Pleasant Hill City Council
May 18, 2023

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-188 Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Land Use
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental
Constraints
24 WaterberryCourt
166-070-044 0.29 Single Family - 10,000 sq ft Lots Single-Family Medium Density 1 1 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
None
30 Oakvue Lane 149-172-038 0.26 Single Family - 10,000 sq ft Lots Single-Family Medium Density 1 1 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
None
83 RobertaAvenue
149-171-026 0.23 Single Family - 10,000 sq ft Lots Single-Family Medium Density 1 1 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
None
Oakvue Lanenorth of 295Oakvue Lane
149-172-023 0.36 Single Family - 10,000 sq ft Lots Single-Family Medium Density 1 1 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
None
Approximately600 BlockGregory Lane
149-010-036 0.62 Single Family - 10,000 sq ft Lots Single-Family Medium Density 1 1 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood on amajor arterial
None
South cornerTaylor Blvd andPleasant Hill Rd
164-030-008 1.17 Single Family - 10,000 sq ft Lots Semi-Public and Institutional 3 3 Above Moderate Vacant site adjacent to Oasis Christian Fellowship
None
389 Camino LasJuntas
152-092-027 0.33 Single Family - 10,000 sq ft Lots Single-Family Medium Density 1 1 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
On a steep hill
387 Camino LasJuntas
152-092-026 0.33 Single Family - 10,000 sq ft Lots Single-Family Medium Density 1 1 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
On a steep hill
North ofwestward curveon Iron Hill Street
164-560-049 0.73 Hillside Planned
Unit District
Single-FamilyHigh Density
3 3 Above
Moderate
Vacant residentialsite in anestablishedneighborhood
Portion of site is ona very steep hill witha flatter sectionadjacent to ReliezValley Rd

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-189 Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Land Use
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental
Constraints
Reliez ValleyRoad at city limits
164-560-048 0.19 Hillside Planned
Unit District
Single-FamilyHigh Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residentialsite in anestablishedneighborhood
None
Adjacent to 406Kahrs Avenue
149-032-038 0.19 Single Family - 7000 sq ft Lots Single-Family High Density 1 1 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
None
Approximately1755 Roche Drive
153-060-011 0.41 Single Family - 7000 sq ft Lots Single-Family High Density 2 2 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
Next to GraysonCreek, may requireappropriatesetbacks accordingto PHMC 245 Gregory Lane 150-141-002 0.19 Single Family - 7000 sq ft Lots Single-Family High Density 1 1 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
None
243 Gregory Lane 150-141-003 0.19 Single Family - 7000 sq ft Lots Single-Family High Density 1 1 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
None
Interior parcelbounded byCamino LasJuntas andTanager HeightsLn 152-070-053 0.76 Single Family - 10,000 sq ft Lots Multi-Family Very Low Density 6 6 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
On a steep hill
Flag parcel onTopaz Lane eastof 685 PasoNogal Road
152-030-053 0.73 Single Family - 10,000 sq ft Lots Single-Family Medium Density 6 6 Above Moderate Vacant residential site in an establishedneighborhood
None
Southeast cornerTaylor Blvd /Morello Ave
152-352-027 0.30 Planned Unit
District
Multi-Family LowDensity
4 4 Above
Moderate
Vacant residentialsite at the corner oftwo arterials
None

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-190 Environmental Constraints Associated with Vacant Sites
The Beatrice / Cleaveland vacant sites (PUD 410) are in a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain and are bounded by a creek. However, flood risk can be mitigated when the site is developed.

Some other sites identified in Table 4-44 have environmental constraints, such as being adjacent to creeks, adjacent to floodplains, and being on steep hills. However, each of the sites with these constraints are reserved for above income units which can reasonably mitigate risks and challenges when the site is developed.

Sites Identified in Previous Housing Elements
The Beatrice / Cleaveland vacant sites are the only identified sites from the 5th cycle Housing Element. All of the sites are identified as above moderate-income sites given the extra development cost of addressing flooding constraints based on the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain.

Moderate- and Above Moderate-income Capacity Allowing Multifamily Uses In metropolitan jurisdictions, including Pleasant Hill, the State of California requires that at least 25 percent of the capacity identified toward moderate- and above moderate-income goals be provided on parcels allowing multifamily uses. The City has provided capacity for 231 moderate- and 190 above-moderate income units on underutilized parcels proposed for rezone to Mixed Use (12-40 du/ac) and Mixed Use Very High (40-70 du/ac). These sites provide realistic capacity for 421 total units, Additionally, the Beatrice / Cleaveland vacant parcels are designated Multi-family Medium Density, providing an additional realistic capacity for 149 above moderate units. The combination of underutilized moderate and above moderate mixed-use sites and vacant above moderate multifamily sites totals 570 units, which equates to 62 percent of the combined moderate- and above-moderate RHNA of 921 units. The City has met this requirement.

Summary of RHNA Credits and Sites Inventory
these three methods, the city can accommodate a total of 2,124 housing units, including 1,157 lower-income, 308 moderate-income, and 659 above moderate-income units. Table 4-44 shows a summary of the number of housing units accommodated by pending projects, vacant sites, mixed use redevelopment, and ADU trends.

Table 4-45Table 4-44Summary of 6
th Cycle RHNA Capacity
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 892 254 657 1,803
C
REDIT
S
Assumed Accessory Dwelling
Units 0120 28060 4020 320200
Pending and Approved Projects 106 14 260259 380379
SITE
S
IN
VE
Housing Opportunity
SitesVacant Sites 1,051298 140 127210 1,192508

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-191 Vacant SitesUnderutilized
Housing Opportunity Sites 0546 0231 232190 232967
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 1,1571,070 308305 6589679 2,12342,054 RHNA with 20 percent buffer 1,070 305 65726 2,032
Surplus (beyond RHNA with buffer) 870 30 2122 91222
Percentage of RHNA Planned 130%120% 121%120% 100%103% 118%114% City-Owned Surplus Sites
When the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency was dissolved in January 2012, the City of Pleasant Hill, through the Redevelopment Successor Agency, inherited three vacant parcels in 2011 and 2012, two of which were viable for residential development. The City is in agreement to sell two parcels, 250 Cleaveland Road and 85 Woodsworth Lane, for development of low- and very lowincome housing to Habitat for Humanity. 250 Cleaveland Road (APN 149-130-016) was agreed to be sold in October 2019 for $1027 and 85 Woodsworth Lane (APN 150-150-071) is pending sale set for the end of the year 2022. These two parcels are currently pending development and are expected to provide six low-income, four moderate-income, and one above moderate-income units that were counted towards the 5th cycle Regional Needs Housing Allocation credits.

The third parcel, located at the corner of West Hookston Road and Contra Costa Boulevard (APN 149-110-087), is currently still owned by the City and is unsuitable for residential development due to its small size and triangular shape.

The City no longer owns any surplus vacant properties or underutilized properties fit for residential development.

Availability of Infrastructure
Water, sewer, and storm drainage capacity will be sufficient for any housing development within the City of Pleasant Hill during this planning period.

Engagement with Local Providers
Water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. The City encourages inter-agency cooperation between the City and local providers and engages these agencies as issues and opportunities arise. Additionally, the City has included Program CCC that commits the City to providing local service providers with a copy of the Final Housing Element within 10-days of certification. The program also commits the City to engage local providers within 30-days of receipt of an application for development of housing units affordable to lower-income housing.
26 The additional 20 percent buffer is only required for lower- and moderate-income categories. 27 Habitat For Humanity Buys Pleasant Hill Lot For $10 To Build Housing

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-192 Water Supply
Three different Agencies supply potable water to the residents of Pleasant Hill. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) provides service to most of the City, while the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) provides service to southwestern Pleasant Hill (mainly bounded on the east by Pleasant Hill Road), and Martinez Water District provides service to a small northwestern portion of the city close to Paso Nogal Park.

CCWD, according to its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, is expected to increase its usable capacity with greater use of recycled water systems and importation of water from the Central Valley Project. These changes are expected to help CCWD meet projected population growth in the region. EBMUD, according to its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, is expected to meet all its projected customer demand projected until 2040 with affordances made for two years of drought conditions. There are approximately ten housing units projected in the Ma service area in this housing element. These additional units are not expected to make a significant impact on water demand for the utility.

All three districts have the capacity to serve development through the build-out of this Housing Element. Consistent with State law, affordable housing projects will be given priority for water services.

Water Treatment
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District provides water treatment service for the entire city.

Wastewater treatment is provided at one centrally located plant, which is three miles north of Pleasant Hill at the junction of Interstate 680 and Highway 4 in unincorporated county land. The district is currently processing 34 million gallons of wastewater per day and has a total capacity of 54 million gallons per day.

Storm Drainage
that empty into several local creeks and their tributaries. The main creeks are Grayson Creek, Murderer Creek, and Walnut Creek. Recent improvements have been approved for storm drains across the city as a part of funding from Measure K, passed in 2016. System-wide storm drainage capacity will not impose a constraint on residential development. Further, the City requires new -project hydrologic
conditions must not exceed pre-project levels. This can be accomplished by reducing impervious surface areas (for example, installing more landscaping, or pervious surfaces as an alternative to concrete and asphalt), or by storing and metering runoff so as not to exceed previous levels.

Electricity
MCE, which offers sufficient additional capacity and connections for any new development in Pleasant Hill, provides electric service to the entire city. Residents may also choose to opt for service through PG&E instead of MCE.

Gas
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides gas services, electric delivery, billing, and power line maintenance in Pleasant Hill.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-193 Telephone
The city is served by all four major cellular telephone providers: Verizon Wireless, American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T), T-Mobile, and Sprint. The City is also served by a variety of Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVMOs), such as Cricket Wireless, MetroPCS, and Boost Mobile, which offer service to lower income households.

Landline telephone service is provided through internet service providers, such as Xfinity and AT&T.

Internet
The city is served by a variety of internet service providers that provide access to internet for households of all income levels. Pleasant Hill is served by Xfinity and AT&T Internet. Xfinity offers Internet Essentials for low-income households that are a part of certain public assistance programs.

Financial Resources
The City of Pleasant Hill does not have significant financial resources to expend directly towards housing development, however, it is continually looking for new ways to increase funding to help create and maintain affordable housing.

Housing Trust Fund
The Affordable Housing Trust Fund is a fund that receives in-lieu fees from developers who do not source for funding affordable housing. The City primarily uses these funds to loan developers funding for new construction in exchange for enforcing deed restrictions when their property is ready for tenants. The City also has the option of using Trust Fund monies in other ways as the City sees fit to proactively support demand for affordable housing.

As of the beginning of the sixth cycle, the housing trust fund currently has low reserves. however, Program T commits the City to amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which sets in-lieu fees.

The City hopes to update the ordinance to better reflect the true price of developing affordable housing in this hot housing market.

Housing Successor Agency
The Pleasant Hill Housing Successor Agency, which was established in 2012 as redevelopment agencies were abolished under state law, has the responsibility of winding down the commitments of its predecessor. The Housing Successor Agency no longer owns any property; however, it still honors previously established loans issued to multi-family developments in Pleasant Hill. The Housing Successor Agency also receives housing rehabilitation loans. Table 4-45 shows the breakdown of the 224 affordable units t subsidizes as of the beginning of the sixth cycle. Table 4-46 shows inventory of 27 upcoming units the Housing Successor has committed to subsidizing.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-194 Table 4-46Table 4-45Housing Successor Subsidized Units
Development Total Units
Affordable
Units Deed Restrictions
Grayson Creek Apartments 71 71 2070
Hookston Manor Senior
Apartments
100 99 2075
Garden Park Apartments 29 27 2072
Villa Montanaro Apartments 157 12 2036
IMT Pleasant Hill (formerly
Lincoln Green Apartments)
252 4 Yes, Date Unknown
Gallery Walk 133 11 Yes, 45 years
Total Redevelopment Agency Subsidized Units 224
Source: City of Pleasant Hill, 2022; Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency Successor Annual Report, 2019-2020.

Table 4-47Table 4-46Upcoming Successor Subsidized Units Development Total Units
Affordable
Units
Successor Agency
Subsidized Units
Choice in Aging Campus 82 81 27
Source: Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency Successor Annual Report, 2019-2020.

Community Resources
Several organizations are operating across Contra Costa County to provide holistic resources to people experiencing housing insecurity. Public organizations help administer government-funded programs, such as Section 8, that aim to address homelessness. Many non-profit affordable housing organizations help not only help people have access to housing, but also provide a system of support through community, case workers, and employment.

Public Affordable Housing Resources
Important resources, including housing and healthcare, available to people experiencing homelessness through public agencies in Contra Costa County. A majority of programs are operated through the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa.

Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa, shortened as Contra Costa Housing Authority, is a public agency that provides rental subsidies, manages, and develops affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities in the county. The Housing Authority operates much like a special district, operating separately from county government organizations, however still under the purview of the state government. The Housing Authority offers a variety of vouchers and programs which aim to help provide housing to people in need.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-195 Housing Choice Voucher
The Housing Choice Voucher, better known as Section 8, is a federally funded program for assisting very-low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled with access to housing. The Housing Authority is the local administrator of Housing Choice Voucher program. The program allows qualified applicants to use their voucher at low-income housing properties that allow for a subsidized rate of rent. Housing Choice Vouchers have the additional property of being portable, which means that if a family chooses to move to another property, their voucher can be transferred to their next home.

Project Based Voucher
A major component of the larger Housing Choice Voucher program, the Project Based Voucher Program is a federally funded program that encourages property owners to construct new or upgrade substandard rental housing for low-income families. The Housing Authority is the administrator of this program and issues Request for Proposals to notify property owners of housing funding opportunities. Property owners who participate in the program are subject to a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contract that lasts for up to a term of up to 20 years of rental subsidy. 726 units have been assisted by the voucher, including Hookston Senior Homes in Pleasant Hill, which provides 44 units of senior housing.

Shelter Plus Care
Shelter Plus Care, federally created under the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, is a program that aims to promote permanent housing with supportive services to persons with disabilities coming that are experiencing homelessness. The program distinguishes itself from the Housing Choice Voucher program by requiring supportive services that match equal to, or greater than the rental assistance award. Shelter Plus Care is administered by the Contra Costa Housing Authority with funding directly from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Shelter Plus Care is a program eligible to homeless people with mental illness, a substance abuse problem, HIV/AIDS, or a dual diagnosis, and have inadequate nighttime residence.

Veterans Affairs Supporting Housing Voucher Program
The Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Voucher Program (VASH) is a federally administered housing program aimed to provide chronically homeless veterans with housing and access to case management. VASH vouchers are distributed to public housing agencies, such as the Contra Costa Housing Authority, based on geographic need and administrative performance. The Contra Costa Housing Authority currently holds 93 VASH vouchers earned from three awards. The recipients will need to be deemed eligible by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Martinez in addition to being deemed eligible by the Contra Costa Housing Authority under Housing Choice Voucher guidelines.

Mainstream Voucher Program
The Mainstream Voucher Program provides rental assistance to non-elderly persons with a disability. There are currently 55 Vouchers active, all administered by the Contra Costa Housing Authority, which are available through the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list.

State of California Homekey Program
Homekey is a state-administered program that aims to develop a variety of housing types for those experiencing homelessness, including hotels, motels, hostels, single-family homes, and multifamily apartments. The program also includes funding top convert commercial properties to permanent or interim housing. Homekey is available to public agencies, such as the Contra Costa Housing Authority, to fund needed projects.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-196 Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS)
Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) is a department of Contra Costa County which provides public healthcare to all people in Contra Costa County with special attention to those who are most vulnerable to health problems. CCHS operates the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in federal programs. CCHS also administers the Continuum of Care (CoC) program of Contra Costa County, which helps coordinate resources for those who are experiencing homelessness. As a part of this program, CCHS operates the annual Point in Time (PIT) count, which counts the number of homeless people across Contra Costa County. Such data is important for cities across the County to make informed decisions for policies that generate affordable housing.

Non-Profit Affordable Housing Resources
In addition to public agencies and resources, Pleasant Hill is served by many non-profits which aim to help provide and support affordable housing across the city. Many of these agencies have been operating for decades in collaboration with civic leaders and local stakeholders.

Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Successor Agency
The Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Successor Agency is, as its name implies, the successor to the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency that was abolished by state law in 2012. The successor agency aims to wind down the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency and pay off any debt obligations incurred by the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency has a significant role in helping fund many local low-income housing developments.

Choice in Aging
Choice in Aging is a non-profit organization focused on fighting against ageism and providing highquality, essential services to seniors across Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, and Solano counties.

Choice in Aging offers Homesupport to create a more holistic senior care system. The organization also hosts Intergenerational programs which aim to help educate preschoolers with interaction and friendship with elder members of their communities. Choice in Aging has been an active member of Pleasant Hi community for years and is a major provider in affordable, senior housing for the sixth cycle RHNA through their Choice in Aging Campus project.

Hope Solutions
Hope Solutions, formerly known as Contra Costa Interfaith Housing, is a non-profit aiming to combat poverty and homelessness by providing housing solutions and support services. Hope Solutions has a long history of high impact projects that help the estimated 15,000 people who experience homelessness each year in the county. Hope Solutions also hosts their annual Gala which helps raise funds for homeless families and individuals. Hope Solutions provides housing directly through Garden Park Apartments, which houses 27 formerly homeless families in Pleasant Hill. Hope Solutions also oversees HUD-funded multi-site housing programs, which includes two units within Pleasant Hill.

Shelter, Inc.

Shelter, Inc. is a non- - -term impact to
not only provide housing but allow for success in regaining and maintaining a home. Shelter, Inc. also actively provides services that help prevent homelessness from the start with case managers ensuring the safety and security of people at risk of homelessness. The organization also helps individuals find employment to truly create a solid foundation for self-sufficiency. With 35 years of

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-197 service, Shelter, Inc. has been an important partner in helping end homelessness in Contra Costa County.

Eden Housing, Inc.

Operating for more than 50 years, Eden Housing is a local non-profit aiming to provide safe and affordable housing for families with a focus on long-term development and justice. Eden Housing helps provide not just housing, but stability to those in need of their services. Eden operates a large inventory of affordable housing located across California, with a large concentration in the Bay Area. Eden is continually focused on helping provide housing access and has two affordable housing projects adjacent to Pleasant Hill: Belle Terre in Lafayette and Virginia Lane in Concord.

Mercy Housing California
Mercy Housing California is a division of Mercy Housing, the largest nonprofit affordable housing developer in the country. Mercy Housing develops and operates affordable, service enriched housing for families, seniors, and people who have been homeless. Mercy Housing operates Garden Park Apartments on Lisa Lane in Pleasant Hill, which provides 29 units of affordable lowincome housing.

BRIDGE Housing Corporation
BRIDGE Housing is a corporation that helps provide affordable homes that display the same quality of design and construction as market-rate housing. BRIDGE housing helps develop a variety of projects, such as family and senior affordable housing, transit-oriented developments, mixed-use developments, and supportive housing facilities. BRIDGE operates the 70-unit Grayson Creek multiple properties near Pleasant Hill, including Coggins Square in Walnut Creek and Sycamore Place in Danville.

Brilliant Corners
Brilliant Corners is a non-profit agency that develops affordable housing, manages over 200 affordable housing properties, provides individual case management, and is a part of the highly successful Los Angeles County Flexible Subsidy Pool (FHSP). Brilliant Corners helps develop and operate residential care homes, multi-family developments, and other housing solutions across the state.

Christian Church Homes of Northern California
Christian Church Homes of Northern California (CCHNA) is a non-profit branch of Christian Church Homes (CCH) that develops and operates affordable senior housing across several western states.

CCH has served more than 100,000 residents since its establishment in 1961 and currently operates over 5,000 affordable apartment homes across 59 communities. CCHNC aims to provide senior residents with housing and resources that allow for aging-in-place with dignity and a feeling of being of more than a home.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-198 This page is intentionally left blank.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-199 Appendices
Appendix A: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)
Appendix B: Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element
Appendix C: Public Comments

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft 4-200 This page is intentionally left blank.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) September 2022 Administrative Draft
B-1

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-2 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Table of Contents

1.1 Introduction And Overview of AB 686......................................................................A-3

1.2 Analysis of Impediments Findings...........................................................................A-5

1.3 Analysis of Fair Housing ...........................................................................................A-6

1.4 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity.................................................A-8

1.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends..............................................A-109

1.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities.............................................................. A-3430

1.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs...................................................................... A-5046

1.8 Contributing Factors........................................................................................... A-6056

1.9 Local Knowledge ................................................................................................ A-6460

1.10 Sites Inventory Analysis ..................................................................................... A-7265

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-3
Tables
Table A-1 TCAC Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps.................................A-7 Table A-2 Organizations Active in Contra Costa County .........................................................A-9 Table A-3 Contra Costa County and Pleasant Hill Demographics, 2019 5-year EstimatesA-1312 Table A-4 Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill.......... A-1514 Table A-5 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill ................ A-1514 Table A-6 Neighborhood Income Segregation .................................................................. A-1918 Table A-7 Population with Developmental Disability by Residence................................. A-2925 Table A-8 Tenure by Household Type, Contra Costa County ........................................... A-3127 Table A-9 Tenure by Household Type, Pleasant Hill ......................................................... A-3228 Table A-10 Employment Status by Disability Status (Contra Costa County) .................... A-4238 Table A-11 Employment Status by Disability Status (Pleasant Hill).................................. A-4339 Table A-12 Summary of Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions............................ A-6157 Table A-13 Units by TCAC Opportunity Areas ..................................................................... A-7669 Table A-14 Number of Units by Income Characteristics of Census Tract......................... A-7769 Table A-15 Number of Units by Demographics of Census Tract....................................... A-7970 Table A-16 Number of Units by Housing Need Factors of Census Tract.......................... A-8071 Table A-17 Sites inventory by Fair Housing Factors of Census Tracts ............................. A-8172 Figures
Figure A-1 Neighborhood Segregation, UC Berkeley, 2019 (Contra Costa County)......... A-1312 Figure A-2 Racial Demographics (Contra Costa County)................................................... A-1413 Figure A-3 Neighborhood Segregation, UC Berkeley, 2019 (Pleasant Hill)....................... A-1615 Figure A-4 Racial Demographics (Pleasant Hill) ................................................................ A-1716 Figure A-5 Median Household Income (Contra Costa County)......................................... A-2019 Figure A-6 Median Household Income (Pleasant Hill)....................................................... A-2120 Figure A-7 Low to Moderate Income Population (Contra Costa County)......................... A-2221 Figure A-8 Low to Moderate Income Population (Pleasant Hill)....................................... A-2322 Figure A-9 TCAC Area of High Segregation and Poverty and Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ("R/ECAPs").................................................... A-2523 Figure A-10 Persons with Disabilities (Contra Costa County)............................................. A-2925 Figure A-11 Persons with Disabilities (Pleasant Hill)........................................................... A-3026 Figure A-12 Percent of Children in Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner Present Households, (Contra Costa County) ................................................................. A-3329

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-4 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Figure A-13 Percent of Children in Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner Present Households, (Pleasant Hill) ............................................................................... A-3430 Figure A-14 Walkability Score, Contra Costa County ........................................................... A-3733 Figure A-15 Walkability Score, Pleasant Hill ......................................................................... A-3834 Figure A-16 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Outcomes (Contra Costa County) ..... A-4036 Figure A-17 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Outcomes (Contra Costa County) ..... A-4137 Figure A-18 TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic (Contra Costa County)........................ A-4440 Figure A-19 TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic (Pleasant Hill)...................................... A-4541 Figure A-20 Jobs Proximity Index, 2014-2017 (Contra Costa County)............................... A-4642 Figure A-21 Jobs Proximity Index, 2014-2017 (Pleasant Hill)............................................. A-4743 Figure A-22 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Contra Costa County)..................................................... A-4945 Figure A-23 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Pleasant Hill) .................................................................. A-5046 Figure A-24 Overpayment by Homeowners (Contra Costa County) ................................... A-5147 Figure A-25 Overpayment by Renters (Contra Costa County)............................................. A-5248 Figure A-26 Overpayment by Homeowner (Pleasant Hill) ................................................... A-5349 Figure A-27 Overpayment by Renters (Pleasant Hill)........................................................... A-5450 Figure A-28 Overcrowding (Contra Costa County)............................................................... A-5551 Figure A-29 Overcrowding (Pleasant Hill)............................................................................. A-5652 Figure A-30 Sensitive Communities (Contra Costa County)................................................ A-5955 Figure A-31 Sensitive Communities (Pleasant Hill) ............................................................. A-6056 Figure A-32 Housing Choice Vochers as a Precent of Renter-Occupied Units, by Census Tract .................................................................................................................... A-7265 Figure A-33 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Category .............................................. A-7467 Figure A-34 Census Tracts..................................................................................................... A-7668

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-5

1.1 Introduction And Overview of AB 686
In January 2017, Assembly Bill (AB) 686 introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing into California state law. AB 686 redefined
meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The bill added an assessment of fair housing to Housing Element requirements, which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the C an analysis of
segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities; an assessment of contributing factors; and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.

1.2 Analysis of Impediments Findings
Recipients of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development must prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years. This analysis is an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing ng and provides solutions and measures that will be
pursued to mitigate or remove identified impediments.

The 2020-2025 Contra Costa Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) provides indepth looks at a number of areas relevant to fair housing, including: demographic trends and characteristics; patterns of segregation and integration; identification of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs); disproportionate housing needs (including cost burden and the adequacy and safety of housing); disparities in access to opportunity (education, employment, low poverty exposure, and environmental health); disabilities and access; publicly-supported housing; and fair housing enforcement, outreach, and capacity. In addition to data, maps, and policy analysis, it its data and analyses (including community input) provide the foundation for meaningful fair housing goals that address specific local issues.

The AI identifies the following impediments to fair housing in Contra Costa County (region):

Segregation in the county, the Bay Area, and the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek is primarily an inter-jurisdictional rather than an intra-jurisdictional phenomenon (that is, it is more apparent when comparing various jurisdictions rather than within the jurisdictions).

Using an expanded definition of Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) based on local knowledge that includes all census tracts that meet the racial/ethnic composition threshold and have a poverty rate of 25 percent or more, the AI identifies R/ECAPs in Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Concord.

Hispanic and Black residents face particularly severe housing problems. These housing burdens are greatest in portions of Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Hercules, Concord, Martinez, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley.

There are significant disparities in the rates of renter and owner-occupied housing by race/ethnicity in Contra Costa County, although Antioch and Pittsburg have significantly higher homeownership rates by Hispanic and Black residents than in the county as a whole.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-6 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Access to opportunity is highest for non-Hispanic whites in Contra Costa County. The various report measurements show that county neighborhoods with the most whites have the most access to opportunity. Access to opportunity is lowest for non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics.

The various report measurements show that census tracts with the highest numbers of Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest scores in the categories that measure access to opportunity.

Access to opportunity is lowest in western and north-eastern sections of the County, specifically in the cities of Richmond, Pittsburg, and in Antioch. Access is highest in central Contra Costa County, including Walnut Creek, Danville, Alamo, San Ramon, Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga.

The amount of affordable, accessible housing across the region, the county, and cities within Contra Costa County is insufficient to meet the total need among low-income persons with disabilities who need accessibility features.

Private discrimination is a significant contributing factor in Contra Costa County.

1.3 Analysis of Fair Housing
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires the City of Pleasant Hill to analyze areas of segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. These areas of impediment are analyzed below.

Resources
To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including the California Department of Housi
Project (UDP), CalEnviroscreen, and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).

Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group- and tract-level data from an expansive collection of sources including American Community Surveys (ACS), U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), Urban Displacement Project (UDP), and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS).

The Data Viewer serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing.

The Data Viewer is intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination and increase access to safe and affordable homes.

Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
The UDP was developed as a research initiative by the University of California, Berkeley in partnership with the University of California, Los Angeles. The UDP developed a mapping tool to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts qualifying as disadvantaged neighborhoods -educated
residents, non-Hispanic white population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-7
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. This tool is called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). CalEnviroScreen utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, the higher the score, the more impacted a community is by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities. Designated disadvantaged communities under Senate Bill (SB) 535 (2012) are those communities that scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California (CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher).

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
To assist in the analysis of integration and segregation in the context of race and income status, HCD -based policy
recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains (economic, environmental and education) with each including a set of indicators. Table A-1
to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:

Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line Racial Segregation: Tracts with a higher percentage of for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all people of color in comparison to the County
Table A-1 TCAC Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, Adult Education, Employment, Job Proximity, Median Home Value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values Education Math Proficiency, Reading Proficiency, High School Graduation Rates, Student Poverty Rates 2020 Contra Costa County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice As described above, the Contra Costa County Regional AI is a countywide effort to increase fair housing choices for residents across the county, developed by a regional collaborative with the County of Contra Costa as lead agency. The City of Pleasant Hill is a participating agency in this regional collaborative. The AI addresses fair housing issues on a countywide level and in each jurisdiction. The AI provides an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing remove identified impediments.

AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that explores data related to transit opportunity. The AllTransit performance score evaluates the social and economic impact of transit on a community, using metrics such as connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-8 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Community Engagement and Outreach
The following section summarizes the various methods of community engagement the City used as part of the Housing Element Update. The engagement program included branding, a project website, newsletters and e-blasts, announcements on the City website and social media, a workshop and a town hall meeting, General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings, and Planning Commission and City Council study sessions and hearings. For more information see Chapter 1: Introduction, and Appendix C.

The City created and maintained a website for the 2040 General Plan Update with a webpage dedicated to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Project documents were posted to the website, comments were encouraged through the provided "Comments" button on each page, and visitors were given a link to sign up to receive email updates. The City sent multiple email notifications (e-blasts) to announce upcoming events and the release of project-related documents.

The City held five public meetings, a public workshop, and a town hall meeting to discuss the Housing Element Update. The City received numerous comments as a result of these meeting which informed the housing element process including the selection of housing opportunity sites. A full list of these comments is available in Appendix C.

1.4 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
This analysis of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity evaluates the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and e
rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.

Regional Trends
governments, from discriminating in housing development and all actions related to the provision of housing based on a wide variety of characteristics including sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, familial status, disability, or genetic information. Contra Costa County does not have an ordinance on fair housing. Of the incorporated cities within the county, only Concord has a comprehensive fair housing ordinance. Richmond has a housing ordinance that specifically prohibits discrimination based on past criminal conviction. Walnut Creek has a reasonable accommodation ordinance requiring that people with disabilities have equal access to housing.

Several organizations provide fair housing services in Contra Costa County. ECHO Housing conducts fair housing testing and provides counseling, mediation, and education in Antioch, Concord, Walnut Creek, the other cities in the County (except Pittsburg) and unincorporated Contra Costa County. Bay Area Legal Aid also works to eliminate housing discrimination through education, outreach, and enforcement throughout Contra Costa County while Pacific Community Services works in Pittsburg.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-9
Table A-2 Organizations Active in Contra Costa County
Organization Services
ECHO Housing Housing counseling, fair housing services, tenant/landlord services, rent review/eviction harassment program, fair housing investigations.

Pacific Community
Services
Fair housing pre-purchase education workshops, mortgage delinquency and default resolution counseling, rental housing counseling, and pre-purchase counseling for homebuyers Bay Area Legal Aid Civil legal advice, counsel, and representation to low-income individuals Source: Contra Costa County Regional AI, 2019
In 2021, there were a total of seven Fair Housing Equal Opportunity (FHEO) cases filed with HUD per 100,000 individuals residing in the county. Of these cases, four of every 100,000 individuals were cases of disability bias, one of every 100,000 individuals was a case of familial status bias, and one of every 100,000 individuals was a case of racial bias.

Local Trends
The City of Pleasant Hill is served by the Contra Costa County Housing Services Collaborative (Collaborative), which brings together the expertise of two housing service providers: Bay Area Legal Aid and ECHO Housing to provide fair housing and tenant/landlord services, including fair housing counseling and education and tenant/landlord counseling and mediation. The Collaborative provides counseling on issues such as security deposits; repairs; understanding lease terms; eviction for nonpayment of rent or alleged tenant misconduct; and obtaining rent payment assistance, including Section 8 vouchers. The Collaborative also offers a number of fair housing services, including investigating housing discrimination complaints, counselling individuals regarding their rights, responsibilities and options, and providing mediation, advocacy, and legal referrals. The Collaborative offers education and outreach to residents and staff of community-based organizations.

Bay Area Legal Aid provides legal aid to individuals facing discrimination in housing on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, family status or other protected classes. Bay Area Legal Aid also protect families from illegal evictions, including eviction after foreclosure, substandard housing conditions, and wrongful denials and terminations of housing subsidies. The practice also works to preserve and expand affordable housing and protect families from foreclosure rescue scams.

ECHO
reports of housing discrimination complaints, performs audit-based investigations to determine degrees of housing discrimination existing in designated areas, and provides fair housing education for Counseling Program provides information to tenants and landlords in Southern Alameda County on their housing rights and responsibilities. Additionally, ECHO has trained mediators to assist in resolving housing disputes through conciliation and mediation. The primary objective of the program is to build awareness of housing laws and prevent homelessness.

The City has local ordinances that comply with existing fair housing laws and regulations. Chapter individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in regulations and procedures to ensure equal access to housing, and to facilitate the development of housing.

The City complies with all existing fair housing laws and regulations and is not subject to findings, lawsuits, or judgements related to enforcement actions regarding fair housing.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-10 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
According to the AFFH Viewer, between 2013 and 2021, there were a total of eight Fair Housing Equal Opportunity (FHEO) cases filed with HUD, for a rate of 0.23 inquiries per 1,000 people. Of these cases, one was on the basis of disability bias, and the remaining cases did not provide a basis. The City has reached out to ECHO to investigate these cases further, however no additional data is available at this time. The City will continue to investigate these and future cases throughout the planning period.

1.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics.

Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This can include two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20 percent Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80 percent Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.

City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.

Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments.1 Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.

Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety.2 This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates.3
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and 1 Rothstein 2017
2 Trounstine 2015
3 Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-11
where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).

ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.

To adequately assess the patterns of integration and segregation, this section identifies trends at the regional scale (Contra Costa County) and at the local scale (Pleasant Hill). To identify socio-economic and demographic spatial trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis ut Viewer, which provides an expansive collection of data from sources including the 2015-2019 ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other regional and federal agencies. In its AFFH guidance document published in April 2021, HCD describes the importance of segregation and integration analysis in relation to fair housing:

Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race, ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, practices, and procedures both public and private that have had enduring and pervasive negative impacts. Overt and covert housing discrimination through land use policy, shifting housing markets, and patterns of investment and disinvestment, have restricted meaningful fair housing choice and equitable access to opportunity, particularly for communities of color. Historic patterns of segregation persist in California despite the longstanding federal mandate, established by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further the purposes of the FHA.

Past and present discriminatory policies and practices, including long-term disinvestment, have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock, limited access to opportunity, unsafe environmental conditions, underfunded schools, dilapidated infrastructure, and other disproportionately experienced problems. In addition, governmental policies have subsidized the development of segregated, high-resourced suburbs in metropolitan areas by constructing new highway systems often through lower income communities of color to ensure access to job opportunities in urban centers. This physical and policy infrastructure supports patterns of discrimination and high levels of segregation that continue to persist in California and across the country. All of these conditions persist despite the over 50-year-old obligation to prohibit discrimination and affirmatively further fair housing.4 For persons with disabilities, as explored below in Disability and Access, segregation also includes residents in congregate and/or institutional facilities that allow for limited interaction with people who do not have disabilities, regardless of where those dwellings are located. Integration, by contrast, consists of both relative dispersion or lack of concentration of protected class members and, for persons with disabilities, residence in settings like permanent supportive housing that provide opportunities for interaction with persons who do not have disabilities. As the passage of the Fair Housing Act by Congress in 1968 was, in large measure, a response to pervasive patterns of residential segregation to which government action contributed significantly, segregation and integration are essential topics in any fair housing planning process.5 4 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 5 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6-11-19

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-12 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Race and Ethnicity
Historic exclusionary governmental policies, biased mortgage lending practices, and other tactics have caused racial and ethnic segregation and spatial inequities. The ethnic6 and racial7 composition of a region can correlate to other demographic characteristics that can affect access to opportunity. The existence of concentrations of minorities living in one location may be an indicator that some minority groups in Pleasant Hill do not have as many housing choices as nonminority residents.

Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates (Table A-3), white8residents comprised the largest racial/ethnic group in Contra Costa County followed by Hispanic or Latino residents, and then Asian residents. Within Contra Costa County, segregation exists both within individual cities and between cities. The City of Concord is an example of a city with intra-city segregation: non-white residents make up over 95 percent of residents in census tracts on the west side, compared to around 30 to 40 percent in census tracts located in central Concord.

Figure A-1 highlights neighborhood segregation by a single racial group or by two to four group mixes.

There is a stark contrast between communities in the eastern and western parts of the county with high Black and Hispanic populations concentrated in cities such Antioch, Pittsburg, and Richmond, and white residents concentrated in the central parts of the county.

Figure A-2 highlights segregation by showing the percentage of the non-white population by block group in Contra Costa County. High percentages of non-white populations are concentrated in east and west county, and high percentages of white populations concentrated in central and south county. Two of the most racially segregated white neighborhoods in the entire Bay Area are located in Walnut Creek, which is 63 percent white.

There are also high concentrations of white residents in Martinez (69 percent white) and Lafayette (77 percent white). Along with these three cities, the communities of Clayton, Danville, Moraga, Pleasant Hill, and Orinda are also segregated, majority white cities. 9 6 Ethnicity determines whether a person is of Hispanic origin or not. For this reason, ethnicity is broken out in two categories, Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics may report as any race. 7 -identification with one or more social groups. An individual can report as white, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or some other race. Survey respondents may report multiple races.
8 The data sets used in this report include slightly varying definitions for racial and ethnic categories. This report uses the following definitions:

White: Non-Hispanic White
Latinx: Ethnically Hispanic or Latino of any race
Black: Non-Hispanic Black or African American
Asian: Non-Hispanic Asian
People of Color (POC): All who are not non9 Segregation in the Bay Area Part 1, 2021, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-1

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-13
Table A-3 Contra Costa County and Pleasant Hill Demographics, 2019 5-year Estimates Race/Ethnicity
County
Population
Percent County
Population
Pleasant Hill
Population
Percent Pleasant
Hill Population
White (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) 637,904 55.8 25,600 73.5 Non-Hispanic white 500,592 43.8 22,448 64.4
Black or African American 99,642 8.7 896 2.6
American Indian 5,506 0.5 62 0.2
Asian 190,983 16.7 4,285 12.3
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander
5,631 0.5 265 0.8
Some other race 124,629 10.9 1,389 4.0
Two or more races 77,956 6.8 2,343 6.7
Hispanic or Latino 292,298 25.6 5,102 14.6
Total Population 1,142,251 100% 34,840 100%
Source: 2019: ACS 5-year Estimates, Demographic and Housing Estimates, Table DP05

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-14 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Dissimilarity and Isolation Indices
The Dissimilarity and Isolation indices, developed at the University of Chicago, are methods of measuring segregation. The Dissimilarity Index measures whether one particular group is distributed across census tracts in the metropolitan area in the same way as another group. The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (e.g., they tend to live in different neighborhoods). A high value indicates that the two groups tend to live in different tracts. A value of 0.6 (or above) is considered very high. It means that 60 percent (or more) of the members of one group would need to move to a different tract in order for the two groups to be equally distributed. Values of 0.4 or 0.5 are usually considered a moderate level of segregation, and values of

0.3 or below are considered fairly low.10
As measured by the Dissimilarity Index, Black residents face the highest levels of segregation of any racial or ethnic group in both the county and the region. Hispanics are the next most segregated group, followed by Asian or Pacific Islanders. While levels of Black-white segregation are above thresholds that social scientists would consider high segregation, index levels for Hispanics and Asians and Pacific Islanders suggest moderate segregation. The lower level of segregation for Asians and Pacific Islanders in the County than in the region is consistent with the relatively smaller concentration of 10 https://s4.ad.brown.edu/projects/diversity/index.htm

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-15
Asian or Pacific Islander residents in the county than in the region. In general, less populous groups tend to face lower levels of segregation.

Table A-4 Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill Race/Ethnicity
Pleasant Hill Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.195 0.234 0.196 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.271* 0.293* 0.312* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.118 0.141 0.126 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.147 0.177 0.148 0.168
Source: Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022.11 index of 0.610 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is

61.0% white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Pleasant Hill for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table A-5 below. Among all racial groups in this segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

Table A-5 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill Race/Ethnicity
Pleasant Hill Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.104 0.157 0.174 0.245
Black/African American 0.020 0.025 0.033 0.053
Latinx 0.087 0.127 0.147 0.251
White 0.777 0.702 0.610 0.491
Source: Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022.12 Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates (Table A-3), white residents comprised the largest racial/ethnic group, at 64.4 percent of the population. This is approximately 20 percent higher than County as a whole, indicating an exclusion of non-white individuals. Hispanic residents follow as the second most prevalent residents at 14.6 percent, and Asian residents make up 12.3 percent of Pleasant Hill.

Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Pleasant Hill identifying as white has decreased and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased by 14.8 percentage points. In absolute terms, the Hispanic or Latino population increased the most while the white, non-Hispanic population decreased the most.

Within the city, segregation exists between census tracts (Figure A-3). In every census tract, the population is predominantly white, ranging from 47 to 80 percent. However, various census tracts are identified as mixnorthern area of the city, as well as a small portion of the eastern area of the city, the population is 11 Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022. Accessed:
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/file/927857388028 12 Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022. Accessed:
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/file/927857388028

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-16 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
identified as a mix of Asian, Hispanic, and white residents. Centrally, the population is identified as predominantly Hispanic and white.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-17
Dissimilarity, Isolation, and Exposure Indices
Table A-4 provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Pleasant Hill between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020). In Pleasant Hill, the highest segregation is between Black and white residents (see Table A-4). Pleasant percent of Black (or white) residents
would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and white residents. However, it should be noted that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size.

According to the Isolation Index, the most isolated racial group in Pleasant Hill is white residents.

Pleasan
in a neighborhood that is 61 percent white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Pleasant Hill for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table A-5. Among all racial groups
becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-18 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in low-income households must have actual choice in housing opportunities that is, when they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.

This section identifies household income disparities using data based on median household income and low- or moderate-income (LMI) geographies. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI, which means up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), as defined by HUD.13 Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, the median household income in Contra Costa County was $99,716. Figure A-5 shows the median household income by block group for Contra Costa County using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Lower-income block groups are generally concentrated in the northwest, east areas of the county and in Concord. LMI populations by block group for Contra Costa County are displayed in Figure A-7. Census tracts within the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, Martinez, Concord, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Concord contain the highest LMI populations in Contra Costa County. LMI populations are in communities that had a relatively greater percentage of children living in singleparent, female-headed households (Figure A-14Figure A-12) and a higher percentage of non-white population (Figure A-2).

The Bay Area has lower levels of income segregation compared to Pleasant Hill, according to the Isolation Index. Above moderate-income residents are the most segregated, receiving a score of 0.507.

This means that the average above moderate-income individual lives in a census tract that is 50.7 percent above moderate-income. However, according to the Dissimilarity index, the Bay Area has higher rates of segregation between groups below 50 percent of the AMI and above 120 percent of the AMI compared to Pleasant Hill (Table A-6). This may be because there is a higher percentage of lower income individuals in the Bay Area region than in Pleasant Hill. 13 HUD Exchange 2021: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-19
Table A-6 Neighborhood Income Segregation
Race/Ethnicity
Pleasant Hill Bay Area
2010 2015 2020
Isolation Very Low Income 0.193 0.234 0.269
Low Income 0.149 0.157 0.145
Moderate Income 0.181 0.184 0.183
Above Moderate Income 0.573 0.520 0.507
Dissimilarity Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.253 0.180 0.198 Below 50% AMI vs Above 120% AMI 0.279 0.192 0.253
-Racial All 0.041 0.040 0.043
Source: Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022.14 Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, the median household income in Pleasant Hill is higher than the county, at $140,121. Figure A-6 shows the median household income by block group for Pleasant Hill. Within Pleasant Hill, median household income varies greatly by block group. Generally, western and central Pleasant Hill are higher income, with block group median income ranging from $91,930 to $190,000. Lower income households are concentrated in southern Pleasant Hill, with block group median income ranging from $54,214 to $80,515.

LMI populations by block group for Contra Costa County are displayed in Figure A-8. The block groups with the highest LMI populations within Pleasant Hill are located in the northern and southern areas of the city. Notably, a northern block group with a proportionally higher median income ($97,892) compared to the rest of the city also has one of the highest LMI scores in the city (54 percent). This may indicate that income segregation happens at a smaller scale than block groups. LMI populations are also in communities that had a relatively greater percentage of children living in single-parent, female-headed households (Figure A-15Figure A-13) and a higher percentage of non-white population (Figure A-4).
14 Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022. Accessed:
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/file/927857388028

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-20 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-21

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-22 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-23
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) R/ECAPs are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations.15 HUD has developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAPs. In terms of racial or ethnic concentration, R/ECAPs are defined as census tracts with a non-white population of 50 percent or more of the population belonging to a given racial or ethnic group. With regard to poverty, R/ECAPs are census tracts in which 40 percent or more of individuals are living at or below the poverty limit or that have a poverty rate three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.16 Identifying R/ECAPs facilitates understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty.

Regional Trends
There is only one area within Contra Costa County that meets criteria for R/ECAPs. It is located in the Monument Corridor area of Concord. However, according to the countywide AI, the current R/ECAP criteria are not well-suited to this area because they use the national poverty rate. Due to the high cost of living in the San Francisco Bay Area, use of the national poverty rate severely 15 Office of the Secretary, HUD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, Sections 5.160 through 5.180 appear at 80 FR 42363, July 2015, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title24-vol1/pdf/CFR-2016-title24-vol1-sec5- 152.pdf. 16 133 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Open Data for R/ECAP Tract Current and Historic, https://hudgishud.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/56de4edea8264fe5a344da9811ef5d6e_0/explore?location=44.635862%2C58.263972%2C3.90

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-24 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
underestimates whether an individual is living in poverty. The AI expands the definition of R/ECAPs to include majority-minority census tracts that have poverty rates of 25 percent or more. Using those criteria, 12 census tracts in the county qualify as R/ECAPs.

The twelve identified R/ECAPs are located in the areas of Antioch, Bay Point, Concord, Pittsburg, North Richmond, Richmond, and San Pablo (Figure A-9). The cities of Richmond and Concord have the largest concentrations of census tracts living in poverty, with three each. As of the 2012-2016 ACS, 69,326 people lived in these R/ECAPs, or 6.3 percent of the c
Hispanics make up a disproportionately large percentage of residents who reside in R/ECAPs compared to the population of the county, comprising approximately 53 percent of all individuals living in R/ECAPs. Black residents also constitute a disproportionate percentage of R/ECAP residents in the c nine percent of the county population.

Local Trends
Using the both the definitions used in the AI and by HUD, there are no identified R/ECAPs located in Pleasant Hill.

Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
While R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed. RCAAs are defined as affluent, white communities.17 According to a policy paper published by HUD, white residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States, and majority-white communities are typically more affluent than majority non-white communities. RCAAs have not been studied extensively, nor has a standard definition been adopted by HCD or HUD. Therefore, this assessment uses the percent white population and median household income as thresholds to identify potential RCAAs. The threshold that HUD uses to define a RCAA is a census tract where 80 percent or more of the population is white, and has a median income of at least $125,000.18 In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to LMI areas.

Regional Trends
Figure A-10 highlights the areas identified as RCAAs in Contra Costa County, which encompass much of the central, western, and southern portion of the county as well as parts along the eastern boundary.

Most of the area identified as RCAAs is non-urbanized land located in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Additionally, the majority of several cities, including Danville, Alamo, Lafayette, and Clayton are classified as RCAAs. These areas have higher median incomes and higher concentrations of white residents compared to areas with lower median incomes such as Antioch and Bay Point.

Local Trends
Most of Pleasant Hill is classified as an RCAA, except for the southeastern portion, and northeastern tip. Similar to trends occurring in Contra Costa County, areas with higher median incomes are associated with a larger proportion of white residents compared to census tracts with lower median incomes. In general, western and central Pleasant Hill are higher income, have lower concentrations of LMI populations, and higher percentage of white residents compared to other areas of the city, as shown in Figure A-11.
17 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, 2019. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf 18 Ibid.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-25

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-26 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-27
Disabilities and Access
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and need specialized care, often relying on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

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

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity and homelessness, particularly when they lose aging caregivers.

State law requires housing elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities specifically. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-28 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and live with family members.

Regional Trends
According to the 2016 ACS, 60,768 residents of Contra Costa County have ambulatory19 disabilities, which represents 5.9 percent of the c
disabilities; and 1.9 percent have vision disabilities. People with ambulatory disabilities may not need a fully accessible unit, particularly if they do not use wheelchairs. They may require a unit on the ground floor or in an elevator building, perhaps with some architectural modifications. The regional and County averages for ambulatory difficulties are both lower than any of the surrounding areas, suggesting that people with ambulatory difficulties are more likely to live in large cities where they may have more resources available.

Approximately 20 percent (20.9 percent) of people with disabilities have incomes below the poverty line, as opposed to 13.1 percent of individuals without disabilities. Another indicator of disability and limited income are the number of people receiving SSI, which is limited to people with disabilities. In the county, 26,494 residents receive SSI which is such a small subsidy that all recipients are extremely low income.20 Not all SSI recipients have the types of disabilities that necessitate accessible units, but due to the typical income level of people with disabilities, the need for affordable housing is greater than it is among people without disabilities.

People with disabilities in the county tend to be concentrated in the areas of the greatest population density. These areas include the bayside metropolitan area around Richmond, the cities to the north along the San Joaquin River such as Antioch, and the communities that run through the center of the county like Concord and Walnut Creek. However, while there is a correlation between areas of population density and areas where people with disabilities live, the relationship is far less apparent than one might expect. A comparison of the hard data the conclusion that R/ECAPs in Contra Costa have higher concentrations of people with disabilities than the general population of the county or the region.

Local Trends
According to the 2019 ACS data, there are a total of 3,525 individuals with a disability in Pleasant Hill, approximately 10.2 percent of the population. Of the population with a disability, 234 individuals, or approximately six percent, have developmental disabilities. Of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 38.1 percent, while adults account for 61.9 percent.

As shown in Table A-7, the most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Pleasant Hill is the home of a parent, other family, or guardian. As shown in Figure A-12Figure A-10, households including individuals with disabilities are concentrated in the northernmost and southernmost areas of Pleasant Hill.
19 The
20 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments, Contra Costa County. Accessed: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/FinalBOS-Approved-AI-6-11-19

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-29
Table A-7 Population with Developmental Disability by Residence Residence Type Value
Home of Parent / Family / Guardian 155
Independent / Supported Living 63
Community Care Facility 11
Other 5
Foster / Family 5
Intermediate Care Facility 0

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-30 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 and the martial status of the head of the household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining child to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Households with children are protected by fair housing law.

A 2016 HUD study studied the effects of housing discrimination based on familial status. The study found that landlords presented households with children fewer housing options, and the units shown were generally larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.21 Additionally, female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

Regional Trends
Contra Costa County had 394,769 households in 2019. According to the 2015-2019 ACS estimates, households with children comprised 33.5 percent of the total households in Contra Costa County. 21 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-31
Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table A-8. Married couple families with children comprised the largest share of both owner- and renter-occupied households.

Single-parent, female headed households comprised approximately 2.7 percent of owner-occupied households and 12.2 percent of renter occupied homes. Of the 23,648 single-parent, female-headed households, 69.5 percent rented, and 30.5 percent owned their home.

Table A-8 Tenure by Household Type, Contra Costa County Household Type
Owner
Occupied
Percent of total
Owner-Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Percent Owner
Occupied
Total Households 260,244 100% 134,525 100%
Total Households with Children
Present
77,477 29.8% 54,827 40.8%
Married couple, with own children of
the householder under 18 years
66,588 25.6% 29,188 21.7%
Single-Parent, Male Household 3,674 1.4% 9,206 6.8%
Single-Parent, Female Household 7,215 2.7% 16,433 12.2% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.

As shown in Figure A-14Figure A-12, children living in female-headed households are concentrated in Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. Those communities are also areas of high combined Black and Hispanic population. By contrast, central county, and in particular the portions of central county to the south of the City of Concord, have relatively low concentrations of single mothers. These areas tend to be more heavily White or White and Asian and Pacific Islander communities.

Local Trends
Pleasant Hill had a total of 13,817 households in 2019. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, households with children comprised 27.5 percent of total households. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table A-9 and Figure A-15Figure A-13. Married couple families with children comprised the largest share of both owner- and renter-occupied households.

Compared to the county, single-parent, female-headed households comprised a smaller portion of total households in Pleasant Hill. Single-parent, female-headed households comprised approximately 3.4 percent of owner-occupied households and 5.8 percent of renter-occupied homes. Of the 582 singleparent, female-headed households, 48 percent rented, and 52 percent owned their home.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-32 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Table A-9 Tenure by Household Type, Pleasant Hill
Household Type
Owner
Occupied
Percent of total
Owner-Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Percent Owner
Occupied
Total Households 9,042 100% 4,775 100%
Total Households with Children Present 2,720 30% 1,086 22.7% Married couple, with own children of
the householder under 18 years
2,297 25.4% 669 14%
Single-Parent, Male Household 120 1.3% 138 2.9%
Single-Parent, Female Household 303 3.4% 279 5.8%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.

As shown in Figure A-14Figure A-12, in Pleasant Hill, children living in female-headed households are concentrated in the northern area of the city. Those communities are predominantly white. As shown in Figure A-3, however, these areas have a higher proportion of Hispanic and Asian community members then the rest of the city.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-33

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-34 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023

1.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
According to HCD guidance, land use policies and urban planning impact the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far-reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.22
This section analyzes the following place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators: quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment. The primary objective is to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.
22 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-35
Transit Access
Reliable public transit access and active transportation options, such as walking and biking, are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities and medical appointments. Lack of transportation options can impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for low-income communities in accessing housing and employment opportunities.

Regional Trends
Contra Costa County generally has widespread access to public transit, although it is less accessible than in the surrounding Bay Area region. According to AllTransit, 74.9 percent of households in Contra Costa County are within a half mile of transit.23 In terms of fixed-route transit, the county is served by AC Transit, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), County Connection, Tri Delta Transit, and WestCAT.

Programs offered by other organizations include three adjacent city-operated paratransit programs in West County, the Lamorinda Spirit Van, and
The participating jurisdictions in the county received an average AllTransit performance score of 5.024 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling few people to take transit to work.
25 Performance scores vary greatly across the County. Performance scores are generally highest in areas of cities with access to BART, which includes Richmond, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Martinez, and Antioch. Areas on the outskirts of cities generally have limited access to transit, as do the cities of Danville and San Ramon. According to AllTransit, 17.2 percent of households are underserved by transit, meaning there is a mismatch between the strength of the transit market and the quality of transit service available to the households of that community.

Eighty-two percent of jobs in the county are located within a half-mile of a transit stop. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Some residents with unique needs, such as households with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home due to childcare needs, access to schools, and other considerations.

Areas that have concentrations of people with disabilities generally have high AllTransit performance scores, with Lafayette being an exception. Proximity to public transit does not necessarily mean it is accessible, however. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority released the Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan in March of 2021.26 This plan identified the growing senior population as leading to an increase in demand for paratransit services.

Contra Costa County has a wide range of walkability. The National Walkability Index, developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is a nationwide geographic data resource that ranks block groups according to their relative walkability. The data is based on measures of the built environment that affect the probability of whether people walk as a mode of transportation: street intersection density, proximity to transit stops, and diversity of land uses.27 Areas in the county that are densely 23 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
24 AllTransit Performance Scores range from 1 to 9+, with 1 being the lowest score and 9+ being the highest. 25 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
26 Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, 2021. https://ccta.net/wpcontent/uploads/2021/05/d212e7_17065ead5e7a4124bf45a8401ff0e23a.pdf 27 National Walkability Index, Methodology and User Guide, Accessed: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 06/documents/national_walkability_index_methodology_and_user_guide_june2021.pdf

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-36 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
populated, such as Concord, Walnut Creek, and Richmond have high walkability, while more rural areas in the county receive lower walkability scores (Figure A-16Figure A-14).

Local Trends
According to AllTransit, 88.9 percent of households are located within a half-mile of transit.28 Pleasant Hill is serviced by the following transit systems and programs:

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART): BART is a heavy-rail public transit system that connects the San Francisco Peninsula with communities in the East Bay and South Bay. BART service currently extends as far as Millbrae, Richmond, Antioch, Dublin/Pleasanton, and Berryessa/North San José. BART operates in five counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara) with 131 miles of track and 50 stations, carrying approximately 405,000 trips on an average weekday (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). There is one station near Pleasant Hill, located just south of the city. BART, buses, Highway 680 and the Iron Horse pedestrian and bicycle trail all converge to make this one of BART's most easily accessed stations.

County Connection: provides fixed-route and paratransit bus service throughout the communities of Concord, Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Walnut Creek, Clayton, Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, San Ramon, as well as unincorporated communities in Central Contra Costa County.

Senior Van: The Senior Van Service is operated by the City of Pleasant Hill and provides an alternative means of travel for seniors run entirely by friendly, reliable, capable volunteers. The fare is $1.50 each way. Priority is given to seniors travelling to medical or dental appointments on certain days of the week.
511 Contra Costa: 511 Contra Costa has a variety of programs to assist individuals in riding public transit. Programs include Guaranteed Ride Home, which reimburses individuals for rides home during unexpected emergencies, and e-bike rebates. Youth programs include Pass2Class, which provides free transit to students riding to school and Summer Youth Pass, which provides discounted rides over the summer.

Pleasant Hill receives an average AllTransit performance score of 5.2, which equates to a moderate combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling moderate number of people to take transit to work. Performance score in Pleasant Hill varies greatly by location. The southeast area of Pleasant Hill as well as the northeast area receives the highest performance score. The northwest area of the city, where bus service is reduced, receives the lowest performance score. According to AllTransit, 52.8 percent of households are underserved by transit. While the overall performance score in the city is higher than the county, there are significantly more households in Pleasant Hill that are underserved by transit. This indicates a higher disparity in transit access within the city of Pleasant Hill.

Areas with concentrations of individuals with disabilities (Figure A-12Figure A-10) vary in terms of transit access. There is a higher concentration of individuals in the southern area of the city, which has a high AllTransit performance score. The northern area of Pleasant Hill also has a higher concentration of individuals with disabilities but receives a lower AllTransit performance score. The Senior Van and the County Connection LINK program provide transportation services to seniors and individuals with disabilities.

Generally, Pleasant Hill receives high walkability scores (Figure A-17Figure A-15), however two census tracts receive below average scores. These census tracts are located in the northern and southwesters area of the city.
28 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-37

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-38 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Access to Quality Education
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.29 Therefore, educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. To assess educational opportunities by geography, this analysis uses California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) education domain scores, which incorporates math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates at the census tract level.

The TCAC opportunity maps help to identify patterns of negative and positive economic, educational, and environmental outcomes across the state. Census tracts are ranked from low (negative outcomes) Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Contra Costa County in 2021 is illustrated in Figure A18Figure A-16. Educational attainment varied geographically, with lower outcome scores concentrated in jurisdictions on the outskirts of the county, and higher outcome scores concentrated central Contra Costa County jurisdictions. The disparities in access mirror the patterns of racial segregation in the county. Areas that received a higher education score generally line up with areas that have a higher 29 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-39
percentage of white and Asian individuals. Areas receiving low education scores are generally located in areas with a higher percentage of Black and Hispanic residents.

According to kidsdata.org, a data compilation program from the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, graduation rates in Contra Costa County vary by race. As of 2020, Asian students have the highest graduation rate at 96.4 percent, closely followed by white students at 93.1 percent.

Black students have the lowest graduation rate at 78.8 percent. The high school graduation rate across all populations is 88.7 percent.

The HUD School Proficiency Index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating the presence of higher quality neighborhoods schools. In California, the HUD School Proficiency Index uses data from the Great Schools 2013-14 dataset. While the index is initially computed for census block groups, HUD also estimates the index for protected classes at the jurisdiction level. The HUD School Proficiency Index relies on the geographic proximity of local schools to persons residing in the designated census block groups. These are not necessarily the same schools that individual children are assigned to (the HUD index does not use actual school assignment zones), but since all the school districts in Contra Costa County primarily assign children to their neighborhood schools, the HUD index serves as a good proxy.

Overall, there is considerable divergence across racial and ethnic groups in neighborhood access to high-performing elementary schools. The elementary schools to which Black and Hispanic students have access are lower performing than those of all other racial groups. By contrast, schools attended by non-Hispanic whites are the highest-performing, followed closely by Asian/Pacific Islanders. Similar results are evident at the regional level.30
Local Trends
The city of Pleasant Hill is served by Mount Diablo Unified School District, which has 31 elementary schools, nine middle schools, and five high schools. Mount Diablo also has 16 alternate schools and programs, as well as two adult education centers. The district boundaries include Pleasant Hill, Concord, Bay Point, and unincorporated Contra Costa County south of Concord. Pleasant Hill students generally attend one of seven elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school.31 According to kidsdata.org, the Mount Diablo Uni

42.8 percent Hispanic/Latino, 29.5 percent white, 7.8 percent Asian American, 7.7 percent multiracial,

4.6 percent Filipino, 3.3 percent African American/Black, 0.6 percent Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 0.1 percent American Indian/Alaskan Native. Compared to the region, there is a slightly higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino students and slightly lower percentage Asian American students. The high school graduation rate for Mount Diablo Unified is slightly lower than the County, at 86.4 percent.

Data on suspensions by race and ethnicity show disproportionately high percentages of African American/Black (128.6 students per 1,000), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (80.8 students per 1,000), and Hispanic/Latino students (51.3 students per 1,000) compared to white (31.4 students per 1,000) and Asian American (14.1 students per 1,000) students. Suspensions also disproportionately impact students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, with 70.3 students per 1,000 Suspensions compared to 20.9. and expulsions disproportionately affect children of color (particularly African 30 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6- 11-19
31 Mt Diablo Unified School District, Our Schools. https://mdusdca.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2/view_page?d=x&group_id=1397285363646&vdid=iie4a1krm82y6cy

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-40 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
American/black and American Indian/Alaska Native students), those with disabilities, and LGBTQ youth.32
As shown in Figure A-18Figure A-16, education outcomes vary slightly within Pleasant Hill. Education scores are slightly higher in the southern area of the city. 32 Students Suspended from School, by Race/Ethnicity. 2019-2019.Kidsdata.org

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-41
Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations to direct funding for housing and transportation equity. 33 The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

Regional Trends
Economic outcomes vary across Contra Costa County, as shown in Figure A-20Figure A-18. Areas identified with more positive economic outcomes are located in cities such as San Ramon, Danville, 33 MTC, 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-42 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Moraga, Lafayette, and Walnut Creek. Conversely, cities on the outskirts of Contra Costa County, such as Richmond, San Pablo, Concord, and Antioch have large concentrations of less positive outcomes.

According to ACS data,34 64.9 percent of the population over 16 is in the labor force.35 Table A-10 shows employment status by disability estimates for ACS 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. The total number of individuals in the workforce increased from 2014 to 2019. Over time, the portion of employed individuals that have a disability increased marginally by 0.7 percent, while the portion of individuals that were unemployed and had a disability increased by 3.6 percent.

Formerly incarcerated people face disproportionately high barriers to employment. Nearly all of the top employers in the county ask applicants on their initial application whether they have been convicted of a felony. In a study done by the Safe Return Project, a Richmond-based research and action initiative aimed at improving community reintegration after incarceration, one in three respondents to a survey of formerly incarcerated residents in west Contra Costa County had worked since being released from prison. At the time of the survey, 78 percent of the respondents were unemployed, an unemployment rate that is nearly seven times that of the state of California. 36 Table A-10 Employment Status by Disability Status (Contra Costa County) Household Type
Employed
2010-2014
Unemployed
2010-2014
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015-2019
Total in Labor Force 489,476 (100%) 41,590 (100%) 521,656 (100%) 28,980 (100%) With a Disability 20,831(4.3%) 3,829 (9.2%) 25,970 (5%) 3,704 (12.8%) Without a Disability 468,645 (95.7%) 37,761(90.8%) 495,686 (95%) 25,276 (87.21%) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010-2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.

Local Trends
Economic outcomes vary geographically within Pleasant Hill, as shown by Figure A-21Figure A-19. The northwest area near Ridgeview Open Space and the neighborhoods east of the Sinclair Freeway receive more positive economic scores, while the remainder of the city receives less positive economic outcomes. Two of the four census tracts receiving the less positive economic scores are also the census tracts that are predominantly a Hispanic-white mix (Figure A-3). The two census tracts receiving the more positive economic outcome score are predominantly Asian-white-Hispanic mix.

According to 2015 to 2019 ACS five-year estimates, 66 percent of the population over 16 was in the labor force in 2019, totaling to 19,115 individuals.37 Of the population aged 16 and over, 63.3 percent were employed, 2.6 percent were unemployed, and 34 percent were not in the labor force. Table A-11 shows employment status by disability status in Pleasant Hill in 2014 and 2019. The total number of individuals in the workforce increased from 2014 to 2019. Over time, the portion of employed 34 2019 5-year Estimates, DP03, Selected Economic Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP03&g=0500000US06013&tid=ACSDP1Y2019.DP03 35 The labor force includes all people aged 16 and older who are classified as either employed or unemployed. People waiting to start a new job must have actively looked for a job within the last 4 weeks in order to be classified as unemployed. Otherwise, they are classified as not in the labor force
36 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6- 11-19
37 2019 5-year Estimates, DP03, Selected Economic Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP03&g=0500000US06013&tid=ACSDP1Y2019.DP03

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-43
individuals that have a disability increased marginally by 0.7 percent, while the portion of individuals that were unemployed and had a disability increased by two percent.

Table A-11 Employment Status by Disability Status (Pleasant Hill) Household Type
Employed
2010-2014
Unemployed
2010-2014
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015-2019
Total in Labor Force 15,851 (100%) 1,192 (100%) 17,129 (100%) 687 (100%) With a Disability 687 (4.3%) 107 (9.2%) 842 (5%) 77 (11.2%) Without a Disability 15,164 (95.7%) 1,085 (90.8%) 16,287 (95%) 610 (90.8%) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010-2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.

Access to employment opportunities has a significant impact on the type and size of housing a household can afford. -destination employment statistics to examine the distance from a given neighborhood to all job locations in the San Francisco Bay Area and assess the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. Because the size of employment centers and the supply of labor differ across the San Francisco Bay Area, the distance from any single job location is positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location.38 Accessibility in Pleasant Hill varies by location, as shown in Figure A-23Figure A-21. Areas with closest proximity to jobs are in the western and eastern part of the city. Generally, the majority of the areas zoned Residential Business, Commercial, and Professional and Administrative Office are located on the northeast side. Areas with the furthest proximity are in the western side of the city. 38HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-44 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-45

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-46 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-47
Healthy Environment
Assessment of a healthy environment examines patterns in the environmental and health-related disparities found in different neighborhoods and among protected classes. These disparities can include air quality, water quality, safe neighborhood, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws AB 1550 (2016), SB 535 (2012) and SB 1000 (2016) emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental justice, according to HUD, means ensuring that the environment and human health are protected fairly for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, and considering how federally assisted projects may have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations.39 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Residents in census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores (shown as percentages) are more burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects.

Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Contra Costa County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure A-24Figure A-22 and Figure A-25Figure A-23 show that 39 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-48 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
generally, the urbanized outskirts of the county, particularly Richmond, San Pablo, Pittsburg, and Antioch experience the highest pollution burdens.

Environmental justice concerns are especially high in Richmond and neighboring areas of west County.

Richmond is surrounded by oil refineries, chemical plants, superfund sites, highways, rail yards, and ports which contribute to pollution. Residents of Richmond are also exposed to a wide array of industrial contaminants including benzene and mercury. Pollution likely contributes to higher risks of death from heart disease and stroke and greater rates of hospitalization due to asthma in Richmond.

North Richmond, an unincorporated part of the county, is located near the Chevron refinery and other hazards. The community is predominantly populated by low-income people of color and is one of the most affordable parts of the Bay Area but suffers from high poverty and a lack of services. North Richmond may suffer from disinvestment and depressed housing prices due to its reputation as a community that is exposed to greater environmental hazards. 40 Local Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Pleasant Hill identifies scores relatively high in the Toxic Releases from Facilities indicator, likely due to facilities located in nearby Martinez. According to the Toxic Release Inventory, developed by the EPA, these facilities include the Martinez Refining Company, Central Concrete Supply Company, Shell Chemical LP - Martinez Catalyst Plant, Eco Services Operations Corporation, and Air Products and Chemicals Incorporated.41 The Traffic Impacts indicator is high along Interstate 680. The eastern area in Pleasant Hill scores high in the Cleanup Sites indicator, likely due to the cleanup sites located in close proximity in Concord. Central Pleasant Hill scores in the 80- 90th percentile for groundwater threats due to the groundwater threats located on Contra Costa Boulevard. North Pleasant Hill is in the 73rd percentile for hazardous waste. There are multiple hazardous waste generators in central Pleasant Hill, located along Contra Costa Boulevard.

The area with the highest pollution burden in the city is located along Contra Costa Boulevard and extends into the eastern central area of the city. This area is comprised of 43.98 percent non-white individuals, one of the highest concentrations of people of color in the city. 40 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6- 11-19
41 Toxic Release Inventory. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 2022: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-49

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-50 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023

1.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs in Pleasant Hill, this section reviews data on housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.

Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is
costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered cost burdened, and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems. Housing problems are households that has

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-51
one or more of the following problems: lacks a complete kitchen facility, lacks complete plumbing facility, a household that is overcrowded, or a household that is cost burdened.

Regional Trends
Figure A-26Figure A-24 shows areas of Contra Costa County where homeowners experienced housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of their income on mortgage). As shown, overpayment is most prevalent in the Richmond and Danville, with high rates in Pittsburgh, Antioch, Brentwood, and San Ramon. Figure A-27Figure A-25 shows the housing cost burden amongst renters (spending over 30 percent of income on rent). There are more concentrations of renter households experiencing cost burden than homeowners. Renter cost burden is most common in the Camino Tassajara area, with additional concentrations in Richmond, Martinez, Concord, and Antioch.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-52 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Local Trends
Figure A-28Figure A-26 shows the rate of homeowner overpayment in Pleasant Hill. Homeowners in the northernmost area of the city experience the highest rates of cost burden. Renters experience significantly higher rates of housing cost burden compared to homeowners. Figure A-29Figure A-27 shows the concentrations of renters who experience housing cost burden. High rates of renters experiencing cost burden are concentrated in the southern area of the city, with high rates centrally as well.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-53

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-54 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Large families generally have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms, resulting in overcrowding.

Some households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding is reflective of various living situations: housing unit is ; the necessity or desire to have extended family
members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families share a single housing unit.

Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes. As a result, some landlords or apartment managers may be more hesitant to rent to larger households, thus making access to

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-55
adequate housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with higher proportion of overcrowding.

Regional Trends
Figure A-30Figure A-28 shows the rates of overcrowding in Contra Costa County. Across the majority of the County, rates of overcrowding are lower than the Statewide average of 8.2 percent. However, in Richmond, Concord, and Pittsburg, individuals in overcrowded households are concentrated in percentages over 15 percent.

Black households experience the highest rate of severe housing cost burden in Contra Costa with approximately 28 percent of households having a burden. Hispanic households have the second highest rate of housing cost burden, followed by Native Americans and Whites. Asian or Pacific Islander households have the lowest rate of severe cost burden with slightly more than 15 percent of households being cost burdened. Since Black households experience the highest rate of severe cost burden but have a lower rate of overall housing problems as compared to Hispanic households, Hispanic households are disproportionately likely to experience overcrowding.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-56 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Local Trends
Figure A-31Figure A-29 shows the levels of overcrowding in Pleasant Hill. The entirety of Pleasant Hill has overcrowding rates below the state average.

Housing Problems
housing rehabilitation needs. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include replacing plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Some older housing units may have health risks such as lead paint (especially in homes built before 1978) and asbestos.

Housing issues such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma. Residents who rent are at greater risk of exposure to deteriorating housing conditions due to the desire to keep their rents from rising or fear of losing their housing.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-57
According to the AI report, among all households, 43.90 percent of Contra Costa households experience any of four housing problems: 1) incomplete kitchen facilities; 2) incomplete plumbing facilities; 3) overcrowding more than one person per room; and 4) household is cost burdened monthly housing costs exceeding 30 percent of monthly income.

In the County, 57.58 percent of Hispanic households experience at least one of the four housing problems. A slightly lower share of Black households (56.36 percent) in Contra Costa experience at least one of the four housing problems. Asian Americans or Pacific Islanders experience approximately the same rates of housing problems as households as a whole, with 42.14 percent of Asian households experiencing a problem. Non-Hispanic Whites have a lower rate of housing problems than every racial/ethnic group in Contra Costa. These housing burdens are greatest in portions of Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Hercules, Concord, Martinez, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley.

There are significant disparities between the rates of housing problems that larger families (households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems that families of five or fewer people experience. Both small and large families in Contra Costa experience lower rates of housing problems than families in the region overall. In the County, 59.04 percent of large families experience any one of the four defined housing problems, compared to 62.57 percent in the region. In contrast, 38.51 percent of smaller family households experience housing problems in the County while

38.67 percent of smaller family households in the region have problems. Non-family households in Contra Costa and the region experience housing problems at a higher rate than smaller family households, but at a lower rate than larger family households. Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg all have higher percentages of large, small and nonfamily households with problems than the Consortium and region.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
State law (Section 65583(a)(7)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons condition of an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:

Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and Has a primary nighttime residence that is:

A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

Regional Trends
The Contra Costa's Homeless Continuum of Care (CoC) conducts a Point in Time (PIT) count of families and individuals experiencing homelessness. This count provides a one-day snapshot of homelessness and is used to highlight the housing and homeless crisis in the county. The 2020 PIT count was conducted on January 22, 2020. According to the 2020 PIT, 2,277 individuals were experiencing homelessness in Contra Costa County. The top three reported reasons for losing housing were cost of living and rent (25 percent), eviction (17 percent) and substance abuse (14 percent).

Individuals who were homeless are not concentrated in particular parts of the County, rather, were present in the west, central and eastern areas of the County.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-58 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Almost a quarter of those counted in PIT identified as Hispanic/Latinx; 24 percent of Hispanic/Latinx were in shelters the night of the count. Trends in the proportion of the population who identify at Latinx have not shifted much since 2015. More than half the people identified in the count reported White/Caucasian race, followed by 29 percent who reported Black/African American race, and American Indian.

In community outreach during the PIT, every person interviewed said they would accept at least one type of short-term or long-term shelter and housing opportunity if provided. Most said they would accept almost all housing options if available, but the most common housing preferences indicated were own apartment/home (76 percent), followed by shared housing with their own bedroom (40 percent) and emergency shelter (34 percent).

Local Trends
According to the 2020 PIT, 90 individuals were experiencing homelessness in Pleasant Hill. This is an increase of 17 individuals since the 2015 PIT.

Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness.42
Regional Trends
Figure A-32Figure A-30 shows the census tracts within Contra Costa County that are vulnerable to displacement. Vulnerability is defined as:

Share of very low-income residents is above 20%, 2017; AND The tract meets two of the following criteria:

Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures.

Displacement pressure is defined as:

Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012-2017; OR Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017
42 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-59
Concentrations of communities vulnerable to displacement are located in Richmond, Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Concord, and Walnut Creek.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-60 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Local Trends
Figure A-33Figure A-31 shows the communities that are vulnerable to displacement in Pleasant Hill.

Based on the criteria above, there are no census tracts considered vulnerable in Pleasant Hill.

1.8 Contributing Factors
Based upon the analysis conducted in this AFFH document, Table A-12 highlights the prominent fair housing issues and contributing factors that hinder access to safe, affordable, and vibrant housing for Pleasant Hill residents. Furthermore, the findings of this analysis were used to develop meaningful actions and metrics and milestones that promote inclusive communities, increase housing opportunities, and address racial/ethnic and economic disparities within the city. This section lists contributing factors that create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues that were identified in the AI. These contributing factors were developed using guidance from HUD as well as input from participating jurisdictions.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-61
Table A-12 Summary of Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions Identified Fair
Housing Issue
Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Encouraging
development of
new affordable
housing in Areas of
High Opportunity
Dominance of single-family
housing, which is typically
more expensive than multifamily housing.

Location and type of existing
affordable housing.

Lack of affordable housing in
moderate-resource areas.

Limited supply of affordable
housing in areas with access
to opportunity.

1. Continue to provide a density bonus for development of affordable and senior
Ordinance provides a minimum 5% to 20% increase in
density with additional density bonuses up to a maximum increase of 35% in density if additional target units are provided, and up to three additional incentives, or
financially equivalent incentives, if the development
provides additional target units. See Program S.

2. Allow developers to satisfy affordable housing
requirements by providing units elsewhere in the city when inclusion of affordable units within the development is not feasible. See Program T.

3. Require all housing projects of five or more units to include affordable housing. Developers may satisfy the
by providing at least:
a. 5 percent of the base density for occupancy by verylow-income households, or 10 percent for low-income households, or 25 percent for qualifying senior
residents, or 20 percent second units (in single-family projects). See Program U.

4. Review the zoning code to identify opportunities to
increase and encourage a greater mix of dwelling types
and sizes, specifically housing types that may
accommodate moderate-income households (e.g.,
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, courtyard
buildings), in lower-density residential areas, and amend the zoning code as needed. See Program I.

5. Continue to facilitate the construction of ADUs and create incentives to encourage production, particularly for units accessible to lower-income households, seniors, and those with special housing needs. The City shall continue to
provide and update public information regarding ADUs on the City website, including a guide for homeowners
explaining the benefits and procedures for adding an ADU and links to resources and incentive programs. See
Program P.

6. Seek State and federal funds, and encourage the use of private financing mechanisms, to assist in the production of affordable housing. Funding mechanisms that should
continue to be explored include the HCD Multifamily
Housing Program, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC), federally subsidized Section 221 (d)(4), Section 8 or Section 202 programs, Community Development Block
Grants, tax-exempt bond financing, federal HOME program funds, administrative fees collected by the County Housing Authority, and favorable financing made available through financial institutions, to assist low- and moderate-income households. The City shall partner with developers and

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-62 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
non-profit agencies to apply for State and Federal monies for direct support of low-income housing construction and rehabilitation, with preference for affordable projects in high opportunity areas. The City shall assess potential funding sources annually throughout the planning period and shall promote the benefits of this program to the
development community by posting information on its
website and creating a handout to be distributed with land development applications. See Program V.

7. Invite non-profit housing developers to work with the City in promoting and encouraging affordable housing. The City has worked with non-profit housing developers on past
projects and will continue cooperative efforts in the future with these or other interested nonprofit developers. See Program X.

8. Actively promote parcels that can accommodate
development of low-income and/or moderate-income
housing units to private or non-profit housing providers to support the production of units available to lower- and moderate-income households during the planning period.

See Program C
Protecting existing
residents from
displacement
Unaffordable rents and sales
prices in a range of sizes
Displacement of residents due
to economic pressure such as
unaffordable rents,
concentration of poverty, and
availability of affordable
housing
Location, type, and supply of
affordable housing
Land use and zoning laws
Displacement of residents due
to economic pressures
Access to publicly supported
housing for persons with
disabilities; lack of affordable,
integrated housing for
individuals who need
supportive services
Lack of public investments in
specific neighborhoods,
including services or amenities

9. Continue to investigate concepts and funding sources for a homeownership assistance program. The City will
continue to explore the possibility of providing assistance to people who cannot afford to buy a home with priority given to those who work in the city, but cannot afford the cost of housing, for example, teachers, police officers and those who work in City government. Other potential target groups are first-time homebuyers of lower- and moderateincome levels, and large families. See Program BB.

10. Seek funding to restart the Neighborhood Preservation program, which provides low interest loans for
rehabilitation of homes owned or occupied by low to
moderate income households. See Program LL.

11. Seek funding to establish and maintain an Emergency Repair Grant Program. See Program MM.

12. Explore a variety of tools for preserving assisted units, including monitoring at-risk units, participating in
acquisition of below-market rental units by tenants or nonprofits, facilitating refinancing or purchase of developments from owners who file a notice indicating
that they intend to opt out of a subsidy agreement, and providing technical and relocation assistance to tenants.

See Program QQ.

13. Continue to require resale and rental controls on below market rate units provided through the inclusionary
housing provisions or through public assistance. See
Program RR.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-63
Fair housing
enforcement and
outreach
Lack of resources for fair
housing agencies to conduct
more rigorous testing and
audits, outreach, training,
public education campaigns.

Lack of public (local, State,
federal) fair housing
enforcement including funding
for staffing and training of
public interest law firms

14. Continue to follow the City guidelines for implementing the reasonable accommodation ordinance and periodically
review the Zoning Ordinance to identify other provisions, constraints on the development of housing for persons
with disabilities and reduce or eliminate constraints
through appropriate ordinance amendments. See Program
WW.

15. Promptly address complaints of discrimination in the sale, rent, and development of housing in Pleasant Hill. See
Program VV.

16. Coordinate with ECHO and the Bay Area Legal Aid to
provide fair housing and tenant/landlord services,
including fair housing counseling and education and
tenant/landlord counseling and mediation. See Program
VV.

16.17. Publicize Fair Housing Information, including
information about tenan
recent litigation, and links to fair housing providers on the City's website, social media platforms, and through
physical promotional material (e.g., flyers, posters) by January 2026. See Program VV.

17.18. Provide training for property owners and managers to ensure that they are knowledgeable of the requirements of federal, state and local real estate, housing discrimination, tenant protection, housing inspection, and community
preservation laws; and promote training of tenants in the requirements of federal, state, and local laws so that they are aware of their rights and obligations. See Program VV.

19. Provide annual training for landlords on fair housing responsibilities, source of income discrimination and other discriminatory practices, and the benefits of marketing their housing units to Housing Choice Voucher program
participants to encourage landlords in high opportunity areas to register their units with Section 8 providers and expand housing mobility opportunities throughout the City.

See Program VV.

18.20. Support regional agencies to annually conduct one workshop with targeted populations to allow for
meaningful discussions and dissemination of useful
information. Education and outreach activities to be
conducted as a multi-media campaign, including social
media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, as well as other meeting/discussion forums such as chat rooms
and webinars. Information gathered from these workshops will be further analyzed by staff and results will be used to influence changes to programs and policies as necessary, with any changes made within one year of the
identification of barriers to fair housing See Program VV. .Continuously encourage regional cooperation and

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-64 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
administration of vouchers through portability and shared waiting lists. See Program UU.

19.21. Work with the Regional Center of the East Bay to implement an outreach program informing residents of the housing and services available for persons with
developmental disabilities. The City shall make information available on the City website. See Program UU.

20.22. Develop accessibility programs by 2023 to focus on improving access to housing, public buildings and
facilities, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and businesses.

See Program UU.

21.23. Facilitate projects that provide units meeting federal, State and local requirements. Population groups in the City with special needs include the physically handicapped.

Currently, the City enforces State-mandated requirements for rental housing units (Title 24). The City will continue to encourage ownership housing that can be equipped with
handicapped facilities. The City has adopted a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance and will provide fast-track
processing and other incentives to facilitate the production of housing targeted to persons with disabilities. Program GG.

22.24. Encourage supportive housing for persons with
developmental disabilities. The City will work with
nonprofit developers of supportive housing for the
developmentally disabled to identify and develop adequate sites. The City will assist or partner with developers and non-profits to apply to the County for CDBG monies and
assist with tax exempt financing for land and/or building purchase and/or lease.. See Program HH.

23.25. Continue to facilitate the provision of emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing. See
Programs O, HH, II, and JJ.

24.26. Encourage developers to provide amenities for single heads of households, the disabled, and senior citizens. See Program XX.

1.9 Local Knowledge
Historical Patterns of Segregation
Patterns of racial segregation are the byproduct of local and federal policies, private housing discrimination, and community prejudice. To understand present challenges to fair housing, it is necessary to review the history of actions that have led regional patterns of segregation.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-65
Regional Trends
The earliest forms of racial exclusion in the Bay Area were the Spanish, Mexican, 43 The Ohlone were and are the predominant Indigenous group of the Bay Area, including the Chochenyo and the Karkin in East Bay, the Ramaytush in San Francisco, the Yokuts in South Bay and Central Valley, and the Muwekma tribe throughout the region. Other Indigenous groups include the Graton Rancheria community (Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo), Kashaya, Patwin, and Mishewal Wappo in the North Bay, and the Bay Miwok in the East Bay.44 Indigenous communities were forced from their land, which was then sold or given away.45 In the 1850s, 119 California tribes signed treaties with the U.S. Special Commissioners which required them to formally surrender their land in exchange for 19 designated reservations, which lacked game, suitable agricultural lands, and water.46 From the start of colonization through the 1880s, the Ohlone population in the Bay Area dropped by almost 90 percent due to violence, displacement, and widespread disease brought by colonizers.
47 In more recent history, starting in the 1880s, a series of laws targeted Asian populations through federal restrictions on immigration (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) and by barring Asian immigrants from owning land (California Alien Land Law of 1913 and 1920).48 In 1942, Japanese Americans in the Bay Area were forced to sell or abandon their homes and were sent to internment camps.49 Local ordinances at the time also led to exclusion of Asian Americans, through unfair and racist enforcement of building regulations.
50 In the early 1920s, cities in the Bay Area began adopting zoning ordinances which led to the establishment of exclusive single-family home zones. By establishing specific areas of cities which did not allow more affordable housing types, cities began to be more segregated based on class and race/ethnicity. Exclusionary zoning created areas of concentrated poverty and concentrated wealth.

High-poverty areas typically have limited employment and educational opportunities, creating an environment difficult to achieve income and housing mobility. By preventing households from moving into areas of higher resource opportunity, exclusionary zoning perpetuated the cycle of poverty.51 Historic evidence shows that these zoning regulations did not unintentionally segregate communities; rather, they were racially motivated.52
Starting in the 1930s, Bay Area communities were impacted by redlining, which is the practice of discriminating against loan borrowers based on the racial or socioeconomic status of the neighborhood in which a property is located. Redlining, a government-sponsored system of denying mortgage loans and services to finance the purchase of homes in specific areas, served as a tool to limit homeownership opportunities, as federally insured and long-term mortgages were routinely denied -white persons. Redlining directed both public and private capital to white households and away from Black/African American, non-white, immigrant, and Jewish 43 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 44 Bay Area Equity Atlas, Indigenous Populations in the Bay Area, https://bayareaequityatlas.org/about/indigenous-populations-in-the-bay-area 45 Rising Housing Costs and Re-Segregation in Contra Costa County, Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cc_final.pdf 46 State of California Native American Heritage Commission, http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/california-indian-history/ 47 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 48 History of Racial Injustice, California Law Prohibits Asian Immigrants from Owning Land. https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/may/3 49 Japanese-American Internment During World War II. U.S. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japaneserelocation 50 The Anti-Chinese Cubic Air Ordinance, Am J Public Health, Joshua S. Yang, PhD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661442/ 51 The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/facts/understanding-exclusionary-zoning-impact-concentratedpoverty/?agreed=1&agreed=1 52 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-66 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
households. As homeownership is one of the most significant means of intergenerational wealth building in the United States, these redlining practices had long-term effects in creating wealth inequalities.53
explicit segregation in federal housing policies and exclusionary practices in nearby suburban invested
neighborhoods.54
Between 2000 and 2015, Contra Costa County experienced a 55 percent increase in low-income households of color substantially higher than the regional average. The geography of this growth varied among racial groups. For example, R -income Black population decreased while its low-income Hispanic population grew. Meanwhile, many parts of Antioch and Pittsburg saw large increases in low-income Asian, Black, and Hispanic households. Rents rose across the county between 2000 and 2015, with (inflation-adjusted) median rent paid increasing more than 30 percent in parts of Brentwood, Concord, Richmond, Pittsburg, and Hercules over the 15-year period. In the Bay Area, a 30 percent tract-level increase in median rent paid (in inflation-adjusted dollars) was associated with a 21 percent decrease in low-income households of color. There was no significant relationship between rent increases and losses of low-income white households, indicating that communities of color were particularly vulnerable to the impact of rapid rent increases.

Local Trends
The San Francisco Bay Area consisted of several independent tribal territories during the prehistoric and early historic periods. Native Peoples largely spoke dialects of five distinct languages: Costanoan (Ohlone), Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, Patwin, and Wappo. Pleasant Hill lies at the intersection of several of these groups at different periods in time, however it was largely within the ethnographic and historic boundaries of Bay Miwok speakers, who occupied the eastern portions of Contra Costa County, from Walnut Creek east to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including the northern slopes of Mount Diablo.

Several bands of Miwok are associated with the area, the closest being the Saclan, whose territory extended through the hills east of present-day Rossmoor, Lafayette, Moraga and Walnut Creek.

Prehistoric site types recorded in the general Pleasant Hill area consist of lithic scatters, quarries, habitation sites (including burials), bedrock mortars or other milling feature sites, petroglyph sites, and isolated burial sites.55
The Eastern Miwok were first contacted by the Spanish exploring expeditions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley in the second part of the eighteenth century. The first Spanish expeditions through the region were led by Captain Pedro Fages and Father Juan Crespi in 1772. Juan Bautista de Anza also led an expedition in 1776. Expedition campsites have been mapped in the vicinity of Interstate 680, State Route 242, and Willow Pass Road. Spanish colonial policy from 1769-1821 was directed at the founding of presidios, missions, and secular towns, with the land held by the Crown. The depletion of the coastal populations resulted in Spanish missionaries shifting to conversion of the interior peoples. The Bay Miwok were the first of the Eastern Miwok to be missionized, and were generally not willing converts.

Mission baptismal records show that Native Americans went to Mission San Francisco de Assisi, founded in 1776, and Mission San Jose, founded in 1797. Their traditional lifeways apparently 53 Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America. https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=16/37.725/-122.162&city=oaklandca&area=D19 54 Rising Housing Costs and Re-Segregation in Contra Costa County, Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cc_final.pdf 55 Oak Park Properties Specific Plan EIR, https://pleasanthill.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&clip_id=1689&meta_id=130001

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-67
disappeared by 1810 due to disruption by Euro American diseases, a declining birth rate, and the impact of the mission system. For the most part, the former hunters-gatherers were transformed into agricultural laborers and worked with former neighboring groups such as the Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok. After secularization of the missions between 1834 and 1836, some Native Americans returned to traditional religious and subsistence practices while others labored on Mexican ranchos. Thus, multiethnic Indian communities grew up in and around the area. 56 The Bolbone and Chupacane cultures inhabited the area before settlers arrived from Mexico in the late 1700s. In 1844, Irish immigrant William Welch became the only non-Mexican to obtain a land grant in the region. His Rancho Las Juntas contained more than 13,000 acres, including present-day Pleasant Hill. Early residents primarily cultivated grains such as wheat, hay, and barley, which were shipped to market via Pacheco Creek.

The Southern Pacific Rail line was built in the area in 1891 (now the site of the Iron Horse Trail) and the Caldecott Tunnel, a highway running from Oakland and Orinda, was in built 1937. The first residential subdivisions in Pleasant Hill were built in the 1920s and 1930s south of Gregory Lane and west of Contra Costa Boulevard following prohibition, as the many local vineyards were removed and the formerly agricultural land was subdivided for housing. The city grew significantly with new single-family subdivisions north of Gregory Lane between 1946 and 1954. When Pleasant Hill incorporated in 1961, about half of the existing buildings in the city were in place.

Historically, several developments in Pleasant Hill included racially restrictive covenants, including the Gregory Gardens subdivision that was built in 1950. The covenant restricted any person other than of the Caucasian race to use or occupy any building on any lot, except for domestic servants.57 The opening of Interstate 680 in 1964 helped spur additional construction. Multifamily projects built in the 1970s along Chilpancingo Parkway (named for Pleasant Hill's sister city in Mexico) began to change the city from being exclusively a community of single-family detached houses. Subsequent transportation improvements (including BART, Interstate 680 widening, and Taylor Boulevard) promoted additional higher-intensity multifamily and nonresidential development in and around Pleasant Hill. The most significant recent developments in the city are the new downtown and multifamily housing for seniors directly to the south.

Pleasant Hill historically has been a suburban residential community serving major employment centers to the west and south, and the pattern of residents commuting outside the city to work is expected to continue. However, explosive regional growth in the last decade has transformed Pleasant Hill, as evidenced by recent higher-density residential and commercial development, especially downtown. Regardless, the City is still 75 to 90 percent comprised of single-family zoning, and is majority white.58,59 The majority of commercial uses within the city are located along Contra Costa Boulevard and I-680. This area, adjacent to the City of Concord is considered lower resource and does not contain residential, parks, or other neighborhood resources. I-680 runs along the eastern boundary of the city, generally separating the city from the adjacent City of Concord and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The western side of the city consists of lower density residential along the hillsides. 56 Oak Park Properties Specific Plan EIR , https://pleasanthill.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&clip_id=1689&meta_id=130001 57 Gregory Gardens Covenant. 1950. https://s3.amazonaws.com/c5c2a7c6-9204-4cf3-8372-04b89bd5cf22/668c4b0c-b148-4bb1-bf9cc6935c69e274.pdf 58 Other & Belonging Institute. Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 5. 2020. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racialsegregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-5 59 Other & Belonging Institute. Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 1. 2018. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racialsegregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-1

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-68 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023

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

Organization Name Type
Las Trampas Maureen House Adult Residential / Special Needs Las Trampas Shiela House Adult Residential / Special Needs Stonehedge (Alegria Community Living) Adult Residential / Special Needs Abode Services Affordable Housing
Bay Area Community Land Trust Affordable Housing
BRIDGE Housing Affordable Housing
Community Housing Development Corporation Affordable Housing EAH Housing Affordable Housing
East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation Affordable Housing East Bay Housing Organizations Affordable Housing
Eden Housing Affordable Housing
Front Porch Affordable Housing
Habitat for Humanity East Bay / Silicon Valley Affordable Housing Hope Solutions Affordable Housing
Housing Consortium of the East Bay Affordable Housing
Human Good Organizations Affordable Housing
Mercy Housing Affordable Housing
MidPen Housing Affordable Housing
Monument Impact Affordable Housing
Northern California Land Trust Affordable Housing
Resources for Community Development Affordable Housing
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates Affordable Housing Spanish Speaking Unity Council (dba Unity Council) Affordable Housing Winter Family Shelter, Inc. Affordable Housing
Youth Homes Affordable Housing
Buddha Gate Monastery Congregation
Chabad of Contra Costa Congregation
Contra Costa Jewish Community Center Congregation
Grace Chinese Alliance Church Congregation
Indonesian Christian Community Church Congregation
Islamic Center of Contra Costa Congregation
Oakland Diocesan Task Force for Racial Justice Congregation

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-69
Japanese Christian Church of Walnut Creek Congregation\Japanese Speaking Hamonah Presbyterian Church Congregation\Korean Speaking Mission Pointe Church Congregation\Korean Speaking
Igreja Adoradores Gerados Em Cristo (AGC Brazillian
Church) Congregation\Portuguese Speaking
Iglesia Adventista Hispano Americana de Pleasant Hill Congregation\Spanish Speaking Ministerio Hispano de la Iglesia Bíblica de la Gracia en Pleasant Hill Congregation\Spanish Speaking
DVC-Chinese Students Association Diablo Valley College Club DVC-Hong Kong Student Association Diablo Valley College Club DVC-Japanese Student Association Diablo Valley College Club DVC-Kabayan Kaibigan Diablo Valley College Club
DVC-Muslim Student Association Diablo Valley College Club Puente Project Education Program
Empowered Aging Elder Interest Group
Causa Justa Local Interest Group\Spanish Speaking
La Clinica de la Raza Local Interest Group\Spanish Speaking United Latino Voices of Contra Costa County (ULV) Local Interest Group\Spanish Speaking Maharlika Cultural Troupe, Inc. Local Interest Group\Tagalog Speaking Showing Up for Racial Justice Other AFFH Affinity Group Aegis Living Pleasant Hill Senior Facility
Carlton Senior Living Downtown Pleasant Hill Senior Facility Carlton Senior Living Pleasant Hill - Martinez Senior Facility Carlton Senior Living Poets Corner Senior Facility
Choice in Aging Senior Facility
Hookston Senior Homes Senior Facility
Pleasant Hill Gardens II Senior Facility
Pleasant Hill Oasis Senior facility
Better Living Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Boyd Senior Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Dysico Care Home, RCFE Senior Facility (Small)
Elisabeth Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Heavenly Care Elderly Home Senior Facility (Small)
Ramona Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Redwood Home Senior Facility (Small)
In addition to the initial email request, the project team sent reminder emails to each group in July 2022. The survey was closed after 54 days on August 22, 2022.

Survey responses included the following major themes:

Desire for publicly funded/supported, permanently supportive housing as opposed to public subsidy of private rental units for vulnerable households;

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-70 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
High cost of rental housing even for households with public subsidies or housing choice vouchers;
Affordable housing is needed in proximity to public transit, schools, groceries, and services; and Housing discrimination and cost were reported as barriers to housing access.

Responses to the Fair Housing Survey informed the Fair Housing Analysis, distribution of sites in the available sites inventory, and program actions and objectives within the policy document.

Other Relevant Factors
Other relevant factors that have not been previously discussed relating to fair housing include the availability and access to housing choice vouchers in Pleasant Hill and the presence of older affordable housing units that may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing. As referenced in the Housing Needs Assessment, five publicly assisted rental housing developments provide a total of 295 affordable units to lower- and moderate-income households. None of these units are at risk of converting to market-rate housing during the 2023 to 2031 planning period. Additionally, English proficiency and land use and zoning patterns may impede fair housing efforts.

The City of Pleasant Hill cooperates with the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa, to provide Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) to city residents and will continue to seek opportunities to increase rental assistance and reduce overpayment.

HUD estimates show that approximately 280 households receive HCVs in Pleasant Hill (AFFH Data Viewer). Figure A-32 shows HCV as a percent of renter-occupied units by census tract. Most HCV recipients are in the moderate-resource areas on the eastern edge of the city. Census tract 324001, a moderate-resource tract east of interstate 680 had the largest concentration of HCV recipients (6 percent) in the city.

Lending Practices
According to the AI, the applications for Blacks and Hispanics are uniformly denied at higher rates than other racial groups. White and Asian residents had the lowest rate of denials in the Oakland-Hayward, Berkeley, CA Region, which includes Pleasant Hill.

Limited English Proficiency
Language barriers can lead to linguistic and cultural isolation. According to the AI, Pleasant Hill has a large community of Persian and Korean speakers with limited English proficiency. In 2021, approximately 24 percent of the population over the age of five speak a language other than English, and 26 percent of the population speak English less than very well. The most common languages spoken besides English are Asian and Pacific Islander languages, spoken by eight percent of the population.

Land Use and Zoning Laws
boundaries.60 The multifamily zones in the southern portion of the city are located in predominately white areas. However, most if not all high-density multifamily residence zones are located in areas showing 51 to 54 percent low-income households, and 36 to 45 percent non-white population, the highest in Pleasant Hill. Medium and low-density multifamily zones remain small and scattered in areas showing less concentration of non-white and low-income households and populations. 60 City of Pleasant Hill. City of Pleasant Hill Zoning Map, 2011. https://www.ci.pleasanthill.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/276.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-71
Subsidized Housing
As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, five publicly assisted rental housing developments, which provide a total of 295 affordable units to lower- and moderate-income households. None of these units are at risk of converting to market-rate housing during the 2023 to 2031 planning period.

The City of Pleasant Hill cooperates with the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa, to provide Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) to city residents and will continue to seek opportunities to increase rental assistance and reduce overpayment.

HUD estimates show that approximately 280 households receive HCVs in Pleasant Hill (AFFH Data Viewer). Figure B-32 shows HCV as a percent of renter-occupied units by census tract. Most HCV recipients are in the moderate-resource areas on the eastern edge of the city. Census tract 324001, a moderate-resource tract east of interstate 680 had the largest concentration of HCV recipients (6 percent) in the city.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-72 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023

1.11 Sites Inventory Analysis
The housing element must demonstrate that there are adequate sites zoned to accommodate the number of new housing units needed at each income level as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In the context of AFFH, the process of site identification involves an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA, and whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.

The Sites Inventory, inclusive of pending and approved projects, identifies parcels to facilitate the development of 8451,157 units affordable to lower-income (low and very low), 28 231 moderateincome, and 619 398 above moderate-income households within 10 9 census tracts, which vary with regards to the fair housing factors considered.

Access to Opportunity
HCD/TCAC opportunity maps identify areas throughout the state that support positive economic (low poverty, high employment, high median household income), educational (reading and math proficiency, high school graduation rates, low student poverty rates), and environmental outcomes (low exposure to pollution) for residents. The HCD/TCAC opportunity areas maps rank census tracts from Highest

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-73
Resource to Low Resource based on these characteristics. A census tract with a designation of High Resource indicates that the census tract has strong educational and economic opportunities for current and future residents.

Sites with capacity to accommodate 141 274 low- and very low-income units lie within tracts classified by TCAC as Resource. Sites with capacity to accommodate an additional 841 571 low- and very low- Moderate and High Resource census tracts
have capacity to accommodate approximately 85 percent of the totalall lower-income units in the inventory.

No sites with capacity are located in low resource census tracts. Figure A-33 shows that sites identified for lower-income housing are spatially distributed throughout Pleasant Hill and are not concentrated in lower-resource areas.

The remaining 175 units for low- and very low-income households are accommodated on two adjacent parcels in a low-resource census tract (327000) in the north of the city between Interstate 680 and Contra Costa Boulevard. While this census tract is considered low resource, the site identified in the inventory is immediately adjacent to a moderate-resource census tract and local retail uses and services. The site is also within walking distance (less than ½ mile) of Diablo Valley College, Valley View Middle School, and College Park High school. Figure A-33 shows that sites identified for lowerincome housing are spatially distributed throughout Pleasant Hill and are not concentrated in lowerresource areas.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-74 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-75
The Sites Inventory identifies additional capacity in Moderate Resource census tracts which can accommodate 203 above moderate-income units. Further, 28 moderate-income and 297 above moderate-income units of capacity have been identified in High- and Highest Resource census tracts. It is important to note that Senate Bill (SB) 9, signed into law on September 16, 2021, allows property owners within single-family residential zones to build two units and/or to subdivide a lot into two parcels, adding a total of four units. The passage of this law in combination with the relaxed regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on all single- and multi-family properties will allow infill development throughout the city including in high- and highest-resource census tracts. Program P contains provisions to encourage the construction of ADUs and Program Q would establish a process for SB 9 applications.

The Sites Inventory identifies capacity in Moderate Resource census tracts which can accommodate 242 above moderate-income units. Further, 18 moderate and 377 above moderate-income units of capacity has been identified in High- and Highest Resource census tracts. It is important to note that Senate Bill (SB) 9, signed into law on September 16, 2021, allows property owners within single-family residential zones to build two units and/or to subdivide a lot into two parcels, adding a total of four units. The passage of this law in combination with the relaxed regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on all single- and multi-family properties will allow infill development throughout the city including in high- and highest-resource census tracts. Program P contains provisions to encourage the construction of ADUs and Program Q would establish a process for SB 9 applications.

Table A-13 shows the number of units allocated to census tracts of each TCAC resource level. The distribution of sites across income categories listed in the Sites Inventory does not exacerbate fair housing conditions with regard to access to opportunity.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-76 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
Table A-13 Units by TCAC Opportunity Areas
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
Lower-Income
Units (% of Total
Lower Income)
Moderate-Income
Units (% of Total
Moderate Income)
Above Moderate-Income
Units (% of Total Above
Moderate Income)
Total Units
(% of Total
Units)
Low Resource -175 (15.13%) -- -- -175 (9.43%)
Moderate Resource 571 (67.5)841
(72.69%)
-203 (87.8)10 (35.71%) 102 (25.6)242 (43.13%) 876
(59.4)1,093
(61.46%)
High Resource 274 (32.4)141
(12.19%)
28 (12.1)18 (64.29%) 290 (72.8371 (55.97%) 290(19.6)530 (28.79%)
Highest Resource - - -- 7 (1.7)6 (0.90%) 7 (0.4)6
(0.32%)
Total Units 845 (100.0)1,157
(100.0%)
231 (100.0)28
(100.0%)
398 (100.0)619
(100.0%)
1,474
(100.0)1,804
(100.0%)
Integration and Segregation: Income
In all Pleasant Hill census tracts, low- and moderate-income households make up between 7 and 63 percent of all households in each tract. All census tracts except one (tract 327000) in Pleasant Hill have a median household income which is greater than the 2020 statewide median household income of

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-77
$87,100. Furthermore, census tract 327000 has the highest proportion (63 percent) of low- and moderate-income households in the city. The Sites Inventory does not identify any capacity in this census tract.

Sites identified in the inventory are suitable for the development of all 845 lower-income housing units in census tracts where the median household income is greater than the statewide median. The development of new housing units affordable to lower and moderate-income households in these census tracts may increase housing choices for lower income residents in higher income neighborhoods as well as reduce potential displacement in lower income neighborhoods.

In all Pleasant Hill census tracts, low- and moderate-income households make up between 7 and 63 percent of all households in each tract. All census tracts except one (tract 327000) in Pleasant Hill have a median household income which is greater than the 2020 statewide median household income of $87,100. Furthermore, census tract 327000 has the highest proportion (63 percent) of low- and moderate-income households in the city. The Sites Inventory identifies capacity for 175 units for lowand very low-income households on two adjacent parcels in this census tract. While this census tract is considered low resource and has a higher proportion of low- and moderate-income households, the site is adjacent to a high-income census tract (322000) as well as local retail, schools, and services.

Sites identified in the inventory are suitable for the development of 982 lower-income housing units (85 percent of the lower-income inventory) in census tracts where the median household income is greater than the statewide median. The development of new housing units affordable to lower and moderate-income households in these census tracts may increase housing choices for lower income residents in higher income neighborhoods as well as reduce potential displacement in lower income neighborhoods.

Table A-14 shows the number of units allocated to each census tract with respect to the median income and percentage of low- and moderate-income households in that census tract. The distribution of sites across income categories listed in the Sites Inventory does not exacerbate fair housing conditions with regard to income segregation, and it does not cause an undue concentration of sites dedicated to the development of lower-income housing.

Table A-14 Number of Units by Income Characteristics of Census Tract Census
Tract
Median
Income
Percent Low- or
Moderate-Income
Households
LowerIncome
Units
ModerateIncome
Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units
Total
Units
321102 > $125,000 < 25% -1962 -- 1522 19624
321200 > $87,100 25 - 50% 350431 -- -1 350432
322000 > $125,000 < 25% 1026 -- 2764 12970
323000 > $87,100 < 25% 5395 -- 123135 176230
324001 > $87,100 25 - 50% 86159 -- 786 164165
324002 > $87,100 25 - 50% 33245 20310 171 236426
325000 > $87,100 25 - 50% -5 -4 163208 163217
326000 > $125,000 < 25% 2539 2814 15 5458
327000 > $55,000 50 - 70% 175 - - 175
347000 > $125,000 < 25% - - 7 7
Integration and Segregation: Race and Ethnicity
All census tracts in Pleasant Hill are predominantly white by a sizable (10 to 15%) or predominant (> 50%) gap. No census tracts in the city are classified by HUD as R/ECAPs, and seven tracts (321102, 324002, 323000, 322000, 326000, 347000, and 338102) are considered racially concentrated areas of

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-78 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
affluence (RCAA). The Sites Inventory identifies sites to accommodate 384 units for low- and very lowincome households, and 203 units for moderate-income households, and 157 units for above moderate-income households in tracts that meet the definition of a RCAA. This means 45 percent of the lower-income units 88 percent of the moderate-income units, and 39 percent of the above moderate- which HCD considers to be a
RCAA. Sites with capacity to accommodate an additional 461 lower-income units (55 percent of the lower- -income units (12 percent of the moderateincome units) and 241 above moderate-income units (61 percent of the above moderate-income units) in non-RCAA tracts. New development of units across the affordability spectrum in these areas may allow for the opportunity to increase housing mobility and reduce segregation in these neighborhoods.

All census tracts in Pleasant Hill are predominantly white by a sizable (10 to 15%) or predominant (> 50%) gap. No census tracts in the city are classified by HUD as R/ECAPs, and seven tracts (321102, 324002, 323000, 322000, 326000, 347000, and 338102) are considered racially/ethnically concentrated areas of affluence (R/ECAA). The Sites Inventory identifies sites to accommodate 387 units for lowand very low-income households, and 24 units for moderate-income households in tracts that meet the definition of a R/ECAA. This means 33 percent of the lower-income units and a majority of the moderate-income inventory are accommodated in tracts which HCD considers to be a R/ECAA. Sites with capacity to accommodate an additional 770 lower-income units (66 percent of the lower-income inventory) and 215 above moderate-income units (33 percent of the above moderate-income units) in non-R/ECAA tracts. New development of units across the affordability spectrum in these areas may allow for the opportunity to increase housing mobility and reduce segregation in these neighborhoods.

Table A-15 shows the number of units allocated to each census tract with respect to the percentage of non-white population, predominant population, and R/ECAP or R/ECAA status in that census tract. The distribution of sites listed in the Sites Inventory across income categories does not exacerbate fair housing conditions with regard to racial or ethnic segregation. Furthermore, the inventory attempts to alleviate the racial/income segregation of the
housing affordable to lower-income households in areas of concentrated affluence. The Sites Inventory does not cause an undue concentration of sites appropriate for the development of lower-income housing in predominantly low-income or racially segregated neighborhoods.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-79
Table A-15 Number of Units by Demographics of Census Tract Census
Tract
Percent
Nonwhite
R/ECAP R/ECAA Predominant
Population
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Total
Units
321102 20 - 40% No Yes White
(Predominant) -1962 -- 1522 19624
321200 40 - 60% No No White
(Sizeable) 350431 -- -1 350432
322000 20 - 40% No Yes White
(Predominant) 1026 -- 2764 12970
323000 20 - 40% No Yes White
(Predominant) 5395 -- 123135 176230
324001 20 - 40% No No White
(Sizeable) 86159 -- 786 164165
324002 40 - 60% No Yes White
(Sizeable) 33245 20310 171 236426
325000 20 - 40% No No White
(Predominant) -5 -4 163208 163217
326000 20 - 40% No Yes White
(Predominant) 2539 2814 15 5458
327000 20 - 40% No No White
(Sizeable) 175 - - 175
347000 20 - 40% No Yes White
(Predominant) - - 7 7
Disproportionate Housing Needs
While no census tracts in Pleasant Hill have a rate of overcrowding higher than the state average of approximately 8 percent, renter households are cost burdened at high rates in several census tracts.

The Sites Inventory has identified sites with capacity to accommodate 25 units suitable for lowerincome households in census tracts in which 60 to 80% of renter households are cost burdened.

Capacity for an additional 335 units of housing suitable for lower income households is identified in census tracts in which 40 to 60% of renter households are cost burdened. Lastly the Sites Inventory has identified sites with capacity to accommodate 485 units suitable for lower-income households in census tracts in which 20 to 40% of renter households are cost burdened. The development of new high-quality, housing units affordable to low- and very low-income households on these sites may increase housing choice and decrease the proportion of renter households that are cost burdened.

There is some concentration of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) recipients and subsidized housing projects in Pleasant Hill. The proportion of HCV recipients in a given census tract in the city ranges from 0 to 6.7 percent. Sites with capacity for 119 lower income units are located in census tracts where HCV recipients represent greater than 5 percent of renter-occupied housing units. Conversely, sites with capacity for 350 lower income units are located in census tracts where HCV recipients represent less than 5 percent of renter-occupied housing units. The development of lower-income housing units on the sites identified do not create an unusually high concentration of lower-income units near existing projects or in neighborhoods with high concentrations of housing choice voucher recipients.

While no census tracts in Pleasant Hill have a rate of overcrowding higher than the state average of approximately 8 percent, renter households are cost burdened at high rates in several census tracts.

The Sites Inventory has identified sites with capacity to accommodate 219 units suitable for lowerincome households in census tracts in which 60 to 80% of renter households are cost burdened.

Capacity for an additional 256 units of housing suitable for lower income households is identified in

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Revised HCD Review Draft | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-80 Revised HCD Review Draft December 2022April 2023
census tracts in which 40 to 60% of renter households are cost burdened. Lastly the Sites Inventory has identified sites with capacity to accommodate 682 units suitable for lower-income households in census tracts in which 20 to 40% of renter households are cost burdened. The development of new high-quality, housing units affordable to low- and very low-income households on these sites may increase housing choice and decrease the proportion of renter households that are cost burdened.

There is some concentration of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) recipients and subsidized housing projects in Pleasant Hill. The proportion of HCV recipients in a given census tract in the city ranges from 0 to 6.7 percent. Sites with capacity for 579 lower income units are located in census tracts where HCV recipients represent greater than 5 percent of renter-occupied housing units. Conversely, sites with capacity for 578 lower income units are located in census tracts where HCV recipients represent less than 5 percent of renter-occupied housing units. The development of lower-income housing units on the sites identified do not create an unusually high concentration of lower-income units near existing projects or in neighborhoods with high concentrations of housing choice voucher recipients.

No census tracts in the city
Displacement Project. Table A-16 shows the number of units allocated to each census tract with respect to the percentage of renter households experiencing cost burden, the percent of households which are overcrowded, and the displacement vulnerability of households in that census tract.

The distribution of sites across income categories listed in the Sites Inventory does not exacerbate fair housing conditions with regard to disproportionate housing needs. Furthermore, it may improve conditions related to overcrowding and cost burden through the provision of new residential units affordable to lower-income households.

Table A-16 Number of Units by Housing Need Factors of Census Tract Census
Tract
Percent
Rent
Burdened
Percent
Overcrowded
Displacement
Sensitivity
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Total
Units
321102 40 - 60% < 8.2% Other -1962 -- 1522 19624
321200 20 - 40% < 8.2% Other 350431 -- -1 350432
322000 20 - 40% < 8.2% Other 1026 -- 2764 12970
323000 40 - 60% < 8.2% Other 5395 -- 123135 176230
324001 40 - 60% < 8.2% Other 86159 -- 786 164165
324002 20 - 40% < 8.2% Other 33245 20310 171 236426
325000 60 - 80% < 8.2% Other -5 -4 163208 163217
326000 60 - 80% < 8.2% Other 2539 2814 15 5458
327000 60 - 80% < 8.2% Other 175 - - 175
347000 40 - 60% < 8.2% Other - - 7 7

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) December 2022April 2023 Revised HCD Review Draft A-81
Fair Housing Summary of Sites Inventory by Census TractTable A-17 Number of Units by Fair Housing Factors of Census Tracts Census
Tract Unit Capacity AFFH Indicators
Existing
Households Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
Units
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
%
Non- white R/CAA Median Income
% Low or
Moderate
Income
%
Overcrowded
% Rent
Burdened
321102 2,794 -1962 -- 1522 19624 High Resource 20 - 40% Yes >125000 < 25% < 8.2% 40 - 60%321200 2,295 350431 - - -1 350432 Moderate Resource 40 - 60% No >87100 25 - 50% < 8.2% 20 - 40%322000 2,489 1026 -- 2764 12970 Moderate Resource 20 - 40% Yes >125000 < 25% < 8.2% 20 - 40%323000 1,631 5395 -- 123135 176230 High Resource 20 - 40% Yes >87100 < 25% < 8.2% 40 - 60%324001 2,554 86159 -- 786 164165 Moderate Resource 20 - 40% No >87100 25 - 50% < 8.2% 40 - 60%324002 2,510 33245 20310 171 236426 Moderate Resource 40 - 60% Yes >87100 25 - 50% < 8.2% 20 - 40%325000 2,121 -5 -4 163208 163217 High Resource 20 - 40% No >87100 25 - 50% < 8.2% 60 - 80%326000 1,345 2539 2814 15 5458 High Resource 20 - 40% Yes >125000 < 25% < 8.2% 60 - 80%327000 2,778 175 - - 175 Low Resource 20 - 40% No >55000 50 - 70% < 8.2% 60 - 80%347000 2,293 - - 7 7 Highest Resource 20 - 40% Yes >125000 < 25% < 8.2% 40 - 60%

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-1Appendix B: Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 1. Maintain a housing supply sufficient to meet the housing needs of all Pleasant Hill residents.Housing Policy 1A. Monitor residential and job producing development in the city in order to maintain an adequate housing supply for city residents.Housing Policy 1B. Maintain a sufficient supply of residential land with appropriate zoning to meet locally generated housing needs.Housing Policy 1C. Provide active leadership in implementing the policies and programs contained in the Housing Element.Housing Policy 1D. Encourage and facilitate inter-jurisdictional development of affordable housing.

Housing Program 1.1. Report annuallyto the City Council and PlanningCommission regarding the amount andtype of housing activity. As required byState law, City staff provides a yearlyreport on the progress made toward Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission N/A Annually Annual reports are provided to the
City Council and PlanningCommission.

Required program.Annual reports to theCity Council andPlanningCommission willcontinue.

Housing Program 1.2. Work with theRegional Transportation PlanningCommittees (TRANSPAC/TRANSPLAN) and the othertransportation sub-regions to limitpotential traffic congestion createdthrough new development.City staff is required by the CongestionManagement Authority to notifyTRANSPAC when new housingdevelopment proposals generate 100or more peak hour trips per day.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,TRANSPAC
N/A Ongoing The City has worked with the
Regional Transportation PlanningCommittees (TRANSPAC) andactively participates with theregional transportation agency(CCTA), both of which are taskedto limit traffic congestionthroughout the City and largerregion.

Keep program.Continue to work withand participate withTRANSPAC andCCTA to addresstraffic congestionrelated to newdevelopment.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-2 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.3. Continue toprovide zoning categories that allow arange of housing densities sufficient toHousing Needs, as required by ABAG,and encourage a mix of land uses andresidential densities when compatiblewith the neighborhood andenvironmental impacts are mitigated.The City will monitor residentialdevelopment and progress inimplementing the Housing Elementannually and report the findings to theCity Council and the Department ofHousing and Community Development.Current data indicate that the City hasenough residentially zoned land tomeet housing needs during the 2015- 2023 period. The City will comply withGovernment Code Sec. 65863 andensure that adequate sites for housingare maintained throughout the planningperiod.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission,City Council N/A Ongoing Review proposed changes to
zoning districts to ensure a rangeof densities to accommodatesingle and multi-family residentialdevelopment.Continue to monitor and report onresidential development on anannual basis to the City Counciland Department of Housing andCommunity Development throughthe annual housing update.

Keep program andmodify to includesites inventory, sitesform, and no-net lossof housing inventory.Maintain and respondto future housingneeds by rezoningappropriate sitesthroughout the Cityas needed andcontinue to monitorresidentialdevelopment in theCity and report backto the City Counciland Department ofHousing andCommunityDevelopmentannually.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-3 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.4. Continue toutilize Planned Unit Developmentzoning.PUD (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.30)allows for flexible development of largeand/or contiguous parcels that mayinclude housing along with other uses.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission,City Council N/A Ongoing The City has approved new
Planned Unit Development zoningdistricts and various projectswithin the Planned UnitDevelopment zoning designation.This includes a PUD to allowdevelopment of a single-familydevelopment and othercommercial and residentialprojects throughout the City.

Keep program andadd a similarprogram for utilizingmixed use.Continue to utilizeplanning unitdevelopment zoningwhen appropriate.

Housing Program 1.5. Continue toallow residential development on landdesignated for office uses. Encourageaffordable housing in every proposedresidential development, and for everynon-residential proposal, consider amix of uses that includes housing.City staff will inform developers ofobjectives for affordable housing andthe need of affordable housing inprojects of five or more units. The Citywill provide incentives such as densitybonus, modified developmentstandards, and financial subsidies toencourage and facilitate the productionof affordable units, including extremely- low-income when feasible.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission,City Council 2 Low28 Moderate
2015-2023 The existing zoning ordinance
allows residential uses in the PAO(office) zoning district through ause permit process. The Cityapproved a change in land usefrom PAO-Office to a small lotsingle family residential project.

Modify program toaddress mixed use asthe City is movingtowards mixed usezoning designations.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) H
o
u
sin
g
Ele
m
e
nt | A
ffirm
ativ
ely
F
urth
er F
air H
o
u
sin
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
er 2
0 2
2A
pril 2
02 3
H
C
D
R
e
vie
w
DraftR
e
vis
e
d
H
C
D
R
e
vie
w
Draft B-4
Pro
gra
m
R
e
s
p
o
n
sible
A
g
e
n
c
y
Q
u
a
ntifie
d
O
bje
ctiv
e
Tim
efra
m
e
C
urre
nt Statu
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
6 th
C
y
cle
A
ctio
n
H
ousing
Pro
gram 1.6. C
ontinue to
work
with the
C
ounty and neighboring
cities
to increase the
opportunity to jointly
de
v
elop affordable housing.

The
City
worked with the
C
ounty
on the
B
RID
GE Grayson Cre
ek proje
ct (2
001-
2 00
3) and the agre
e
m
ent for Mixed Use
de
v
elopm
ent of the form
er Oak Park
Ele
m
entary
S
cho
ol site (1700
Oak Park
B
oule
vard - 19
9 9). The
City also
worked
with all C
ontra C
osta c
o
m
munities on
Gro
wth) study, c
o
mpleted in 2
00 3.

Public
Works &
C
o
m
munity
D
e
v
elopm
ent
D
epartm
ent,
City
C
ouncil
C
ontact
C
ounty and
surroundingcities on ase
mi- annual
basis toexploreopportunitiesfor affordablehousing.
2 015-2
0 2
3 The
City
c
ontinues to
work with
C
ontra C
osta C
ounty
where
possible.In 2
016, the
City and C
ounty
pro
vided grant funds to the
M
erc
y
Garden Park Apartm
ent
C
o
m
munity (G
P
A
C) to fund critical
capital upgrades and enable it toqualify for additional federalfunding.The property has 2 8 units
affordable to
extre
m
ely lo
w to lo
winc
o
m
e households. In 2
018, the
City
c
ollaborated with the
C
ounty
to am
end agre
e
m
ents with
Satellite
Affordable
H
ousing
Asso
ciates (S
A
H
A) for the
H
o
okston S
enior Apartm
ents, a
property
with 9
9 units affordable
to
v
ery lo
w- and lo
w-inc
o
m
e
seniors.The am
ended agre
e
m
ent
extended the affordability term for2
2 years, fro
m
2 0
5 3 to
2 075.

In 2
019, the
City
worked with the
C
ounty to am
end an Intercreditor
A
gre
e
m
ent for the
B
RID
GE
Grayson Cre
ek proje
ct to preserv
e
an annual welfare tax exe
mption.

Without the am
endm
ent, B
RID
GE
would hav
e be
en unable to
c
o
v
er
its operating
expenses for this 70-
unit c
o
mplex affordable to
v
ery
lo
w- to
m
oderate- inc
o
m
e
households.In 2
0 21, the
City appro
v
ed P
U
D
C
onc
ept Plan and Spe
cific
Plan to
allo
w
81 senior affordable housing
units.

K
e
ep pro
gram.

C
ontinue to
c
ollaborate
with the
C
ounty re
garding
affordable housing.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-5 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.7. Extremely-low- income (ELI) households are a subsetof very-low-income households whoearn 30 percent or less of the medianincome. Many ELI households face asevere cost burden related to housing(more than 50 percent of income goingtoward housing costs), and they are theincome group most likely to experiencea housing crisis when faced with rentincreases, foreclosure, or other adverseevents.The City shall pay 100 percent of theapplication processing fees from the le housing fund for
developments in which 5 percent ofunits are affordable to ELI households.To be eligible for this subsidy, the unitsshall be restricted by affordabilitycovenant. The waiving or reduction ofmitigation fees may also be consideredwhen an alternative funding source isidentified for these fees. The City shallpromote the benefits of this program tothe development community by postinginformation on its website and creatinga handout to be distributed with landdevelopment applications.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,City Council 59 ELI units 2015-2023 The City completed an analysis of local ELI housing needs anddetermined that 50% of the verylow-income need is at theextremely low-income level. TheCity provided a refundable loan toRehabilitation Services ofNorthern California (RSNC), nowChoice in Aging (CiA), in 2016 tosupport its predevelopmentactivities related to a proposed 81- unit affordable senior housingproject that will include ELI units.

Required program,keep program.Complete the postingof information/creation of a handoutpromoting permittingassistance foraffordable housingproposals.Due to the dissolutionof redevelopment byaction of the State ofCalifornia, the Citywill no longer have anaffordable housingfund financed byredevelopment toassist in the fundingof this program.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-6 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.8. To ensure thatthe provisions of Measure B that wereadopted into the Zoning Ordinance donot pose an unreasonable constraint toachieving thethe City will monitor development andreport in its Annual Progress Reportsrequired pursuant to Government CodeSection 65400, and if it is determinedthat these provisions are preventing therezoning of parcels needed toaccomneeds for lower-income housing, anamendment to those provisions will beinitiated.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,City Council N/A Each year as
part of theannualmonitoringreports
The City continues to monitor theimpact of the former Measure Bhousing objectives. The City hasmodified various provisions thatresulted from the former MeasureB provisions, that better allowedrezoning of parcels for residentialuses.

Remove program.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-7 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 2. Promote diversity in tenure, type, size, location and price to permit a choice of housing for persons of all economic levels.

Housing Policy 2A. Allow a variety of housing types to be built on residential sites.Housing Policy 2B. Remove constraints to production and availability of housing when consistent with other General Plan policies.Housing Policy 2C. ate and special needs housing projects.

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

Housing Program 2.1. Continue to usethe City-wide Design Guidelines tofacilitate small-lot development, smallsingle-family units and single-familyattached units through consideration ofdecreased setbacks, zero-lot lines, lotclustering through the PlannedDevelopment process, and/or sharedparking provisions in appropriatelocations.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
24 Very Low34 Moderate40 Above- ModerateUnits
2015-2023 The city allows this type of small
lot development through thePlanned Unit Developmentprocess.Small developments have takenadvantage of the flexibledevelopment standard allowancesto cluster the development.The City also completed an updateto its City-Wide Design guidelinesthat include guidelines for smalland cluster developmentproposals, especially in the hillsideareas, with the goal to preserveexisting natural areas and providefor the maximum amount of openspace.

Keep, but modify toinfill projects andremove references tosingle familydesignations. Reviseto discuss objectivedesign standards.

Housing Program 2.2. Allowmanufactured housing in residentialdistricts in accordance with applicableState and federal laws and require suchunits to meet local standards forelements such as siding, roofing, andtype of foundation, to the extentallowed by State and federal law.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
6 Very LowUnits
2015-2023 The City allows manufactured
housing provided that it meetscertain design standards relatedto architecture including siding,roofing, etc.

Keep program.Modify program todiscuss compliance
Design
Guidelines andObjective Design andDevelopmentStandards (ODDS).

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-8 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 2.3. Amend theZoning Ordinance to provide standardsfor including housing in locations thatallow mixed-use development inappropriate locations, and work withdevelopers to facilitate housingproduction.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission,City Council ZoningOrdinanceAmendment
Within one yearof 5th CycleHousingElementAdoption, 2015 The City continues to maintain aMixed-Use land use designation inthe General Plan.

Keep program.Modify and expandbased on proposedzoning changes.

Housing Program 2.4. Continue toprovide appropriate flexible parkingrequirements that allow shared use inlocations being considered for higher- density housing development.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission,City Council N/A Ongoing Shared use and reduced parking
can be granted through a usepermit pursuant to Section 18.55of the Zoning Ordinance.The City has reviewed andapproved various parkingreductions in locations throughoutthe City.

Modify program toinclude an incentivefor projects with anaffordable housingcomponent.Continue toimplement ordinanceamendments thatallow parkingreductions for multi- family residentialwithin transit andpriority developmentareas and considerparking reductionselsewhere aswarranted.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-9 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 2.5. Planning staffshall evaluate existing developmentreview regulations and procedures tofurther streamline and give priority toprojects that provide affordablehousing. Building and Engineering staffshall study ways to mitigate the cost ofconstruction, for example by revisingengineering standards and workingwith the local Fire District to allow fornarrower street widths, rolled curbs andparking bays, and considering allowinguse of less expensive buildingmaterials, such as plastic for stormdrainage pipes, provided applicablecode requirements are satisfied.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing Projects that include affordable
housing are processed in anefficient manner.The City would give priority forprojects that exceed the minimumaffordable housing requirement.The City works with developers tolook for ways to reduce the cost ofconstruction, including notrequiring sidewalks and allowingnarrower streets.

The City has considered and
approved alternative materialsthat may be more cost effectivethan traditional methods andmaterials.

Keep program.Continue to beflexible with Cityrequirementsaffecting the cost ofconstructionmaterials.Review and modify, ifappropriate,engineeringstandards to reducepublic infrastructurecosts for affordablehousing projects.

Housing Program 2.6. Continue toencourage single-room occupancy(SRO) housing in the MRVL, MRL, MRMand MRH districts consistent with Sec.18.20.085 of the Zoning Ordinance.This type of housing can help toaddress the needs of very-low- andextremely-low-income households suchas college students and service sectoremployees.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission,City Council 20 SRO units 2015-2023 The City achieved compliance with this program by adopting anordinance amendment thatallowed and establisheddevelopment provisions for single- room occupancy projects.

Keep program,however updatebased on next stepsas the City hasalready achievedcompliance with theinitial goals of thisprogram.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-10 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 3. Increase housing opportunities for people of limited incomes.Housing Policy 3A. Facilitate construction of affordable housing by favoring new projects that include units for lower-income segments of the community.

Housing Policy 3B. Look for opportunities to promote the development of housing affordable and available to those who work in Pleasant Hill.Housing Policy 3C. Participate in programs assisting production of affordable units in order to provide housing for low- and moderate-income households.

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

Housing Program 3.1. Continue toprovide a density bonus fordevelopment of affordable and seniorOrdinance, provides a minimum 5% to20% increase in density with additionaldensity bonuses up to a maximumincrease of 35% in density if additionaltarget units are provided, and up tothree additional incentives, orfinancially equivalent incentives, if thedevelopment provides additional targetunits.

PlanningCommissionand City Council
10 Very Low30 Low(Senior)
2015-2023 The City adopted a density bonus
ordinance that complies with theState requirements (See Section18.20.150 of the ZoningOrdinance).

Modify program forcompliance withcurrent state law.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-11 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.2. Allow developersto satisfy affordable housingrequirements by providing unitselsewhere in the city when inclusion ofaffordable units within thedevelopment is not feasible.

PlanningCommissionand City Council
N/A Ongoing The City allows an in-lieu fee to be
paid instead of providing theactual affordable housing unitswithin the project. This money canbe used to provide units elsewherein the City. The money collectedthrough the in-lieu fee has beenplaced in a dedicated interest- bearing account (not co-mingled),and can only be used to fundaffordable housing per the CityMunicipal Code. The December2021 fund balance wasapproximately $568,000, of which$400,000 is encumbered for apending affordable housingproject pending at 250 CleavelandRoad.

Modify program tospecify in-lieu fees.Continue toimplement theinclusionary housingordinance, includingallowing in-lieu feesas appropriate.Continue to reviewthe in-lieu fees everyodd year todetermine whetherthe fees areappropriate.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-12 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.3. Require allhousing projects of five or more unitsto include affordable housing.Developers may satisfy theHousing Ordinance by providing atleast:5 percent of the base density foroccupancy by very low-incomehouseholds, or10 percent for low-income households,or25 percent for qualifying seniorresidents, or20 percent second units (in single- family projects).In order to ensure that this policy doesnot pose an undue constraint tohousing production, the City willcontinue to evaluate impacts to marketrate housing related to current marketconditions, project applications,estimated affordable housingrequirements, fee collection and actualconstruction of affordable housingunits. If the ordinance presents anfair share of regional housing needs,the City will revise the ordinanceaccordingly.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission,City Council 5 units peryear, 13 VL25 L
Feasibilityanalysis in2014 and 2015- 2023
The City continuously approvesresidential projects that providedaffordable housing consistent withthe adopted inclusionaryordinance.

Keep program.Continue toimplement theinclusionary housingordinance.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-13 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.4. Continue topublicize the opportunity to constructsecondary units.(adopted 1989) was amended in 2003to comply with State law making theprocess ministerial. Secondary unitshelp to address the needs of very-low- and extremely-low- income households.The City will continue to inform thepublic about this process withadvertising suchnewsletter, which is mailed to allhomeowners on a bi-monthly basis. Asecondary unit brochure and otheroutreach materials could be madeavailable to residents and/or posted on Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
16 SecondaryUnits
2015-2023 The City updated its ordinance to
be consistent with recent Statelaw and allows accessory dwellingunits in all single-family residentialzoning districts.The City has provided informationto its citizens through variousmedia methods including hand- outs and newsletters.

The City continues to process
ADU applications throughout theCity.

Modify program forcompliance withcurrent state law.Add incentives forADWU production,particularlyaffordable rentalADUs, and those inhigh resource areas.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) H
o
u
sin
g
Ele
m
e
nt | A
ffirm
ativ
ely
F
urth
er F
air H
o
u
sin
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
er 2
0 2
2A
pril 2
02 3
H
C
D
R
e
vie
w
DraftR
e
vis
e
d
H
C
D
R
e
vie
w
Draft B-14
Pro
gra
m
R
e
s
p
o
n
sible
A
g
e
n
c
y
Q
u
a
ntifie
d
O
bje
ctiv
e
Tim
efra
m
e
C
urre
nt Statu
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
6 th
C
y
cle
A
ctio
n
H
ousing
Pro
gram

3.5. S
e
ek State and
federal funds, and enc
ourag
e the use
of
private financing
m
e
chanisms, to
assist in the production of affordablehousing. Funding
m
e
chanisms that
should c
ontinue to be
explored include
the
H
C
D
Multifamily
H
ousing
Pro
gram,
Lo
w-Inc
o
m
e
H
ousing
Tax Credits
(LIH
T
C), federally subsidized S
e
ction
2 21 (d)(4), S
e
ction 8
or S
e
ction 2
0 2
pro
grams, C
o
m
munity
D
e
v
elopm
ent
Blo
ck Grants, tax-exe
mpt bond
financing, federal H
O
ME pro
gram
funds, administrativ
e fe
es c
olle
cted by
the
C
ounty
H
ousing
Authority, and
fav
orable financing
made available
through financial institutions, to assistlo
w- and m
oderate-inc
o
m
e households.

The
City shall apply for State and
Federal m
onies for dire
ct support of
lo
w-inc
o
m
e housing
c
onstruction and
rehabilitation, and shall c
ontinue to
assess potential funding sourc
es, such
as, but not limited to, the
C
o
m
munity
D
e
v
elopm
ent Blo
ck Grant (C
D
B
G), and
H
O
ME. The
City shall also se
ek State
and Federal funding spe
cifically
targ
eted for the de
v
elopm
ent of
housing affordable to
extre
m
ely-lo
winc
o
m
e households. The
City shall
pro
m
ote the benefits of this pro
gram to
the de
v
elopm
ent c
o
m
munity by posting
information on its website and creatinga handout to be distributed with landde v
elopm
ent applications.

Public
Works &
C
o
m
munity
D
e
v
elopm
ent
D
epartm
ent
$100,000 peryear, 10 L and10
M per year
Apply foravailablefundingannually
As noted pre
viously, the
City
pro
vided funding to two affordable
housing proje
cts in 2
016 (G
P
A
C
and CiA) and 2
017 (G
P
A
C). The
City funds to
G
P
A
C
will le
v
erag
e
federal R
ental Assistanc
e
D
e
m
onstration and Proje
ct-Based
V
oucher funds. The
City funds to
CiA are supportingprede
v
elopm
ent of a proje
ct that
is envisioned to
e
v
entually be
substantially supported by lo
winc
o
m
e housing tax credits.

In 2
018, the
City am
ended an
agre
e
m
ent with S
A
H
A to
extend
the term
of an existing loan.

The am
endm
ent was made in
c
onjunction with ne
w financing
S
A
H
A
obtained fro
m
CalHFA and
LIH
T
C to rehabilitate the
H
o
okston
S
enior Apartm
ents.

The
City re
c
ently
obtained a S
B
2 H
C
D
Grant to support the
S
A
H
A
senior affordable housing proje
ct.

In addition, the
City re
c
ently
made
a submittal to
H
C
D for T
O
D funds
in support of the
S
A
H
A senior
affordable housing proje
ct
K
e
ep pro
gram.

Due to the dissolutionof rede
v
elopm
ent by
action of the
State
of
California, the
City
will no long
er hav
e an
affordable housingfund financ
ed by
rede
v
elopm
ent to
assist in the fundingof this pro
gram.

C
ontinue to
work with
C
ounty staff
re
garding the
de
v
elopm
ent of
affordable housingwhere feasible.

H
ousing
Pro
gram

3.6. Use
Suc
c
essor
A
g
enc
y funds to fund housing
pro
grams throughout the
city. Included
in the
estimated expenditures for each
year is an annual am
ount ($
2 3
5,000)
for debt pre
viously incurred for
Suc
c
essor
A
g
enc
y
$
2 8
5,000 per
year; $

2.2 8
million totalbetwe
en 2
015
and 2
0 2
3 2
015-2
0 2
3 The
Pleasant Hill R
ede
v
elopm
ent
Suc
c
essor A
g
enc
y spends
$
2 3
5,000 per year funding
Grayson Cre
ek Apartm
ents which
are 100% affordable. The
City has
c
o
m
mitted $

2.5 million in H
ousing
D
elete pro
gram.

The
City
will C
ontinue
to fund GraysonCre
ek; and c
ontinue
to assist non-profitorganizations that

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-15 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
development of the Grayson CreekApartments affordable housing project.This amount will recur annually untilthe debt is paid in full (2031).

Successor funds to SAHA toassist with an 82-unit affordablehousing development and$285,000 to Habitat for Humanityto develop 4 affordable units. TheCity has also entered intoagreements to sell two formerredevelopment agency propertiesto Habitat to Humanity to developaffordable housing units. provide affordablehousing in PleasantHill using proceedsfrom previouslyapproved loans asthey are paid off andany other new grantfunding sources thatmay becomeavailable.

Housing Program 3.7 Invite non-profithousing developers to work with theCity in promoting and encouragingaffordable housing. The City hasworked with non-profit housingdevelopers on past projects and willcontinue cooperative efforts in thefuture with these or other interestednonprofit developers.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing The City is currently working with
SAHA on development of a new82-unit project.The City is also listed formerRedevelopment Agency propertiesfor sale in 2018, inviting proposalsfrom developers to developaffordable housing on two sites.The City has agreed to sell one ofthese properties at 250 Cleavelandto Habitat for Humanity andprovide a forgivable loan toencourage affordable housing atthis location.

Keep program.Continue to work withaffordable non- profithousing developersto provide affordablehousing in PleasantHill.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-16 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.8. Providedevelopers with the opportunity toutilize tax-exempt revenue bonds.Table H1128 lists three seniordevelopments where the City providedtax exempt financing: Ellinwood andChateau I and III.The City will continue to offer supportto developers through tax exemptfinancing where affordable housing willbe produced.Table H11 lists three seniordevelopments where the City providedtax exempt financing: Ellinwood andChateau I and III. Through theremainder of the Housing ElementPlanning Period, the City will continueto offer support to developers throughtax exempt financing where affordablehousing will be produced.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
50 L 2015-2023 During this reporting period, the
City did not use/issue any tax- exempt revenue bonds. Keep program The City will continue to offer support to developers through
tax-exempt financing
when affordable
housing will be
produced and where
feasible.

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-17 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.9. Use monies inthe Housing Trust Fund to assist in thedevelopment of affordable housing.Revenue for the trust fund comes from - inclusionary unit ordinance. Thepotential uses of these funds include:land acquisition for below market ratehousing, buy-downs on mortgages forpurchasers of below market rate units,capital improvements to below marketrate housing, etc.

PlanningCommissionand City Council
Annualoutreach todevelopersand othernonprofithousingagencies Ongoing The City collects inclusionary
housing in lieu fees in anaffordable housing fund, which itconsiders a Housing Trust Fund.In October 2019, the Citycommitted $400,000 in HousingTrust Fund monies to Habitat forHumanity to develop 6 to 7affordable units at 250 CleavelandRoad.

Keep program. Referto in-lieu fees asopposed to theHousing Trust Fundby name.Due to the dissolutionof redevelopment byaction of the State ofCalifornia, the Citywill no longer have anaffordable housingfund financed byredevelopment toassist in the fundingof this program.Continue to researchways to assistdevelopment ofaffordable housingwith the use ofhousing in-lieu funds.

Housing Program 3.10. Continue toparticipate in the Contra Costa CountyMortgage Credit Certificate Programfor first-time homebuyers.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
10 M 2015-2023 The City provides information
Credit Certificate Program on theCity website.

Keep program. Theprogram responds toa constraint.Continue to referprospective buyers tothe MCC program aslong as fundingremains available.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) H
o
u
sin
g
Ele
m
e
nt | A
ffirm
ativ
ely
F
urth
er F
air H
o
u
sin
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
er 2
0 2
2A
pril 2
02 3
H
C
D
R
e
vie
w
DraftR
e
vis
e
d
H
C
D
R
e
vie
w
Draft B-18
Pro
gra
m
R
e
s
p
o
n
sible
A
g
e
n
c
y
Q
u
a
ntifie
d
O
bje
ctiv
e
Tim
efra
m
e
C
urre
nt Statu
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
6 th
C
y
cle
A
ctio
n
H
ousing
Pro
gram

3.11. C
ontinue to
inv
estigate
c
onc
epts and funding
sourc
es for a ho
m
e
o
wnership
assistanc
e pro
gram.

The
City
will c
ontinue to
explore the
possibility
of pro
viding assistanc
e to
pe
ople
who
cannot afford to buy a
ho
m
e
with priority
giv
en to those
who
work in the
city, but cannot afford the
c
ost of housing, for example, teachers,
polic
e
offic
ers and those
who
work in
City
g
o
v
ernm
ent. Other potential targ
et
groups are first-tim
e ho
m
ebuyers of
lo
wer- and m
oderate-inc
o
m
e le
v
els,
and larg
e families.

Public
Works &
C
o
m
munity
D
e
v
elopm
ent
D
epartm
ent,
PlanningC
o
m
mission,
City
C
ouncil
N/A Inv
estigate and
apply foravailablefundingannually
N
o action was taken during this
reporting period.

K
e
ep pro
gram. The
pro
gram responds to
a c
onstraint.

C
ontinue to search
for funding sourc
es
to assist lo
w-inc
o
m
e
families purchaseho
m
es.

Due to the dissolutionof rede
v
elopm
ent by
action of the
State
of
California, the
City
will no long
er hav
e an
affordable housingfund financ
ed by
rede
v
elopm
ent to
assist in the fundingof this pro
gram.

H
ousing
Pro
gram

3.12. Maintain
appropriate standards for use by theArchite
ctural R
e
vie
w
C
o
m
mission in
the pro
c
essing
of affordable housing
de
v
elopm
ents.

The
Archite
ctural R
e
vie
w
C
o
m
mission
re
vie
ws all ne
w residential proposals. It
typically re
vie
ws de
v
elopm
ent plans for
landscaping, design of buildings, andpro
visions for ac
c
essibility for the
disabled.

Public
Works &
C
o
m
munity
D
e
v
elopm
ent
D
epartm
ent,
City
C
ouncil
N/A
Ong
oing
D
esign Guidelines hav
e be
en
adopted and were re
c
ently
updated and the
City started the
pro
c
ess to hav
e residential
obje
ctiv
e design standards that
would apply to all residentialproje
cts throughout the
City.

D
elete pro
gram.

The
City is
transitioning toObje
ctiv
e
D
esign and
D
e
v
elopm
ent
Standards (O
D
D
S).

H
ousing
Pro
gram

3.13. C
ontinue to
pro
vide fast-track permit pro
c
essing for
affordable housing de
v
elopm
ents.

Public
Works &
C
o
m
munity
D
e
v
elopm
ent
D
epartm
ent,
City
C
ouncil
N/A
Ong
oing
P
olicies hav
e be
en established to
expedite affordable housingpro
c
esses.

M
odify pro
gram.

The
City has reduc
ed
possible issues withpermitting ne
w
de
v
elopm
ents
through the transitionto
Obje
ctiv
e
D
esign
and D
e
v
elopm
ent
Standards (O
D
D
S).

C
ontinue
expediting
affordable housing

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-19 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
projects whensubmitted to the City.

Housing Program 3.14. LotConsolidation for Affordable Housing.The City will play an active role infacilitating lot consolidation for theparcels listed in Table H2229,particularly for parcels on Site 1(JewellLane) and Site 4 (Cleaveland andBeatrice). For example, the City willwork with non-profit developers andowners of smaller sites to identify andconsolidate parcels to facilitate thedevelopment of housing affordable tolower-income households. The lotconsolidation procedure will also beposted on the City website anddiscussed with developers during thepreliminary review process. Lotconsolidation requests will beprocessed as expeditiously as possiblein compliance with all applicable stateand local laws and regulations.Incentives offered for lot consolidationcould include higher densities onconsolidated parcels, flexibility indevelopment standards, expeditedprocessing and/or reduced fees relatedto consolidation. The City will providemarketing materials for residentialopportunity sites and technicalassistance to interested developers,including technical assistance toacquire necessary funding. The City willencourage and facilitate development Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,City Council N/A Ongoing To comply with this program, the
City adopted a voluntary parcelmerger ordinance. The Cityencourages lot consolidation onsmaller and under-utilized lotswhere appropriate. The City has adensity bonus ordinance in placeto provide incentives fordevelopment of affordablehousing. The City also currentlyhas a mechanism for providingflexible development standardsthrough its Planned UnitDevelopment regulations andthrough various adopted SpecificPlans.

Keep program.Update programbased on new sitesand lotconsolidationsneeded.Consider additionalincentives toencourage lotconsolidation.Monitor developmenton Cityunderdevelopedparcels and report tothe City Council andthe Department ofHousing andCommunityDevelopment.Provide marketingmaterials forresidentialopportunity sites andprovide technicalassistance tointeresteddevelopers, includingtechnical assistanceto acquire necessaryfunding.Due to the dissolutionof redevelopment byaction of the State of 29 Table H22

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-20 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
on underdeveloped sites on Site 1(Jewell Lane) by providing assistancewith entitlement processing, andprovide marketing materials forresidential opportunity sites, andoffering to pay the fees from theaffordable housing fund for affordablehousing projects, and providingfinancial support when available. TheCity will monitor and evaluatedevelopment of underdevelopedparcels and report on the success ofstrategies to encourage residentialdevelopment in its Annual ProgressReports required pursuant toGovernment Code Section 65400. Ifidentified strategies are not successfulin generating development interest, theCity will evaluate additional methodsfor encouraging and facilitatingdevelopment.

California, the Citywill no longer have anaffordable housingfund financed byredevelopment toassist in the fundingof this program.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-21 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 4. Improve housing conditions for people with special needs.Housing Policy 4A. Provide incentives for and encourage development of senior housing, and housing for the developmentally, mentally and physically disabled, at sites where proximity to services and other features make it desirable.

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

Housing Program 4.1. Continue toprovide a density bonus for seniorhousing. Incentives must be created toencourage developers to build seniorhousing. The current density bonusordinance provides a density bonus ofup to 20 percent if any developmentincludes at least 35 units.

PlanningCommission,City Council
Ongoing Ongoing
ordinance notes that a densitybonus is granted for any seniorhousing project.The City also updated the DensityBonus ordinance consistent withrecent Federal and State lawchanges.

Keep program.Responds to aconstraint.Modify program toincentivize seniorhousing.

Housing Program 4.2. Facilitateprojects that provide units meetingfederal, State and local requirements.Population groups in the City withspecial needs include the physicallyhandicapped. Currently, the Cityenforces State-mandated requirementsfor rental housing units (Title 24). TheCity will continue to encourageownership housing that can beequipped with handicapped facilities.The City has adopted a ReasonableAccommodation Ordinance and willprovide fast-track processing and otherincentives to facilitate the productionof housing targeted to persons withdisabilities.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentdepartment,PlanningCommission Ongoing Ongoing The City has approved and
continues to facilitate projectsthat meet federal, state and localrequirements specifically relatedto reasonable accommodationrequests to allow for housing forpersons with disabilities.

Keep program.Responds to aconstraint.Modify program toincentivize specialneeds housing.Continue to attemptto assist thoseprojects that provideunits that meetfederal, State andlocal requirements.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-22 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 4.3. Encouragesupportive housing for persons withdevelopmental disabilities.The City will work with nonprofitdevelopers of supportive housing forthe developmentally disabled toidentify and develop adequate sites.The City will apply to the County forCDBG monies and assist with taxexempt financing for land and/orbuilding purchase and/or lease.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission Consult withnonprofits andapply forfundingannually
Consult withnonprofits andapply forfundingannually
The zoning ordinance allowsfacilities for the mentally disabled.The city approved a PUDConcept/Specific Plan for aredeveloped CIA facility thatprovides assistance for those withdisabilities.

Keep program.Responds to aconstraint.

Housing Program 4.4. Continue tofacilitate the provision of emergencyshelters, transitional and supportivehousing. SB 2 of 2007 requires alljurisdictions with an unmet need toidentify at least one zone whereemergency shelters may be stablishedby-right, subject to specificdevelopment standards. The ZoningOrdinance allows emergency sheltersby-right in the Light Industrial zone. Intransitional and supportive housingwere amended pursuant to SB 2. TheCity will continue to monitor changes instate law regarding emergencyshelters, transitional and supportivehousing and amend the Municipal Codein 2015 to ensure that City regulationsare consistent with currentrequirements.

PlanningCommission,City Council
Codeamendment in2015 &Ongoing
Codeamendment in2015 &Ongoing
The City adopted an ordinanceamendment for emergencyhomeless shelters in compliancewith this program of the HousingElement and in compliance withSection 65583 of the GovernmentCode (SB 2).

Delete program asthe City allowstransitional andsupportive housingby right in allresidential districts.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-23 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 4.5. Monitorstatistics from police, county agenciesor private organizations regardinghomeless shelter needs. A Point-in- Time survey of the homeless in ContraCosta County conducted in January2017 found 25 unsheltered homelesspersons in Pleasant Hill.The City will continue to coordinatewith the County and other agencies toaddress homeless needs on a regionalbasis.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
Ongoing Ongoing The results of the point in time
survey from 2020, showed resultsthat there were 90 unshelteredhomeless in the City at the time ofthe count.

Keep program.Responds to aconstraint.The City will continueto correspond withlocal homelessagencies.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-24 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 5. Protect and rehabilitate the existing housing stock.Housing Policy 5A.Housing Policy 5B.Housing Policy 5C. Ensure that new residential development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.Housing Policy 5D. Encourage single-family remodeling, and require additions to reflect the mass and scale of adjacent homes.Housing Policy 5E. Provide public services and improvements that keep neighborhoods safe and livable.

Housing Program 5.1. Retain existingresidential zoning and discourage non- residential uses in residential zones.

PlanningCommission,City Council
N/A Ongoing The City has not approved any
rezoning of property fromresidential to non-residential.Most non-residential uses are notallowed in residential zoningsdistricts.Those allowed are residentialserving and requires substantialanalysis (through a conditionaluse permit) before the use isgranted.

Delete program.The State ofCalifornia prohibitsthe reduction ofhousing units throughSB 166 (2019), TheNo Net Loss Law.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-25 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 5.2. Continue theNeighborhood Preservation program toprovide low interest loans forrehabilitation of homes owned oroccupied by low to moderate incomehouseholds.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,City Council 2 units peryear, 5 L, 10 M
2015-2023 The City is no longer enlisting new
participants in the Low IncomeHome Rehabilitation LoanProgram.

Modify program withDue to the dissolutionof redevelopment byaction of the State ofCalifornia, the Citywill no longer have anaffordable housingfund financed byredevelopment toassist in the fundingof this program.Continue to use theNeighborhoodPreservation programas deemed feasibleconsidering fundingconstraints.

Housing Program 5.3. Establish andmaintain an Emergency Repair GrantProgram SuccessorAgency
5 units peryear
2015-2023 The City is no longer enlisting new
participants in the EmergencyRepair Grant Program.

Modify program toDue to the dissolutionof redevelopment byaction of the State ofCalifornia, the Citywill no longer have anaffordable housingfund financed byredevelopment toassist in the fundingof this program.The RehabilitationLoan program will berevised to focus onemergency repairgrants.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-26 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 5.4. Periodicallyevaluate the need for residentialrehabilitation.The City maintains information aboutthe neighborhood surveys it hasconducted to determine housingcondition and the need forrehabilitation. The City will continue tomonitor housing conditions as part ofcode enforcement and buildinginspection activities. When housingunits in need of repair are identified,staff will advise property owners ofrehabilitation assistance that may beavailable.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing City Staff has not surveyed older
neighborhoods during thisreporting period.

Keep program.Responds to anidentified need.Continue to surveyolder neighborhoodsas necessary.

Housing Program 5.5. Monitor thesuitable for rehabilitation or codeenforcement.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing City staff works in conjunction
with code enforcement whennecessary to assist homeownerscomply with housing codeviolations.

Modify programbased on objectivesfor complianceregarding assistanceto homeowners.

Housing Program 5.6. Preserveneighborhood appearance through theenforcement of City ordinances.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing The City Code Enforcement Officer
regularly enforces the CityCommunity BeautificationOrdinance to ensure that the Citymaintains an attractiveappearance.

Delete program. Thisprogram is notrequired..

Housing Program 5.7. Review theCapital Improvement Program (CIP) todetermine priorities to maintain theneighborhoods.This review will verify that those areasneeding improvement are scheduledfor funding to address the identifiedneed at a specific time in the future.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission,City Council N/A Bi-annually,
2015-2023
On a bi-annual basis, the Citycompletes a Capital ImprovementProgram that includesinfrastructure improvementprojects in all areas of the City.Because older portions of the Cityhave older infrastructure, they arenormally targeted for areas ofimprovement, including roads,sidewalks, etc.

Keep program.Continue reviewingthe CIP on a bi- annual basis.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-27 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 6.Housing Policy 6A. Discourage the conversion of older residential units to other uses.Housing Policy 6B. Ensure that units produced for low- and moderate-income households are made available to those households and maintained as affordable units.

Housing Policy 6C. Prohibit conversion of multifamily rental units to market rate condominiums if such conversions would reduce the number of rental apartments to less th
Housing Program 6.1. Prohibit theconversion of assisted housing units tomarket rate for as long as possible andno less than 55 years after initialoccupancy.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,PlanningCommission,City Council N/A Ongoing No conversions of assisted
housing units to market rateduring this reporting period.

Keep program.Due to the dissolutionof redevelopment byaction of the State ofCalifornia, the Citywill no longer have anaffordable housingfund financed byredevelopment toassist in the fundingof this program.

Housing Program 6.2. Identify assisteddwelling units at risk of conversion tomarket rate and work with propertyowners to preserve the units for low- income families. 56 units 2015-2023 The City maintains a list of
affordable units and periodicallyrechecks it. A new affordabilitycovenant was executed for theEllinwood Apartments, replacing aprior covenant that had expired in2015.The new covenant requires 19 low- income rental units for 55 years.A prior condition requiring theproperty to be restricted to seniorswas lifted in order to expandaffordable housing opportunitiesfor households of all ages.

Required program.Keep and expandprogram withobjectives.Continue to monitorthe affordable unitsand assist withkeeping themaffordable when andwhere feasible.Due to the dissolutionof redevelopment byaction of the State ofCalifornia, the Citywill no longer have anaffordable housingfund financed by

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) H
o
u
sin
g
Ele
m
e
nt | A
ffirm
ativ
ely
F
urth
er F
air H
o
u
sin
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
er 2
0 2
2A
pril 2
02 3
H
C
D
R
e
vie
w
DraftR
e
vis
e
d
H
C
D
R
e
vie
w
Draft B-2
8 Pro
gra
m
R
e
s
p
o
n
sible
A
g
e
n
c
y
Q
u
a
ntifie
d
O
bje
ctiv
e
Tim
efra
m
e
C
urre
nt Statu
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
6 th
C
y
cle
A
ctio
n
rede
v
elopm
ent to
assist in the fundingof this pro
gram.

H
ousing
Pro
gram

6.3. Ensure that
o
c
cupants of belo
w
market rate
o
wnership units m
e
et spe
cified inc
o
m
e
require
m
ents at tim
e
of purchase.
require
m
ent to preserv
e affordable
units for 5
5 years by
ensuring that only
qualified o
c
cupants are the
beneficiaries of belo
w
market-rate
o
wnership units.

Public
Works &
C
o
m
munity
D
e
v
elopm
ent
D
epartm
ent,
PlanningC
o
m
mission
N/A
Ong
oing
The
City qualifies all purchasers of
affordable units and c
onducts
annual m
onitoring to
ensure
properties with affordabilityc
o
v
enants are
o
c
cupied by
qualified households.

D
elete pro
gram. This
pro
gram is not
required.

H
ousing
Pro
gram

6.4. R
equire resale
and rental c
ontrols on belo
w
market
rate units pro
vided through the
inclusionary housing pro
visions or
through public assistanc
e.
require
m
ent that has be
en imposed on
all residential de
v
elopm
ent sinc
e 19
9 6.

Public
Works &
C
o
m
munity
D
e
v
elopm
ent
D
epartm
ent,
PlanningC
o
m
mission,
City
C
ouncil
N/A
Ong
oing
The
City has resale and rental
c
ontrols on all assisted units.

The
City also updated duration for
rental units to
5 5
years, c
onsistent
with o
wnership unit pro
visions.

K
e
ep pro
gram.

M
odify
v
erbiag
e to
H
ousing
Pro
gram

6.5. Explore a variety
of to
ols for preserving assisted units,
including
m
onitoring at-risk units,
participating in acquisition of belo
wmarket rental units by tenants or nonprofits, facilitating refinancing or
purchase
of de
v
elopm
ents fro
m
o
wners who file a notic
e indicating that
the
y intend to
opt out of a subsidy
agre
e
m
ent, and pro
viding te
chnical and
relo
cation assistanc
e to tenants.

Public
Works &
C
o
m
munity
D
e
v
elopm
ent
departm
ent
5 6 L 2
015-2
0 2
3 As m
entioned pre
viously, the
Ellinwo
od Apartm
ents had an
affordability
c
o
v
enant that expired
in 2
015.

A ne
w
c
o
v
enant was exe
cuted in
2 018
making 19 units affordable
to lo
w-inc
o
m
e households for 5
5 years.City staff c
ontinues to
explore
ways for preserving assisted units.

M
erg
e pro
gram
with
Pro
gram

6.4. H
ousing
Pro
gram

6.6. Enforc
e
existing
c
ondo
minium
c
onv
ersion ordinanc
e.

Prohibit further c
onv
ersions unless the
threshold perc
entag
e
of apartm
ents is
belo
w
2 0 perc
ent and if the apartm
ent
vacanc
y rate is belo
w
5 perc
ent.

PlanningC
o
m
mission,
City
C
ouncil
N/A
Ong
oing
N
o
c
ondo
minium
c
onv
ersion
requests were re
c
eiv
ed during the
m
ost re
c
ent planning period.

K
e
ep pro
gram.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-29 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 6.7. Regularlyevaluate the proportion of rentalapartments in the city to ensureappropriate implementation of thecondominium conversion ordinance.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing Rental units account for
approdwelling units.

Merge with Program6.6
Housing Program 6.8. Require allassisted housing units to submitreports on a timely basisdemonstrating compliance with therecorded affordability agreements.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing All assisted affordable housing
complexes and single-family unitssubmit annual reportsdemonstrating compliance.

Keep program.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-30 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 7. Ensure equal housing opportunities for all.Housing Policy 7A. Ensure that individuals and families seeking housing in Pleasant Hill are not discriminated against on the basis of age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, family structure, national origin, ethnicity, religion, lawful occupation, or other similar factors.

Housing Program 7.1. Continue to referall reports of housing discrimination tothe local fair housing-related non-profitthat is funded by the County CDBGprogram.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing
As such,
residents with discriminationcomplaints are referred to thosehousing counseling services.

Keep program.Continue to referresidents toappropriate agencies.

Housing Program 7.2. Continue tofollow the City guidelines forimplementing the reasonableaccommodation ordinance andperiodically review the ZoningOrdinance to identify other provisions,could pose constraints on thedevelopment of housing for personswith disabilities and reduce or eliminateconstraints through appropriateordinance amendments.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Code
amendment in2015 &Ongoing
The guidelines for reasonableaccommodation requests are inuse when the City receivedreasonable accommodationrequests.

Keep program.Modify based on nextsteps as necessary.Continue to use theguidelines whenreviewing reasonableaccommodationrequests. Periodicallyreview thereasonableaccommodationordinance to makeadditionalamendments asappropriate.

Housing Program 7.3. Promptlyaddress complaints of discrimination inthe sale, rent, and development ofhousing in Pleasant Hill.types of complaints to the Countyfunded non-profit fair-housing agency,such as SHELTER Inc., or PacificCommunity Services.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing All complaints of housing
discrimination are promptlyaddressed.

Keep program.Modify verbiage to

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-31 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
The City will distribute literatureannually in City offices and on the Citywebsite.Housing Program 7.4. Encouragedevelopers to provide amenities forsingle heads of households, thedisabled, and senior citizens.For example, an amenity that wouldencourage housing opportunities forsingle heads of households would bethe provision of childcare centers. Anamenity in a new residential communityfor the disabled might be walkways toaccommodate wheelchair access. Anda housing development could promotesocial interaction among residents ofall ages with the addition of aclubhouse or other recreational facility.

ArchitecturalReviewCommission,PlanningCommission
N/A Ongoing Encourage and recommend multi- family projects to provide recreational facilities, when seniorcenters are proposed, appropriateamenities are encouraged.

Keep program. Moveto Special Needssection.Continue to reviewappropriate projectsand require amenitiesto serve the project.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-32 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 8. Require energy conserving practices in the maintenance of existing dwellings and in new residential development, additions and remodeling.

Housing Policy 8A. Encourage energy conservation practices for new and existing residential dwellings.Housing Policy 8B. Encourage the use of green building and sustainable practices for new and renovation projects throughout the City.

Housing Program 8.1. Enforce thefor new residential construction andadditions to existing structures.

BuildingDivision
N/A Ongoing Projects are required to comply
with Title 24 standards, whichinclude the State of Californiathrough the building permitprocess. The City recentlyadopted the latest State BuildingCode provisions that include thelatest energy conservationstandards.

Required program.Keep program.Modify program tocommit the City totriannual updates ofCalifornia StateBuilding Code andCalGREEN.

Housing Program 8.2. Encourageinnovative designs to maximize passiveenergy efficiency.

ArchitecturalReviewCommission,PlanningCommission
N/A Ongoing The City-Wide design guidelines
include recommendations toincorporate design that encourageenergy efficiency and other greenmethods that result in energy andcost savings.

Keep program.Continue toencourage newdevelopment toincorporate energyefficiency techniquesinto projects.

Housing Program 8.3. Provideinformation to the public, and supportefforts by public utilities, to encouragehome conservation practices.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing The City has worked cooperatively
with utilities (PG&E, CCWD,EBMUD) to promote energyconservation and provideeducation to the public.

Keep program.Expand program.Continue to work withutilities to supportefforts to conserveenergy. Provideinformation to thepublic about homeconservationpractices through theinternet, citynewsletter and otherforms of media.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-33 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 8.4. Encourage useof sustainable and innovative buildingpractices and materials. Provide publicinformation concerning accepted andavailable sustainable building practicesin partnership with groups promotingBuilding Code as needed to beconsistent with further revisions to theState of California Green BuildingStandards Code.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment,ArchitecturalReviewCommission,PlanningCommission,City Council N/A Ongoing The City continues to encourage
incorporating sustainable andinnovative building practices andmaterials through the designreview process.In addition, the City Building Coderequires compliance with the Stateof California Green BuildingStandards Code.The City adopted provisions thatrequires incorporating electricvehicle chargers for certaindevelopment projects.

Keep program.Continue toencouragesustainable buildingpractices through thedesign reviewprocess.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft B-34 Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 9.
policies.

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

Housing Program 9.1. Provideenhanced public notification forNeighborhood, Area-Wide and City- Wide Projects.Continue to implement enhancedpublic notification for projects basedon the impact of the project; either on aneighborhood, area-wide or City-widelevel.

Public Works &CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
N/A Ongoing The City provides enhanced
noticing for neighborhood, area- wide and city-wide projects.

Keep program.Expand withAffirmatively FurtherFair Housing (AFFH)objectives to reachthe wholecommunity.Continue to provideenhanced noticing forprojects whendeemed appropriate.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-1 Appendix C: Public Comments
The following appendix contains verbatim public comments received during community engagement events that addressed housing issues in the community.

Table of Contents
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................C-1 GPAC Meeting #13: May 11, 2021...........................................................................................C-2 GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021..........................................................................................C-2 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop..............................................................................C-6 October 27, 2021 Housing Element Townhall.......................................................................C-17 Public Comment......................................................................................................................C-18 GPAC Meeting #23: April 12, 2023.........................................................................................C-45 Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element............................................... C-4750

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-2 GPAC Meeting #13: May 11, 2021
GPAC Meeting #13: May 11, 2021
Author Comment
Lynda
Deschanbault
Public
Comment
GP should reflect climate action plan
equity needs to be considered
jobs/transportation access are important
liked using box store areas for housing
impacts need to be mitigated
Alan Bade
Public
Comment
History: Chilpanchango Park was given to city to protect the old Valley Oak trees to build over this park would go against other goals of GP Serves an underserved areas
In an area underserved with parks
Maybe look in Pacheco?
Consider old gas station off Hookston
Wendy Gollop
Public
Comment
Perhaps consider areas north of DVC? Martinez area?
Seems like a lot of high density concentrated in areas in southern areas of the city
Salvation Army a good site?
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
Frank Hall
Public
Comment
Owns 555-559 Contra Costa Blvd
4800 sqft space empty
Wants review of retail commercial designation hope will allow additional potential uses
GPAC
Discussion
Regarding the RHNA, what about projects underway?
Response: We can only count toward RHNA if permit pulled after June 2022 (6 months before projection period starts on January 2023), including 85 Cleaveland 180 units
Choice in Aging 89 units (by DVC Overflow Parking Lot)
401 Taylor Project would be good above mod units
490 Golf Club
Jack Prosek
Public
Comment
There will be a loss of jobs on JFK and JC Penny sites
Low densities proposed in Mangini area could support higher densities Winslow Center will they sell the site?
Appreciate efforts to put in increased density in the city GPAC
Discussion
Site A: DVC Overflow Parking Lot
Could be student housing with smaller units (e.g., studios) DVC has considered developing housing in the past
The site backs up to 4 story developments
Potential for increasing density on this site but hold off increasing unless needed to meet the RHNA

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-3 GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
GPAC
Discussion
Site B: Chilpancingo Site
Remove from consideratoin
GPAC
Discussion
Site C: Winslow Center/PH-Taylor Intersection
Would Rec and Park be willing to sell the site for development? A creek goes through this site would want to preserve that and may impact amount of available buildable land
Density could be decreased here.

GPAC
Discussion
Site D: Mangini-Delu

3.2 du/ac a little low the potential to bump up to 5-6 du/ac? There is community interest in green spaces in this area/on this site Would be great to incorporate park/urban ag(?) part of the site GPAC
Discussion
Site E: JFK University Site
Building is close to trail and other city amenities
Maybe a good spot for Mixed Use, first floor retail would allow to retain some potential for sales tax generation
Higher density on this site can help offset lower densities elsewhere in the city Consider 70-100 du/ac MU on this site
GPAC
Discussion
Site F. ACE Hardware
Extend the site boundary north to include TAP plastics
GPAC
Discussion
Site G. Gregory Gardens Shopping Center
Would be a good Mixed Use area
GPAC
Discussion
Site H. Salvation Army
Remove from Consideration
GPAC
Discussion
Site I. Pleasant Hill/Gregory intersection
Concerned about 2 new buildings
Would like Mixed Use in this area
Walgreens could be the anchor
Consider 40-70 du/ac MU designation for this site
GPAC
Discussion
Site J: Gregory Lane/Contra Costa Boulevard Intersection Extend the focus area boundary north to Caspers
Potential site for brewery or brew pub
Consider 40-70 du/ac Mixed Use
GPAC
Discussion
Site K: Jewel Neighborhood
Rezoning would be good for that development project
Expand the focus area to Include the L-shaped building to the east GPAC
Discussion
L. Beatrice Area
Part of site is taken by Habitat for Humanity build; remove from site area Flooding issues on the site
Not impossible to build, but would cost a lot of money
Most people would go elsewhere before building here
Remove from consideration reconsider if having trouble meeting RHNA targets

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-4 GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
GPAC
Discussion
Site M: Monument Triangle Area
Challenging to displace a mobile home park; remove this parcel from consideration within the focus area
GPAC
Discussion
Site N: Former JCPenney Furniture Store Site
Consider to 40-70 du/ac Mixed Use in this area.

GPAC
Discussion
New suggested areas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts on the specific sites follow:

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-5 GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
C Winslow Center & D Mangini/Delu
Given the right terms, the RPD should be interested in a land swap perhaps a parcel along the creek towards the southern end of this property that could be developed into a park serving this new part of our community. This was strongly suggested (but totally ignored) during their Master Plan process ! The Winslow Center building itself is dilapidated & has been living on borrowed time ever since they needed to bring in a Structural Engineer TEN YEARS ago. It was good to see that D was revised to include the entire site; you also must recognize the slopes of the east & north parts of this site. I always envisioned a more dense development of this site than what is being proposed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Prosek Your Memorandum for the June 23rd meeting of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) included a great deal of valuable information about potential

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-6 GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
sites for additional housing within the City of Pleasant Hill. After making a brief review, I have one major issue & found a few minor clarifications that are needed.

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

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

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

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

Walgreens is brand new and won't work.

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

Please provide density range for each density.

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

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-7 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Mixed use: be mindful of our character when choosing where to allow Mixed Use.

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

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

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

Thank you for removing Chilpancingo.

Beatrice has environmental constraints.

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

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

Wendy Surveys show that people want smaller low density areas.

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

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

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

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

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

Darcy Housing should be inclusive for all.

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

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-8 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
My specific area of concern is the west PH areas C, D and I in July 14, 2021 presentation
a. Propose lowering overall density to be more consistent with areas characteristics;
b. Need to Articulate long-term vision for complete area since these three areas are in close proximity and interrelated (housing and shopping). c. These three would be significant traffic adds to area with limited public transit.

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-9 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
D. Mangini-Delu Area (mix of designations East = Single fam HD) a. See above
E. JFK University
F. ACE Hardware (+adjacent) Mixed use HD - 120
a. Agree this is an opportunity area with underutilized land area (large parking lots)
b. Propose there be an overarching plan for community shopping needs (groceries, sundries, etc.) in conjunction with areas G, I and J below G. Gregory Gardens Shopping Center (Grocery Outlet) Mixed User HD 175 a. Consider how to meet current and future community shopping area features grocery, dining, etc. in consideration of total area needs.

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

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

M. Monument Triangle Mixed User HD - 220
a. Agree that this is a potential site
N. Former JCPenney Furniture store Site - Mixed User HD 281 a. Agree that this is a potential site

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-10 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Chris Klein My family happily resides at 8 Erin Ct and we are writing you to express our deepest disappointment after hearing about this recent Mangini and Winslow Center proposed high density housing development.

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

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

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

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

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

I will move my family right out of here.

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

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-11 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
quality of
life. To the contrary, the proposed changes will degrade the residential neighborhoods with looming multi-story story structures and increases of congestion and traffic, hazards to bicycles and pedestrians, and noise impacts.

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

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

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

Pleasant Hill has long prided itself on being a wonderful community to live in and raise families in safe single-family residential neighborhoods that have charm and our residential neighborhoods. The proposed housing high density changes for the two properties fly in the face of this top priority and should be dropped.

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

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

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

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

Bruce Irion Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Housing Element of the PH 2040 General Plan. The RHNA goals for the General Plan represent an audacious goal,

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-12 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
one that will take ingenuity, creativity, and a different mindset to solve - As Albert Einstein said, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
My comments and questions fall into several categories:

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

Agreement on overriding objectives:

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-13 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
While I recognize the agenda of the July 14, 2021 meeting was the Housing Element of the 2040 General Plan, I believe it would have been helpful to have summarized this against the backdrop of trends which are and will impact the Housing Element. Specifically, here are a few trends that I believe have significant impact on housing:

Growth in e-commerce and a commensurate reduction in brick and mortar stores Trend toward tele-commuting for jobs
Trend toward on-line learning
Automation is/will reduce the number of lower income service industry jobs housing needs for the 2040 General Plan.

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

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

Comment #3 The RHNA income specific housing target disproportionately emphasized lower income housing. As telecommuting allows higher income workers to choose where they elect to live, more will move to suburbs and Pleasant -
Trend toward on-line learning
As this trend continues, there will be less need for classrooms, especially at colleges. This means DVC will need fewer classrooms.

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-14 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Specifics on the 2040 Housing Element presented in the July 14, 2021 meeting.

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

COMMENTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-15 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
II. Think that I heard a comment about developing around the existing Winslow Center building - that structure has been living on borrowed time for TEN YEARS now & definitely will need to be demolished within the next few years. The RPD will be much better off trading that prime land for a new park elsewhere - my choice would be on the Mangini/Delu property along the creek.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We also note that the densities for sites F, G, I, J, K, L & M were all increased from 30 units per acre to a range of 40-70 units per acre - not sure what the justification is for this especially since these all are the smaller MU sites ?? This might be too much to expect !
Of course, ample PARKING will be a big issue as each of these sites are developed so there is not a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods !!!

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-16 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Looking forward to receiving the requested documents sooner rather than later (needed NOW - not after August 11th) !!!

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-17 October 27, 2021 Housing Element Townhall
October 27, 2021 Housing Element Townhall Public Comments Author Comment
David Blau
Public
Comment
Mangini site: to dense, no transit, no jobs. Traffic issue is likely most critical. Public safety, environmental, school and water issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denise
Gudzikowski
I listened with interest to tonight's session with the consultant on the Housing Element update, and look forward to the General Plan update workshops on the Housing Element. One idea that did not come up in the discussion of possible ways to get to the current draft 1803 number. And that is - ADUs. Perhaps it is possible to come up with a city wide number of potential ADU additions (5%? 2.5%?) that might be built over the next 8 year RHNA period? Given there is data on the number of ADUs permitted in the past few years, there is data to support and a reasonable assumption could potentially be made there. That could be several hundred units, easily. As was mentioned, we are going to have to get creative and realistic on this next 8 year plan. I look forward to public input on under-utilized properties (Winslow Center, many church parking lots, DVC parking lots, etc etc) thanks, Denise

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-18 Online Public Comment
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Sharron
Breedlove
I reside at Steven Circle/Linda Lane across from the Mangini property for the past forty years. After viewing the housing video, what I can determine from all lettered general plan proposals for the next 8 years to satisfy the state's various housing quota, we are 382 units short of low density housing by 8 years' end & at a surplus of high density housing beyond the state's requirements.

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

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

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

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

First alternate Mangini/Delu plan proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-19 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
integrates the high density smoothly within the new neighborhood without making the units unsightly and noticeable.

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

Second alternate Mangini/Delu plan proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration and time.

Be safe.

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

Thank you on behalf of the 5 neighborhoods bordering this land for formally including

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-20 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
We are grateful that you honored your commitment to exchange the increased housing density for the open space in perpetuity designation. Thank you for protecting this open space land for us and for future generations. We genuinely appreciate your efforts and dedication.

Karen
Panico
Hi Rick and Troy,
ning. In the
Element.

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

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

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

Pleasant Hill does not have an updated articulated General Plan (GP) to which this -element (housing) before broader
trends.

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

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-21 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
a. Propose lowering overall density proposed to be more consistent with area b. Need to Articulate long-term vision for complete area since these three areas are in close proximity and interrelated (housing and shopping). c. These three would be significant traffic adds to area with limited public transit.

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

B. Chilpancingo Park - removed
C.
a. See above
D.
a. See above
E. JFK University
F. ACE Hardware (+adjacent) Mixed use HD - 120

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-22 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
a. Agree this is an opportunity area with underutilized land area (large parking lots) b. Propose there be an overarching plan for community shopping needs (groceries, sundries, etc.) in conjunction with areas G, I and J below G. Gregory Gardens Shopping Center (Grocery Outlet) Mixed User HD 175 a. Consider how to meet current and future community shopping area features grocery, dining, etc. in consideration of total area needs.

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

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-23 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
excellent bike and pedestrian trail that can also be used for north/south non-motorized commuting, helping alleviate traffic issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Dr. Quy Tran,
Chair, on
behalf of the
The Pleasant Hill Commission on Aging recognizes the challenges of securing adequate and affordable housing for all communities. We appreciate the careful deliberation of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) as the City attempts to

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-24 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Pleasant Hill
Commission
on Aging
move forward. As part of our advisory role, we wish to present some information that may assist the GPAC in this purposeful process and to ensure that the needs of the fast-growing senior population are taken into account.

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

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

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

4. Finally, we support the promotion of an age-friendly community that includes agefriendly housing, services, and businesses. Age-friendly communities constitute a wide variety of concepts. In general, we feel that the 8 domains of the World Health Organization and AARP Age-Friendly Cities Framework may be helpful for the GPAC in ensuring inclusivity and equity for the senior population. The 8 domains include:

Health Care and Health Promotion which may include local community activities and services that support wellness and greater access to health, mental health and home health care;
Transportation which may include increased public transit, reduced-cost ride services, walkability, mobility, and accessibility;

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-25 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Housing and other Building Design which may include building standards for affordable, adaptive and accessible housing, increased age-friendly planning practices and multi-generational options;
Social participation and Services which may include local meal delivery, adult day programs, and caregiving support;
Social Inclusion which may include activities and initiatives that meaningfully engage seniors to keep them connected within the community;
Outdoor Spaces which may include accessible, equitable and inclusive green spaces that are safe and secure for the older population;
Civic Participation and Engagement which may include intergenerational initiatives and opportunities for meaningful volunteering and paid work that benefit older people; and
Communication and Information which may include effective systems and technology that is accessible and available to residents of all ages.

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

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

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

General Comments

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

2. Five of the 14 potential housing sites reviewed in the Preliminary Housing Sites Memorandum (June 23, 2021) and Workshop (July 14, 2021) are adjacent to or crossed by creeks. We offer specific comments on these sites below. Where creeks are adjacent to or cross a development site, we support designation of a Creek Protection Zone, a riparian corridor/buffer zone that extends 50 feet from the top of each bank, with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential -
watercourses (General Plan, Conservation Element, Section 8.12).

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

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

Site C: Winslow Center
site. The creek channel is in a natural state and includes mature native oaks and other riparian species. Native and migratory bird species, including raptors, have been observed at the site.
recommend designation of the riparian corridor extending at least 50 feet from each creek bank as a Creek Protection Zone with adjacent open space and public

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-26 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
access trails serving as a benefit for future residents and the Pleasant Hill community.

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

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

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

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

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

The creek channel is in a natural state and includes mature native oaks and other riparian species. This site is part of an ongoing avian biodiversity survey that has documented more than 80 species of native and migratory birds, including multiple raptor species.

We recommend this site for consideration as protected open space. This site has outstanding potential for restoring riparian habitat and enhancing public access via connectivity to the existing East Bay MUD trail and school/park/library sites.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-27 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Members of the public asked thoughtful questions and those were answered concisely by you, Sue, and staff. I'm hopeful that the virtual meeting will be linked to the city website and the pleasanthill2040 site for residents to view, and that the FAQ page on both sites might be updated to include questions and answers from the meeting specific to the housing element and this sixth RHNA cycle. I think it would behoove all PH residents to have a better understanding of the potential development sites, density, zoning, and why PH and neighboring cities are suddenly faced with a mandatory housing construction increase. I commend the city's transparency, the available resources/ materials for the public's consumption/education, and the council's position on RHNA in the Bay Area (and housing numbers specific to PH). I'm confident that continued transparency and communication with the public will only lead to more thoughtful conversation, understanding, engagement, and involvement.

Thank you again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The correct action is to challenge the requirement. I recently listened to a Podcast about the poor governance in San Francisco. The city has allowed unconstrained

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-28 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
growth in business and jobs without accounting for housing. We in the Bay Area are living with those poor decisions, and now we are asked to solve the problem. However, businesses and residents are leaving the area in considerable numbers. What will that do to the needs in the area? I encourage our city council to be more thoughtful and progressive in their plan. We are a suburb. We moved here to enjoy the benefits of suburban life.

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

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

Please do right by the residents of Pleasant Hill.

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-29 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
I realize that times have changed, but many of us that live in the surrounding area are seriously concerned with the ultimate density and character of housing that would be built on the Mangini property. When and if the owners decide to sell, we want to make sure that the master plan for the site and its associated EIR fully explore the range of alternatives between housing and agricultural/ open space preservation. In fact, we suggest that this theme be the basis for the "reasonable range of alternatives" as defined in CEQA. I number of communities are preserving a component of their developments for a working farm. We, however, do not want to see this as "tokenism" to appease the community but a real, honest and viable component.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said that "the use was compatible with other passive park uses" plus he claimed that "nobody uses the Park anyways". The neighborhoods surrounding the Park were incensed and mobilized to defend the Park from a use that forces out all other park

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-30 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
users. We successfully argued that the disc golf course was inappropriate for the Park and had about 250 people attend the Recreation & Parks District public meeting to decide its fate. We received a unanimous decision to decline the proposal from the District Board after illustrating the environmental damage caused by these courses in other communities. In other words, do not underestimate the power of the people (i.e., voters) in this community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-31 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Could you please forward these three 'burning" questions to your env. consultant and have her respond with some clear answers? That would be very helpful. And thank Mayor Noack and Council member Carlson for their time and attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California has 12% of USA population and 28% of its homeless, partially due to our weather, broad outlook on welfare, but also greatly to the fact that the average USA home is $374,000 and the average Bay Area home is over $1 million. Please think in terms of not adding to this with so many good people we have mentioned above!

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-32 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Richard &
Patricia
Albright
We have received information and requests related to subject. While we understand the desire of the Mangini family to maximize the value of its (inherited) property and the (insatiable) desire of Pleasant Hill (and other government entities) to increase the property tax base and consequent revenues, we are opposed to the proposed development and, absent more cogent arguments, any development. single family housing, increases traffic congestion, would reverse the claimed improvements to pedestrian and bicycle safety.
philosophically opposed to government officials, whether elected or not, arbitrarily enacting laws, regulations, etc. that effect our lives and the quality of life that attracted us to this community. What this community needs is more open space, safe recreational fields, and restored wildlife and watershed spaces.. and trumpeted its promised
effect on traffic, and bicycle and pedestrian safety. The Mangini Land Plan would appear to be counter productive to the claimed benefits of the PH Rd project, add to the burden on neighborhood schools and tax the shrunken traffic lanes.

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-33 Online Public Comment
Author Comment
should be considered in planning for the neighborhood.
e property could become a great mixed use neighborhood amenity, as it makes up the heart of the Oak Park Boulevard GPAC Focus Area. pursue a mixed use redevelopment of the site, incorporating neighborhood commercial businesses as well as housing.
and underutilized neighboring parcels for incorporation into a unified development. existing leases largely expire before 2029.

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

Emailed Public Comments
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
jmagruder0 (at) gmail.com I was unable to attend the 6/23 meeting but noticed that the recommended density for redevelopment on the Mangini/Delu property had increased substantially compared to the
previous preferred alternative. The previous recommendation rezoned the southern section to multi-family low density and the northern section to single-family high, while retaining the section bordering Apollo Way as Single Family Low. This recommendation balanced the need for new housing with the need to protect the community and families who already live in the Apollo/Mercury community. If I'm not mistaken, the new recommendations would further increase the density on both the southern and northern portions substantially. This would substantially harm the families, community, and traffic in and around Apollo/Mercury. I urge the GPAC to return to the previous "preferred alternative" recommendations for this property.
golwern (at) gmail.com Regarding the Winslow site. If it is decided to be used for RHNA, I think that this site is better for mixed use instead of all residential. It is located at the intersection of two major streets. Any commercial development could be situated to have minimal impact on residential development. In the
present plan it is designated all residential.
cathleen.kirk (at) sbcglobal.net So, we're in phase 5. What does preparing the plan mean? Is all of this building a done deal as of today? We can't handle any more traffic in this area. Where is the water coming from for these houses? Pleasant Hill road was just redesigned but this design won't accommodate 200 houses on Mangini
Farm. You'll need a stop light. I'm against all of this development but don't want to waste my time giving input if this is already a done deal. Please contact me and let me know.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-34 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
briannabeall (at) gmail.com I am not in favor of developing this land with so many houses on it. However, I understand that housing is needed in our area. One solution could be housing in the back part of Mangini area with a public park/green space along the land that butts up against Pleasant Hill Road.
aprilbush (at) comcast.net Please find a solution that keeps the Mangini Property part of the agriculturally history of Pleasant Hill AND develops needed housing. Be creative! How about a... community
garden and play area along Pleasant Hill Road with housing behind, and a green community with solar, and connecting the walking trails, and thinking about the space for future generations. Building a community not just housing. You have the power to save the last remaining evidence of the heritage of our town and build for future climate friendly needs! csgraham228 (at) yahoo.com HORRORS!! TWO HUNDRED UNITS IN THAT SPACE IS A WAY TO MAKE LIVING IN THIS AREA IMPOSSIBLE. ALL THE

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

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

The property contains a canal that we believe should be restored
No High Density!

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-35 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
catherine.boccellari (at) gmail.com We are opposed to the proposed plan for the Mangini Land.

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

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

It is recommended to use the land for low density housing and the preserve a majority of the land for open space. chicostategrad (at) gmail.com Low density housing along with green space would preserve the character of Pleasant Hill. The sense of community is why I moved back from San Francisco to raise my kids in the Center and we hope it is greatly expanded. I will leave the city if these plans are realized. Voting with my pocketbook may be all I have at this point

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-36 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
mdewit (at) sspa.com I am strongly opposed to the proposed plan for the ManginiWinslow properties because the housing density changes are in conflict with the General Plan and the values of PH.

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

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

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

The proposed high density plan would greatly increase
impacts to Grayson Creek.
and preserve our residential neighborhoods. The proposed changes for the two properties fly in the face of this top priority and should be dropped.
bpjeas6 (at) comcast.net The southern section of the Mangini-Delu site should be targeted for 4.8du/ac which is consistent with the eastern section. In addition, a portion of this area should be
designated as a park/open space.

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

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-37 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
shereen56 (at) yahoo.com In general, I would hope that most development could be concentrated near the CC Blvd. corridor.

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

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

Also feel a Starbucks Drive Thru on the old Tahoe Joe's site is overkill - maybe a Sarbucks but NOT a Drive Thru
f.levy (at) comcast.net I am writing to voice my opposition t the open spaces where kids used to be able run, play and have fun have been paved over. The field that was at the end of Linda ln where we had 2 creeks meet into a pond and a giant oak tree with a rope swing gone, the field on the other side of Taylor Blvd where kids used to build forts gone, Instead of building more high density housing packing us in like sardines in a can why not use part of the land to teach kids at the local schools how to grow food,rent out other parts of the land to residents who want to grow their own food. vickiweiland (at) gmail.com I understand the City is considering how the land previously held by Mangini Farm on Pleasant Hill Road is going to be developed. Is this correct? If so, I would strongly encourage the City to engage the community with goals that could be to 1) preserve the historical nature of this property; 2) preserve as much open space as possible; 3) be as environmentally conscious as possible. It is NOT ok to keep developing land (like we've done with Molino's on Boyd and Pleasant Hill Road

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-38 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
and like we've done on Taylor and Mercury and now the
homes that are about to be built just down the street on Taylor) with $1.5m++ single family homes. Our City is turning into a cement jungle and the traffic and number of people living in the area continues to explode. And the "privilege" that we continue to attract with housing that only the top 1% can afford, waters down our ability to be inclusive and attract a diverse profile residents. Please respond. Thank you.
debbyclary (at) cs.com Re the Mangini property, I am against high density housing on our already depleted resources, i.e., WATER. We do NOT need more housing, period, in Pleasant Hill.
k.barense (at) comcast.net
property. Traffic is already an issue and adding 221 units will make it unbearable. Please take into concern those of us living in this area.
shari.riffe (at) sbcglobal.net If the Mangini property is up for sale I think the agricommunity idea would be great for P Hill. With the property at the corner of Lucille and Taylor being developed the
congestion will be bad enough. Too bad it can't be a park. gelinasannette (at) gmail.com I was active in the General Plan 2020 process and still stand by my opinion that the Mangini property should stay zoned as it is. Although there will still be a lot of impact to the surrounding area in the way of traffic, schools, and other services, it is much less than the proposed 221 units.

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-39 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
embrace ideas that benefit residents and the environment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not progress!
dansheridan (at) comcast.net The city should buy the Mancini farm and create some special farm, playground, multi-use community facility
bsuefine (at) outlook.com I love the idea of an "agrihood" that has been suggested, and see no reason why it couldn't work here in Pleasant Hill, a former farm community. I realize that growth is inevitable and feel that we need more affordable housing in town. Also not opposed to some high-density development here, such as the proposed building near the city center, as long as we don't end up looking like downtown Walnut Creek. However, Walnut

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-40 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
Creek and Lafayette high-rises are being built close to their BART stations. That would be a more appropriate place for PH to build high-rises, rather than on this traditionally agricultural property. I also acknowledge the Mancini's right to profit from their property. Perhaps a compromise could be reached?
karelinnea (at) yahoo.com I'm writing to ask that the Mangini/Delu property not be rezoned. As it already stands, we will suffer the impact of increased school attendance, traffic, and other services. golwern (at) gmail.com There are no documents or other information links to the focus areas that you want comments to on the Pleasant Hill 2040 website. You have to know to go to the General Plan advisory agenda to find them. Perhaps I am just not finding them. Please make links and documents easy to find for
people not following everything that is going on with the General Plan.
pgreid2 (at) gmail.com Leave the property as is. Too many cars and we have no water.
pgreid2 (at) gmail.com Leave the land as is. Too many cars & we have no water. jaykee8 (at) aol.com i think single family homes on the back perimeter of the mangini property whith a small park in front bordering
pleasant hill rd. thank you, dan b.
shereen56 (at) yahoo.com I would like to see a balance of housing and green space on the Mangini property. Ideally, 100-150 dwellings. The
exquisitely beautiful creek corridor should be preserved for all as green space. Other green spaces throughout could be
walkways, playground, a community garden or agriculture. I would like to find a way to pay for this green space maybe a bond or a land grant. Would you know how I find out more about that? Thanks for listening !
masarweh63 (at) gmail.com Pleasant hill is a beautiful town and it should stay that way. I am opposed to any housing or density housing on the Mangini properties. We don't want our view blocked.
julie39 (at) comcast.net My choices for the Mangini development are:

1. Save the land as is

2. Part Housing/ Part Agriculture
betswebb (at) sbcglobal.net Pleasant Hill is a great place to live; schools, restaurants, parks, housing. Additionally, we cherish what little rural open space we have in our land locked community. The 2040
general plan should preserve as much open area as possible. I understand the need for development income, but there is importance in balance between housing and parkland.
(https://cngf.org/agrihood/) designation as a potential for future development on the Mangini/Delu property. The 2040 general plan calls for more than 200 housing units there in an area already extremely burdened by heavy traffic.

Infrastructure expenditures (police, fire, schools, utilities,

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-41 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
etc.)would increase as well, and not be significantly offset by any garnered income.
2040 is a long way off, but what is planned for the future impacts us all, and our community. When open land is taken away it is rarely replaced. This is much more than just a plan on paper. It is your legacy. Balance.
dani.ferris (at) gnail.com
heard of one of the proposed plans to build on the Mangini property. My family choose to move to Pleasant Hill 15 years ago because we enjoyed the lifestyle of suburban living. If we wanted urb
said it is my hope the city does not develop these plots of land into multiple housing units. It is my hope this space can be preserved to some level, a community park and a small
number of single family
other.

Thank you,
Dan
catwraa (at) msn.com I was born and raised in Pleasant Hill, left for college and came back to buy my home 6 blocks from the house I grew up in that my parents still live in 55 years later. My family and I know what Pleasant Hill used to be like and the farms and ranches were a big part of that. We were so sad to see the very against any developer building on the Mangini property should they choose to sell. I feel this land should be preserved either a community farm
development on this property. The traffic is already terrible down P Hill road, high density development would be
horrendous here; crime would increase and our homes would depreciate in value. Thanks for listening.

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

As a resident of Pleasant Hill for more than 30 years, I urge you to NOT change the zoning for the Mangini Farm.
golwern (at) gmail.com Since the City is looking for suggestions on where to put RHNA housing, there is a parcel on Woodsworth and Contra Costa Blvd with a laundromat, cigarette store and is next to Big O Tires. This might be suitable for rezoning as there is a large parking lot in the back of the tire store. There is some

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-42 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
residential nearby Perhaps better for mixed use than other areas being looked at.
golwern (at) gmail.com There are large empty lots that front Geary Rd near the fire station that are zoned R 10. The corner of Bonnie and Geary (1 acre and more). Since these front a very busy street, these lots may be more suitable for higher zoning than single family. golwern (at) gmail.com Beatrice Rd site. That is not a good site for mixed use. It is a flood plain and a lot of the parcel is land locked. It is owned by Flood Control. It is surrounded by single family homes.

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-43 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
neighborhood who ride their bikes on Apollo. That would not be possible with the influx of some 500 cars passing through this quiet neighborhood. Please respect the zoning in place when we invested in our home.
scoutmom2wwm (at) gmail.com As much as you messed things up In the past, for fear of Lawsuits or just inviting Boutique hotel development to our city for the tax Money, you need to stop!
Tiny homes and communities are they only way we will meet the RHNA #.

No more HOA, tacky ugly Strip malls, no HOTELs and no
Mansions! You have damaged ALL character this city has no history left! Nothing left to do but partner with Rec and Park, have no class , after decades, the Pleasant Hill Historical the new library! Vallie Jo Whitfield is rolling over in her grave! Get it together- stop chasing money over charm. The crime is horrendous- get license plate readers!
run for office again.

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

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

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-44 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
can be repurposed for high-density residential housing.

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

Too much traffic . Only housing should be tiny homes and limit that. PLEASE.
paulamichael (at) gmail.com Hi there! We live in the Linda Lane neighborhood, directly incredibly concerned about the plan for new housing,
especially regarding the increase in traffic. Have you ever tried to turn left out of Linda Lane during rush hour? Have you ever used Pleasant Hill Road to connect to Lafayette during rush hour? Have you tried turning left from Pleasant Hill Road on to Gregory Lane, with only one left turning lane instead of two? nging with the amount of vehicle traffic
today and to increase it would be debilitating for those of us living in the neighborhood, including our first responders. If you must use the Mangini space, please consider single
family homes only. High density housing is a much better fit for downtown areas, which are close to amenities and public transportation hubs. The suburbs are meant to be suburbs. up. Have a great day!
billfeil57 (at) outlook.com Please consider living conditions for all. Many of us cannot afford these large houses and we also don't want to afford cramped in small houses. Something in between that will incorporate more green ideas so the homes will have the efficiency needed to get us through these tough times.

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

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-45 Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
and negative impacts on city services, and other items such as schools, energy, and water.
storeygianakos (at) gmail.com Regarding development of the Mangini property: Whatever is done, DO NOT PERMIT OPENING OF MALAGA WAY TO
THROUGH TRAFFIC. Please follow the precedent set by
planning for the Lippincott property. An attractive privacy barrier would be a valuable improvement. "Malaga Court" has a nice ring to it!
jocyetangmd (at) gmail.com I oppose development of Mangini's Farm & Winslow Center neighborhood across from Mangini's Farm for 19 years. We own the homes at both 39 Erin Ct. & 158 Linda Ln. Our
neighborhood of homeowners on Linda Ln., Linda Ct., Steven Cir. and Erin Ct. all know each other; we are organized, and are unified in vehemently opposing high density housing there.

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

GPAC Meeting #23, April 12, 2023
Public Comments
Name Comment
Bruce Irion Local knowledge is critical to a good plan
nts fully
recommendging the current General Plan and Housing
Element. If the State was genuinely concerned with increasing the supply of housing, rather than blind adhearance to
regulations, they would recognize that the more they play in this and dillute the focus and dillute the priorities, the worse it will be for

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-46 Public Comments
Name Comment
Max Davis
Low income housing is up to 80 percent of the AMI, which equates to $60,000 to $70,000 per year, so we are discussing housing for teachers, firefighters, and city employees. Low density areas are desireable and can provide housing
opportunities for young families in Pleasant Hill.

Affordable units are desperately needed due to the housing crisis
Removing constraints will enable construction of housing.

Jack Prosek I just reviewed the draft Response to the HCD Comments on the Sites Inventory and Capacity to Meet the Lower-Income RHNA that was prepared for the April 12th meeting of the 2040 General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC).

Found it very surprising that the Morello Terraces & Paso Nogal are being proposed for "Lower-Income" Sites. Just to refresh my memory, I drove by both of these locations this morning only to see exactly what I expected - that both sites have a tremendous grade change within their limits. It would be helpful to know more precisely just what the elevations are at the low & high points on each of these properties.

Extensive grading of these properties, as would be needed to accommodate the proposed density of dwelling units & the necessary parking spaces,
would have an enormous ENVIRONMENTAL impact,
would likely require very substantial retaining walls & may even require significant slope stabilization measures to minimize the potential for future landslides.

These measures would come at a very substantial COST
which would make it highly unlikely to be developed for "Affordable Housing" for "Lower-Income" families would ever pencil out - especially during the eight year planning cycle ! Should these constraints be noted in the data being provided for each Site ?
Also noted on page 5 of the Response that it is very confusing to see that the minimum densities have Realistic Capacities that are GREATER than those of the maximum densities for both of these Sites - are these figures reversed ??

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-47 Public Comments
Name Comment
Jack Prosek Morello Terraces:
- the closest bus stop is about one MILE away on Viking Drive just east of Morello. There is no bus service at all on Morello between Viking Drive & Center Ave in Martinez.

Paso Nogal Hillside:
- the additional traffic from this development would trigger the need to upgrade the very narrow, hilly & curvy roadway. - there are no bike lanes nor are the shoulders graded for same.
- there are no sidewalks on the east side of this roadway & the narrow existing road shoulders are very unsafe for
pedestrians.
- construction of a new sidewalk from this development to the nearest bus stop on Alhambra Ave would be extremely costly & might well require the City to acquire additional land along the route.
- even then, a new sidewalk down the hill to Alhambra Ave would NOT be ADA compliant unless the City also acquired one of the business properties at this intersection thereby making this improvement far more costly.

These conditions make the use of this property for Lower Income housing even less probable . . . . .

Catherine Boccellari I am writing to provide my input to the City Council and GPAC Housing Element and General Plan.
true. The city can envision a plan but if developers do not think it will sell, they will not build it.

The state asked Pleasant Hill to develop a plan that would provide 1803 new housing units in the city. The city spent over two years envisioning how best to accommodate that growth, documented it in the General Plan, and explained the first eight years of execution in the Housing Element. The state HCD has now come back with questions and asked the city to clarify that plan.

Now is not the time to change the plan. The city and the GPAC spent over two years developing this plan and we, the city residents, have faithfully journeyed together with you in providing input and refining that vision. Now, as we near the end of the planning phase and prepare to begin its execution, it is not the time to change the plan. Rather it is time to better clarify and explain it. The plan is sound. Last minute changes will only sow confusion and distrust.

If HCD is asking questions, we need to clarify the vision and execution plan for them. We should not be changing the plan at the last minute.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-48 Public Comments
Name Comment
Bruce Irion I am writing the City Council and GPAC regarding the General comments. I apologize for this is being provided so near to the GPAC meeting I was waiting to see the staff report
which only came out Monday afternoon.

The General Plan is the vision it sets the 20 yr plan and the ultimate potential for what is expected to be achieved in that time. The Housing Element lays out eight years of execution, setting priorities and focus areas.

The state required Pleasant Hill to plan for 1803 units of housing. The city and its residents spent over two years envisioning how best to accommodate that growth,
documented it in the General Plan, and explained the first eight years of execution in the Housing Element. That plan not only met the 1803 goal, it set a target for providing 2124 units of housing and an aspiration goal for the construction of 2419 units of housing. The state HCD has now come back
with questions and asked the city clarify that plan.

I believe the City Council and residents of Pleasant Hill know the city far better than HCD. Further, having spent two years developing the General Plan and Housing Element, I believe it would be a mistake to make changes now at the last minute. housing requirement. Based on local knowledge, the Housing Element set the priorities and focus areas that have the greatest near-term potential to quickly make progress in reaching the state goal. Making changes now would only
serve to cause loss of focus and lead to distrust of the public process.
recommendations to GPAC:

I commend
permits. ADU interest and city permits far exceeded
recommendation to include in the Housing Element
tracking toward the goal any plan for execution
should track its progress against the long term goal. I see no benefit to reducing the premised number of
Lowering the goal in the Housing Element will only
s
I oppose the staff recommendation to remove the
JCP site and a portion of the Gregory Lane/CCBlvd
site. Local knowledge trumps that of HCD. These
sites are underutilized and are prime candidates for
redevelopment. I can guarantee if these sites are
redeveloped, as they should be, people will happily
make their homes there. They are close to
transportation and close to shopping making them

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element)

4. Housing Element
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-49 Public Comments
Name Comment
s comment
that housing is concentrated along transportation
corridors, look to San Ramon or Orinda whose plans
were both approved. The Orinda Housing Element
highway as it traverses through an area with
significant amounts of permanent open space which
already serves to mitigate impacts from the freeway.

In addition, residents have access to numerous parks,
trails, and open space. The City will continue to
expand access to these amenities by implementing
policies in the Open Space, Schools, and Utilities
Elements of the General Plan. In addition, individual
developments proposed in close proximity to
Highway 24 will also be required to provide for tree
coverage and vegetation to contribute to the scenic
nat
And as for inclusion of Paso Nogal and Morello
Terraces in the housing element, while I recognize the
these sites is as close to shopping or transportation
as the JCP site or CCBlvd site staff is recommending
to remove.
good a plan as either San Ramon or Orinda, both of whose plans have been approved. I believe staff, GPAC, and city residents fully conside
target in recommending the current General Plan vision and the execution outlined in the Housing Element. Local
concern is increasing supply of housing rather than blind adherence to regulation, they would recognize that the more changes are made to the Pleasant Hill Housing element, the more dilute the focus becomes, the worse the plan execution, and the worse off the housing plight becomes.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Housing Element | Public Comments
December 2022April 2023 HCD Review DraftRevised HCD Review Draft C-50 Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element
The following pages include comment letters submitted in response to the Public Review Draft Housing Element.

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Attachment F- Revised Housing Element (General Plan and Housing Element) Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022