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource. this
impact would be significant and unavoidable
even with mitigation.

CR-1 Revise General Plan Implementation Program M to Include Preparation of Historical Resources Evaluation prior to Approval for Projects Involving Buildings 45 years or Older and Implementation of Mitigation Prior to and During Construction. The City shall revise 2040 General Plan Environment Element Program M to include that, in addition to updating the existing historical and cultural resources survey, a historical resources evaluation shall be prepared prior to approval of a project carried out under the 2040 General Plan involving the demolition or substantial alteration of a building, structure, object, or other built environment feature that is 45 years of age or older and as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.

The City shall add further details to 2040 General Plan Program M that state the following:
 The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history or history (as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 61). The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify potential historical resources within the proposed development site. All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence. If the property is already listed in the NRHP or CRHR, the historical resources evaluation described above shall not be required.  If historical resources are identified within the site of a proposed development, efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated. Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professional Qualification Standards, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources evaluation report shall also identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities.
 Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professional Qualification Standards. In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1910 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-9
review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how a project complies with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.  If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. Mitigation measures may include documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) report, or equivalent. The report shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Professional Qualification Standards and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

Impact CR-2. The 2040 general Plan has the
potential to result in significant impacts if
development carried out under the plan
would cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological resource,
including those that qualify as historical
resources. This impact would be less than
significant with mitigation.

CR-2 Revise General Plan Implementation Program M to Include Preparation of Archaeological Resources Assessment Prior to Project Approval and Implementation of Mitigation Prior To and During Construction. The City shall revise 2040 General Plan Environment Element Program M to include that, in addition to updating the existing historical and cultural resources survey, prior to approval of a project that involves ground disturbance activities in native or previously undisturbed soils that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, excavation or grading, an archaeological resources assessment shall be prepared under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology.

The City shall add further details to 2040 General Plan Program M that state the following:
 Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the Northwest Information Center (NAHC) and a Sacred Lands File search maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around a project site. A Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken at a project site that is on previously undeveloped land in order to locate any surface cultural materials. By performing a records search, consultation with the NAHC, and a Phase I survey, a qualified archaeologist shall be able to classify a project site as having high, medium, or low sensitivity for archaeological resources.  If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected by a project, the archaeological resources assessment shall also include Phase II testing and evaluation. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be identified in the Phase II evaluation. These measures shall include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City and any interested Tribes, as stated in the 2040 General Plan Tribal Consultation Implementation Program outlined by Goal ENV-5. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less-than-significant levels by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into a cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples shall occur as specified by the archaeologist in consultation with the City and any interested Tribes. As stated in the 2040 General Plan Tribal Consultation Implementation Program outlined by Goal ENV-5, the final disposition of artifacts not directly associated with Native American graves shall be negotiated during consultation with interested tribes. If Native American tribes do not accept the artifact, it shall be offered to an institution staffed by qualified

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1911 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-10
professionals, as determined by the City Planner. Artifacts include material recovered from all phases of work, including the initial survey, testing, indexing, data recovery, and monitoring.

CR-3 Revise General Plan Goal ENV-5 to Include a Policy to Stop Work in the Event of Unanticipated Cultural Resources Discoveries During Construction. The City shall revise the 2040 General Plan Environment Element Goal ENV-5 to include a policy that, if cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities for a project, work in the immediate area shall be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology in either prehistoric or historic archaeology shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find.

If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by a project, additional work such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully characterize its extent, and collecting and curating artifacts may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. In the event that archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during project construction, a qualified archaeologist will consult with the City to begin Native American consultation procedures.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1912 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-11
Page ES-14 through ES-15:

Greenhous Gas Emissions and Energy
Impact GHG-1. Pleasant Hill does not have a
Climate Action Plan. Therefore,
implementation of the 2040 General Plan
would not meet State 2030 and 2045 goals.

Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would
result in adoption of CEQA GHG thresholds
and a Climate Action Plan; however,
development facilitated by the 2040 General
Plan would not meet the 2030 and 2045 goals
until the CAP is adopted. this impact would be
significant and unavoidable.

GHG-1 Revise General Plan Policy ENV 8.1 to Reflect Latest State and BAAQMD GHG Emissions Targets. The City shall revise 2040 General Plan Environment Element Policy ENV 8.1 (Meet State Emission Reduction Targets) to reflect the latest State and BAAQMD GHG emissions targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (pursuant to SB 32) and carbon neutrality by 2045 (pursuant to AB 1279).

GHG-2 Revise General Plan Program O to Include Details Related to Adoption and Implementation of a Climate Action Plan and CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds. The City shall add further details to 2040 General Plan Environment Element Program O (Climate Action) that state the following:

The City shall adopt the Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan by Summer 20242025 and include targets that reflect those set by SB 32 to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030 and AB 1279 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Implementation measures in the CAP to achieve the 2030 and 2045 targets shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Develop and adopt Zero Net Energy requirements for new and remodeled residential and non-residential development;  Develop and adopt a building electrification ordinance for existing and proposed structures;  Expand charging infrastructure and parking for electric vehicles;  Implement carbon sequestration by expanding the urban forest, participating in soil-based or compost application sequestration initiatives, supporting regional open space protection, and/or incentivizing rooftop gardens; and  Implement policies and measures included in the 2017 and 2022 California Climate Change Scoping Plans, such as mobile source strategies for increasing clean transit options and zero emissions vehicles by providing electric vehicle charging stations.

The City shall also adopt Pleasant Hill CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds of Significance that are consistent with the Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan by Summer 20242025 for use in future CEQA GHG emissions analyses through 2030 and consistent with SB 32. In addition, upon completion of future Climate Action Plan updates and as necessary, the City shall update the CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance to be consistent with each climate action plan update.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1913 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-12
Chapter 2, Project Description
Sub-Section 2.5, Proposed Plan Components
Figure 2-6 Pleasant Hill Housing Opportunity Sites Locations

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1914 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-13
Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sub-Section 3.4.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

MITIGATION MEASURE CR-1: REVISE GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM M TO INCLUDE

PREPARATION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION PRIOR TO APPROVAL FOR PROJECTS INVOLVING BUILDINGS 45 YEARS OR OLDER AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION PRIOR TO AND DURING

CONSTRUCTION
The City shall revise 2040 General Plan Environment Element Program M to include that, in addition to updating the existing historical and cultural resources survey, a historical resources evaluation shall be prepared prior to approval of a project carried out under the 2040 General Plan involving the demolition or substantial alteration of a building, structure, object, or other built environment feature that is 45 years of age or older and as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.

The City shall add further details to 2040 General Plan Program M that state the following:
 The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history or history (as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 61). The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify potential historical resources within the proposed development site. All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence. If the property is already listed in the NRHP or CRHR, the historical resources evaluation described above shall not be required.
 If historical resources are identified within the site of a proposed development, efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated. Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professional Qualification Standards, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources evaluation report shall also identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities.  Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professional Qualification Standards. In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how a project complies

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1915 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-14
with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.
 If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. Mitigation measures may include documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) report, or equivalent. The report shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Professional Qualification Standards and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

Level of Significance
Significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Sub-Section 3.6.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

MITIGATION MEASURE GHG-2: REVISE GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM O TO INCLUDE DETAILS RELATED TO

ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND CEQA GHG EMISSIONS

THRESHOLDS
The City shall add further details to 2040 General Plan Environment Element Program O (Climate Action) that state the following:

The City shall adopt the Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan by Summer 20242025 and include targets that reflect those set by SB 32 to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030 and AB 1279 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Implementation measures in the CAP to achieve the 2030 and 2045 targets shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Develop and adopt Zero Net Energy requirements for new and remodeled residential and non-residential development;
 Develop and adopt a building electrification ordinance for existing and proposed structures;  Expand charging infrastructure and parking for electric vehicles;  Implement carbon sequestration by expanding the urban forest, participating in soil-based or compost application sequestration initiatives, supporting regional open space protection, and/or incentivizing rooftop gardens; and
 Implement policies and measures included in the 2017 and 2022 California Climate Change Scoping Plans, such as mobile source strategies for increasing clean transit options and zero emissions vehicles by providing electric vehicle charging stations.

The City shall also adopt Pleasant Hill CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds of Significance that are consistent with the Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan by Summer 20242025 for use in future

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1916 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-15
CEQA GHG emissions analyses through 2030 and consistent with SB 32. In addition, upon completion of future Climate Action Plan updates and as necessary, the City shall update the CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance to be consistent with each climate action plan update.

Level of Significance
Significant and unavoidable

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1917 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-16
This page intentionally left blank.

4.1.m
Packet Pg. 1918 Attachment: Attachment M - Final EIR (General Plan and Housing Element) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of a project or plan approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the proposed plan implementation phase. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), specifications are made herein that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1919 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
2 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Aesthetics
AES-1: Revise General Plan Land Use Element to prepare a City Lighting Standards Study and implement the findings The City shall revise the General Plan Land
Use Element to include a policy that states
the following:

The City shall adopt lighting standards
intended to maintain ambient lighting levels
after preparing a City Lighting Standards
study to determine visibility, minimum glare,
and minimum spillage standards in relation to
other properties or into the sky.

Implementation of this policy would
encourage, through the regulation of the
types, kinds, construction, installation and
uses of outdoor electrically powered
illuminating devices, lighting practices and
systems to conserve energy without
decreasing safety, utility, security, and
productivity while enhancing nighttime
enjoyment of property and night skies
Confirm the General Plan
Land Use Element has been
revised to include lighting
standards policy.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

Air Quality
AQ-1: Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to Reduce Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions To reduce temporary increases in criteria air
pollutant emissions during the construction
phase for discretionary development projects
that are subject to CEQA which exceed the
screening sizes in the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA
Guidelines, the City shall adopt the following
General Plan Policy to be implemented as
part of the project approval process:

New Policy: Require projects that exceed the
BAAQMD screening sizes to evaluate projectConfirm General Plan Policy regarding construction
phase criteria pollutant
emissions is adopted
Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1920 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
specific construction emissions in
conformance with the BAAQMD methodology
and if construction-related criteria air
pollutants exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of
significance, require the project applicant to
mitigate the impacts to a less-than-significant
level.

AQ-2: Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to Reduce Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions To reduce long-term increases in air
pollutants during the operation phase for
discretionary development projects that are
subject to CEQA that exceed the screening
sizes in the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, the City
shall adopt the following General Plan Policy:

New Policy: Require projects that exceed the
BAAQMD screening sizes to evaluate projectspecific operation emissions in conformance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, and if
operation- related air pollutants exceed the
BAAQMD-adopted thresholds of significance,
require the project applicant to mitigate the
impact to a less-than-significant level.

Confirm General Plan Policy
regarding operation phase
criteria pollutant emissions
is adopted.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

AQ-3 Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to Conduct and Implement Construction Health Risk Assessment To identify and reduce potential risk exposure
to nearby sensitive receivers during the
construction of individual projects facilitated
by the 2040 General Plan, the City shall adopt
the following General Plan Policy:

New Policy: For individual projects (excluding
ADUs, single-family residences, and duplexes)
where construction activities would occur
within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors,
Confirm General Plan Policy
regarding reducing
particulate pollution risk
exposure to nearby sensitive
receivers during
construction phase of
project is adopted.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1921 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
4 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
would last longer than two months, and
would not utilize equipment rated US EPA
Tier 4 for equipment of 50 horsepower or
more, or construction equipment fitted with
Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters for all
equipment of 50 horsepower or more, and/or
alternative fuel construction equipment, the
project applicant shall coordinate with the
City to determine if a construction health risk
assessment (HRA) shall be performed. If an
HRA is to be performed, the HRA shall
determine potential risk and compare the risk
to the following BAAQMD thresholds:

Non-compliance with Qualified Community
Risk Reduction Plan;
Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard
Index (Chronic or Acute); or
Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual
average
If risk exceeds the thresholds, measures such
as requiring the use of Tier 4 engines, Level 3
Diesel Particulate Filters, and/or alternative
fuel construction equipment shall be
incorporated to reduce the risk to
appropriate levels.

AQ-4 Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to Reduce Operational Toxic Air Contaminants To ensure sensitive receptors are not exposed
to toxic air contaminant emissions during the
operation phase for discretionary
development projects that are subject to
CEQA which exceed the screening sizes in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Confirm General Plan Policy
regarding operation phase
criteria pollutant emissions
is adopted.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1922 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
(BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, the City shall
adopt the following General Plan Policy:

New Policy: Require applicants for industrial
or warehousing land uses or commercial land
uses that would generate substantial diesel
truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks per day or
40 or more trucks with diesel-powered
transport refrigeration units per day) to
contact BAAQMD to determine the
appropriate level of operational health risk
assessment (HRA) required. If required, the
operational HRA shall be prepared in
accordance with the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD
requirements and mitigated to an acceptable
level. Typical measures to reduce risk impacts
may include, but are not limited to:
a. Restricting idling on-site
beyond Air Toxic Control
Measures idling
restrictions, as feasible.
b. Electrifying warehousing
docks.
c. Truck Electric Vehicle (EV)
Capable trailer spaces.
d. Requiring use of newer
equipment and/or
vehicles.

Restricting off-site truck travel through the
creation of truck routes.

AQ-5 Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to Reduce Operational Odor Impacts

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1923 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
6 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
To reduce odor impacts associated with
development facilitated by the 2040 General
Plan, the City shall adopt the following
General Plan Policy to be implemented as
part of the project approval process:

New Policy: Odor Impacts. Consider odor
impacts when evaluating land uses and
development projects near wastewater
treatment plants, treatment plant expansion
projects, waste transfer stations, and other
odor potential sources per the latest
BAAQMD screening distances and guidelines.

Confirm General Plan Policy
regarding odor impacts is
adopted.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1924 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Biological, Agricultural, and Forestry Resources
BIO-1 Add a General Plan Program to Conduct Pre-Construction Bird Surveys and Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures The City shall add a 2040 General Plan
Environment Element Program to include the
following requirements for nesting bird
surveys, avoidance, and minimization
measures:

For construction activities initiated during the
bird nesting season (February 1 – September
15) involving removal of vegetation that
could potentially serve as habitat for specialstatus bird species or other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned structures and
other man-made features, a pre-construction
nesting bird survey shall be conducted no
more than 14 days prior to initiation of
ground disturbance and vegetation removal
activities. The nesting bird pre-construction
survey shall be conducted on foot and shall
include a buffer around the construction site
at a distance determined by a qualified
biologist. The survey shall be conducted by a
biologist familiar with the identification of
avian species known to occur in California Bay
Area communities (i.e., qualified biologist). If
nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be
determined by a qualified biologist
dependent upon the species, the proposed
work activity, and existing disturbances
associated with land uses outside of the site.

The buffer shall be demarcated by the
biologist with bright orange construction
fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other
means to demarcate the boundary. All
Confirm General Plan Policy
Environment Element
Program for bird nesting
surveys, avoidance, and
minimization is added and
adopted.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1925 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
8 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
construction personnel shall be notified as to
the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid
entering the buffer zone during the nesting
season. No ground disturbing activities shall
occur within the buffer until the biologist has
confirmed that breeding/nesting is
completed, and the young have fledged the
nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall
occur only at the discretion of the qualified
biologist on the basis that the encroachment
will not be detrimental to an active nest. A
report summarizing the pre-construction
survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified
biologist and shall be submitted to the City
prior to the commencement of construction
activities.

Future project site plans shall include a
statement acknowledging compliance with
the federal MBTA and California Fish and
Game Code that includes avoidance of active
bird nests and identification of Best
Management Practices to avoid impacts to
active nests, including checking for nests prior
to construction activities during February 1 to
September 15 and what to do if an active
nest is found so that the nest is not
inadvertently impacted during grading or
construction activities.

BIO-2: Add a General Plan Program to Conduct Pre-Construction Roosting Bats Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures Prior to Removal The City shall add a 2040 General Plan
Environment Element Program to include the
following requirements for roosting bat
surveys and avoidance measures prior to
removal:

Confirm General Plan
Environment Element
Program for roosting bat
surveys and avoidance
Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1926 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Prior to the removal or alteration of trees and
structures that may serve as roosting habitat
for special-status bat species, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a focused survey of all
trees and structures to be removed or
impacted by construction activities to
determine whether active roosts of specialstatus bats are present on site. Tree or structure removal shall be planned for either
the spring or the fall and timed to ensure
both suitable conditions for the detection of
bats and adequate time for tree and/or
structure removal to occur during seasonal
periods of bat activity exclusive of the
breeding season, as described below. Trees
and/or structures containing suitable
potential bat roost habitat features shall be
clearly marked or identified. If no bat roosts
are found, the results of the survey will be
documented and submitted to the City within
30 days of the survey, after which no further
action will be required.

If day roosts are present, the biologist shall
prepare a site-specific roosting bat protection
plan to be implemented by the contractor
following the City’s approval. The plan shall
incorporate the following guidance as
appropriate:

When possible, removal of trees/structures
identified as suitable roosting habitat shall be
conducted during seasonal periods of bat
activity, including the following:
a) Between September
1 and about October
15, or before evening
measure is added and
adopted.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1927 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
10 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
temperatures fall
below 45 degrees
Fahrenheit and/or
more than 0.5 inch
of rainfall within 24
hours occurs.
b) Between March 1
and April 15, or after
evening
temperatures rise
above 45 degrees
Fahrenheit and/or no
more than 0.5 inch
of rainfall within 24
hours occurs.

If a tree /structure must be removed during
the breeding season and is identified as
potentially containing a colonial maternity
roost, then a qualified biologist shall conduct
acoustic emergence surveys or implement
other appropriate methods to further
evaluate if the roost is an active maternity
roost. Under the biologist’s guidance, the
contractor shall implement measures that
consist of (or exceed) the following:
a) If it is determined that the
roost is not an active maternity
roost, then the roost may be
removed in accordance with
the other requirements of this
measure.
b) If it is found that an active
maternity roost of a colonial
roosting species is present, the

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1928 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
roost shall not be disturbed
during the breeding season
(April 15 to August 31).

Tree removal procedures shall be
implemented using a two-step tree removal
process. This method is conducted over two
consecutive days and works by creating noise
and vibration by cutting non-habitat branches
and limbs from habitat trees using chainsaws
only (no excavators or other heavy
machinery) on day one. The noise and
vibration disturbance, together with the
visible alteration of the tree, is very effective
in causing bats that emerge nightly to feed to
not return to the roost that night. The
remainder of the tree is removed on day two.

Prior to the demolition of vacant structures
within the project site, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a focused habitat assessment of
all structures to be demolished. The habitat
assessment shall be conducted enough in
advance to ensure the commencement of
building demolition can be scheduled during
seasonal periods of bat activity (see above), if
required. If no signs of day roosting activity
are observed, no further actions will be
required. If bats or signs of day roosting by
bats are observed, a qualified biologist will
prepare specific recommendations such as
partial dismantling to cause bats to abandon
the roost, or humane eviction, both to be
conducted during seasonal periods of bat
activity, if required.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1929 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
12 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
If the qualified biologist determines a roost is
used by a large number of bats (large
hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed
near the project site. The number of bat
boxes installed will depend on the size of the
hibernaculum and shall be determined
through consultation with CDFW. If a
maternity colony has become established, all
construction activities shall be postponed
within a 500-foot buffer around the maternity
colony until it is determined by a qualified
biologist that the young have dispersed. Once
it has been determined that the roost is clear
of bats, the roost shall be removed
immediately

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1930 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
CR-1: Revise General Plan Implementation Program M to Include Preparation of Historical Resources Evaluation prior to Approval for Projects Involving Buildings 45 years or Older and Implementation of Mitigation Prior to and During Construction The City shall revise 2040 General Plan
Environment Element Program M to include
that, in addition to updating the existing
historical and cultural resources survey, a
historical resources evaluation shall be
prepared prior to approval of a project
carried out under the 2040 General Plan
involving the demolition or substantial
alteration of a building, structure, object, or
other built environment feature that is 45
years of age or older and as deemed
necessary by the Community Development
Director.

The City shall add further details to 2040
General Plan Program M that state the
following:

The evaluation shall be prepared by a
qualified architectural historian or historian
who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards in
architectural history or history (as defined in
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part
61). The qualified architectural historian or
historian shall conduct an intensive-level
evaluation in accordance with the guidelines
and best practices promulgated by the State
Office of Historic Preservation to identify
potential historical resources within the
proposed development site. All properties 45
years of age or older shall be evaluated within
their historic context and documented in a
Confirm the General Plan
Implementation Program M
has been revised.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1931 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
14 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
report meeting the State Office of Historic
Preservation guidelines. All evaluated
properties shall be documented on
Department of Parks and Recreation Series
523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to
the City for review and concurrence. If the
property is already listed in the NRHP or
CRHR, the historical resources evaluation
described above shall not be required.

If historical resources are identified within
the site of a proposed development, efforts
shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure
that impacts are mitigated. Application of
mitigation shall generally be overseen by a
qualified architectural historian or historic
architect meeting the Professional
Qualification Standards, unless unnecessary
in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in
place). In conjunction with a development
application that may affect the historical
resource, the historical resources evaluation
report shall also identify and specify the
treatment of character-defining features and
construction activities.

Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent
feasible to ensure that the relocation,
rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings. Application of the
Standards shall be overseen by a qualified
architectural historian or historic architect
meeting the Professional Qualification

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1932 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 15
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Standards. In conjunction with a
development application that may affect the
historical resource, a report identifying and
specifying the treatment of characterdefining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and
concurrence. As applicable, the report shall
demonstrate how a project complies with the
Standards and be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to the issuance of
permits.

If significant historical resources are
identified on a development site and
compliance with the Standards and or
avoidance is not possible, appropriate sitespecific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. Mitigation
measures may include documentation of the
historical resource in the form of a Historic
American Building Survey (HABS) report, or
equivalent. The report shall comply with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Architectural and Engineering Documentation
and shall generally follow the HABS Level III
requirements, including digital photographic
recordation, detailed historic narrative
report, and compilation of historic research.

The documentation shall be completed by a
qualified architectural historian or historian
who meets the Professional Qualification
Standards and submitted to the City prior to
issuance of any permits for demolition or
alteration of the historical resource.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1933 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
16 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
CR-2: Revise General Plan Implementation Program M to Include Preparation of Archaeological Resources Assessment Prior to Project Approval and Implementation of Mitigation Prior To and During Construction
The City shall revise 2040 General Plan
Environment Element Program M to include
that, in addition to updating the existing
historical and cultural resources survey, prior
to approval of a project that involves ground
disturbance activities in native or previously
undisturbed soils that may include, but are
not limited to, pavement removal, potholing,
grubbing, tree removal, excavation or
grading, an archaeological resources
assessment shall be prepared under the
supervision of an archaeologist that meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards in either prehistoric
or historic archaeology.

The City shall add further details to 2040
General Plan Program M that state the
following:
 Assessments shall include a
California Historical Resources
Information System records search
at the Northwest Information
Center (NAHC) and a Sacred Lands
File search maintained by the
Native American Heritage
Commission. The records searches
will characterize the results of
previous cultural resource surveys
and disclose any cultural resources
that have been recorded and/or
evaluated in and around a project
site. A Phase I pedestrian survey
Confirm the General Plan
Implementation Program M
has been revised.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1934 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 17
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
shall be undertaken at a project site
that is on previously undeveloped
land in order to locate any surface
cultural materials. By performing a
records search, consultation with
the NAHC, and a Phase I survey, a
qualified archaeologist shall be able
to classify a project site as having
high, medium, or low sensitivity for
archaeological resources.
 If the Phase I archaeological survey
identifies resources that may be
affected by a project, the
archaeological resources
assessment shall also include Phase
II testing and evaluation. If
resources are determined
significant or unique through Phase
II testing and site avoidance is not
possible, appropriate site-specific
mitigation measures shall be
identified in the Phase II evaluation.

These measures shall include, but
would not be limited to, a Phase III
data recovery program, avoidance,
or other appropriate actions to be
determined by a qualified
archaeologist in consultation with
the City and any interested Tribes,
as stated in the 2040 General Plan
Tribal Consultation Implementation
Program outlined by Goal ENV-5. If
significant archaeological resources
cannot be avoided, impacts may be
reduced to less-than-significant

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1935 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
18 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
levels by filling on top of the sites
rather than cutting into a cultural
deposits. Alternatively, and/or in
addition, a data collection program
may be warranted, including
mapping the location of artifacts,
surface collection of artifacts, or
excavation of the cultural deposit to
characterize the nature of the
buried portions of sites. Curation of
the excavated artifacts or samples
shall occur as specified by the
archaeologist in consultation with
the City and any interested Tribes.

As stated in the 2040 General Plan
Tribal Consultation Implementation
Program outlined by Goal ENV-5,
the final disposition of artifacts not
directly associated with Native
American graves shall be
negotiated during consultation with
interested tribes. If Native
American tribes do not accept the
artifact, it shall be offered to an
institution staffed by qualified
professionals, as determined by the
City Planner. Artifacts include
material recovered from all phases
of work, including the initial survey,
testing, indexing, data recovery,
and monitoring.

CR-3: Revise General Plan Goal ENV-5 to Include a Policy to Stop Work in the Event of Unanticipated Cultural Resources Discoveries During Construction

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1936 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 19
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
The City shall revise the 2040 General Plan
Environment Element Goal ENV-5 to include a
policy that, if cultural resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing
activities for a project, work in the immediate
area shall be halted and an archaeologist
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for
archaeology in either prehistoric or historic
archaeology shall be contacted immediately
to evaluate the find.

If necessary, the evaluation may require
preparation of a treatment plan and
archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If
the discovery proves to be significant under
CEQA and cannot be avoided by a project,
additional work such as excavating the
cultural deposit to fully characterize its
extent, and collecting and curating artifacts
may be warranted to mitigate any significant
impacts to cultural resources. In the event
that archaeological resources of Native
American origin are identified during project
construction, a qualified archaeologist will
consult with the City to begin Native
American consultation procedures.

Confirm General Plan Goal
ENV-5 is revised.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division
Construction
personnel
and City of
Pleasant Hill
Building
Division

CR-4 Revise General Plan Goal ENV-5 to Include a Policy to Suspend Work around Tribal Cultural Resources Identified During Construction The City shall revise the 2040 General Plan
Environment Element Goal 5 to include a
policy that in the event that cultural
resources of Native American origin are
identified during construction of a project
implemented under the 2040 General Plan,
all earth-disturbing work in the vicinity of the
Confirm General Plan
Environment Element Goal 5
is revised.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1937 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
20 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
find shall be temporarily suspended or
redirected until an archaeologist has
evaluated the nature and significance of the
find as a cultural resource and an appropriate
local Native American representative is
consulted. If the City, in consultation with
local Native Americans, determines that the
resource is a tribal cultural resource and,
thus, significant under CEQA, a mitigation
plan shall be prepared and implemented in
accordance with State guidelines and in
consultation with local Native American
group(s). The mitigation plan shall include
avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of
the resource is infeasible, the plan shall
outline the appropriate treatment of the
resource in coordination with the appropriate
local Native American tribal representative
and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist.

Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal
cultural resources include, but are not limited
to, protecting the cultural character and
integrity of the resource, protecting
traditional use of the resource, protecting the
confidentiality of the resource, or heritage
recovery.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to Protect Paleontological Resources The City of Pleasant Hill shall add a policy (or
policies) providing for the protection of
paleontological resources to the 2040
General Plan prior to its adoption. The policy
(policies) shall include the following:

Confirm the General Plan
policy regarding
paleontological resource
protection has been added
and adopted.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1938 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 21
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
 A Qualified Professional Paleontologist (as
defined by SVP13) must be retained to
conduct a paleontological resources
analysis prior to the beginning of projects
involving ground disturbance in geologic
units with high paleontological sensitivity
to determine whether there is a potential
for significant impacts to paleontological
resources.
 If potential impacts to paleontological
resources are found to be significant, then
a Qualified Professional Paleontologist
shall be retained to develop and
implement a Paleontological Resources
Mitigation Program to ensure that
impacts to paleontological resources are
less than significant

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1939 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
22 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
GHG-1 Revise General Plan Policy ENV 8.1 to Reflect Latest State and BAAQMD GHG Emissions Targets The City shall revise 2040 General Plan
Environment Element Policy ENV 8.1 (Meet
State Emission Reduction Targets) to reflect
the latest State and BAAQMD GHG emissions
targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by
2030 (pursuant to SB 32) and carbon
neutrality by 2045 (pursuant to AB 1279).

Confirm General Plan
Environment Element Policy
ENV 8.1 is revised.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

GHG-2: Revise General Plan Program O to Include Details Related to Adoption and Implementation of a Climate Action Plan and CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds The City shall add further details to 2040
General Plan Environment Element Program
O (Climate Action) that state the following:

The City shall adopt the Pleasant Hill Climate
Action Plan by Summer 2025 and include
targets that reflect those set by SB 32 to
reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below
the 1990 levels by 2030 and AB 1279 to
achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

Implementation measures in the CAP to
achieve the 2030 and 2045 targets shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:

Develop and adopt Zero Net
Energy requirements for new
and remodeled residential and
non-residential development;
Develop and adopt a building
electrification ordinance for
existing and proposed
structures;
Confirm General Plan
Environment Element
Program O (Climate Action)
is updated.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1940 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 23
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Expand charging infrastructure
and parking for electric
vehicles;
Implement carbon
sequestration by expanding
the urban forest, participating
in soil-based or compost
application sequestration
initiatives, supporting regional
open space protection, and/or
incentivizing rooftop gardens;
and
Implement policies and
measures included in the 2017
and 2022 California Climate
Change Scoping Plans, such as
mobile source strategies for
increasing clean transit options
and zero emissions vehicles by
providing electric vehicle
charging stations.

The City shall also adopt Pleasant Hill CEQA
GHG Emissions Thresholds of Significance
that are consistent with the Pleasant Hill
Climate Action Plan by Summer 2025 for use
in future CEQA GHG emissions analyses
through 2030 and consistent with SB 32. In
addition, upon completion of future Climate
Action Plan updates and as necessary, the
City shall update the CEQA GHG emissions
threshold of significance to be consistent with
each climate action plan update.

Hazard/Hazardous Materials and Wildfires
HAZ-1: Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to Conduct Project Design Review for Wildfire Risk Reduction

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1941 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
24 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
The City shall include a new 2040 General
Plan Hazards and Safety Element policy as
follows:

Project landscape plans shall include fireresistant vegetation native to Contra Costa County and/or the local microclimate of the
site and prohibit the use of fire-prone species
especially non-native, invasive species.

If the project site is within a known landslide
area, the site shall be subject to geotechnical
review regarding potential post-fire slope
instability. Structural engineering features
incorporated into the design of the structure
to reduce the risk of damage to the structure
from post-fire slope instability shall be
recommended by a qualified engineer and
approved by the City prior to the building
permit approval.

Confirm the General Plan
policy has been added and
adopted.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

HAZ-2: Construction Wildfire Risk Reduction
The City shall require the following measures
during project construction:

1. Construction activities with potential to
ignite wildfires shall be prohibited during
red-flag warnings issued by the National
Weather Service for the site. Example
activities include welding and grinding
outside of enclosed buildings.

2. Fire extinguishers shall be available onsite
during project construction. Fire
extinguishers shall be maintained to
function according to manufacturer
specifications. Construction personnel
Ensure wildfire risk
reduction requirements are
required during
construction.

Prior to building
permit approval
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Building
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1942 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 25
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
shall receive training on the proper
methods of using a fire extinguisher.

3. Construction equipment powered by
internal combustion engines shall be
equipped with spark arresters. The spark
arresters shall be maintained pursuant to
manufacturer recommendations to
ensure adequate performance.

At the City’s discretion, additional wildfire risk
reduction requirements may be required
during construction. The City shall review and
approve the project-specific methods to be
employed prior to building permit approval.

HAZ-3: Project Design Wildfire Risk Reduction
Project landscape plans (as made available
when project applications are submitted)
shall include fire-resistant vegetation native
to Contra Costa County and/or the local
microclimate of the site and prohibit the use
of fire-prone species especially non-native,
invasive species.

If the project site is within a known landslide
area (see Figure 3.5-5 in Section 3.5, Geology,
Soils, and Mineral Resources), the site shall be
subject to geotechnical review regarding
potential post-fire slope instability. Structural
engineering features incorporated into the
design of a structure to reduce the risk of
damage to the structure from post-fire slope
instability shall be recommended by a
Confirm native fire-resistant
vegetation are included on
landscape plans in project
application.

Ensure a geotechnical
review is conducted on
project sites in a known
landslide hazard area.

Prior to the building
permit approval
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Building
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1943 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
26 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
qualified engineer and approved by the City
prior to the building permit approval.

Noise
NOI-1 Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to Update the Zoning Ordinance to Implement Construction Noise Reduction Measures To minimize noise during construction, the
City shall adopt the following 2040 General
Plan Hazards and Safety Element policy to
update the Zoning Ordinance to include the
following:

New Policy: Construction contractors shall
implement the following measures for
construction activities conducted within the
City. Construction plans submitted to the City
shall include construction noise analysis and
identify these measures on demolition,
grading, and construction plans submitted to
the City. The City of Pleasant Hill Building
Division shall verify that grading, demolition,
and/or construction plans submitted to the
City include these notations prior to issuance
of demolition, grading and/or building
permits.

Mufflers. During excavation and grading
construction phases, all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be
operated with closed engine doors and
shall be equipped with properly operating
and maintained mufflers consistent with
manufacturers’ standards.

Stationary Equipment. All stationary
construction equipment shall be placed so
that emitted noise is directed away from
the nearest sensitive receivers.

Confirm the General Plan
policy has been added and
adopted.

Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill
Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1944 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 27
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment
staging shall be located in areas that will
create the greatest distance feasible
between construction-related noise
sources and noise-sensitive receivers.

Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile
construction equipment shall have smart
back-up alarms that automatically adjust
the sound level of the alarm in response
to ambient noise levels. Alternatively,
back-up alarms shall be disabled and
replaced with human spotters to ensure
safety when mobile construction
equipment is moving in the reverse
direction in compliance with applicable
safety laws and regulations.

Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities.

Electrical power shall be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools and
to power any temporary structures, such
as construction trailers or caretaker
facilities, where feasible.

Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The
project applicant shall designate a “noise
disturbance coordinator” responsible for
responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator shall determine the cause of
any noise complaint and shall require
that reasonable measures be
implemented to correct the problem. A
telephone number for the disturbance
coordinator and the City shall be posted
at the construction site.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1945 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
28 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Temporary Noise Barriers.

Erect temporary noise barriers,
where feasible, when
construction noise is predicted
to exceed the acceptable
standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq at
residential receivers, schools
or other sensitive receptors
during the daytime) and when
the anticipated construction
duration is greater than is
typical (e.g., two years or
greater). Temporary noise
barriers shall be constructed
with solid materials (e.g.,
wood) with a density of at
least 1.5 pounds per square
foot with no gaps from the
ground to the top of the
barrier. If a sound blanket is
used, barriers shall be
constructed with solid material
with a density of at least 1
pound per square foot with no
gaps from the ground to the
top of the barrier and be lined
on the construction side with
acoustical blanket, curtain or
equivalent absorptive material
rated sound transmission class
(STC) 32 or higher
NOI-2: Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy to Update the Zoning Ordinance to Implement Construction Vibration Control Measures.

To reduce potential construction vibration
impacts, the City shall adopt the following
The City shall include and
implement a new 2040
Prior to General Plan
adoption
Once City of
Pleasant Hill

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1946 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 29
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
2040 General Plan Hazards and Safety
Element policy to update the Zoning
Ordinance to include the following:

New Policy: Prior to issuance
of a building permit for a
project requiring pile driving
during construction within 135
feet of fragile structures such
as historical resources, 100
feet of non-engineered timber
and masonry buildings (e.g.,
most residential buildings), or
within 75 feet of engineered
concrete and masonry (no
plaster); a vibratory roller
within 40 feet of fragile
historical resources or 25 feet
of any other structure; or a
dozer or other large
earthmoving equipment within
20 feet for a fragile historical
structure or 15 feet of any
other structure, the project
applicant shall prepare a
groundborne noise and
vibration analysis to assess and
mitigate potential noise and
vibration impacts related to
these construction activities.

This noise and vibration
analysis shall be conducted by
a qualified and experienced
acoustical consultant or
engineer. The vibration levels
shall not exceed FTA
General Plan policy under
the Health, Safety, and
Hazardous Materials
Element to prepare, adopt,
and implement operational
stationary noise thresholds.

Planning
Division

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1947 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
30 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
architectural damage
thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec
PPV for fragile or historical
resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for
non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings, and 0.3
in/sec PPV for engineered
concrete and masonry). If
vibration levels would exceed
this threshold, alternative uses
such as drilling piles as
opposed to pile driving, static
rollers as opposed to vibratory
rollers, and lower horsepower
earthmoving equipment shall
be used. If necessary,
construction vibration
monitoring shall be conducted
to ensure FTA vibration
thresholds are not exceeded.

Transportation and Traffic
TRA-2 Prepare and Implement a TDM Plan with TDM Programs The CCTA’s Growth Management Program
Implementation Guide (Revised February 17,
2021), Appendix F (CCTA Recommended
Methodology) describes options for
mitigation of VMT impacts. The first two
options below apply to development project
and plans, and the third applies at a Citywide
scale.

1. The project applicant shall modify
the project’s characteristics to
reduce VMT generated by the
Prepare and implement
TDM programs for
employment-oriented land
use development projects
facilitated by the proposed
plans that do not meet
future VMT screening
criteria adopted by the City.

Prior to issuance of
building permits
Once per
project
City of
Pleasant Hill
Engineering &
Planning
Divisions

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1948 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 31
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
project prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit. This might
involve changing the density or
mixture of land uses on the project
site, or changing the project’s
location to one that is more
accessible by transit or other travel
modes.

2. The project applicant shall
implement transportation demand
management (TDM) or physical
design measures to reduce VMT
generated by the project prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit.

3. The City shall participate in a CCTAapproved VMT impact fee program and/or VMT mitigation
exchange/banking program, when it
is completed and published by
CCTA. (Note that CCTA is
developing such a program for
Contra Costa County.)
The City shall require preparation and
implementation of project-level TDM Plans
with the following TDM measures for future
land use development projects facilitated by
the 2040 General Plan that do not meet CCTA
screening criteria and thresholds. Feasible
options listed under Table 3.12-41 to reduce
VMT below CCTA thresholds shall be
implemented for individual projects
facilitated by the 2040 General Plan. VMT
reduction measures shall be included at

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1949 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
32 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
project design review and be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to issuance of
construction permits.
1 Table 3.12-4 TDM Measures
CAPCOA Handbook Measure Types of Projects Core Elements T-7: Commute Trip Reduction Marketing Employment-based *Thoughtful marketing strategy *Readily available commute information
*Designated TDM Coordinator
*Guaranteed Ride Home
T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program Employment-based *Participation in a TMA with ride-matching program *Preferential parking policies for carpools
*Promotions and incentives such as gas cards at
carpool formation
T-9: Implement Subsidized or Discounted
Transit Program
Residential, School,
Employment-based
*Location within 1/2 mile of major transit stop or highquality transit corridor *Participation in Commuter Benefits Program
*Easy to sign up for incentives
T-11: Provide Employer Sponsored Vanpool
/ Point-to-Point Shuttles
Employment-based *Coordinate logistics of vanpool program *Cover vanpool fares for riders through commute
benefits program
*Promote and facilitate vanpool creation
T-12: Price Workplace Parking Employment-based *Location within 1/2 mile of transit service *Priced at least $5 per day
*On-street parking nearby is not readily available
T-13: Implement Employee Parking Cashout Employment-based *Parking is provided as benefit *On-street parking nearby is not readily available
*Participants pledge to not drive to work
T-16: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs Residential *On-street parking nearby is not readily available *All parking is priced at a rate at least $30 per month

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1950 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 33
CAPCOA Handbook Measure Types of Projects Core Elements T-23: Community-Based Travel Planning Residential, Retail, School
*Proactive outreach to all households in service area or project
*Program Coordinator designated as lead in promoting
non-auto transportation
T-10: Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities All Projects *Provision of secure bicycle parking in the form of lockers, a locked storage room, or an attended storage
facility
*(For non-residential): Provision of lockers, showers,
and changing rooms
T-21A: Implement Carshare Program /
Provide Carshare Parking
All Projects *Dedicate parking for carshare vehicles
*Identify carshare partner
T-15 Reduce Parking Supply Residential *On-street parking nearby is not readily available T-18: Provide Pedestrian Network
Improvements:

All Projects Completion of one or more projects identified in the Solano County Active Transportation Plan
T-19-A and T-19-B: Construct or Improve
Bicycle Facility/Bicycle Boulevard
All Projects
T-20: Expand Bikeway Network All Projects
T-26 Increase Transit Frequency All Projects in PDAs Increase the frequency of transit service by providing funding for more operators and vehicles
T-25 Increase Transit Coverage All Projects Expand transit service to areas without access to it, or expand to later/earlier hours.

T-23: Community-Based Travel Planning Residential, Retail, School
*Proactive outreach to all households in service area or project
*Program Coordinator designated as lead in promoting
non-auto transportation
T-22: Bikeshare/Scootershare All Projects in PDAs Fund and implement program providing e-bikes or scooters available on demand. Ideally pursue a
"dockless" system.

Free E-Bike Program All Projects Provide e-bikes free of charge to households pledging to reduce vehicle trips
Source: Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Change Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA, December 2021).

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1951 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
34 4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1952 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 35
This page intentionally left blank.

4.1.n
Packet Pg. 1953 Attachment: Attachment N - Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (General Plan and Housing Element)

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
510-834-4455
www.rinconcons ultants.com
May 12, 2023
Project No: 18-06115
Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
Subject: Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Response to Planning Commission Public Comments on the Draft Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan EIR
Dear Mr. Fujimoto:

Pursuant to your request, Rincon Consultants has prepared the following written responses to public comments on the Draft Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan EIR from the Planning Commission meeting on May 3, 2023.

Transportation – Density
Commenters expressed concerns regarding increased density and increased traffic and congestion.

As discussed in Section 3.12, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, forecasting encompasses full build-out of all parcels to their maximum capacity and represents growth over a much longer period than the 18 years represented in the travel demand model (2022 to 2040). Therefore, these over-capacity conditions may not materialize by 2040. Consistency with applicable 2040 General Plan goals and policies, Plan Bay Area 2050, and Contra Costa CTP would reduce potential impacts related to growth.

Noise – Density
Commenters expressed concern that noise would increase as a result of increased density.

As discussed in Section 3.10, Noise, of the Draft EIR, operational residential uses would generate noise from landscaping, maintenance activities, and mechanical equipment such as ground-level and rooftop ventilation and heating (HVAC) systems. Noise from new developments would be reviewed at the project level. Impacts from new development were determined to be less than significant in the Draft EIR. Roadway vehicle noise would likely increase due to increased growth and would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 during construction would reduce construction roadway noise but there are no feasible mitigation measures for operational roadway noise.

Aesthetics – Density
Commenters expressed concern that private views would be obstructed as a result of increased development.

As discussed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Goal LU-1 coupled with policies LU-1.2, and LU-1.8 would broadly maintain a “quality community atmosphere and image” through beautification and a high level of civic, recreational, and cultural opportunities. Policies LU-1.3, LU-1.4, and LU-1.6 would encourage a coherent cityscape through well-defined street fronts, gateway features, and scaled new

4.1.o
Packet Pg. 1954 Attachment: Attachment O - CEQA Related Responses to Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Response to Public Comments 2 development (i.e., appropriate transition between adjoining neighborhoods and land uses). Policy LU1.5 would require installation of public art in new public and private development, which would enhance the visual quality and character of the city. Finally, Policy LU-1.7 would encourage a humanscale community environment (as opposed to vehicle scale), which would improve the urban design of Pleasant Hill. 2040 General Plan goals and polices would encourage urban design that complements and is consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods and encourages high-quality design throughout the General Plan area. Implementation of these goals and policies would ensure that development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be visually compatible with Pleasant Hill’s overall form and would improve underutilized parcels through excellent architectural and landscape design.

Schools – Density
Commenters expressed concern about capacity of schools due to an increase in population.

As discussed in Section 3.11, Public Services and Recreation, although MDUSD has experienced a decline in enrollment in the last several years, the addition of 7,345 school students within Pleasant Hill could exceed anticipated school district capacity However, the proposed General Plan would facilitate development of a net increase of 6,444,767 gross square feet of schools. The City would work with MDUSD regarding new school land use needs by grade to ensure that new school facilities would accommodate anticipated student generation within Pleasant Hill associated with 2040 General Plan buildout. Further, future development facilitated by 2040 General Plan is required to pay MDUSD school impact fees which, pursuant to Section 65995(3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), are “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.” Transportation – Sharp curves/hazards
Commenters expressed concern regarding sharp curves and circulation safety within the city.

As discussed in Section 3.12, Transportation, the 2040 General Plan goals and policies are intended to result in roadway designs that would safely accommodate all users including pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles. Improvements to the transportation and circulation system in the City would be implemented over time through buildout year of 2040. Pleasant Hill maintains improvement standards that guide the construction of new transportation facilities to minimize design hazards for all users of the system. Through the environmental review process, land use proposals that would add traffic to streets not designed to current standards are evaluated. If needed, mitigation measures are identified therein, and projects are conditioned to construct or provide funding for an improvement that would minimize or eliminate the hazard.

Biological Resources – Wildlife
Commenters expressed concern regarding local wildlife including birds, opossums, rabbits, and deer and concern for wildlife movement corridors.

CEQA Guidelines require the City to evaluate whether the plan would “Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” or “Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident

4.1.o
Packet Pg. 1955 Attachment: Attachment O - CEQA Related Responses to Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Response to Public Comments 3 or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.” Rabbits, opossums, deer, etc., are not special status species.

As discussed in Section 3.3, Biological, Agriculture, and Forestry Resources, wildlife movement corridors in the General Plan area are generally limited to riparian corridors and creeks and areas of open space in local and regional parks. These creeks may be used by migratory fish and riparian corridors and other undeveloped areas in the city may provide corridors for wildlife movement, including migratory birds and Alameda whipsnake, California tiger salamander, and California redlegged frog when migrating to aquatic breeding habitat and during juvenile dispersal. The 2040 General Plan does not include changes to existing Parks and Open Space land use designations, including along creeks and waterways in the General Plan area. The 2040 General Plan would not facilitate permanent development within these wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife movement within areas of open space would not be affected by the 2040 General Plan, because the 2040 General Plan facilitates development in the urbanized areas of Pleasant Hill. Impacts to wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant.

Public Services – Police
Commenters expressed concern about increased crime in neighborhoods.

Crime is not a topic required for analysis under CEQA. As discussed in Section 3.11, Public Services and Recreation, as future buildout occurs under the 2040 General Plan, the City will evaluate operations and deployment of services to efficiently use resources. The 2040 General Plan would allow approximately 19,216 residential units and facilitate the addition of 45,740 net new residents in Pleasant Hill. As a result, PHPD would need to incrementally increase their police services through the year 2040. PHPD could need to incrementally increase their police services through the year 2040, which could in turn require the construction of new facilities to house subsequent personnel, equipment, and vehicles. In addition, the proposed plan would allow for a net increase of 1,401,063 gross square feet of semi-public and institutional land uses that could include police protection facilities. The specific placement and potential impacts of new police facilities are unknown at this time; if construction or expansion of future facilities are needed or proposed, separate environmental review would be required that could determine and require future project-specific construction-related mitigation measures. The 2040 General Plan would facilitate development within areas of Pleasant Hill that are currently developed. Therefore, construction of new police facilities, if required, would likely occur on property previously disturbed or developed land and thus within the programmatic analysis for buildout under the 2040 General Plan as analyzed throughout the EIR.

Geology and Soils – Slope and Landslide
Commenters expressed concern about landslide potential on the two new Housing Element Sites proposed in the northwestern area of Pleasant Hill.

As discussed in Section 3.5, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR, there is landslide susceptibility in the northwesternmost area of Pleasant Hill. As discussed in the Draft EIR, development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in additional residential, commercial, and retail development that would be potentially exposed to the effects of strong seismic ground shaking (as identified as Strong [VII Intensity or above] on the Mercalli Scale), seismic-related ground failure (liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence), and landslides resulting from local and regional earthquakes. Structures built in landslide zones would be exposed to an existing risk of landslide or, if improperly constructed, could exacerbate existing landslide conditions, especially construction on sites in the western portion of Pleasant Hill that is vulnerable to landslide hazard. Generally, the northwestern area of Pleasant Hill

4.1.o
Packet Pg. 1956 Attachment: Attachment O - CEQA Related Responses to Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Response to Public Comments 4 does have varying degrees of landslide susceptibility, based on Figure 3.5-5 in Section 3.5, Geology and Soils of the Draft EIR, so construction on the two new proposed Housing Element sites in the northwestern area of Pleasant Hill would need to comply with applicable laws and regulations including but not limited to CBC requirements for engineering design, construction, foundations, and structural support. Prior to development of either site, each would need to undergo their own geotechnical investigation as to what site characteristics are actually like.

Development within Pleasant Hill would be required to be built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking. Potential structural damage and the exposure of people to the risk of injury or death from structural failure would be minimized by compliance with CBC engineering design and construction measures. Foundations and other structural support features would be required to be designed to resist or absorb damaging forces from strong ground shaking and liquefaction. Allowable increases in height as a result of the 2040 General Plan could require foundations and other structural support features to be more robust to support the additional height; however, compliance with CBC regulations would ensure that the buildings would meet seismic safety standards.

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

4.1.o
Packet Pg. 1957 Attachment: Attachment O - CEQA Related Responses to Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element)

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
***SPECIAL MEETING DATE AND TIME***

CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL GENERAL PLAN UPDATE & HOUSING ELEMENT

CITY WIDE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Pleasant Hill that the City Council will hold a special meeting to conduct a public hearing to consider a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council on the following:

1. General Plan Update & Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) o Per Government Code section 65353 the City Council must first review and consider the EIR for the General Plan Update & Housing Element. (CEQA Guidelines §15025(c).)

2. General Plan Update
o The Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan is a long-range plan that guides decision-making and establishes rules and standards for new development and city improvements. It reflects the community's vision for the future and is intended to provide direction through the year 2040. The 2040 General Plan process, which began in March 2019, included several community engagement events where community input was solicited to help guide the future of the City. The Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan implements the requirements of State law by addressing the seven mandatory elements and one optional element. The General Plan includes the following elements:
o Economic and Economy o Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure o Land Use o Open Space, Parks, and Recreation
o Housing o Environment
o Transportation and Circulation o Hazards and Safety

3. Housing Element
o Adoption of the Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period. The purpose of the Housing Element is to ensure that there is adequate land in place to accommodate Pleasant Hills’ fair share of new residents. The City adopted the existing Housing Element in 2016 for the planning period of 2015-2023. The 2023-2031 Housing element identifies and addresses housing needs through 2031 and includes significant updates for compliance with State housing law. Following adoption, the City must submit the Adopted Housing Element to HCD for follow-up review.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15080, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the proposed entitlements by the lead agency (City of Pleasant Hill), and circulated for public review between January 30, 2023 and March 15, 2023. The proposed Final Environmental Impact Report and other related project information is available for review at the Planning Division counter, City of Pleasant Hill, City Hall (100 Gregory Lane), at Pleasant Hill Library (1750 Oak Park Boulevard), and may also be viewed on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org prior to the public hearings.

THE PUBLIC HEARING by the City Council will be held as a SPECIAL MEETING, starting at 5:00 P.M. on Thursday, May 18, 2023 in the Council Chambers, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill and through Video/Teleconference via Zoom Conference Meetings. Interested persons will be heard at this time at the meeting, both in-person and those participating through Zoom. More information on how to participate via zoom, including providing live comments during the meeting, will be provided on the posted City Council Agenda.

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Pleasant Hill at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. For information, call Troy Fujimoto, at 925-671-5224 or [email protected].

Troy Fujimoto
Zoning Administrator

4.1.p
Packet Pg. 1958 Attachment: Attachment P - CC Notice (General Plan and Housing Element) From: David McDonald
To: Sue Noack_Outlook; June Catalano
Cc: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Morello Terrace Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 7:28:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hi Sue and June,
Hope all is well with you. By now, after serving many years (including Chair) on the Measure K Committee, I'm not someone to make complaints or attack City decisions (as some others we know do). But, I wanted to raise with you a concern about the serious lack of notice that staff and the Planning Commission has done with the potential development of very high density projects near Morello and Paso Nogal.

I became aware of this by a posting on Nextdoor. Best I can tell, the City is obligated under State law to increase low income housing. The City proposed the JC Penney lot, but the State rejected it. So, now staff has recommended parcels on steep hills near Paso Nogal park that are zoned for single family homes. I live in the townhomes immediately adjacent.

There are very valid discussions that need to be had regarding the City's compliance with the State's rules and where in the city projects can be located. My concern is that proper notice to neighbors in our area of this major proposed change was never made. The selection of this site is literally buried in staff reports. People viewing the General Project review or Project 2040 would never know that a huge project is envisioned to be built next to their homes.

Staff's proposal would have there be 250-300 units built on a 6 acre property. Obviously, a huge change in the environment to our neighborhood.

Without getting to the merits of the development, I wanted to express my view that the City needs to do more notifications and reach out efforts before the Planning Commission makes any decisions on rezoning. I assume that the last thing the City wants is that this project was approved under the radar.

Thanks, David

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1959 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) From: Victoria Menear
To: Planning
Subject: public comment for commission meeting at Paso Nogal/Morello Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 11:03:07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello,
I am writing about the general plan to enable development at the corner of Paso Nogal and Morello.

I formally object on several issues.

Firstly in the notice that was posted on the city’s site on April 14’th it says:
"Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15080, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the proposed entitlements by the lead agency (City of Pleasant Hill), and circulated for public review between January 30, 2023 and March 15, 2023"
This was just for the environmental impact report but in my opinion, with something that carries the impact this proposal will have on traffic, safety, property values and other issues, there should be a notice in every mailbox in the vicinity of the project. As far as I can tell nothing was "circulated.” I found out about it in an email from a neighbour.

Secondly, its a violation of public trust to change zoning laws in a way that will potentially affect the atmosphere of the neighbourhood and the value of the neighbouring homes, the security of the area, etc.

Thirdly, as I understand, the proposal is for a 250-300 unit complex to be built.

Thats absurd and will be an eyesore in a neighbourhood of single family homes and quality townhomes. It's totally incongruous to the surroundings and will potentially impact the issues I mentioned above. (value of the surrounding real estate, traffic, safety.) A 300 unit complex is something you build in town not in the middle of a quiet residential community.

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1960 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Thank you for your consideration,
Victoria Menear

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1961 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) From: Tamara Mello
To: Planning
Subject: As a Pleasant Hill resident
Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 11:01:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I’d like to say FINALLY Pleasant Hill will be meeting its obligation to build low income housing.

I’ve lived in this city for over 30 years now, and NIMBYism has no place here, although, as evidenced on the Nextdoor website, it has reared its ugly head.

Please ignore all the small-minded complaints, and plan something beautiful and inclusive for everyone.

Thank you,
Tamara Mello
Sent from my iPhone

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1962 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r "":rom:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

LIZ ANDRADE < [email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:44 AM
Planning

LIZ ANDRADE
NO to the Proposed Development on Paso Nagai
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

Hello,
I'm a resident of Pleasant Hill on Strayhorn Road (off of Paso Nogal Road.) I oppose any development on Paso Nagai Road due to the increased traffic that has already occurred since I've moved into my home seven years ago.

WE NEED MORE OPEN SPACE; THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS I MOVED FROM WALNUT CREEK TO PLEASANT HILL. . .THESE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS WERE BEING BUil TALL AROUND ME IN WALNUT CREEK; AND I NEEDED TO MOVE TO AN AREA WITH MORE OPEN SPACE AND LESS CONGESTION.

Thank-you,
Elizabeth Andrade
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1963 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( --:rom:
.!ient:

To:

Subject:

Michael Doyle <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:25 AM
Planning
proposed development of Morello Terrace
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I have just learned of your plans to rezone the Morello Terrace to accommodate the building of apartments. This proposal has several serious flaws.

1. it ignores the areas current use which is single family homes. A 4 story apartment complex will be completely different in look, use, and density than all the other structures in the area.

2. Traffic and parking. Where will all the overflow parking go?? The streets in this area are not designed to handle this type of increase in traffic.

3. Pleasant Hill is already challenged with diminishing open space. There will definitely be a negative effect on the areas wildlife and habitat.

Please think through this plan. There are other sites that will not have the same negative impact as there are with this proposal.

Thank you,
( ~ike Doyle
L28 Netherby Place
Pleasant Hill,Ca. 94523
925-270-8963
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1964 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
f ":rom:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Russ Hillard <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:04 AM
Planning
Jimmie St Arnold; Russ Hillard
Affected Residents not notified: Public Hearing on Wednesday, May 3 at 6:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

How thoughtful that affected local residents were not directly informed of the City Public Hearing Wed, May 3rd, 6:30 PM City Council Chambers,100 Gregory lane, PH. Does the "City" believe that local residents need not be invited to ( or informed of) planning activities that directly affect our own neighborhoods?
Fortunately, your activities did not escape notice of concerned citizens. I will be attending the meeting if for no other reason than to identify local politicians who ought not be re-elected.

The planned low-cost high-density housing may seem like a good solution to people who will not be living directly in the affected area. Easy isn't it? To make decsions that affect other peoples' lives so long as they don't affect your own?
Sincerely,
Russ Hillard
710 Poppy Place
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1965 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
~rom:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Bev Cabellon <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 8:19 AM
Planning
Beverly Cabellon
Objections to Morello Terrace Proposal
Comments on Apartment Complex.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1966 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) May 1, 2023
Planning Commission
RE: Development of a four story, multi building 196-unit apartment complex on Morello Terrace My family resides at 209 Netherby Place in Pleasant Hill. We live behind the proposed area that is being considered for the 196-unit apartment complex.

This parcel of land has a severe slope and is located in a heavily traveled intersection in the mornings. We are located near four schools, the major one being DVC. Assuming that most residents will have two cars, there is no practical space for such overflow. As you are aware, Senate Bill 10 allows up to 10 dwelling units on any parcel, at a height specified in the ordinance, if the parcel is within a transit-rich area or urban infill site. This is certain not the case with this parcel of land. We do not live in a transit-rich area.

This proposal will impact the environment and wildlife habitat. Currently this open space is home to opossum, raccoons, deer, wild turkeys and ground squirrels. The slope here is severe and would require excavation of this hillside from a moderate natural gradation to a vertical gradient in order to accommodate a four story, multi building complex. No doubt this will require thousands of gallons of diesel fuel. The diesel fuel needed to make this area suitable for use would be irresponsible. When diesel fuel is burned in engines, the emissions that result contributes to air pollution that has serious human health and environmental effects. Surely there must be another location in Pleasant Hill that will be easier on the animal population and not require such a tremendous amount of fuel.

We must also consider the financial impact of placing such a large apartment complex in an already congested area. The grading will be extensive and overflow parking would need to be provided. At this time the current residents park their additional cars along Netherby Street and Douglas Terrace. There is simply no room for more cars.

My family objects to this proposal. Leave the natural beauty and open space to remain as is for future generations to enjoy.

Don Smallen
Bev Cabellon

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1967 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
f "=rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Aleksandra Goliak < [email protected]>
Sunday, April 30, 2023 10:44 PM
Planning
correspondence for Public Comment at the Planning Commission Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development on the comer of Morello and Paso Nogal in the city of Pleasant Hill. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project would have a detrimental impact on our community.

First and foremost, the proposed development is too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion and noise pollution. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.

Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of low-income residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing ( g-eenery and open spaces with a high-density housing complex.

Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx oflow-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere.

In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development. While I recognize the need for affordable housing, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Aleksandra Goliak
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1968 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( -:rom:
~ent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, April 30, 2023 3:50 PM
Planning
Objection for Paso Nagai high-density, low-income housing plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am a current resident off Paso Nagai and am objecting to rezoning Paso Nogal (APN 152-010-004) from Single Family (R20 and RlS) to Multiple Family High Density (MRH). I object to the plan of building high-density, low-income housing for the 3.4 acres open area on Paso Noga I directly across the road from Wildflower.

Currently, Paso Nagai is a hilly road with only one narrow lane in each direction and has blind curves. It is inconceivable to add from 90 up to 136 units on this Paso Nogal site without wreaking havoc and creating traffic nightmares. It will be unsafe for public evacuation during emergencies such as wildfires or earthquakes. During rainy season, portions of the narrow road are sometimes partially flooded and already present treacherous situations not to mention adding increased traffic if the site will be used to construct Multiple Family High Density housing (MRH).

I seriously object to having the Paso Nogal site as a proposed site for the plan of building high-density, low-income housing.

Sincerely,
\ ngelina Siu
\Concerned Pleasant Hill resident)
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1969 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( ~rom:
:ient:

To:

Subject:

Kimberly Smith <[email protected]>
Sunday, April 30, 2023 3:48 PM
Planning
Plan to rezone in Pleasant Hill
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To whom it may concern,
We have been informed that the 6 acre lot on the corner of Morello Ave. and Netherby Dr. is in jeopardy of being rezoned to accommodate a large apartment complex. This would be absolutely horrible. This beautiful, "pleasant" neighborhood would lose its aesthetics completely.

Please do not turn our neighborhood into a low income city living style amongst single family homes and condos which will bring crime, congestion, traffic as well as lowering the value of our homes.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Smith
Sent from my iPhone
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1970 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r "':rom:

Sent:

To:

Jimmie St Arnold <[email protected]>
Sunday, April 30, 2023 2:09 PM
Planning
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT High Density/ Low Income Housing onw Paso Nagai Rd and Morello Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou recognize the sender.

To Members of the Pleasant Hill Planning Commision
I am writing as president of the Pleasant Hill-Wildflower HOA which intersects Paso Nogal Rd at both Wildflower and Primrose Drive. The Board of Directors of Pleasant Hill - Wildflower HOA strongly objects to the proposal of building dense housing on both Paso Nogal and Morello Ave as reckless and environmentally unsound.

Adding hundreds of cars and people into such a small geographical area will increase noise pollution, dramatically increase traffic making our roads less safe, create congestion, destroy habitat for wildlife and alter the quality of life for this suburban area.

Studies show that the most beneficial areas for cities and neighborhoods for projects such as this are those where replacement and renovation is needed; areas where blight has or may set in, as opposed to open acreage. Areas such as Sun Valley Mall, and where Penny's and Sears were located, far outweigh the benefits to both the city and the residents than those that are in more suburban areas.

Determination by the State of California that such an area is too close to the freeway is both short sighted and misinformed. Access to services, transportation, recreation, education and ease of commuting are far better there, than in our more suburban areas. A further look at surrounding cities shows that residences built close to freeways are all throughout the east bay and built for residents at all levels of income.

We urge that you pay heed to our concerns and observations prior to any determination for this proposed plan.

Respectfu I ly,
Jimmie St. Arnold,
President Pleasant Hill-Wildflower HOA Board of Directors

FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Jimmie St Arnold Ph.D.
[email protected]
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1971 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) 503.891.7836
r
2 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1972 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ":rom:
.:ient:

Jimmie St Arnold <[email protected]>
Sunday, April 30, 2023 2:09 PM
Planning
(
To:

Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT High Density/ Low Income Housing onw Paso Nogal Rd and Morello Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

To Members of the Pleasant Hill Planning Commision
I am writing as president of the Pleasant Hill-Wildflower HOA which intersects Paso Noga I Rd at both Wildflower and Primrose Drive. The Board of Directors of Pleasant Hill - Wildflower HOA strongly objects to the proposal of building dense housing on both Paso Nagai and Morello Ave as reckless and environmentally unsound.

Adding hundreds of cars and people into such a small geographical area will increase noise pollution, dramatically increase traffic making our roads less safe, create congestion, destroy habitat for wildlife and alter the quality of life for this suburban area.

Studies show that the most beneficial areas for cities and neighborhoods for projects such as this are_ those where replacement and renovation is needed; areas where blight has or may set in, as opposed to open acreage. Areas such as Sun Valley Mall, and where Penny's and Sears were located, far outweigh the benefits to both the city and the residents than those that are in more suburban areas.

Determination by the State of California that such an area is too close to the freeway is both short sighted and misinformed. Access to services, transportation, recreation, education and ease of commuting are far better there, than in our more suburban areas. A further look at surrounding cities shows that residences built close to freeways are all throughout the east bay and built for residents at all levels of income.

We urge that you pay heed to our concerns and observations prior to any determination for this proposed plan.

Respectfully,
Jimmie St. Arnold,
President Pleasant Hill-Wildflower HOA Board of Directors

FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Jimmie St Arnold Ph.D.
[email protected]
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1973 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
--:rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
lynn watson < [email protected]>
Sunday, April 30, 2023 12:00 PM
Planning
Objection to plans for development at Morello and Paso Nagai CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou reco nize the sender.

I am writing to register my objection and extreme concern regarding the proposal to build "low income high density" housing on 2 open spaces: Paso Nogal and Morello. This area is very rural and would be adversely impacted by such developments. There are far too few areas left in Pleasant Hill that can be called "natural gems". These areas are two of the last remaining. Please help preserve them! Surely there are more appropriate areas for such housing in the greater Pleasant Hill area where the need can be better served without eliminating two of the few remaining open spaces left within the city.

I hope the City Council does what is best for the community and environment by denying the building requests for these two locations!
Thank you for your consideration.

Lynn Watson
~000 Ellington Terrace
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1974 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r --:rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Brian Schaefer < [email protected]>
Sunday, April 30, 2023 8:53 AM
Planning
Affordable Housing Proposal near Paso Nagai, Pleasant Hill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

I am a long-time homeowner and business owner in Pleasant Hill. I live in the Wildflower neighborhood right near the dog park on Paso Nogal, I am a speech instructor at Diablo Valley College, and my business that I own happens to be located right off of Paso Nogal as well. I was shocked and am deeply concerned about the recent proposal I read for dense housing in the open spaces on Paso Nogal and at the corner of Paso Nogal and Morello. This is a terrible idea for many reasons.

First, anyone who has ever driven or walked on Paso Nogal and Morello on weekday mornings knows how congested it already is, and has grown more congested over the past 15 years organically without any new housing built during that time. Paso Nogal is the main thoroughfare connecting the Virginia Hills neighborhood and other adjacent parts of Martinez with several schools in the Hidden Lakes area as well as with Valhalla Elementary, Valley View Middle, College Park H.S. and Diablo Valley College. I walk to DVC and also to my business, and I witness the near misses from cars vs. children walking to and from school. It is already congested in this area and currently dangerous for all the children I see in this area with all of the schools.

Adding that many more units will only exacerbate an already dangerous problem, and we can expect more cars hitting kids. It won't be a surprise to me to see more crossing guards in the area after more kids get hit by ~ars like a few have already been these past couple years.

Second, not only is high traffic congestion d_uring morning & evening commute times already a problem, Paso Nogal also hosts the dog park that already attracts hundreds of extra cars at all hours of the day. Paso Noga! is already a steady stream of cars all day, and 1100+ more residents will exacerbate an already capped out area.

New housing is a bad idea for this neighborhood.

Adding almost 400 dense units in this neighborhood could only have been thought up by people who do not live here. Everyone who lives here knows this is a terrible idea. It may look good on paper like the open spaces present an opportunity for housing, but the infrastructure with traffic cannot support dense housing with 1100+ new residents here; maybe 20 units wouldn't be so bad like what was built at the SE corner of Morello & Taylor, and also as is currently under construction at the corner of Lucille & Taylor (across the canal from the Morello & Taylor development. More moderate family housing, like 20 units or so makes much more sense, but this proposed dense housing plan will bring down the value of our entire neighborhood, and the increased noise and traffic congestion will devalue my quality of life and my Pleasant Hill business. If this plan is approved, I will sell my Pleasant Hill home and move my Pleasant Hill business to a neighboring city, like Walnut Creek.

Dense housing makes sense close to transit station and freeways entrances, like they are doing in Lafayette at the SW corner opposite Acalanes school, but makes no sense in this neighborhood that is already too congested and dangerous.

Thank you.

BRIAN SCHAEFER
\llortgage Broker
925.826.5900 Direct
925.226.3957 Fax
2800 Pleasant Hill Road, Ste. 180
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1975 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) www.BAIMortgage.com
DRE #01761428 / NMLS #298143 This communication may contain privileged and/or confidential information. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee.

If you are not the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, or using any of this information.

If you receive this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether hardcopy or electronic. 'his communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act. (ou may not directly or indirectly reuse or re-disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information. 2 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1976 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( ":rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

JingFa Li <[email protected]>
Sunday, April 30, 2023 8:19 AM
Planning
No on the high density plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

Hi Sirs/Madams,
We live in the nearby. I'd like to vote "No" for the high density plan at the Morello Ave and at Paso Nogal Rd. Please count us for two No.

Thank you!
Jingfa Li & Yiping Bo
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1977 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) (
Lyone Conner
"'.rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Brenda Rossi <[email protected]>
Sunday, April 30, 2023 6:44 AM
Planning
Paso Nogal/Morello proposed housing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I would like to go on record as to respectfully objecting to your plans for low income high density housing to be built in the open spaces in the Paso Nogal / Morello Avenue areas of Pleasant Hill.

I recently purchased a town home in this area because of its quiet, open space location and the lack of traffic which will both be heavily impacted by your proposed project.

I can't attend the council meeting Wednesday so want to make sure to register my concern and objection.

Brenda Rossi
346 Primrose Dr
Pleasant Hill, 94523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1978 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ~rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Chris Dundon <[email protected]>
Saturday, April 29, 2023 10:50 PM
Planning
Housing Element- Morello Terrace and Paso Nogal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Commission:

Thank you for receiving my comments regarding the Housing Element of your General Plan. I am specifically commenting on the Morello Terraces and Paso Nogel properties.

First of all, I am fully in favor of increasing affordable housing in Pleasant Hill and throughout Contra Costa County.

The Housing Element proposes huge High Density/ Low Income developments in the same general neighborhood. The Morello Terraces lot is proposed to have 196 high density/ low income units and a block away the Paso No gal with 102 High Density/ Low Income units. There are a number of reasons I think the proposal is completely flawed.

Traffic: The traffic in this area is quite busy due to workers commuting and students going to and from :lementary and high school and a large amount of DVC traffic. In addition, Hidden Lakes Park now hosts hundreds of little league games as well as soccer all year. This is not a bad thing, parks are an essential part of a community. But, the traffic is very significant much of the year evidenced by the usual 20+ vehicles parked in the planting areas on Morello in front of the park each weekend due the the lack of parking available in the park. Many of these cars travel on Morello to Paso Nogal.

Paso Nogal Road: Paso Nogal road becomes very narrow and windy as it approaches Alhambra Road. This is already a safety issue. The increased traffic will compound this issue and become even more dangerous.

Density: The Morello Terraces and Paso Nogel sites are proposed to have 30 to 40 units per acre. resulting in 196 and 102 high density/ low income units. This is way too dense for these steep sites.

Quality of Neighborhood: The neighborhood along Camelback Road between Old Quarry and Chilpancingo is entirely high density apartments resulting in way too much traffic, and too many cars parked and it looks run down compared to the other neighborhoods in the area. On a regular basis mattresses, furniture and other garbage is dumped by residents who move out from these apartments. Ask your city maintenance crew. If you create high density/ 100% low income projects at Morelly Terrace and Paso No gel, you will be creating a similar situation. Please visit Camelback Road to see what you will be creating.

Slope: The Paso Nogel site is way too steep to develop especially for the density proposed. This is the most expensive site to develop, yet the City creates numerous financial incentives to develop it which will result in very costly project costs. You are increasing the cost when you could easily find the numbers you need on flat '.ites elsewhere in the city at a fraction of the development cost. The Morello Terrace site is less steep, but still way too steep for the density proposed.
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1979 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Centralizing Low Income/ High Density: The plan makes it very clear that the City is focusing the majority of High Density/ Low income housing in one area. The Morello Terraces, Paso Nogel and the Golf Club Road. All of these sites are at one end of Pleasant Hill. Yet, on the Cleaveland Road property the plan ( uroposes 190 Above Moderate Income units, 10 Moderate and only 9 Low. What gives? Is this neighborhood too nice for low income or is the City simply trying to put all of its low income on one end adjacent to Martinez?
Integrated Community: I strongly object to creating entire projects that are primarily or all low income. This is simply bad planning. Every study demonstrates this. A better approach is to integrate low income into EVERY project at some percentage. I don't mean a small token amount, but rather 20% to 35%. By mixing residents with a variety of incomes, ages, jobs, races and cultures, we develop better neighborhoods.

Recommendations
Morello Terrace: Develop this site with 50 to 70 units (moderate density). But, do so with a mix of income to be: 10% Very Low, 20%Low, 30% Moderate and 40% Above Moderate income. You will have a better project that meets your goals but doesn't negatively impact the existing neighborhood.

Paso Nogal: Do not develop this site due to the slope and effects on traffic and Paso Nogal Road.

All other Sites in Pleasant Hill: Increase the percentage of Very Low, and Low income units in every proposed site throughout the City to 20% to 30%. This will help the City meet its objectives and improve the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Chris Dundon
1736 Jeanne Circle
( Martinez, CA
[email protected]
925-348-3268
2 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1980 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ":rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

George Shikuzawa <[email protected]>
Saturday, April 29, 2023 6:44 PM
Planning
Re: Special Meeting ID #834 3758 6719
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

City Of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Dear Members,
Since 1978 our family is the owner/occupant at 1770 Douglas Terrace , and I am addressing the Commission with regard to the "Hillside" lot located north and east of the intersection at Paso Noga! and Morello (HPUD 716?). I wish to formally object to any proposed re-zoning, variances, or accommodations affecting the aforementioned lot, and further do object to any sort of proposed multi-family project to be considered there as a result of. Over the past 45 yrs., despite the growing density historically all along the Morello/ Paso Noga!/ Chilpanchango corridor, the single-family residential status of the area has been maintained foremost and remains a premier asset to all who live here. A high-density, multi-family dwelling in the immediate area would simply magnify everything 'distracting' an excessive increment of humankind brings to bear: an intolerable burden on infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, power), more vehicles, more traffic, more noise- frankly, more disruption to the general quality of life in the area. Additionally there have been past issues concerning the .tability of the hillside related to natural seepage and drain flows down the hill, and these would most certainly be called into question and require further study as well as controversy as to suitability and liability.

It is stated in the PH Commission's own tenets, under "18.20.010 SPECIFIC PURPOSES- SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS:
" ... 1. Preserve, protect and enhance ... for residential use ... . . . 2. Minimize the impacts of use. Protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, overcrowding, excessive traffic, insufficient parking and other adverse environmental effects . . . . 3. Achieve design compatibility between new multifamily development and surrounding less intensive residential neighborhoods ...
. . . 4. Ensure adequate provisions for sites, with access to public services, ... At the same time protect the relatively quiet, ... family atmosphere of neighborhoods." With these 'ideals' in mind then that I trust the Commission will weigh the issues.

I kindly thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
George H. Shikuzawa
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1981 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
I From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

CATHERINE SCHAEFER <[email protected]>
Saturday, April 29, 2023 5:53 PM
Planning
New Residential Units on and Around Paso Nagai
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou reco nize the sender.

Hello,
I'm writing to express my dissatisfaction with your proposed housing units to be built on and around Paso Nagai.

As a longtime volunteer and resident of Pleasant Hill, I am deeply opposed to this new housing plan.

Paso Nagai Road is already too busy; the proposed 350+ housing units will make this road extremely congested and crowded. We cannot have that many cards driving on the narrow road! It is unsafe.

The negative environmental impact will be wide-felt. Our already stretched-thin resources such as water, energy, and open spaces will be nearly depleted. Shame on you for proposing to take away from what little open space we still have.

The Pleasant Hill schools cannot handle the overcrowding issues now. What makes you think that the hundreds (perhaps thousands!) of new residents will solve this problem? I beg you NOT to build housing units on Paso Nagai Rd or Morello. We cannot afford the loss that these new housing units will create. Please consider your current residents' pleas to cease this plan.

Reach out if you're interested in discussing this matter any further.

Best,
Catherine Schaefer
Longtime resident and volunteer of Pleasant Hill
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1982 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r "':rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Steve Santoro <[email protected]>
Saturday, April 29, 2023 4:17 PM
Planning
new housing development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am a resident in the Wildflower community next to Paso Noga I. I was just made aware of the plan to build almost 400 resident housing units in the area next to me. To bring that many people into this small area is insane. Paso Nagai road is a small winding road with no lighting. It is already frightening to try to turn out of our neighborhood onto Paso Noga I because of the large amount of traffic. Even the parking lot for the park there is so small that people park in the dirt all up and down the street. I will be at the meeting Wednesday to present my displeasure with this and bring as many of my neighbors as I can. Anyone who is in favor of this will never get my vote again.

Steve Santoro
402 Buttercup Lane
Pleasant Hill
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1983 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Oliver Brown <[email protected]>
Saturday, April 29, 2023 3:12 PM
Planning
High density housing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom it may concern,
I am a homeowner in the Wildflower complex off Paso No gal and am just learning of the city's planned Hugh density housing projected to be built right at the entrance to our complex. We already face heavy and dangerous through traffic. On the very small and windy north sectiinnif Pado No gal road and I an highly concerned for the impact this project will have both in cars, bodies and just overall density on a very small road and area. This seems I'll advised and poorly planned with no regard to the quality of life to the local residents. I will be at the meeting Wednesday to voice my concerns in person.

Sincerely,
Oliver Brown
Resident
340 Primrose Dr, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Voter
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1984 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r -:rom:
.Sent:

To:
bjcheshire < [email protected]>
Saturday, April 29, 2023 1 :59 PM
Planning
Subject: Rezoning
Attachments: Post on Next Door regarding development on Morello CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou recognize the sender.

To: whom it may concern on the Planning Commission,
See the attached posting on our local Net Door Web Page This is a very serious issue. Given the location of this proposed rezoning. There are serious questions that require transparency as to this proposed rezoning.
1 Who proposed the rezoning?
2 Why are the residents hearing about this rezoning from Next Door instead of having a notice sent to us?
3 Who is the developer for these apartments?
4 Who receives the money for the sale of the property?
5 How much will Pleasant Hill receive for this rezoning project? 6 How will adding low-income property to our area impact the current value of our homes?
7 Will this rezoning be voted on by the people?
8 What is the impact to the local traffic? Note: Driving over Pas Nogales now is tedious enough without adding several hundred more automobiles and trucks. Also, it will impact the traffic to Pleasant Hill, Road Taylor Blvd. DVC, Virginia Hills, and Chilpancingo.

If for no other reason just the impact to traffic makes this rezoning plan causing a bad impact to the existing property owners and residents.

Sincerely
Baynard J. Cheshire
13 Fairway Place
0 Ieasant Hill, CA 94523-1150
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1985 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ·f=rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Golf Ridge • Edited 22 hr ago •
[email protected]
Saturday, April 29, 2023 8:_37 AM
'Bain Cheshire'
Post on Next Door regarding development on Morello
City is considering building 250-300 apartments at Morello and Paso Nogul. Yesterday, I was told by a neighbor the the City of Pleasant Hill is considering rezoning the 6 acre meadow across the street from me and building a 250-300 apartment complex. I live on Douglas Terrace. Our family has had this house for over 35 years. There are MANY concerns: 1) Why were we not informed by the City? Some home owners have lived here since these houses were built ( 197 4 ). They are now elderly and like a safe, quiet neighborhood. 2) There is a sink hole on the 6 acre lot. This is a HUGE safety issue. Anyone can see the sink hole. 3) Where would all of the new residents PARK? 4) Property values will go down. Also, every realtor selling or renting in this area will now have to disclose the proposed apartment complex. 5) Traffic will go up. There will be massive car congestion in this whole area. All of the car exhaust from all of those ~ars is a health issue. 6) The Paso Nogul dog park will be affected as well as the Hidden Lakes park.

More people, more cars, more dogs. 7) This whole area will become a noisy, congested mess. It will also impact our local shopping areas. 8) The City already has added housing: the latest is at Tylor and Lucille.

Before that, it was where the old library stood. If you have an opinion, here are some things that you can do: 1) attend the City Council meeting on May 3 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. 2) attend the meeting via zoom.

The zoom address will be posted on April 28 at www.pleasanthillca.org. 3) Write a statement about how the proposed new apartment complex would affect you and your family. Statements must be received by Wednesday May 3 by 4:00. They can be mailed or dropped-off or emailed. Email your response to [email protected] 4) There is also a petition circulating. 5) Get on the Planning Commission.

There is at least one vacancy. I know that there is a huge need for more housing, but I am not convinced that this is the appropriate place for it. Especially since the current homeowners weren't even informed let alone asked for input. Let's make our voices heard!
27 Comments
Share
Kay Barton
• Wildflower
Thanks for the information
Uh
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1986 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Author
• Golf Ridge
Kay Barton --
: I was told yesterday that some of the apartments may be in your area where the eucalyptus trees were cut down.
22h
Isabel Ma
• Ridgeview
I can't wrap my head around how they can build so many units on the steep piece of land on Morello.

Where are all those cars going to park?
21h
m
Mary-Lynn Lidstone
Author
• Golf Ridge
Seems that half of the apartments may go on Paso Nogul where the eucalyptus trees were cut down.

Pleasant Hill is building everywhere!
21h
Cheryl Thomas
• Golf Ridge
Thank you! I live right across the street from the hill on Douglas Terrace. This would be a disaster for our neighborhood and the values of our homes. Our whole street has been put on alert and many of us will be 2 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1987 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) attending the meeting next Wednesday and sending in emails objecting. I have a question. Who is circulating a petition? I haven't seen anything about it other than here. Thank you 21h
m
Mary-Lynn Lidstone
Author
• Golf Ridge
Cheryl Thomas
: I live a few houses from .you. Yesterday, did you get that letter explaining all of this? The amazing could who has let everyone know about this also started the petition. I can private mail you her name and number.
21h
Cheryl Thomas
• Golf Ridge
Yep just saw your PM. That is the same person.
21h
Tim P.
• Reliez Valley North
You forgot to add the inevitability of more crime.
20h
Thomas Durkee
• Golf Ridge
Great information. Thank you. I believe the Wednesday meeting starts at 6:30 and is a Public Hearing by the planning commission. They would like written comments by noon on Wednesday. 18h
Cheryl Thomas
• Golf Ridge
Thomas
You are correct. Meeting starts at 6:30 pm!
_3h
3 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1988 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) II
Kristian Garcia
• Gregory Gardens
Thanks for the info, I will make sure to make my voice heard in favor of more affordable housing in pleasant hill for all. : )
18h
m
Mary-Lynn Lidstone
Author
• Golf Ridge
Kristian Garcia
: That is truly important but these are sloped hills. One hill has a known sink hole. Doesn't seem safe. 18h
Pam Harmon
• Pacheco
'Nell, there are 8 billion people on this planet. People have to live somewhere. 18h
John Fear
• Quiet Lakes
Pam
Awesome, let's have them move to Pacheco! Thanks for the offer. 16h
m
Mary-Lynn Lidstone
Author
• Golf Ridge
I agree. But we live near a Junior College (DVC), high school (College Park), middle school (Valley View) and elementary school. All within one mile. So this little area is all ready jammed. On the other hand, there are other sections of Pleasant Hill that seem under utilized. So why build in the super busy area? 18h
4 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1989 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) laura nunes
• Skander-Kiki-Odin
The city will not care about anyones concerns. They have had many upset residents complain about this ( ~ame issue and they have continued to build. Ask them where they live and see if they wouldn't mind new ,1ousing in their neighborhood. You know the answer to that! 15h
Lee Heim
• Vista Glen
I'm sure your neighbors were upset when your project was built? Of course they were! Progression doesn't stop with you.
13h
II
Mary-Lynn Lidstone
Author
• Golf Ridge
Lee Heim
: I happen to think that adding 250-300 apartments in the most congested area of Pleasant Hill isn't Progession. It isn't even safe.
( 12h
Sarah Fisher
• Camelback
The homeless problem in CA will not be solved until affordable housing is more widely available. But, most homeowners are greedy and think "not in my neighborhood". It takes a village- particularly a village where the value of property isn't more important than ensuring safe housing for all. (edited)
llh
Ann Loretto
• Skander-Kiki-Odin
A neighbor told me that low income structures are projected in the area. That would grind down values if so.
llh
Lee Heim
5 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1990 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) • Vista Glen
Ann
it won't. Affordable units are not considered comparable in an average appraisal market. ( Uh
Isabel Ma
• Ridgeview
Lee
of course they will. Tons of apartments would turn a lot of potential home buyers off. It's not the low income aspect, it's the fact that adding 1000 extra people and hundreds extra cars in a quiet neighborhood is a huge deal. Homeowners also have the right to protect the biggest investment of their lives. There's a huge plot of unused flat land right on Taylor and Pleasant Hill Road, why not build there? (edited)
6m
Marion Gizzi
• Reliez Valley North
A few years ago they planned to build multiple units on Paso Nogal and Pillon Real. It failed acceptance because the fire department showed it was too difficult to protect the residents in case of a fire. Perhaps this argument can be used again.
10h
Add a comment...

O Virus-free.www.avg.com
6 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1991 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( '=rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Hope Logan <[email protected]>
Saturday, April 29, 2023 11 :27 AM
Planning
Apartments on Paseo Niguel! NO!!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
200 to 300 Apartment units! Please, this area is needed for the open space and park area that all citizens enjoy a lot! For good health. Traffic on Morello and Alhambra will double up worse than it us already! Unbelievable what the city does in planning sometimes. Parking lots not big enough for stores like in W.C. with Sprouts and P.H. with the In N Out Burger.

So many other negative reasons: Sink hole on the property and where will all the renters park and a huge reason for me as I look at retiring and selling, what about property values we all moved here to keep??? Leave the area as it is, clean air and nature to roam. You are filling up all the outdoor spaces. Stop it, Please!! Not happy to hear about this planning idea. The city is for us all and homeowners in this area are concerned about what we are hearing from the city.
( :-Iope Logan
449 Ridgeview Drive
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1992 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
1 ·rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lorraine Miura <[email protected]>
Saturday, April 29, 2023 12:47 AM
Planning
Concerned homeowner
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

It's been brought to my attention that there plans to rezone a parcel of land, Morello and Paso Nogal P.H. so a developer can build a 250 unit low income apartment building.

I AM AGAINST this project.

This is a neighborhood of single family homes and it needs to remain that way. We cannot allow a high rise structure to be placed here. It will decrease the value of the homes in surrounding areas. It will threaten the wildlife and safety of all those who reside here. It will change the entire landscape of my beautiful community and I hope you will put a stop to this absurd project.

Once again I am voicing my strong opposition AGAINST this plan.

Sincerely,
Lorraine Miura
Sent from my iPhone
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1993 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
I ~rom:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Maxwell D <[email protected]>
Friday, April 28, 2023 5:44 PM
Troy Fujimoto; Ethan Bindernagel; City Clerk
East Bay for Everyone; Williams, Jamillah@HCD; Housing Elements@HCD Pleasant Hill Housing Element changes comment from East Bay for Everyone Pleasant Hill Comment Letter April 2023.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hi Mr. Fujimoto,
East Bay for Everyone writes to comment on the planned changes to the Pleasant Hill Housing Element discussed in the GP AC meeting April 12, 2023. See attached comment letter.

Maxwell Davis
East Bay for Everyone
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1994 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) r
April 28, 2023
Troy Fujimoto
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA, 94523
RE: Draft Housing Element
Mr. Fujimoto,
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 planned changes to City of Pleasant Hill's 6th Cycle Housing Element discussed in the General Plan Advisory Committee on April 12, 2023.

Proposed changes Low Income Sites to Accommodate Fair Housing guidance are not sufficient:

The GPAC meeting discussed the removal of Site B (former JC Penney) and part of Site G from the sites inventory and the addition of the Morello Terraces (154-140-015) and Paso Nogal Hillside (152-010-004) sites. These sites are both situated on steep hillsides and given the naming conventions of "hillside" and "terraces" would not seem suitable for large low-income housing developments due to the site limitations and development constraints in Pleasant Hill. The Paso Nogal Hillside site was called out by the city in the first draft housing element with the note that "Site is located on a steep, hilly location that will require grading. However, site is for above moderate-income capacity, so not deemed as a constraint to development" implying it would not be suitable or feasible for lower-income developments.

The discussion in the GPAC meeting made it very clear that the committee does not believe these are suitable sites, and does not believe that these sites have any reasonable chance of development into low income housing given the current constraints on development in Pleasant Hill.

Proposal for Missing Middle Program

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1995 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) r With the above points in mind, the city must do more to reduce the constraints on housing in the city by relaxing development standards. A recommended program would be similar to San Ramon's planned Missing Middle program. Specifically we recommend the following development standard changes in all residential zones in the city to:
• All residential zones should permit at least 15 du/acre, except those at high risk of wildfire or flood inundation.
• Reduce parking minimums to no more than 0.5 spaces per unit, uncovered, with no guest parking
• Reduce setback requirements to, at most, 10 feet front yard, 5 feet side yard • Increase minimum site coverage requirements to, at least, 60% • Increase maximum building height to, at least, 30 feet • Reduce minimum lot sizes to, at most, 3,000 square feet • Allow up to 6 units per site
We look forward to continuing to engage with the City of Pleasant Hill in the Housing Element process.

Maxwell Davis and the 2500 members of East Bay for Everyone

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1996 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r i:rom: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Friday, April 28, 2023 5:16 PM
(
Sent:

To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Housing Element - Attachment "G" - Modifications CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

TroyJust tried to open several of the files for Wednesday's Planning Commission meeting on the Housing Element & the General Plan.

No problem with the Revised HE, but I could NOT open Attachment "G" - the message said this file may be corrupted.

Jack Prosek
zz
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1997 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( ·rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Victoria Menear <[email protected]>
Friday, April 28, 2023 4:59 PM
Planning .

Correction -For public comment at planning commission meeting 5-3-23 about Paso Nagai/Morello rezoning and development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

Hello,
I am resending this with a more clear Subject Line and a few additional comments.

I am writing about the general plan to enable development at the comer of Paso Nogal and Morello and on Paso Nogal.

I formally object on several issues.

Firstly in the notice that was posted on the city's site on April 14'th it says:

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15080, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the proposed entitlements by the lead agency (City of Pleasant Hill), and circulated for public review between January 30, 2023 and March 15, 2023" The above statement was just regarding the environmental impact report but in my opinion, with something that carries the impact this proposal will have on traffic, safety, property values and other issues, there should be a notice in every mailbox in the vicinity of the project not just about the environmental report but about the scope of the whole project. As far as I can tell nothing was "circulated." I found out about it in an email from a neighbour. With such sparse notice, those concerned citizens in the neighbourhood who oppose the plan had very little time to gather their thoughts, organise or consult a land use attorney in a timely manner.

Secondly, its a violation of public trust to change zoning laws in a way that will potentially affect the atmosphere of the neighbourhood and the 1alue of the neighbouring homes, the security of the area, etc. This area has been zoned R-15 or R-20 since I moved here 35 years ago. The city 1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1998 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) likely had good reasons to choose to zone it that way. Perhaps it's a good idea to review those reasons. Under that zoning the allowed build on the r \1orello and Paso Nogal sites would be 15 and 7 units respectively. Under the new zoning it would be between 196-262 for the Morello site and 102 - 136 for the Paso Nogal site.

I support the idea of low cost housing but to go to a residential area and increase the parcel density not by double, not by triple but by 17 to 20 times is truly a shirking of responsibility to the residents that already live in the neighbourhood.

Putting up the equivalent of a 250-350 apartment complex is absurd and will be an eyesore in a neighbourhood of single family homes and quality townhomes. It's totally incongruous to the surroundings and will potentially impact the issues I mentioned above. ( value of the surrounding real estate, traffic, safety.) A 300 unit complex is something you build in town not in the middle of a quiet residential community.

Use the lots to build quality, low density, low cost housing that conforms to the R-15 or R-20 zoning. It's better for the neighbourhood and better for the future residents of that housing.

Thank you for your consideration,
Victoria Menear
2 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 1999 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( ~rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Erner M. delosReyes <[email protected]>
Friday, April 28, 2023 3:43 PM
Planning
Subject: Rezoning plan for the vacant lot on the corner of Morello Ave, and Paso Nagai CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou reco nize the sender.

Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezoning plan for the vacant lot on the corner of Morello Avenue and Paso Nagai in Pleasant Hill, CA. The plan would allow for the construction of a multi-family, high-density, low-income housing project that would be incompatible with the existing character and quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood.· We live across the street from this vacant lot. When we purchased our property in 2005, we were told by the Planning Commission of Pleasant Hill that we need to maintain a significant portion of our land facing Morello Avenue to be an open space and free of any structure. According to the plan that the Planning Commission imposed, we need to maintain this "Scenic Easement" for the purpose of preserving the area's natural and scenic beauty by planting and maintaining a specified number of .rees and shrubs. We are also required to maintain this portion of land free of any debris or invasive vegetation. Me and my neighbors have been trying very hard for several years now to comply with this agreement and we have invested so much time and money to preserve this Scenic Easement.

This proposed rezoning would allow for the construction of a multi-family high-density housing which is inconsistent with the Scenic Easement regulations that were imposed to our properties and the surrounding neighborhood. This proposed plan is a complete violation of that agreement and a betrayal to our neighborhood who has tremendously invested in this community.

Furthermore, the rezoning plan would not address the actual housing needs of Pleasant Hill, which are primarily for moderate-income and senior housing. The proposed low-income housing project would not serve the local workforce or residents who are struggling to afford housing in our city. The plan would also set a precedent for further encroachment of high-density development into lowdensity areas, undermining the stability and attractiveness of Pleasant Hill as a desirable place to live and work.

We, on behalf of my neighbors, strongly oppose this rezoning plan and urge the Planning Commission to respect the wishes of the residents who have invested their time, money, and energy into making this community a great place to live. Please consider alternative uses for the vacant lot that would be ,iore compatible with the existing land use and current zoning regulations. 1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2000 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Sincerely,
Erner and Maria Delos Reyes
(
1 .l Morello Court
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(
2 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2001 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ·rom: Scott Grant <[email protected]>
Friday, April 28, 2023 2:18 PM
Planning
(
Sent:

To:

Subject: Apartment Complex Proposal at Morello & Paso Nogal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Commissioners,
My family and I have been residents of Pleasant Hill since 1999. We reside at 309 Valley High Dr. I am writing to say that we are absolutely against any apartment complexes being built in the open space area at Morello and Paso Nogal.

Morello is already a very busy road and adding 250-300 apartment units would make traffic a nightmare for our neighborhood, as well as our shopping areas. In addition, this proposal brings safety concerns for our family due to the risks of an increase in crime which Pleasant Hill is already suffering from over the last few years. This will lower our property values. Period. It's also unacceptable that this proposal was never brought up to area residents, and seems to have come out of nowhere. There are already plenty of apartments around College Park and Camelback Road.

It is absolutely unfair to ask our neighborhood, and all the other residents in the area of Morello & Paso Nagai,, to accept such a massive amount of new dwelling units and all of the accompanying problems that will come with it. We do not want a 250 to 300 person new apartment complex in our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Mr. Scott Grant
309 Valley High Dr.

Pleasant Hill, CA.
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2002 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ~rom:

Sent:

Greg Vidimsky < [email protected] >
Monday, May 1, 2023 3:56 PM
To: Planning; [email protected]
Subject:

Attachments:

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 2023 6:30 PM 05-03-23 Special Meeting Agenda with links.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Greg Vidimsky & Kimberly J Smith
80 Janin Pl
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
5-1-23
CHAIR: ALEX KHALFIN
VICE CHAIR: CELIA CHIANG
MEMBERS: BRENDAN CHENEY, DAVID FIELD, JIHA WNA JOHNSON, DARIEN KEY, CHADWICK WYLER
City Hall of Pleasant Hill California
100 Gregory Lane,
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Dear Mr Khalfin, Ms Chiang, and members of the Pleasant Hill Planning Commission, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed low-income housing project in our suburban neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing, I am concerned that this project will have a negative impact on our community.

As a homeowner and member of this community, I am concerned that the construction of low-income apartments will decrease property values and negatively impact the quality of life for those living in the surrounding areas. Additionally, I worry that the influx oflow-income residents will put a strain on our community resources, including schools, parks, and public transportation.

I believe that there are alternative solutions that can be explored to address the need for affordable housing without negatively impacting our community. For example, the city could incentivize developers to build affordable housing in other areas of the city, or explore public-private partnerships to develop affordable housing that is more in line with the existing character of our community.

I urge you to consider these concerns as you move forward with this project, and to explore alternative solutions that will address the need for affordable housing without negatively impacting our community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to meeting you on Wednesday, May 3rd and hearing what you have to say.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2003 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Greg Vidimsky and Kimberly J Smith
Links
-youtube: www.pleasanthillca.org/planningcom -www.zoom.us Meeting ID: 834 3758 6719
Passcode: 136087
2 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2004 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ~rom:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Eric Gross <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 3:51 PM
Planning
Julia Kokkinakis
OBJECTION: Low Income High Density Housing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am writing to object to the plans for building high density, low income housing in 2 of Pleasant Hill's sacred open spaces. For starters, one of the best attributes of Pleasant Hill is its abundance of open space. It is a place where native animals are free to live and roam which is a huge part of our ecosystem and beautiful natural surroundings. Second, adding over 1,000 people to this city will drastically change the very well being and way of life we are all so accustomed to. "If it ain't broke, dont fix it." The city is a wonderful safe haven and overall great community to live in. Adding 1,000 high income residents would have a negative effect on our community with more cars on the road, more pollution and less open space. Sadly, adding 1,000 low income will have the same negative impact and unfortunately may also come with sad additional consequences of increased crime and lower property values.

Protect our open space. Protect our city.

Eric Gross
:2 Shetland Ln, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2005 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
1 "":rom: Danielle Larson <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 3:39 PM
(
Sent:

To: Planning
Subject: Letter of Objection - Morello Terrace
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou reco nize the sender.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to submit my objection to the development of the rezoning Morello Terraces. I am a homeowner in this exact area and would consider relocating my family should this complex be built. The development of this would drastically increase the traffic at al already very congested Morello Road. Morello is already a transit rich road and serves as a main road to many schools in the area and access to the freeway. By building this complex, it would dramatically increase the number of cars which would then cause blocked streets from cars parked along other residential streets in the area, due to overflow. The building of this complete would be a complete degradation of the wild life habitat, causing more roadkill and will decrease our local wildlife population. Also, the amount of diesel fuel to grade the slopes in pollutant and harmful to the environment. Bu1lding this complex would be a severe disruption of privacy and would negate the surroundings of buildings and privacy.

Please reconsider this building or find a more open area.

Pleasant Hill Resident
Danielle Larson
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2006 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lisa Cutino <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 3:27 PM
Planning
Opposed to Plans to Build Homes on Paso Nogal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear City Council,
As residents of Pleasant Hill for 30 years, we are deeply concerned about the proposed plan to build low income/high density housing on Paso Nogal between Morello and Alhambra Rd and Morello Avenue near the corner of Paso Nogal. One of the really great things about this area is the ability to get to stores and local businesses without too much congestion. Trying to force up to 1000+ people -and 800 or so cars into this tiny space is ridiculous. Paso Nogal street cannot handle that kind of traffic. Cars will be backing up and parking on Morello and other side streets. How will the local schools, which are already over crowded, handle the additional children? I urge you to reconsider a different location that may have more space.

Sincerely,
( ony and Lisa Cutino
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2007 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:
catherine shultz <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 2:59 PM
Planning

OPPOSE DEVELOPMENT
OPPOSE DEVELOPMENT.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Sent from my iPad
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2008 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rae Anne Stackpole < [email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 2:29 PM
Planning
Low Income Housing Proposal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am a homeowner who lives at 20 Fairway Place in Pleasant Hill, near the intersection of Morello and Paso Nogel.

I have received information regarding the proposal to build as many as 396 low income units in the Morello and Paso Nogel vicinity~ I strongly oppose this proposal. The high density would create way too much congestion in the area but more importantly, it would affect the value of our property. Most of us have owned our property for years and seen it increase in value. It would be a blow to have our property decrease in value because of this plan, particularly for those of us who are retired. surely there is a better location for this housing where it would not have such a negative impact.

Thank you for considering 'this opinion .
. ,ae Anne Stackpole 20 Fairway Place
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2009 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Victoria Menear <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 1 :55 PM
Planning
Correction -For public comment at planning commission meeting 5-3-23 about Paso Nagai/Morello rezoning and development ,
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou recognize the sender.

Hello
I am resending the body of the amended email I sent on the 28'th ( with one additional statement) because the old one is still the one on the comments section of your website. I am also CC'ing it to several neighbours as confirmation it was sent prior to the meeting.

I am writing about the general plan to enable development at the comer of Paso,Nogal and Morello and on Paso Nogal.

I formally object on several issues.

Firstly in the notice that was posted on the city's site on April 14'th it says:
"Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15080, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the proposed entitlements by the lead agency (City of Pleasant Hill), and circulated for public review between January 30, 2023 and March 15, 2023" The above statement was just regarding the environmental impact report but in my opinion, with something that carries the impact this proposal will have on traffic, safety, property values and other issues, there should be a notice in every mailbox in the vicinity of the project · not just about the environmental report but about the scope of the whole project. As far as I can tell nothing was "circulated." I found out about it in an email from a neighbour. With such sparse notice, those concerned citizens in the neighbourhood who oppose the plan had very little time to gather their thoughts, organise or consult a land use attorney in a timely manner.

Secondly, its a violation of public trust to change zoning laws in a way that will potentially affect the atmosphere of the neighbourhood and the value of the neighbouring homes, the security of the area, etc. This area 1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2010 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) has been zoned R-15 or R-20 since I moved here 35 years ago. The city likely had good reasons to choose to zone it that way. Perhaps it's a good ( ~ dea to review those reasons. Under that zoning the allowed build on the Morello and Paso Nogal sites would be 15 and 7 units respectively. Under the new zoning it would be between 196-262 for the Morello site and 102 - 136 for the Paso Nogal site.

Wording on page 138 document F says:
"The site has been identified as suitable for upzoning due to its close proximity to multifamily residential uses on three sides, its location in a high resource area, and its large size. Multiple condominiums are located around the complex on Janin Place, Fairway Place, Douglas Terrace, and Ridgeview Place, therefore making additional high-density development an expected and conforming use and development pattern in the area. Additionally, its large size allows for well planned, cohesive developments that are able to maximize density and incorporate cohesive planning that can include mixed-use components and the ~ddition of services. " Thats just distorting reality. The plan allows for up to 262 units on the 6 plus acre Morello parcel. . As I zoom out on the map of the area there are approximately 140 units on contiguous real estate, · ,eluding across the street, taking up more than three to four times the size of the proposed .i:v.lorello parcel.

What you are proposing is not equivalent as you suggest.

I support the idea of low cost housing but to go to a residential area and increase the parcel density not by double, not by triple but by 17 to 20 times is truly a shirking of responsibility to the residents that already live in the neighbourhood.

Putting up the equivalent of 250-350 unit apartment complexes is absurd and will be an eyesore in a neighbourhood of single family homes and quality townhomes. It's totally incongruous to the surroundings and will potentially impact the issues I mentioned above. ( value of the surrounding real estate, traffic, safety.) A 300 unit complex is something you build in town not in the middle of a quiet residential community.

Use the lots to build quality, low density, low cost housing that conforms to the R-15 or R-20 zoning. It's better for the neighbourhood and better for the future residents of that housing.

Thank you for your consideration,
·ictoria Menear
2 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2011 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sandy Johnson <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 12:32 PM
Planning
New City Housing Plans near Paso Nogal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. _
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Sandra Johnson and I own two properties in the Wildflower Development off of Paso Nogal. I was SHOCKED to get a message about a proposed High Density low income housing proposal that the city of Pleasant Hill is proposing.

There is ABSOLUTELY no feasible way that this can happen. The road is way to narrow to accommodate 800 or more cars a day plus 1,000 more people. The infrastructure would be extremely costly considering the hills and land surrounding. There have already been landslides with sandbags to protect hills from sliding. The shopping center on Alhambra is already way too crowded,. not enough parking for those that live close by.

How would the center be able to accommodate more cars and people? I bought my house on Daisy Place because of the peace and tranquility of the area, not to live in an urban environment. I love the surrounding nature and quiet neighborhood.

It appears that the City of Pleasant Hill did not do their homework considering the location and under the gun to find a location to make this happen. They definitely need to reconsider and look for another location that would fit the needs of the state.
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2012 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
""rom:
~ent:

To:

Subject:

Jim Johnson <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 12:28 PM
Troy Fujimoto; Jim Johnson; Mo
Rezoning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello Mr. Fujimoto,
My name is Maureen Abshire and I live at 603 Miles Ct. here in Pleasant Hill. I live off Paso Nogal in New Falconpointe and I'm right across from the dog park.

My husband James Johnson and I have questions and concerns about the proposed rezoning of two locations in our area. The most pressing issue for us is the 3.4 acres on Paso Nogal that could be rezoned resulting in 136 units being built. We are NOT NIMBYs to be sure and we believe that people have a right to be housed. Our concern is that Paso Nogal is already very heavily traveled. In the case of an emergency (wildfire) we can tu:q1 either right or left on Paso Nogal to leave. We have no other option aside from hiking up and over the hill behind our home or the hill behind the dog park. In our case that would be impossible because my husband is physically challenged. We could experience gridlock on Paso Nogal easily NOW in an emergency and with more homes built on Paso Nogal and Morello Terraces it could spell disaster! Recently hight winds brought down 3 Eucalyptus trees on Paso Nogal and to get to our home we had to take a convoluted route--as I entioned, there are no alternate ways out for us.

Please take our concerns into consideration. Please let Pleasant Hill residents know that rezoning is seriously being considered. -! question why we only heard about this via Nextdoor Neighbor and flyers appearing in our mailbox. I've not seen any coverage of this in the East Bay Times or in the mailer that we receive from the City of Pleasant Hill. I feel as thought we've either missed something or that the Planning Department hasn't been transparent.

Sincerely,
Maureen Abshire
[email protected]
(925) 360-2263
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2013 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Justyna Wilson <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 11 :57 AM
Planning
Proposed New Development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello,
I am writing because I have recently been made aware of plans to develop property near my home for high density housing, at Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal.

I would like to express my strong opposition to this proposal.

I have recently moved to· Pleasant Hill with my family from Oakland. One of the higher selling points for us was the lack of high density housing in this neighborhood.

It is my position that this type of development will increase traffic, crime, and create a general disruption of peace in this lovely neighborhood.

The school systems will also be negatively affected with a dramatic population increase on an already overly stressed system.

I do not see this type of project having any positive affect on a community that is my home. The only beneficiaries will be to the corporate investors who will see great returns on this venture.

I am asking the people who are in charge of making decisions for the residents of Pleasant Hill to resist the urgP to grow into a corporation owned municipality and to continue to keep Pleasant Hill a small tight knit community that it is.

Thank you for your consideration,
Justyna
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2014 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
-rom:
..-ent:

To:

Subject:

Jo Gruszka <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 11 :50 AM
Planning
Proposed New Development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Sir or Madatn,
I am writing to you because I have recently been made aware of plans to develop property near my home for high density housing, at Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal.

I would like to express my strong opposition to this proposal.

I have recently moved to Pleasant Hill with my family from Oakland. One of the higher selling points for us was the lack of high density housing in this neighborhood.

It is my position that this type of development will increase traffic, crime, and create a general disruption of peace in this lovely neighborhood.

The school systems will also be negatively affected with a dramatic population increase on an already overly stressed system.

I do not see this type of project having any positive effect on a community that is my home. The only beneficiaries will be to the corporate investors who will see great returns on this venture.

I am asking the people who are in charge of making decisions for the residents of Pleasant Hill to resist the urge ( , grow into a corporation owned municipality and to continue to keep Pleasant Hill a small tight knit ~ommunity that it is.

Thank you for your consideration,
jo gruszka
Soundwind Drive
408.499.7975 l [email protected]
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2015 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Keven Wilson <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 11 :47 AM
Planning
Proposed Development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to to because I have recently been made aware of plans to develop property near my home for high density housing, at Morello Terraces and Paso Nagai.

I would like to express my strong opposition to this proposal.

I have recently moved to Pleasant Hill with my family from Oakland. One of the higher $elling points for us was the lack of high density housing in this neighborhood.

It is my position that this type of development will increase traffic, crime, and create a general disruption of peace in this lovely neighborhood.

The school systems will also be negatively affected with a dramatic population increase on an already overly stressed system.

I do not see this type of project having any positive affect on a community that is my home. The only beneficiaries will be to the corporate investors who will see great returns on this venture.

I am asking the people who are in charge of making decisions for the residents of Pleasant Hill to resist the urge to grow into a corporation owned municipality and to continue to keep Pleasant Hill a small tight knit community that it is.

Thank you for your consideration,
Keven Wilson
Ridgeview Drive
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2016 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
~rom:
.,ent:

To:

Subject:
ken haynes < [email protected] >
Monday, May 1, 2023 11:13 AM
Planning
High Density Housing Safety issues
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I have learned about the plan for high density housing in the Paso Nogal/Morello area.

I have lived in the area for 35 years. Paso Nogal cannot handle the traffic and this will become a major safety issue.

I have already had a car accident due to the poor visibility of homes driveways along Paso. The road is too narrow and is becoming a major throu~hway for commuters.

Please consider your constituents while appeasing the State government.

Thank you
Ken Haynes
510-816-2416
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2017 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Mechele Cobo < [email protected] >
Monday, May 1, 2023 11 :08 AM
Planning
Mike Cobo
Proposed housing development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments u~less you recognize the sender.

To the planning department for the city of Pleasant Hill, We are writing this letter to express our strong objection to the proposal for new low-income, high-density housing to be built in the two open spaces at Paso Nogal between Morello and Alhambra and on Morello near the comer of Paso Nogal. As residents of this community for over 20 years, we are deeply concerned about this project, particularly with regards to the safety of our children who walk to school and the increased traffic it would bring to our already congested streets.

As you may be aware, our neighborhood is home to many families with young children who attend the local public schools. The proposed housing project would bring in a large number of new residents, increasing traffic and congestion in the area. We drive our children to Christ the King school each morning, and we take Morello and Paso No gal road to get there. Every day I see many children walking and biking down both of these roads to get to Valhalla Elementary, Valley View Middle School, and College Park High school. The increase in traffic this high-density housing would create would make it more difficult for children to walk and bike safeI~- to and from school, posing a serious risk to their safety.

Furthermore, Alhambra A venue is are already extremely congested with traffic during peak hours. Many people take this route to get to Taylor and over the hill to Lafayette/highway 24. The addition of a large number of new residents in the proposed housing development would only exacerbate this problem, leading to longer commute times and increased risk of accidents on the roads.

Lastly, we are very concerned about the social and economic implications of the proposed development. We chose to invest in our neighborhood because of it's access to lots of open space and it's safety and low crime rate. High-density housing often leads to overcrowding, a lack of privacy, and an increase in crime rates, drug use, and other undesirable behaviors. This could have a detrimental effect on property values, the well-being of our community and the safety of our residents.

Therefore, we strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal and suggest that alternative sites be considered, where the safety and character of our neighborhood are not compromised. We hope that you will take our concerns into consideration and make the right decision for our community. 1 Sincerely,
Mechele and Michael Cobo
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2018 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:
.ient:

To:

Subject:

Sharon Vandenberg <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 10:44 AM
Planning
Consideration of Low-Income Housing Project on Paso Nogal.across from Wildflower (OBJECTION)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou recognize the sender.

I just received an email from our HOA that there is a town hall/ public meeting regarding a proposed low-income housing development planned for directly across from our community. There was absolutely no mention of this when I purchased this place less than two years ago - nor any notice until now to all members of this community.

While I_ sympathize with the need for housing, this proposal would severely impact not only our property values, but also in already increasingly BUSY Paso Nogales (as this is a through fare from 24 to Martinez) and would create traffic nightmares, as well as impact the safety of our neighborhood.

I am ADAMATELY OPPOSED to this proposal and will try to ~ttend the meeting on Wednesday, May 3rd - even though very little notice of this was given to any members of our community, as well as those surrounding us.

Sincerely,
Sharon Vandenberg
Jarallel Marketing Group
Direct Dial 925.289. 7574
Cell 925.998.3935
General 925.289.7570
sharon @parallelmg.com
www.parallelmg.com
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2019 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ,om:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David Pritting <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 10: 17 AM
Planning
Expressing my strong opposition to the proposed 196-unit apartment complex CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Pleasant Hill City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed d~velopment of a 196-unit apartment complex on Morello Terrace. As a homeowner living at 217 N etherby Place, I believe this idea is a terrible one for several reasons.

Firstly, the intersection ofNetherby/Morello/Paso Nogal is already a dangerous one, with a lot of traffic and no crosswalk. The road up N etherby is narrow with no sidewalks, which makes it difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists. To add 196 apartment units to this area would only exacerbate the existing traffic problems and make it even more dangerous for everyone.

Secondly, the fact that we live on a private street means that it is our HOA that maintains the road. Adding more traffic and people to the area would put a strain on our resources and cause more wear and tear on our already --~agile road.

Furthermore, the proposed site is home to many animals, including deer, coyote, turkey, ground squirrels, possums, skunks, birds, and other wildlife. The environmental impact of this development on these animals is not something that can be ignored.

In addition, low-income housing in this area of Pleasant Hill does not make sense, as there are no transportation or stores nearby. The closest amenities are at least a mile away, which would be inconvenient for those who live in the proposed apartment complex.

Finally, lam appalled that we were not notified of this develop~ent until now. This lack of transparency is unacceptable and shows a disregard for the concerns of the community.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the Pleasant Hill City Council to reconsider the development of the 196-unit apartment complex on Morello Terrace. The negative impact on the community, the environment, and the wildlife is not worth the potential benefits.

Sincerely,
David Pritting 217 Netherby Place, Pleasant Hill
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2020 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ~rom:
.,ent:

To:

Subject:

Alyssa Scalese < [email protected] >
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 7:39 AM
Planning
New Development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou reco nize the sender.

Dear Planning Committee,
I am a resident living near the newly proposed apartment build on Morello/Paso Nogal and my children attend Valhalla Elementary.

I strongly urge you to reconsider the proposal to add 800 units of housing in our small quiet neighborhood. This development would have a detrimental impact on our community in several ways. Firstly, it would significantly decrease our property values. Secondly, our school is already at full capacity and adding more students would only further stress the system. Lastly, the addition of hundreds of cars and thousands of people would take away the peace and safety of our quiet family area.

I implore you to take these factors into consideration and find an alternative solution that benefits both the community and the city as a whole. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~,incerely,
Alyssa Scalese
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2021 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) (
Lyone Conner
~,om:
.ient:

To:

Subject:

James Kimmins <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 6:49 AM
Planning
RESIDENTS AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR STORY, MULTI-BUILDING, 196- Unit APARTMENT COMPLEX ON MORELLO TERRACE
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou recognize the sender.

Planning members,
To say this small lot cannot accommodate a structure of this magnitude is an understatement. The impact on this area would be severe with the destruction this would cause especially in regards to parking for vehicles and traffic conditions. This is not a good idea and it will greatly impact the surrounding streets and neighborhoods.

Jim Kimmins
483 Ridgeview Ct, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
"Know that in time those things toward which we move come to be" Marcus Aurelius
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2022 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( ~rom:
.:ient:

To:

Subject:

Marty Dudziak <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 6:44 AM
Planning
Morello Terraces & Paso Nogal housing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
l
1 m a resident of Pillon Real and have been a resident of pleasant hill for over twenty one years. I oppose the low income high density housing projects at Morello and paso Nogal locations. This simply does not fit the country lifestyle we have here. I think similar development like single family homes and town homes are consistent with why we all live here. Not high density housing and all that it brings and takes away from our love for living in pleasant hill.

Thank you,
Marty Dudziak
510-812-5333
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2023 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
~rom:
.:ient:

To:

Subject:

Jillian Harrison <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 7:26 PM
Planning
Object to building on Morello
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To the Planning Commission to the city of Pleasant Hill Regarding proposal for building apartment complex on Morello and Paso Noga} I am writing to express my sincere and EXTREME opposition to the prospect of building in both the areas of Morello as well as Paso Nogal. My husband and I moved to a single family home on Netherby Place off of Morello in 2020 with the hopes of starting a family in a quiet, low traffic neighborhood surrounded by nature. We did just that. In 2022 we welcomed our triplets and have felt blessed starting their lives in such a calm and safe environment. We love taking walks with the kids and our dog numerous times a day to see and listen to nature, and particularly enjoy this open space where the proposed project is to take place to watch the wildlife and look at the incredible views.

Building at this site would directly impact us for MANY reasons. Not only would it detract from the serene quality of life we have started to share with our budding family, but most importantly would impact the safety of our children, and our whole communities children. The intensive construction process would create not only a lot of noise, but an abundance of pollutants. Construction equipment and materials would pose safety risks to everyone traversing the area.

Traffic would exponentially increase in already a congested and dangerous location on Morello. There are no traffic safety parameters in this area, and with an influx of more vehicles, an even bigger safety issue would arise for all pedestrians, especially our little ones.

Also regarding traffic, our community of Netherby Place is responsible for maintaining our own private road with HOA dues. Additional persons attempting to park on our already what should be "private drive" would impact the hygiene and longevity of our area we are solely responsible for financially 1aintaining. Not to mention a direct impact on the privacy and security in which we have resided here for.

Wildlife preservation is also a huge concern given this proposal. The suggested site is a direct location of wildlife passage and resting. Deer, turkey, squirrel, coyote use this location as a passage channel numerous times a day. Removing this site would not only obliterate a lot of these essential animals, but push them further into the surrounding areas creating safety for families and pets, as well as for themselves.

And I think it goes without saying that this would affect our property values. As a young family starting our lives, we chose this property also as a location of opportunity for us and our families future. This could financially affect us directly for years to come.

Please, DO NOT consider building in these areas. There are other areas of Pleasant Hill in which this would make more sense, such as near the mall or areas of mass transit or shopping opportunities that could accommodate a large volume of people and give them more opportunities to live an convenient lifestyle than on Morello or Paso Nogal.

Jillian Pritting
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2024 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
/ ":rom:
.;ent:

To:

Subject:

Amanda <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:10 AM
Planning
Questions regarding Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal High Density housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou reco nize the sender.

Hello,
I have been a homeowner on Morello for over ten years and am strongly opposed to the low income high density housing developments on Morello and Paso Nogal.

I do have some concerns and questions, and am hoping you are able to answer them.

Has there been any consideration and planning around the impact of new students in MDUSD? Our district is already crowded and in need of funding. How will we fit all these students into already full classrooms? What about the lack of childcare in the area? Daycares have 1 + year waiting lists, and adding all these additional people will leave our residents with no way to work if they can't find any childcare.

What about our already overcrowded healthcare systems? Waits for primary care physicians are months+ for a visit, so how are we addressing the shortage of primary care physicians in this area? We already struggle with our existing PG&E infrastructure and long outages. How can we add all these units with our existing PG&E resources?
Has there been studies on traffic impact? Wildlife impact? Clean air and pollution impact? Who will address all these concerns?
Thank you
Amanda Nishimura
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2025 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
~rom:
:ient:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Brian Dinozo <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 11 :46 PM
Planning
Letter of objection for proposed Morello Terrace development PH Proposal Concern.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

To whom this may concern,
Enclosed is a letter of objection regarding the new proposal to rezone the Morello Terraces in order to accommodate a potential four-story apartment complex in the future.

If there are any issues with the attached download to this email, please let me know. Thank you.

Regards,
Brian Dinozo
[email protected]
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2026 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) May 1, 2023
To The City of Pleasant Hill,
I am writing this letter to express my concern for the propose~ development of a new four-story apartment complex that will be located on the areas of the Morello Terraces and comer of Paso Noga! Road. I am perplexed as to why none of the residents of this area were notified to this, and have heard of this information through several other sources and not by the City of Pleasant Hill.

My first concern is with the amount of traffic that this proposed apartment complex will bring.

A large apartment complex will create a drastic amount of vehicles around the surrounding areas, creating both parking issues and increased car traffic around the Morello and Paso Nogal four-way stop. This area is near four schools (Valhalla Elementary, Valley View Middle, College Park High, and DVC) with already a large amount of vehicle traffic. Adding extra vehicles to the area would already add to the busy streets, creating even more of a log jam throughout the quiet neighborhoods. An apartment complex much closer to public transportation and main roads would seem more logical for living spaces with a large amount of residents.

Another concern is the disruption of housing privacy and the uniformity of the surrounding areas. Constructing a four-story apartment complex with potentially 200-400 units in this area adds a very large building, in the middle of multiple, small single family homes, and townhomes.

This will severely increase the noise level, decrease the privacy for the current residents, and ruin the surrounding environment and wildlife habitat area in the open spaces of this community.

I have lived and worked in both the San Francisco and Los Angeles County areas, losing a large area of greenery is a detriment to the beautiful Morello Terraces that we see everyday.

My last concern is the ·dramatic population increase that will cause the nearby schools. I have one child attending Kindergarten in Valhalla Elementary and have already noticed how unfortunate the public school system is overwhelmed by the large population of students and not enough teachers. Parents had to write letters to the superintendent to open a fourth Kindergarten class to divide the classrooms already past max capacity. Adding even more students would create a burden to all the local schools that are already filled to the brim with students, thus creating stressed teachers and impairing the learning of the children in their classrooms.

The intent of this letter is not to fight against low-income housing, which is important in this time of need for housing all over California. This is to let you all know that the Morello Terrace/Paso Nogal area is not a proper area for this development to be considered based on my years of living here. Pleasant Hill is a large, beautiful city and there are many other conducive areas that should be researched for this type of large project. Thank you for your time. - Brian Dinozo, 1756 Douglas Terrace, Pleasant Hill

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2027 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
, ~rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Sarah Dinozo <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 11 :31 PM
Planning
Letter of Objection
Objection To Rezoning Proposal - Low Income Housing.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou recognize the sender.

To the city of Pleasant Hill:

Please see my attached objection letter to the rezoning proposal for low-income housing on Morello and Paso Nogal. If you are unable to open my attachment, please let me know.

Thank you,
Sarah Dinozo
1756 Douglas Terrace Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2028 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) r
May 1, 2023
To The City of Pleasant Hill:

I am writing to express my concern and adverse impacts of a rezoning proposal to allow construction of appoximately 200 to 300 unit apartment complexes for low income housing on the corner of Morello and Paso Nogal. This would be directly across from where my husband, 5 year old and 21 month old toddler live off Douglas Terrace. I am shocked that we were never notified by the city of Pleasant Hill and only recently heard of this by word of mouth from several neighbors on Douglas Terrace and Ridgeview Place.

The proposed construction poses a number of impermissible traffic risks to the neighborhood.

The 4 way stop sign on Morello Ave and Netherby Drive/Paso Nogal Road is known to be a very busy intersection as there are numerous schools such as Valhalla Elementary, Valley View Middle School, College Park High School and Diablo Valley College nearby. This would pose additional traffic during morning and afternoon rush hours in such a condensed location. The proposed plan is on a hill and would also decrease street parking spaces in the current neighborhood.

Another concern that has not been adequately considered is the noise. When my husband and I were searching for a home, we took into high consideration the noise level in the neighborhood as we have young children and do not want to be surrounded by a lot of noise. Adding an additional 200 to 300 unit apartment complexes in the small community will increase the noise level severely. The noise would be unacceptable for this family-oriented community.

Next, the proposed construction would cause property values in our Pleasant Hill neighborhood to decline. This area of Pleasant Hill has been a well sought after area for families to live in and our property value has increased over the years. With low-income housing, property values around this area will decline, thus making our community less desirable to reside in.

While a solution for low income housing is important, I do not believe that this location is appropriate given my reasons stated above. Please consider my concerns as a mother of two young children as well as my neighbors who oppose this proposal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sarah Lou Dinozo
1756 Douglas Terrace Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2029 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
~rom:
.:ient:

To:

Subject:

Anne Yip <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 10:18 PM
Planning
Potential high density housing @ Paso Nogal and Morello Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou recognize the sender.

Hello,
My husband and I are incredibly disappointed in the prospect of high density housing near Valhalla elementary school. We recently moved from San Francisco and one of the reasons we picked this area was because of the quality of the local elementary school. Having larger housing units so close to a local elementary school will jeopardize safety and also impact the quality of the school. There also isn't strong infrastructure to support such a large population in this area. We moved out of San Francisco to leave big city problems behind to only find similar issues at our new doors. This is so upsetting - we hope you reconsider the location.

Best,
Anne Yip
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2030 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ~rom:
:.ent:

To:

Subject:

Brian Henspeter < [email protected] >
Monday, May 1, 2023 10:04 PM
Planning
Low income high density housing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

My family is disappointed this is getting built right next to my daughter's elementary school. This will likely drive down home values nearby as well as the ratings for the school. Sounds like a bad idea and I wish this weren't happening.

Brian
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2031 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
--:rom:
.;ent:

To:

DIANA DIPIETRO <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:42 PM
Planning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.
[email protected]
There must be something wrong with the water consumed by the members of the Pleasant Hill Planning Commission. It seems to be affecting their thought processes. They need to focus on remedying their water problem rather than thinking about imposing housing units on Morello and Paso Nogal.

Morello runs parallel to Contra Costa Boulevard and is now consistently used as an alternative route every weekday morning by commuters wanting to travel fast and avoid traffic lights . Morello has no traffic lights. There is also no public transportation from Taylor to Chilpancingo.

Presently, cars are necessary for all daily activities. The area is not walker friendly. If every person in the proposed Morello Terrace units had a car, Morello would look like a parking lot and traffic ·ongestion would be continuous and overwhelming.

My octogenarian mind refuses to conjure up any justification for building anything on the site that was suggested by the city planners. The probability is disturbing and insane.

Diana DiPietro
601 Ridgeview Drive
Pleasant Hill, CA
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2032 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r ~rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:35 PM
Planning
Statement opposing high density housing near Paso Nogal Road/Morello Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

Dear Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned Pleasant Hill constituent and a resident of Diablo Valley Estates community off Morello Avenue and Saint Germain Lane. I was made aware this week of plans to build high density housing in the open land near Morello and Paso Nogal.

My family and I have been members of this community for the past six years. We have 3 kids; my oldest daughter attends College Park, my middle daughter attends Valley View and my youngest attends Valhalla.

We were initially attracted to living in Pleasant Hill, largely because of the many parks and open areas, as well as the beautiful mature trees and wildlife. We constantly see deer, coyotes, turkeys and birds in the open land in question and I am concerned with how these species will be affected when they lose more of their natural habitats.

I am also worried how adding high density housing in this area will impact traffic flows. Morello Avenue is a high traffic road, especially near the Paso Noga I intersection. There are also many pedestrians and cyclists using the bike lanes to ( 1nd from school since Valhalla, Valley View, College Park and DVC are all near this area. During the weekends many use ihe bike lanes in this area to exercise. Adding more housing will increase traffic in and around this area and create potentially dangerous conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.

Another major concern for me is the addition of more students into the already packed schools in the area. My son's 3rd grade class is at 28 students, with many beginning to fall behind after the Covid pandemic. My middle and high schoolers have classes with over 30 students. We already have a school district that is struggling financially and cannot maintain agreed upon class sizing. Adding more high density housing will continue to exacerbate this problem.

As a member of this community, I know I speak for many neighbors when I object to building high density housing in this area. The drawbacks to our community far outweigh the benefits and I urge you to vote no on this initiative.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Carol McCiraw
Lockheed Martin
Full Stack Engineer Sr Stf
Phone: (972) 603-3875
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2033 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( ~rom:
:ient:

To:

Naras Bhat, MD <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:33 PM
Planning
Subject: HighdensityPasonogal/Morello Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

We live at 501 Paso Nagai Road, Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523.

We have the following concerns about the low-income high-density housing project in our neighborhood: Morello terrace, and Paso Nagai project.

1. Traffic:

Paso nogal Road connecting Morello to Alhambra is a narrow road, with interrupted one sided sidewalk. Thus, the addition of 300-400 units in this area will increase traffic congestion, and traffic safety.

2. Dog Park:

The dog park entry and exit will be affected by heavy vehicle and foot traffic.

3. Environment/wildlife habitat: This hillside is an important corridor for local coyote, opossum, raccoon, deer, turkey, and ground squirrel populations.

4. Severe disruption of the surrounding housing privacy/uniformity: All other residences are single family homes.

5. We have not received any communication about this project to date.

Based on the above key issues, we request that the high-density plan should be downgraded to low density.

Naras and Kusum Bhat
501 Paso nogal Road, Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523.
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2034 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( "":rom:
~ent:

Dylan Tonneson <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:32 PM
(
To: Planning
Subject: Apartment Complex on Morello Terrace Plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou reco nize the sender.

Hello,
This email is intended to voice my concerns over the plan to build a 196 unit apartment complex on Morello Terrace. As a resident on J anin Pl, there are several reasons why I do not support this plan and think it will negatively impact the area.

The massive influx of traffic, cars of the proposed complex residents would spill over into surrounding neighborhoods. It is certain that many of these residents would have multiple vehicles and the overflow would hinder the already limited parking of others living in the area.

Perhaps the biggest issue I have however, is the effect it will have on the environment. Not only will it destroy the land itself, but will force the wildlife that calls that area home and uses it as a transportation portal to evacuate and find paths to do so elsewhere. The animals that I see roaming the area are part of what makes me enjoy this community so much and this complex would directly impede that.

If there are any environmental impact studies that have been conducted on this, I'd like to take a look at them for myself and please let me know of any other information regarding this matter.

Thank you
Dylan Tonneson
Zimmer Biomet
Premier Orthopedics
925.336.1362
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2035 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( 11::rom:
~ent:

To:

Subject:

Jennifer Cooper <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:28 PM
Planning
3043 Shetland Drive homeowner who opposes rezoning for high density housing on Paso Nagai and Morello
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To whom it may concern,
We are writing to express our disapproval for the city's proposed plan of rezoning the vacant areas on Paso Nogal and Morello Terraces to high density housing. We have lived in our house for the past 14 1/2 years and one of the primary reasons we moved to this area was because of the beautiful open spaces, abundant wildlife, and low car and housing congestion. I grew up in the Alhambra Valley area and after leaving for 8 years due to job relocation, my husband and I specifically moved back to this area so we can give our son the same childhood that I loved so much. We walk the trails and hills on Paso Nogal almost every day while enjoying the green/ golden hills, watching turkey, deer, and quail and chatting with like minded people who enjoy getting exercise and fresh air. We did not choose to live close to downtown nor in an urban area for these reasons. After discussing this rezoning with my immediate neighbors we all feel the same way! We are distraught over the potential for this serene special area being changed due to high density housing! ( lezoning Paso Nogal and Morello Terraces would cause more congestion on the roads, (with four schools close by it is already busy), put more pressure on an already small Safeway shopping center, put additional strain on our public schools, cause the entire neighborhood landscape to change, increase road noise, disrupt our neighborhood views and most likely decrease our property value. This area is not equipped to handle high density housing which by estimates would add 1000 or more people and 800 more cars on the road in this small rural area! As you know, Paso Nogal is a 2-lane narrow and windy road with blind comers and with additional vehicles it will just become more of a speedway and more dangerous! We could go on and on why we oppose this rezoning and building of multi-family high-density low income housing, but below is a snapshot of why we oppose it: ·

1. Increased noise levels due to people and cars

2. Concerns for traffic/public safety/crime

3. Impacting the serene landscape and affecting local wildlife

4. Adversely affect views from my neighborhood

5. Cause more congestion on roads and local shopping center

6. Lower property value
We will be attending the meeting on Wednesday and will strongly voice our opinion on this matter as will many neighbors from surrounding neighborhoods. We all are very upset with this potential rezoning of our community and especially disappointed that we didn't learn about this from the City of Pleasant Hill, but instead from other concerned homeowners.
tlegards,
Patrick & Jennifer Cooper
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2036 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
""'.rom:
.>ent:

To:

Subject:

Adrienne Davis <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:18 PM
Planning
Morello Terraces
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello,
I am a new resident of this neighborhood (home purchased 10/2022) and was recently informed of the proposal to build the Morello Terraces.

I am VERY concerned about this proposal for several reasons however the main focuses are the dramatic increase in traffic and the impact the school capacity. This neighborhood has an appeal due to the lack of high density builds and this plan is going to take that away. There is already traffic congestion for working parents trying to do drop off and pick up for school.

I don't think shoving 1000 people and 600 new cars into a small neighborhood is the solution to the affordable housing plan.

There HAS to be a better alternative than this proposal. ,·hank you,
Adrienne
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2037 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
,,-- icrom:
.:;ent:

To:

Subject:

Adina Blair <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:06 PM
Planning
High Density housing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

To whom it may concern,
I just read about the proposed low income high density housing that is being proposed on paso Nogal and Morello. I urge the planning department to deny these plans. This will dramatically change the landscape of this beautiful area and significantly reduce home prices, increase traffic and upset residents. We live in such a beautiful area and this will impact it so negatively. Please please do not move forward with these plans.

Thank you,
Adina Blair
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2038 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
,... ~rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Donna Rivera < donnarivera [email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 9:01 PM
Planning
. City Public Hearing Wednesday May 3,2023 6:30 pm Regarding the "Low Income High Density" housing to be built on Paso Nogal between Morello and Alhambra Rd.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

You cannot charity poverty away just as you cannot wish it away which is what you would be doing if the proposed low income housing is allowed to proceed. What its commonly referred to as poverty is in reality depression . What is needed is therapy and education not another hand-out in housing which is what you would be doing if putting in Ghetto housing at each end of Paso Nogal which is another word for low income housing. Right now there are 5 entrances from three nice housing developments on Paso Nogal how is more traffic going to move through? it will be complete gridlock with a stop light at Paso Nagai and Alhambra. Paso Nogal at present is a 2 lane very narrow road. The ghetto would not be close to public transit. If low income housing is proposed with no public transit close how is the populace going to get to and from work oh wait, how can low-income people afford nice cars , who pays for the cars , license fees , insurance? Another brilliant idea hand-out Who is going to maintain the housing? I can't even get the city to do what i pay for with my tax dollars. I have an investment in my home on Strayhorn Road part of my retirement package How am I going to be able to sell in the future with two low-income musing ghettos at each end. This is very poor planning vision on traffic and density , traffic will be cutting through New Falcon Pointe which are firelanes not public streets and I pay to maintain the fire lanes as it is private property. When I purchased the property it was with the stipulation that the city of Pleasant Hill had deemed the property at each end of new Falcon Pointe would remain open property with low density. Now I'm being told it will be high density with ghetto's. As a long time resident, 25 ,years I am adamantly opposed to any low -income housing being built. Low income housing will increase the crime rate, drug and other substance abusers will find it free reign not to mention theft of private property and injury and yes life threatening If allowed to pass, I will have to petition the city of Pleasant Hill for a private security system as it will no longer be safe to live in the area which is currently shangrila . I remain Vehemently Opposed Michael Rivera resident New Falcon Point.
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2039 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
·rom:
~ent:

To:

Subject:

Alison Willett <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 8:57 PM
Planning
Opposition to rezoning on Morello and Paso Nogal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to rezoning the open space on Morello and Paso Nagai to high density housing. This area cannot sustain that number of people and will cause tremendous congestion and traffic for the neighborhood. It will change these streets to main thoroughfares and severely impact the surrounding homes and homeowners.

In addition, the hills are home to many animals, including coyotes, foxes, turkeys, deer, owls, and other wildlife that rely on the open space to live and will be put in danger with the increased traffic. The area is not set up to support high density housing due to the narrow roads, lack of public transportation, distance to grocery and other stores, and lack of parking. Please reconsider the plan due to the impact to the surrounding area, including residents and wildlife.

Thank you,
, lison Willett
jQ2 Valley High Drive (directly off of Morello)
Sent from my iPhone
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2040 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
"':rom:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Huelam Hoang <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 8:45 PM
Planning
Objection to the planning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear city planning,
I would like to object to the plan to build on Morello/Paso Nogal comer.

Sincerely,
Huelam Hoang
73 St Thomas Ct
Pleasant Hill CA
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2041 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
"":rom:
.:ient:

To:

Subject:

Jillian Harrison <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 7:39 PM
Planning
Objection to building on Morello
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To the Planning Commission to the city of Pleasant Hill Regarding proposal for building apartment complex on Morello and Paso Noga) I am writing to express my sincere and EXTREME opposition to the prospect of building in both the areas of Morello as well as Paso Nogal. My husband and I moved to a single family home on N etherby Place off of Morello in 2020 with the hopes of starting a family in a quiet, low traffic neighborhood surrounded by nature. We did just that. In 2022 we welcomed our triplets and have felt blessed starting thetr lives in such a c~lm and safe environment. We love taking walks with the kids and our dog numerous times a day to see and listen to nature, and particularly enjoy this open space where the proposed project is to take place to watch the wildlife and look at the incredible views.

Building at this site would directly impact us for MANY reasons. Not only would it detract from the serene quality of life we have started to share with our budding family, but most importantly would impact the safety of our children, and our whole communities children. The intensive construction process would create not only a lot of noise, but an abundance of pollutants. Construction equipment and materials would pose safety risks to everyone traversing the area.

Traffic would exponentially increase in already a congested and dangerous location on Morello. There are no traffic safety parameters in this area, and with an influx of more vehicles, an even bigger safety issue would arise for all pedestrians, especially our little ones.

Also regarding traffic, our community ofNetherby Place is responsible for maintaining our own private road with HOA dues. Additional persons attempting to park on our already what should be "private drive" would impact the hygiene and longevity of our area we are solely responsible for financially iaintaining. Not to mention a direct impact on the privacy and security in which we have resided here for.

Wildlife preservation is also a huge concern given this proposal. The suggested site is a direct location of wildlife passage and resting. Deer, turkey, squirrel, coyote use this location as a passage channel numerous times a day. Removing this site would not only obliterate a lot of these essential animals, but push them further into the surrounding areas creating safety for families and pets, as well as for themselves.

And I think it goes without saying that this would affect our property values. As a young family starting our lives, we chose this property also as a location of opportunity for us and our families future. This could financially affect us directly for years to come.

Please, DO NOT consider building in these areas. There are other areas of Pleasant Hill in which this would make more sense, such as near the mall or areas of mass transit or shopping opportunities that could accommodate a large volume of people and give them more opportunities to live an convenient lifestyle than on Morello or Paso Nogal.

Jillian Pritting
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2042 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
-.:rom:
.;ent:

To:

Subject:

Sally Yeh <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 7:17 PM
Planning
Paso Nogal Rd & Morello Ave possible development sites
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Our family has lived on Pillon Real, off of Paso Noga! for 25 years this month. Our home is close to the comer of Pillon Real and Paso Nogal Rd. 25 years of experience lets me state that it is difficult now to tum left from our street onto Paso Noga! due to current traffic. The number of living units proposed would put an unbelievable burden of additional vehicles on a narrow country two lane road that is already dangerous. It's already bad due to the current number of commuter vehices using this road to avoid busier roads, along with students driving fast to to DVC and now you want to add 500+ vehicles a day to this narrow road.

We went through this proposal about ten years ago and nothing has changed as respects the steep slope of the "Paso Noga!" area property. I was at that meeting and it was determined the fire dept. would have a very difficult time getting up into that area off of that narrow road - it is NOT safe. The hillside is very steep.

Has an archaeological survey been done for native american artifacts on that property? Have traffic studies been done recently at peak rush hours? The old Mangini farm area at Taylor and Alhambra is open, flat and makes more sense and would be a safer area. This is not safe. I understand the need for more housing but be smart about it please. Thank you. 1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2043 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
r "=rom:
5ent:

To:

Subject:

Francine Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 7:10 PM
Planning
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To: The Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
RE: Changes to the Pleasant Hill General Plan
From: Francine Fitzgerald- resident
Address: 1202 Ridgeview Place, Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523
Hi,
I was recently made aware of a plan to change the housing plans/zoning for our neighborhood.

As stated in the Summary of HCD Comments on the Sites Inventory and Capacity to Meet the Lower-Income RHNA-
"Recommended Rezones of Vacant Sites If rezoned to MRH (30-40 du/ac), the Morello and Paso Nogal sites can be assumed as lower-income capacity. The two sites discussed below, Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal, are suggested for rezone to provide lower income capacity. While they accounted for 15 and 7 units, respectively, in the Draft Housing Element, if rezoned, these sites could provide realistic capacity of 298 lowerncome units toward the RHNA. 11 I object to the plan to "rezone" these properties. This would be a very significant change to our neighborhood and deserves more input from the areas residents.

The input to this change has not been done in an equitable manner by including all voices who are impacted by the change.

I would like to see complete analysis of the increases to noise pollution, light pollution, environmental in pacts on our wildlife, air quality, and water useage. I want to have the complete analysis of the need for more police officers and schools for the children before making any zone changes.

I understand there is an amount of pressure to provide low income housing in our City.

I hope you will take the time to look at the whole picture for our residents before making any changes.

I would like to see both of these properties put into protected open space in the Cities plans.

Or, made into a community park for all residents to enjoy for our children and our future residents. Both of these suggestions are equitable because they would serve all members of our community! Thank you for listening to my concerns and taking them into your decision making.

Francine Fitzgerald
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2044 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
"":rom:
:ient:

To:

Subject:

Angeli Baldo <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 7:03 PM
Planning
Low Income Housing Objection
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom it May Concern,
My partner and I moved to Pleasant Hill a year and a half ago. We chose this area because we were fond of the community and the relationships we have built around us. When we bought our home, we intended to establish our family here because of the peaceful community, the highly rated schools, and the incredible views and land around us.

We do understand and also sympathize with those in need, however, this would severely impact our community. If these low income housing were to be developed, our property values would decrease, our community would get crowded, and our access to nature would be limited. The impact of this would be far reaching. We strongly object to the building of these low income housing so close to our homes as we see it doing more harm than good.
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2045 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
"=rom:
.!ient:

To:

Subject:

Mariko Friedel <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 6:48 PM
Planning
Objection to Paso Nagai/Morello High Density Housing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

City Council,
I strongly object to the development of the property at Paso Nagai and Morello in the two locations.

Is it zoned for this and is it part of the comprehensive plan for Pleasant Hill? There is not sufficient infrastructure for this type of development, in addition to many other issues with this plan Mariko Friedel
2023 Ellington Terrace
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2046 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
--:rom:
.;ent:

To:

Subject:

Scott Heilig <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 6:34 PM
Planning
For public comment at Planning Commission Special meeting 05/03/23 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Good Evening Commissioners,
My name is Scott, I live 'with my wife and family at a residence located off of Paso Nogal Road and I live adjacent to the proposed development. I am in opposition to this development in the proposed location on Paso Nogal Road because of the following impacts:
• Increase in traffic that will cause congestion, pollution, increased noise level, and disturbance in wildlife for an area that currently is a two-lane road lined with open space.

My family made the move to Pleasant Hill by purchasing a home last year and the reason we settled in this community and our specific housing development is because of the adjacent open space which is becoming less of an opportunity in Bay Area cities. This was a choice and we invested in that choice and in Pleasant Hill. Our family contributes in our Pleasant Hill community through county taxes, supporting local businesses, ity programs and events, and volunteering our time. The two-lane road is a thoroughfare from Alhambra Avenue to Morello Avenue and already has issues with vehicle speed due to the uninterrupted stretch of road. To increase the population by the scale of the proposed plan in this small area would have a huge impact on the street traffic, noise level, pollution, disturbance of wildlife, and safety of walking patrons that currently line the paths. The lining of open space is what maintains the enticement of the area and is the primary reason we purchased our home. To maintain this specific area as a serene oasis for families and wildlife and not cram the area with such volume of housing, I urge the commission to consider the impacts and deny this location for this project.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Scott
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2047 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
-rom:
.>ent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Peter Robertson < peter [email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 6:18 PM
Planning
Public Comment - Planning Commission Meeting, May 3rd, 2023 Peter Robertson - Public Comment, Pleasant Hill Planning Commission 5.3.23.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you reco nize the sender.

Planning Commission,
I have attached public comment in support of the City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission meeting this Wednesday, May 3rd, 2023.

Kind Regards,
Peter
Peter J. Robertson
[email protected]
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2048 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Peter Robertson
241 Netherby Pl.,
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
May 1, 2023
City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
100 Gregory Lane,
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Subject: Public Comment - Planning Commission Meeting, May 3, 2023 Planning Commission,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the City of Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan, 2023-2031 Housing Element. In response to the City's recommendations to comments from the Cal ifomia Department of Housing and Community Development, I outline the following concerns:

1. Rezoning of vacant site identified as Morello Terraces (APN 154-140-015) I strongly oppose the rezoning of the Morello Terraces site from R20 (Single Family - 20,000 sq ft) to MRH (Multiple-family-High Density) due to the following concerns:

Environmental Impact
Morello Terraces is one of the few open spaces
to remain undeveloped within the City's limits.

As such it provides a green corridor for wildlife
between Paso Nogal Park, Ridgeview Open
Space and Hidden Lakes Park (Martinez, CA).

The hillside provides refuge to deer, turkeys,
coyotes, snakes, lizards, as well as numerous
species of birds.

Additiona11y, I would highlight the significant
grade of the site. From the comer of Morello
Ave/Netherby Drive to the end of the cul-de-sac
of Douglas Terrace there is almost 100 ft of
elevation change. The proposed rezoning and
subsequent construction would require a major

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2049 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) r alteration to this hillside, negatively impact the natural environment and result in the loss of unobstructed views of Mt. Diab lo (picture included).

Street Infrastructure
Morello Avenue is a busy thoroughfare within the City and provides access for community members to Valhalla Elementary School, College Park High School, Diablo Valley College, as well as access to our neighboring community in Martinez. The rezoning would have a negative impact on current traffic patterns and would likely require significant alteration and financial investment to update the intersection at Morello Ave, Paso Nogal Rd, and Netherby Drive.

Schools
Morello Avenue falls within the. Mt. Diablo Unified School District with the closest elementary school being Valha1la Elementary. Valhal1a is currently at capacity and would be unable to support any significant volume in new residents without major investment.

Neighboring Zoning
The portion of Pleasant Hill encompassed by Alhambra Ave (West), Taylor Blvd (South), Morello Ave/Chi]pancingo Pkwy (North) and the Contra Costa Canal (East) includes a mix of single family housing and low density multiple family housing. The proposed rezoning and density level is out-of-step with the existing community. I strongly disagree with the comments outlined in the 'Revised HCD Review draft' that the surrounding condominiums on Janin Place, Fairway Place, Douglas Terrace and Ridgeview Place make the proposed high-density development an expected and conforming use. These condominium communities represent a significantly lower density than those outlined in the housing element. Additionally, these comments neglect to reference the multitude of single-family residences located opposite the site on Morello Ct, kitty comer on the corner of Paso Nogal and Morello Ave, and both north and south of the site along Morello Ave.

2. Removal of JCPenny site from housing element's inventory I strongly oppose the removal of the JCPenny site (APN 153-230-003, 153-250-007) from the housing element's inventory. This site is prime for redevelopment since the departure of its anchor retailer in 2020. As noted in an earlier City analysis the site can support up to 175 units. Additionally, I would provide the following feedback in response to the comments from the HCD:

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2050 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Proximity to the 1-680 Freeway
HCD references the potential negative health impacts of this site due to the proximity of I-680 freeway (air pollution and noise pollution). California is taking numerous steps to broadly address these issues with the transition to electric vehicles (EV s ). By the end of the proposed housing elements period, 2031, the majority of new cars on the road will be EV s
1 , noting that EV s do not emit tailpipe emissions and are significantly quieter than internal combustion engine vehicles.

Proximity to Community Resources
The JCPenny site is ideally located near to a variety of community resources, including local parks (Chilpancingo.Park), education (Diablo Valley College), food (Safeway and Target - Contra Costa Blvd) and access to transportation (I-680 freeway).

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in support of the deliberations of the Planning Commission.

Kind Regards,
Peter Robertson

1. California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Cars II rule https://ww2.arb.ca.qov/news/california-moves-accelerate-1 00-new-zero-emission-vehicle -sales-2035

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2051 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( -:rom:
.,;ent:

To:

Subject:

Tami Berkey <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 6:06 PM
Planning
High density project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am a resident in wildflower and am opposed to the building of these homes.

Sent from my iPhone
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2052 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
1 ~rom:
jent:

To:

Subject:
ken haynes <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 5:56 PM
Planning
Secret High Density Housing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello,
I have learned of the proposed high density housing plan that seems to have been kept purposely low key. I am upset about the plan itself, but, even more concerned on how this is being handled in 'secret'.

I already have trouble pulling out from Primrose Dr to Paso Nogal due to normal and dog park traffic. The narrow street is already on the edge of being unsafe.

You need to consider that for the folks that live here, this will cause unsafe traffic.

I understand the State has its mandates. I would expect our local representatives to consider their voters concerns over the States short sighted mandates.

Thank you
K.Haynes
925-680-5523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2053 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
- rom:
.,ent:

To:

Subject:

Raquel Rhoads <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 5:53 PM
Planning
Objection - Apartment Complex on Morello Terrace
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To The City Of Pleasant Hill,
As a resident I strongly object to the proposed development at Morello Terraces (open nature space at the corner of Morello and Netherby). This is a beautiful open space that should remain. Development would degrade the environment ·and wildlife habitat. The hillside is an important corridor for several animals and a distribution would result in roadkill and decreased wildlife population. The area is also on a steep slope. Developing it would create huge issues with storm water pollutants due to the issues with slope during constructions. Will the city have someone responsible on site making sure the constructor has setup proper controls? If we find that the developer is not setting up proper controls and we email the city, who will be responsible? After development the impervious surfaces would then increase the runoff, creating more issues. Has a study been done to evaluate the sewer system for this development? This site should remain an open space!
Thank you for reading my concerns,
Pleasant Hill Resident
Raquel Rhoads
.,ent from my iPhone
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2054 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( -:rom:
~ent:

To:

Subject:

Jahn Meintz <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 5:41 PM
Planning
Letter Of Objection for The Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To the Pleasant Hill Planning Commission,
I hereby object to the building of the the 4-Story, 196 unit Apartment complex on Morello Terrace that is the The Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Morello Multi-Building Apartment Complex.

My biggest concern is the impact that it will have on the wildlife in the area that rely so heavily on our urban forests for food and shelter. It's already difficult for deers and their fawns to navigate their native lands without getting hit by a car.

This project will completely degrade the health of their habitat! There will be a complete disruption of privacy and housing uniformity and again will have a severe traffic impact especially when DVC in session all impacting our wildlife and quality of life for residents in the area.

Sincerely,
' ~athew Meintz,
.-<esident of Ridgeview Townhomes
Sent from my iPhone (925) 356-1296
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2055 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( '=rom:
.;ent:

To:

Subject:

Dr Rod VanBuskirk <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 5:34 PM
Planning
Proposed development of paso nogal road and Morello Ave.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I have been a resident of Pleasant Hill since 1964. This city has always had the esthetics of our city and the desire for open space and parks as a priority. This project has the stench of betrayal by our city planners and government officials. The areas proposed are animal corridors that had previously been designated ·as open space. Morello Ave is already a busy corridor and adding 800 more cars to this corridor is insane. This is not the place for this type of project.

The city it seems also did not make a good faith effort to reveal the proposed projects until the eleventh hour.

I plan on attending the city council meeting on Wednesday May 3rd at 6:30pm as I am apposed to the plan that has been revealed to me only today (mayl) by concerned neighbors.
( -sincerely,
Rod VanBuskirk
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2056 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( t=rom:
)ent:

STEPHEN Mac Cool <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 5:31 PM
(
To: Planning
Subject: Urgent Notice Objection
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom It May Concern,
I understand that you are planning 396 new housing units in the open space areas of Morello/Alhambra and Paso Nagai/Morello.

I object to these plans as the value of our community rests in the amount of open space and beauty we know California to be.

Please don't take away the natural land.

Thank you,
Stephen and Christine MacCool
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2057 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
.-- from:
.ient:

To:

Subject:

R Meintz <[email protected]>
Monday, May 1, 2023 5:18 PM
Planning
Objection to the rezoning of Morello Terraces open nature space 4 story apt. Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

As a concerned citizen who lives in the Ridgeview neighborhood I strongly object to the 4 story apartment complex proposal to be built in the open nature space at the comer of Morello and N etherby.

There is no rationale for this space and no analysis of impact to the surrounding environments. This is an urban forest, the wildlife here already struggle to find enough food, water and resting / living places. Deer come down with their baby fawns and stuggle to cross busy roads to find food and water for their young. Turkeys are under the same pressure and are in danger of being hit by cars, are honked at and frightened due to the over trafficked roads in this area. DVC College brings in an enormous amount of traffic already from all over the area adding to the negative traffic impact in this area. A 4 story apartment complex would only worsen an already terrible situation for existing residents and innocent wildlife.

There is complete neglect of any input from existing communities and a total disregard for the wildlife who make this their home.
1 STRONGLY OBJECT to the rezoning of the Morello Terraces hillside_to accommodate a 4 story apartment complex.

Rochelle Meintz
Ridgeview Dr. Resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2058 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( ~rom:
)ent:

To:

Subject:

Jennifer Cooper <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 4:43 PM
Planning
3043 Shetland Drive homeowner who opposes rezoning for high density housing on Paso Nogal and Morello
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To whom it may concern,
We are writing to express our disapproval for the city's proposed plan of rezoning the vacant areas on Paso Nogal and Morello Terraces to high density housing. We have lived in our house for the past 14 1/2 years and one of the primary reasons we moved to this area was because of the beautiful open spaces, abundant wildlife, and low car and housing congestion. I grew up in the Alhambra Valley area and after leaving for 8 years due to job relocation, my husband and I specifically moved back to this area so we can give our son the same childhood that I loved so much. We walk the trails and hills on Paso Nogal almost every day while enjoying the green/golden hills, watching turkey, deer, and quail and chatting with like minded people who enjoy getting exercise and fresh air. We did not choose to live close to downtown nor in an urban area for these reasons. After discussing this rezoning with my immediate neighbors we all feel the same way! We are distraught over the potential for this serene special area being ch~ged due to high density housing! ... <.ezoning Paso Nogal and Morello Terraces would cause more congestion on the roads, (with four schools close by it is already busy), put more pressure on an already small Safeway shopping center, put additional strain on our public schools, cause the entire neighborhood landscape to change, increase road noise, disrupt our neighborhood views and most likely decrease our property value. This area is not equipped to handle high density housing which by estimates would add 1000 or more people and 800 more cars on the road in this small rural area! As you know, Paso Nogal is a 2-lane narrow and windy road with blind comers and with additional vehicles it will just become more of a speedway and more dangerous! We could go on and on why we oppose this rezoning and building of multi-family high-density low income housing, but below is a snapshot of why we oppose it:

1. Increased noise levels due to people and cars

2. Concerns for traffic/public safety/crime

3. Impacting the serene landscape and affecting local wildlife

4. Adversely affect views from my neighborhood

5. Cause more congestion on roads and local shopping center

6. Lower property value
We will be attending the meeting on Wednesday and will strongly voice our opinion on this matter as will many neighbors from surrounding neighborhoods. We all are very upset with this potential rezoning of our community and especially disappointed that we didn't ieam about this from the City of Pleasant Hill, but instead -'Tom other concerned homeowners.

Regards,
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2059 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Patrick & Jennifer Cooper
2 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2060 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
-=rom:
,ent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:
[email protected]
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:21 PM
[email protected]
Planning
Zoning changes Morello and Netherby
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

City of Pleasant Hill planning,
I am a current and 8 yr resident on Jan in Place and I am writing you with my concerns and support of the objection related to rezoning the area of Paso Nogal/Morello/Netherby Dr. These concerns are expressed below and may not be all inclusive.
- The 4 story building that is proposed is in an area that supports townhomes and single family residences. This type of structure would not at all be uniform in size and form to the land usage currently being utilized. It's hard to believe the planning commission would approve this type of significant deviation. Also, since the building is 4 stories, then the neighbors on Netherby and Douglas Terrace would have their views impacted significantly from their homes, which is of Mt Diablo, and is beautiful.
-This project would severely impact our property values. We enjoy quiet private neighborhoods, and nice views, and the -+raffic and impact to our already limited availability for parking spaces, would be a substantial inconvenience to all ,.~ighborhoods that surround this area.
-There have been several on street car break ins in our area and if there is is even a greater number of residences or "exposure" if you will, this will result in more crime and property damage in our neighborhoods, as well. Again a risk and concern to all.
-The 4-way stop should also be reassessed at the bottom of Netherby and Morello concurrent to any additional building, since there have been numerous times I personally have observed when drivers do not make complete stops, do not take turns to allow others to proceed through the intersection, and even worse, do not ·stop at all, posing a great risk to pedestrians and drivers. There are many residents who cross here at Morello with children, strollers, and pets to access the dog park and trails across the street.

The use of this land and this proposal does not feel as though it was well thought out, related to the above objections.

Residents are most familiar with the intricacies of their neighborhoods and appreciate the ability to air these realistic and reasonable concerns.

Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can answer any questions you might have going forward.

Ellie McIntyre
925-330-2276
-~nt from my iPhone
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2061 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:
-----Original Message-----
Troy Fujimoto
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:17 PM
Troy Fujimoto
FW: Proposed re-zoning of Morello Terrace
Pleasant Hill Planning Commission -4.2.23.docx
From: Denise Hillman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:06 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed re-zoning of Morello Terrace
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mr. Bindernagel, I wanted to make sure you receive this before the next meeting, which I am unable to make.

Please see the attached letter in opposition to the proposed development.

Thank you,
Denise Hillman
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2062 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
( "=rom: Troy Fujimoto
~ent:

To:

Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:17 PM
Troy Fujimoto
Subject: FW: City Public Hearing Wednesday May 3,2023 6:30 pm Regarding the "Low Income High Density" housing to be built on Paso Nogal between Morello and Alhambra Rd.

From: Donna Rivera <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:08 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: City Public Hearing Wednesday May 3,2023 6:30 pm Regarding the "Low Income High Density" housing to be built on Paso Nogal between Morello and Alhambra Rd.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou recognize the sender.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Donna Rivera <donnariveral @comcast.net>
Date: May 1, 2023 9:00 PM
Subject: City Public Hearing Wednesday May 3,2023 6:30 pm Regarding the "Low Income High Density" · 1using to be built on Paso Nogal between Morello and Alhambra Rd. 1·0: [email protected]
Cc:

You cannot charity poverty away just as you cannot wish it away which is what you would be doing if the proposed low income housing is allowed to proceed. What its commonly referred to as poverty is in reality depression . What is needed is therapy and education not another hand-out in housing which · is what you would be doing if putting in Ghetto housing at each end of Paso Noga I which is another word for low income housing. Right now there are 5 entrances from three nice housing developments on Paso Nagai how is more traffic going to move through? it will be - complete gridlock with a stop light at Paso Nogal and Alhambra. Paso Nogal at present is a 2 lane very narrow road. The ghetto would not be close to public transit. If low income housing is proposed with no public transit close how is the populace going to get to and from work oh wait, how can low-income people afford nice cars , who pays for the cars , license fees , insurance? Another brilliant idea hand-out Who is going to maintain the housing? I can't even get the city to do what i pay for with my tax dollars. I have an investment in my home on Strayhorn Road part of my retirement package How am I going to be able to sell in the future with two low-income housing ghettos at each end. This is very poor planning vision on traffic and density , traffic will be cutting through New Falcon Pointe which are firelanes not public streets and I pay to maintain the fire lanes as it is private property. When I purchased- the property it was with the stipulation that the city of Pleasant Hill had deemed the property at each end of new Falcon Pointe would remain open property with low density. Now I'm being told it will be high density with 1hetto's. As a long time resident, 25 ,years I am adamantly opposed to any low -income jousing being built. Low income housing will increase the crime rate, drug and other substance abusers will find it free reign not to mention theft of private property and injury and yes life 1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2063 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) threatening If allowed to pass, I will have to petition the city of Pleasant Hill for a private security system as it will no longer be safe to live in the area which is currently shangrila . I remain Vehemently Opposed Michael Rivera resident New Falcon Point. 2 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2064 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
~irom:
.... ent:

To:

Subject:

Jo Gruszka <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:16 PM
Troy Fujimoto
Proposed New Development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. i
Dear Mr. Fujimoto,
I am writing to you because I have recently been made aware of plans to develop property near my home for high density housing, at Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal.

I would like to express my strong opposition-to this proposal.

I moved to Pleasant Hill with my family three years ago. One of the higher selling points for us was the lack of high density housing in this neighborhood.

It is my position that this type of development will increase traffic, crime, and create a general disruption of peace in this lovely neighborhood.

The school systems will also be negatively affected with a dramatic population increase on an already overly stressed system.

I do not see this type of project having any positive effect on a community that is my home. The only beneficiaries will be to the corporate investors who will see great returns on this venture.

I am asking the people who are in charge of making decisions for the residents of Pleasant Hill to resist the urge , grow into a corporation owned municipality and to continue to keep Pleasant Hill a small tight knit community that it is.

Thank you for your consideration,
jo gruszka
408.499. 7975 j [email protected]
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2065 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) 1JI
TO: Troy Fujjmoto, City Planner for the City of Pleasant Hill u... MAY. 0 ~ :2023 ~ I From: Susan Barlettani, 1003 Ridgeview Place, Pleasant Hill 94523. . PL~rifilii_G_ o,v,sioN REGARDING: The submission of Objections to the rezoning of our neighb ng;fl)l'QJIJEIJIIIJASANT HILL Dear Mr. Fijimoto,
I am writing to formally object to the rezoning of the two properties in our neighborhood for the purpose of establishing high density apartment complexes. I understand that the city needs to accommodate the many people who have moved into Pleasant Hill and that we all need to accommodate. However the proposed accommodation is without consideration of the impact this high density housing will have on our new neighbors as well as those of us who already live here. The impact includes:

1.) THE MOUNT DIABLO SCHOOL SYSTEM. The elementary, middle and high SCHOOLS ARE ALREADY COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING OVER CROWDED. AND WE KNOW FROM

EXPERIENCE THAT THESE SCHOOLS ARE NOT WITHIN A REASONABLE WALKING DISTANCE. 20 years ago, we' drove our child to school until she could drlve herself. SO MORE SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND STOP LIGHTS AND SUSSES WOULD BE NEEDED.

2.) HIDDEN LAKES PARK in Martines is Just a few blocks away, however it is already at full capacity. It is packed on the weekends and PARKING IS AN IMPOSSIBLE NIGHTMARE.

They have already been updating that park over years to try to accommodate todays population. Please think about what will happen when you add upwards of 400 new households to our already over stressed resources.

3.) SAFEWAY, which is the nearest market. It is approximately A MILE AWAY. The only road to get there, Paso Nogal is a two lane road on which another apartment complex is proposed.

The City of Pleasant Hill WOULD NEED TO WIDEN IT TO A 4 LANE ROAD TO ACCOMMODATE THE TRAFFIC, AND l'M NOT SURE THAT IS EVEN POSSIBLE. Also, Safeway and It's parking lot are already at maximum use on the weekend.

In short, WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT RECONSTRUCTING A

WHOLE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE AND TOTALLY RECONSTRUCTING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. From that stand point IT IS EASY TO SEE WHY THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN BURIED AND MISREPRESENTED TO OUR COMMUNllY AND TO THE STATE.

We are asking you to please reconsider the JC Penny lot. It presents the same considerations concerning construction and infrastructure however some of it, access to public transportation and easy access to grocery stores is already in place. With some rerouting it would offer the same access to schools and parks. Also, If this construction has some esthetic considerations, which you have suggested, it would improve that area of Pleasant Hill rather than damaging our neighborhood and destroying our property values which most of us are counting on to see us through to the end of life. Also, the concern about the freeway become mute when you consider how many expensive homes back up to a freeway in the bay area. Im sure that along with a sound wall and an appropriate design, the construction could include putting parking facilities between the complex and the fre&way. PLEASE CONSIDER PUTTING AT LEAST HALF OF THE HOUSING THERE INSTEAD OF ALL OF IT HERE.

Most Sincerely,
Susan and ~arlettani.
pd~--.~~
/
~fa~~~,

4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2066 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
prom:
.ent:

To:

Subject:

Lani Vance < [email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:10 PM
Planning
Low income housing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Good Afternoon,
I live in the Paso Nogal Rd, Morello Avenue area and I OBJECT to plans to build "Low Income, High Density Housing in the area. This would have a negative impact on the area in terms of traffic, property values and potentially crime.

Sincerely,
Lani Vance
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2067 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Renee Croteau <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:08 PM
Planning
Concerns re: new high density housing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless ou recognize the sender.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am a homeowner/ resident at 1072 Grayson Road, Pleasant Hill and am writing to express my concern about the proposed building units on/near Paso Nogal and Morello. To add nearly 400 units in such a concentrated area will impact our roads, schools and infrastructure. I am not adverse to low-income units. I am extremely concerned about the high density in an area that is not equipped to have over 1,000 people and over 800 additional cars in such a compact area.

While my kids attend Strandwood, I am close friends with families at Valhalla, and do not feel they have the bandwidth to support this large influx of students. Class sizes are impacted and there are no teachers available. At Valhalla, they have had long-term substitute teachers after long term sub in a Kindergarten class b/c they are unable to hire. The burden of more students would be unbearable, and the neighboring schools, such as Strandwood are at capacity too. My 7 year old daughter is in a 2nd grade class with 33 students! Unless Pleasant Hill plans to add schools, and additional infrastructure to support the intense growth of high density housing, I respectfully request as a citizen in Pleasant Hill, to reconsider this development.

Sincerely,
Renee Croteau
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2068 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
(
From:
ant:

To:

Subject:

Marni Dyer <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3:06 PM
Planning
Objection to Morello Terraces
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hi,
I am a homeowner on Netherby Place and am greatly concerned about the proposal to build dense housing on the open space on Netherby and Morello. We chose to live in Pleasant Hill because of the great parks, wonderful residents and open spaces that make this town so wonderful. We chose our specific street because of these things as well. The proposal to build such dense housing on such a small plot of land seriously degrades property values, will cause traffic and parking issues and will overload schools that are already at capacity. Valhalla Elementary has been turning away students this year because they are too full and there is no room for them to expand. Where is it proposed that the children living in these homes go to school? Not to mention the degradation to the environment of having to excavate one of the hills that makes Pleasant Hill what it is - a beautiful city with rolling hills and green grass with turkeys and deer living amongst us.

This just is not the place for such dense housing - it is too disruptive and overcrowds the roads and schools in the area.

Thank you,
Marni Hutchins
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2069 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kiliwia Biglsland <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:49 PM
Planning
Stop the density building!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
• Drastic increase in traffic flux: It is reasonable to assume most tenants would have an additional car, which the complex would not accommodate, resulting in drastic overspill of vehicle parking into neighboring streets such as Douglas Terrace, St Germain Place, Netherby Street, Netherby Place, Janin Place, Fairway Place, Morello A venue, Ridgeview Drive, Ridgeview Place. This lot is not a transit rich area per Senate Bill 10, therefore it is reasonable to assume cars would be the residents primary form of transportation. ~ Complete degradation of the environment/wildlife habitat (the entire hillside will be excavated): This hillside is an important corridor for local coyote, opossum, raccoon, deer, turkey, and ground squirrel populations to migrate between Hidden Lakes Park and Paso Nogal Park. Without the ability to traverse this plot, roadkill events will continue to increase and further decimate our local wildlife population. The excavation of this hillside will also transform a mild/moderate natural gradient slope to a vertical gradient to accommodate a fourstory, multi building complex, which would require thousands of gallons of diesel fuel needed to grade the slopes. This destruction of open-space land is seemingly at odds with the guidance set forth in Government Code 65400; " ... practical means for implementing the general plan or element of the general plan, so that it will serve as an effective guide for orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open space land and natural resources ... "
• Severe disruption of the surrounding housing privacy/uniformity: The proposed four-story apartment comp Ji would be completely singular in its density, architecture, and land usage compared to the surrounding area. The resulting increase in population density would negate the intended surrounding building edges, transition, context, and privacy.

I object to this building and rezoning proposal and am giving official notification to the city of Pleasant Hill to be taken into consideration as a concerned resident living here since 1997. Should this project proceed remember elections have consequences!
Regards,
Sylvia Burnham
316 Ridgeview Dr
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
COME UP HITHER!
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2070 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
-=rom:
ant:

To:

Subject:

Barbara Roffman <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:44 PM
Planning
Proposed housing on Paso Nogal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments I unless you recognize the sender.

I am writing to oppose the planned housing on 2 open spaces on Paso Nogal between Morello Ave and Alhambra Ave. Beside the obvious havoc and congestion these proposals would create during and post construction, Paso Nogal Rd is a very dangerous winding road and a very narrow road. Folks already drive too fast now when on it. Increased traffic from these units would greatly affect the danger of accidents. I have had several close calls coming around blind comers!
Please do not put pedestrians, drivers and doggies in this situation.

Please say NO to the proposal!
Thank you for your time.

Barbara
Foothill Place, PH
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2071 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Noemi Woods <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:43 PM
Planning
Zonning Low Income apartments in Morello/Paso Noagal Pleasant Hill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Good Afternoon.

I am a concerned Pleasant Hill resident. It was brought to my attention that the planning department and council of Pleasant Hill is trying to rezone
property on morello and paso nogal in Pleasant Hill, to build low income housing.

I am overly concerned, due to my home being off morello close to the site in question. Has anyone done their research?
Studies have shown that building low income housing in a quiet and safe neighborhood will not only bring property value down but will in fact bring crime, risking safety, noise, transit, parking issues and over populate the area.

If I wanted to live by low income housing that is where I would've purchased my home. I purchased my home because of the quiet and safe neighborhood. It's easy for the planning commission to vote and rezone the area's in-question since it will not affect you. Please reconsider, your decision to rezone this area, it will have dire consequences to our wonderful neighborhood. I am totally against it!!!!
Noemi Woods
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2072 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
Crom:
ant:

To:

Subject:

Allan Duncan <[email protected]>
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:33 PM
Planning
Concerns of New Development near Paso Noga! Rd and Morello Avenue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To the Planning Committee and the City Council,
I am a home owner here in Pleasant Hill for over 40 years.

The plan that has been proposed for Paso Nogal Road and Morello Avenue will bring many changes to the area that are not acceptable. I wish to share my objections to the size and scope of this proposed project.

Here are some of my concerns;
1- This amount of building will bring a huge influx of autos, trucks and motorcycles increasing the traffic congestion.
2- These vehicles will bring an increase of air and noise pollution. 3- The building of so many apartments, so close together will bring congested living to an area that is now peaceful and enjoyable.
4- The roads cannot handle this much more traffic. New infrastructure will be needed to handle the electric, sewer, water, EV hookups and enlarging the roadways. All this causing more pollution. 5- The run off of the pollutants from all of the paved areas will need to be treated so that the toxic chemicals do not go into our waterways.
6- This development will ruin the aesthetics of the area, taking away the so limited open space that Pleasant Hill has left. Taking the natural beauty of the area and replacing it with apartments is a terrible idea. 7- What about guest parking for the units? Off street parking will have to be provided, causing large areas to be paved over, increasing run off issues.
8- Building in a recreation area of the city will ruin the small town atmosphere.

Some ideas; '
1-Build the apartments near the commercial area of the city. 2-Build near the BART transit village where public transportation is already in place. Cars will not be a necessity there, resulting in less noise and air pollution.
3-Building near the commercial areas will allow residents to walk to the business that they will support and not need to own a car.
4-Building near the Transit Village will allow the builders to build taller buildings and increase the number of units.

Thank You for your time.

Allan Duncan
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2073 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Lyone Conner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Importance:

Elga < [email protected] >
Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:00 PM
Planning
OBJECTION to the rezoning plan of vacant lot on Morello Ave. and Netherby Dr.

High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments j unless you recognize the ~ender. ~- _ _ _
Dear Planning Commission of Pleasant Hill, CA,
We are writing to you to STRONGLY OPPOSE the plan to rezone a vacant lot on the corner of Morello Avenue and Netherby Drive for high-density dwelling units. The proposed rezoning plan will have various negative social and environmental impacts on the neighborhood and the city as a whole.

First of all, the plan is inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan and Housing Element that the Planning Commission is currently reviewing. The General Plan aims to preserve and enhance the character and quality of life in Pleasant Hill, while the Housing Element identifies sites for future housing development that are compatible with the existing land use and zoning. The proposed rezoning of the vacant lot would violate both of these goals, as it would introduce a high-density housing project in an area that is predominantly single-family residential. The project would also create traffic, noise, parking, and environmental problems for the surrounding area.

Secondly, the plan is unfair to the existing residents and businesses of Pleasant Hill, who have invested in their properties and contributed to the community. The plan would lower their property values, reduce their safety and security, and erode their sense of community. This plan would thus undermine the economic vitality and diversity of Pleasant Hill.

Thirdly, the plan would increase traffic congestion and air pollution in an already busy intersection. Morello Avenue and Netherby Drive are major arterial roads that serve many commuters and businesses in this neighborhood. Adding hundreds of new residents to this location would worsen the traffic flow and increase the emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate matter. This would harm the health and quality of life of the existing residents in the area.

For these reasons, we strongly oppose this rezoning plan and urge the Planning Commission to listen to the voices of your constituents and act in the best interest of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Maria and Erner Delos Reyes
11 Morello Court
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
1 4.1.q
Packet Pg. 2074 Attachment: Attachment Q - Public Comments (General Plan and Housing Element) Madeira
Ridgeview
-------- Heights Townhouses Association
May 1, 2023
Troy Fujimoto
City Planner
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Place I Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
RE: Submission of Objections - Housing Element and Zoning - Special ·Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Mr. 'Fujimoto:

PLANNING DIVISION

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
We are the Board of Directors of the Madeira Heights Townhouse Association located on Ridgeview Place in Pleasant Hill. We write to submit our formal objections under Government Code §65000, et. seq. as to the proposed adoption of the Revised Housing Element and zoning issues set for hearing at the Special Planning Commission meeting on May 3, 2023.

We acknowledge the serious housing crisis in California and that Pleasant Hill must do its part to increase the amount of affordable housing. What we object to is the City's lack of transparency and an attempt to use a vacant parcel dedicated as single family housing in a semi-rural part of the city to satisfy state requirements Our objections are as follows:
(1) Lack of transparency and notice.

The agendas of the City's General Planning Advisory Committee for April 12, 2023, and the Special Planning Commission for May 3, 2023, fail to put the citizens on notice that the City is considering the Morello and Paso_ Nogal parcels as project sites. References to these sites are literally buried in hundreds of pages of attachments to the meeting agendas.

The City made zero effort to reach out to residents who would be impacted by a decision to tum a semi-rural area of the City into a hig~ density location. This is despite the fact that the area has been designated as single family housing for over 50 years. The notice provided by the City does not comply with state laws on transparency. The city is obligated to conduct further investigation and discussions regarding whether these Morello and Paso Nogal parcels are an1 appropriate location for this project and allow various parties to weigh in with their concerns. Otherwise, this will appear to be a blatant attempt by the City Council and staff to approve this project under the radar.
(2) Misstatements in Draft Reyised Housing Element