Jack Prosek Received the email Notice yesterday evening for the Public Review of the November 2022 Draft version of the Housing Element portion of the General Plan Update for 2040. After a very brief scan over the 368 pages of documents, I already have a number of questions & comments, asfollows.page 4-1 - it would be helpful if these initial paragraphs included explicit references to the Housing "Needs Assessment" AND the "PolicyDocument".page 4-3 This portion of the document starts with "The Introduction" whereas the Headers on the even numbered pages call it the "PolicyDocument" - confusing at best !page 4-4 P. 4.2-1. - should this refer to the Housing Needs Assessment which starts on sheet # 39 ? Also note that it is rather confusing tohave two sets of pages numbered 4-1 thru 4-38 in the same document package!!page 4-1 # 2 (sheet # 39) - where was the photo taken that appears on the cover of the Housing Needs Assessment ? I cannot connect it toany Pleasant Hill location; it looks more like something from Walnut Creek!page 4-103 - Table 4-22: City Residential Parking Requirements - anyone who participated in the multitude of reviews for the original housingproposed for the 401 Taylor site is well aware of the deficiencies in the current City Municipal Code for multiple single family homedevelopments. Simply requiring a 2-car garage is insufficient for most homes, especially those with ADUs, & guest parking spaces are alsoneeded on the streets nearby without having an overflow into the adjoining neighborhoods! Surveys of two mature neighborhoods revealedthat the average was less than one vehicle in each 2-car garage since one stall was always occuppied by bicycles, yard equipment, generalstorage or other uses while homes of 3 or more bedrooms almost always have multiple vehicles. We also note that the County's design teamprovided an 18' minimum long 2-lane driveway for each of the homes as well as 17 guest parking spaces in the 34 house development (w/ 7attached ADUs) at 1750 Oak Park in order to obtain City Approval for the small lot sizes!!page 4-115 - Table 4-26: Entitled or Approved Residential Projects - Application 18-0383 - this housing development is on the site of the oldPH Branch Library (NOT the"Former Oak Park Elementary" School site). The obsolete Library buildings there were demolished (NOT an"abandoned public elementary school"). Can we take credit for the seven attached ADUs as well??page 4-117 - Table 4-27: Pending Residential Projects - please clarify the meaning of "harb". Waiting to see how Habitat is going to meet allthe City & other requirements as needed to build 7 units at 250 Cleaveland & 4 at 85 Woodsworth. . . . .pages 4-125, -126 & -127 - Figures 4-48, -49 & -50 - these maps are nearly impossible to read accurately at the scale that they werepresented. The detail could be increased by 50% if they were shown in landscape format on 3 pages with 40% of the current vertical on eachallowing a 10% overlap above & below the center sheet.page 4-126 - Figure 4-49: Identified Sites by Type of Site - the large vacant lot on the south side of Buskirk (across from DSW) is not shownhere; nor is the Mangini-Delu farm property on PH Road!!page 4-129 - Site A: DVC Overflow Parking Lot - despite multiple requests made to City Staff, we have NEVER seen any documentation on howthe separate Community College District might be interested in developing this site!!! We also need to once again note that DVC has a verylong history of allowing its student parking demands to overflow - totally flooding the surrounding neighborhoods with their vehicles. It isonly during the Covid era that this parking lot has been underutilized ! Since this site is the obvious place to construct additional parkingspaces to meet their needs, it is essential that this issue be resolved as part of any new development here.page 4-129 - Site A : DVC Overflow Parking Lot - given the intensity of the proposed allowable development, it is essential that the heightlimits also be addressed AT THISTIME - not some later date. This also applies to all other developments that are adjacent to existingresidential neighborhoods. Otherwise, most of the home owners will not be able to appreciate the full impact of what is being proposed !!!page 4-129 - Site A: DVC Overflow Parking Lot - my recollection from all the previous public hearings regarding this property was that half (fiveacres) of the site were being proposed for development - how did that grow to SIX acres as shown in this Assessment? The City has adapted the format of the Housing Element for clarity. Thedocuments have been published under separate cover, each with adescription of the document and their relationship to each other.Revisions to the Housing Element have been made based on thecommentsThe City has revised page 4-115 accordingly.Enforcing high parking standards can be a constraint to development, andparticularly, affordable housing development.By State law, affordable residential uses must now be allowed in officeand commercial areas.Height restrictions and other development standards are regulated by thezoning code. Following the General Plan and Housing Element Updates,the City will undertake a comprehensive zoning code update.Development standards will be reviewed at that time.Regarding the JCPenney site, the parking lot is underutilized, and has thepotential for redevelopment. Most of the parking lot, including all parkingto the north of Wells Fargo lies within the JC Penney parcel..Redevelopment could include shared parking or other solutions, but thesewould be implemented at the discretion of the developers.
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
page 4-131 - Site B: JCPenney - the purple shading for this site continues to include the parking lots on the N&S sides of the existing WellsFargo Bank building without which the building would be useless. This is a REPEAT comment!!!page 4-137 - Site E: Gregory Gardens Shopping Center - it would be sensible for the current residential properties that back up to thisshopping center be included in the planned development considering that these are older homes& their quality of life would be seriouslyimpacted - did the owners all reject the idea that they should be included??pages 4-156 thru 4-159 - Table 4-44: Vacant Sites - why are the vacant property on the south side of Buskirk and the Mangini-Delu farmproperties NOT included in this Table??page 4-156 thru 4-159 - Table 4-44: Vacant Sites - since one of the overall planning objectives is to provide homes near JOBS, why would youadd housing at a current PAO /Office site? Several other sites, such as 1900 & 1680 Oak Park, might also be more suitable for office orcommercial development rather than additional housing!!page 4-159 - Table 4-44: Vacant Sites - are the "vacant" sites at 243 & 245 Gregory Lane actually the overflow parking lot that the CityREQUIRED the Rec & Park District to build ten years ago as part of our new Senior Center building project? Are you now backtracking on thatrequirement??Minor Corrections: we also noted several minor corrections that are needed in the text such as the reference to Site "H" on page 4-139 whichshows Site "F". Also the mention of a business (Green Garden) that disappeared a year or two ago on page 4-137; given the requirements forBusiness Licenses & City Approvals for occupancy &signage, the City Staff should be fully aware of the current occupants at least as of 7-01- 2022.I do not claim to have any particular expertise with the intricacies of the General Plan Update process . . . . . just noting the observations that Imade while doing a quick Common Sense review!! Bruce Irion, DavidBlau, AnnetteGelinas, ShereenMotarjemi We are writing to submit questions and comments on
tion program calls for revision of development
standards including height restrictions, set-backs, and parking ratios. How will development be compatible in scale and form if it modifies thecharacteristics which define single family homes?For Implementatparking requirements that allow shared use in locations being considered for higher- ithparking spillover and traffic congestion that results from failure to provide sufficient parking.We support implementation program KK, Residential Zoning, that discourages non-residential uses in residential zones. Commercial or mixed- use zones are the appropriate location for non-residential uses.We would like to understand what is mean by Goal H- zoning and land use designation has a range of allowed densities.While we understand the desire to increase the quantity and affordability of housing, this should be considered when zoning and land usedesignations are set.To further layer Goal H-1 on top of this compromises the integrity of the zoning and land use designation process and associated publiccomment.
Related to Program L: This is current City practice. The City currentlyallows requests (and has also approved) for parking reductions for alltypes of projects within the City and will also consider non-traditionalparking types (tandem, stacked, etc.). We have clarified this in theProgram L.Missing Middle housing types are compatible with single-family homes,but are unique in their own ways. Program R commits the City toevaluate development standards to ensure that development standardspromote a mix of housing types.In order to meet the current housing need, the City would like toencourage developers to use land efficiently, within the bounds of thezoning code.
Bruce Irion, DavidBlau, AnnetteGelinas
We are writing in response to the answer we received on Goal H-1 (see bottom of email). While we understand that the City is trying to showevery effort to meet their RHNA target in their Housing Element, Goal H-1 is superfluous and should be removed or at a minimum, modified.The goal does not encourage developers to consider the most appropriate density for a development rather it urges development at themaximum allowed density. Further, because Goal H-1 would develop housing at the maximum allowed density as opposed to the average In order to meet the current housing need, the City would like toencourage developers to use land efficiently, within the bounds of thezoning code.
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
density, it understates new housing numbers 24% without any credit having been taken in the City's Housing Element (see table below).Hence the goal is unnecessary, pointless, and should be removed or modified.The GPAC draft from which this Housing Element was taken read as follows:The original wording (in red) was "Encourage higher density housing". This suggests the City carefully consider higher-density housing in LandUse and Zoning to encourage the quantity and affordability of the city's housing stock. This is in full alignment with state housing policy andthe RHNA target. The revised wording (in blue), "Encourage development at the maximum allowed density" implies no such carefulconsideration. Rather it suggests City policy is to encourage development at the maximum allowed density without regard to what isappropriate for a site. Surely this was not the GPAC's intent!!!We therefore encourage removal of Goal H-1 or at a minimum returning it to say "Encourage higher-density housing to increase the quantityand affordability of the city's housing stock".OUR QUESTION:We would like to understand what is meant by Goal H- While we understand the desire to increase the quantity and affordability of housing, this should be considered when zoning and land usedesignations are set. To further layer Goal H-1 on top of this compromises the integrity of the zoning and land use designation process andassociated public comment.CITY RESPONSE:The goal, supported by the GPAC, was, each land use designation has a minimum and maximum density range. This goal is to realizedevelopment towards the upper end of the allowed density range. This does not require development at the top, but it does encouragethoughtful thinking as development is proposed and where possible, look to develop towards the higher end of the density range as thatusually results in more affordable housing.
Rich and JulieGolinski
I am wriThe original wording of Goal H-1.5 was "Encourage higher density housing". This suggests the City carefully consider higher-density housing inLand Use and Zoning to encourage the quantity and affordability of the city's housing stock. This is in full alignment with state housing policy.The revised wording, "Encourage development at the maximum allowed density" implies no such careful consideration. Rather it suggests In order to meet the current housing need, the City would like toencourage developers to use land efficiently, within the bounds of thezoning code.
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
City policy is to encourage development at the maximum allowed density for all development without regard to what is appropriate for a site.Surely this was not the GPAC's intent!!!I therefore encourage removal of Goal H-1.5 or at a minimum returning it to say "Encourage higher-density housing to increase the quantityand affordability of the city's housing stock".Additionally, several sections in the Housing Element encourage revisions to housing policy and code requirements to facilitate moreaffordable housing. While the intent is laudable, I encourage the city to proceed carefully especially where parking is concerned. Policy andcode set minimum requirements which cannot enforceably be pulled back. Failure to provide adequate parking leads to traffic congestion andblight.Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comment Anamarie Courey
The original wording of Goal H-1.5 was "Encourage higher density housing". This suggests the City carefully consider higher-density housing inLand Use and Zoning to encourage the quantity and affordability of the city's housing stock. This is in full alignment with state housing policy.The revised wording, "Encourage development at the maximum allowed density" implies no such careful consideration. Rather it suggestsCity policy is to encourage development at the maximum allowed density for all development without regard to what is appropriate for a site.Surely this was not the GPAC's intent!!!I therefore encourage removal of Goal H-1.5 or at a minimum returning it to say "Encourage higher-density housing to increase the quantityand affordability of the city's housing stock".Additionally, several sections in the Housing Element encourage revisions to housing policy and code requirements to facilitate moreaffordable housing. While the intent is laudable, I encourage the city to proceed carefully especially where parking is concerned. Policy andcode set minimum requirements which cannot enforceably be pulled back. Failure to provide adequate parking leads to traffic congestion andblight.Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comment In order to meet the current housing need, the City would like toencourage developers to use land efficiently, within the bounds of thezoning code.
Maxwell Davisand the 2500members of EastBay for Everyone East Bay for Everyone is a membership organization advocating for housing, transit, tenant rights, and long-term planning in the East Bay. Wewrite to provide comments on the City of PleasantSummary of feedback:exacerbate systemic inequality in the region. re housing production unless revised
reduce barriers to development.Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing concerns:
sites identified for lower income housing are spatially distributed throughout Pleasant Hill and are not concentrated in However, the graphic (Figure A-33, copied below) shows the opposite, with Low Income sites concentrated in the lowest resource areas available and along large arterial roads. Furthermore, while the majority of the census tracts in the city are deemedracially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA) by HCD, the draft makes no mention of RCAA or how the site locations will reduce or The City has added the following action to Program UU:
The City shall require all developments within 1,000 feet of afreeway to include air filtration methods that meet MERV 13standards or higher.
The City of Pleasant Hill is nearly built-out and vacant land appropriate formultifamily development appropriate is scarce. The City contains one lowresource area, and lower-income units were not concentrated there. Citystaff, the GPAC, Planning Commission, and City Council worked diligentlyto find lower income sites that struck a balance between being dispersedthroughout moderate and high resource areas of the city, and beinglocated in proximity to transportation, jobs, goods, and services.The Mangini-Delu site is a General Plan focus area that is schedule for re- designation through the current General Plan Update to include higher Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
exacerbate the inequities of the region. The city should make broader rezonings to enable multifamily developments across the city, not justalong commercial corridors in the lowest resourced areas of the city.Increased density in single family zonesIt's legal to construct buildings that are the size of duplexes or triplexes but only if they are for a single family. For example, 256 Douglas Laneis a recently constructed 5000 square foot house with 6 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms that just sold for $1.88 million, a price that is out of rangeof most families. density development. The site was included in the previous two HousingElement and has not developed.The City has recently approved a 100 percent affordable senior housingproject and has approved several affordable units through theinclusionary ordinance. As shown in the sites inventory, the City currentlyhas 106 lower-income units in the pipeline, all of which will be certified foroccupancy within the planning period.Following the General Plan and Housing Element Updates, the City willundertake a comprehensive zoning code update. Development standards,such as parking requirements, will be reviewed at that time, as well asthrough implementation of Program R, through which the City willconsider comments related to increased density in single-family zones.The City notified property-owners of all Housing Opportunity Sites andremoved parcels the City deemed as infeasible for redevelopment basedon owners doubt or a lack of interest in redevelopment during theupcoming 6th Cycle planning period. Some owners, such as Diablo ValleyCollege met with the City to voice their support. Some owners chose notto object. For all lower-income sites, the City has provided additionalevidence of feasibility including building age and improvement/land valueratio, consistent with the direction provided inGuidebook.Sites in southwest Pleasant Hill were considered by the GPAC, but werenot considered as feasible for lower-income redevelopment in theupcoming 6th Cycle planning period.
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
If it is legal to build a 5000 square foot house for one family it should also be legal to build two 2000 square foot homes or three 1300 squarefoot homes in the same building envelope throughout Pleasant Hill. Consider amending zoning to permit 5 DUA on all parcels. This can beachieved without an EIR thanks to Senate Bill 10.Programs are insufficientGiven that Pleasant Hill has built zero Low Income Housing in the last 7 years, the programs for this element must be ambitious. However, theThese programs should be modified to have concrete objectives and measurable and trackable results and be ambitious enough to spur newhousing production.In HCD's determination letter to Lafayette, this type of language was deemed insufficient ("Programs containing unclear language (e.g.,measurable actions that will lead to actual housing outcomes") , 1 and should instead be replaced with language that relates to actualconcrete goals, for example, the production of low-income housing, or reduction of housing costs below some target number.The city plans to add new mixed-use zones (described as Mixed Use Neighborhood, Mixed-Use, Mixed-Use High-Density, and Mixed-Use VeryHigh-Density in Program F) and references those zones in multiple programs and in the sites inventory, but the city has not provided cleardetails on those zoning categories and the requirements in the zoning, for example heights, setbacks, or required parking minimums.Consider zero front setback to permit shade on the sidewalk and a minimum pedestrian travel time, and no more than 5 feet on other sides.Heights should be demonstrated to accommodate the highest allowable density in comparison projects in nearby cities.FreewaysA large number of apartments in Pleasant Hill are right next to the freeway and a preponderance of sites in the Sites Inventory areconcentrated relatively close to the freeway. Pollution from freeways leads to higher levels of stress, respiratory problems, and leads to issuessuch as low birth weight infants. Students who go to schools near the freeway perform worse on standardized tests than students who don't.Consider adding a program to upgrade the air filters in existing buildings near the freeway to a MERV 13 standard, subsidize the purchase ofair purifiers in apartments and schools, and educate residents about health risks and ventilation best practices.Analysis of Constraints is insufficientThe draft Housing Element does not take a serious look at the constrai k of recent
development in the city.Lack of land zoned for multi-family in High Resource areas and the need for by-right development Currently, Pleasant Hill does not have muchland zoned for multi-family within its High Resource and Highest Resource areas. The areas that are zoned for multifamily housing are largelylocated adjacent to I-680. This is not aligned with AFFH, which requires distribution of housing income levels throughout the community.Rezoning more land for multi-family housing would be a strong commitment to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.Earlier drafts of the Housing Element identified Mangini Farm, a large undeveloped area in the Highest Resource area of Pleasant Hill and theremoval of this site over large public backlash shows that Pleasant Hill will have an uphill battle to undo the historical patterns of racialsegregation that exist in the region, and to meet its commitments to affirmatively furthering fair housing. This NIMBY opposition is a non- governmental constraint that the city should overcome by allowing by-right development of multifamily sites in the inventory. We urge you toadd a program to this effect. e is 6,000 square
feet with most of the city zoned for 7,000 and 10,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. Much more housing could be built if lot sizes were Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
reduced to 2-3,000 square feet. See for example Gray and Furth, "Do Minimum-Lot-Size Regulations Limit Housing Supply in Texas?"suggesting that lot sizes in this range frequently serve as a constraint to new development.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3381173Landscaping requirement e developable area for multifamily housing.
Please remove or reduce these requirements, especially to help make lower income housing feasible to construct.Increase FARs, building heights and eliminate setbacks in current multifamily zones Setbacks decrease the amount of buildable area, increasethe distance pedestrians need to travel to reach their destination, and reduce the sidewalk shadow on hot days. Pleasant Hill -backsrequirements are larger than other high income areas in the region. To encourage development and non-car trip modes, Pleasant Hill shouldincrease FARs and amend setbacks to make development more feasible and increase pedestrian comfort.Remove parking requirements from multifamily developments. Given Pleasant Hill's strict height requirements, parking will likely need to beconstructed underground, which can cost $90,000 per space, a cost which gets passed on directly to developers and buyers, who need to takeout larger loans and interest payments. Additionally, in the sites inventory the draft specifically mentions that Site B, Site C, Site D, Site F, SiteG, Site H, Site L and Site I are considered underutilized specifically because of their large parking lots. Therefore it is clear that Pleasant Hill is the parking requirements do not align with real demands.
Parking minimums also encourage people to buy cars and drive cars, which crowd out other trip modes like walking, cycling or taking the bus.A key goal for Pleasant Hill's General Plan 2040 is to increase the share of non-car trip modes. Parking minimums impede progress toward thisgoal by subsidizing car usage.Further, because parking must be cited on the ground floor or underground, high parking minimums make it difficult to offer ground floorretail, which is not only a more beneficial use of ground floor space than car parking, but contributes sales tax revenue that can be used for allsorts of other pro-social programs.Pleasant Hill must study the impact of parking on development or remove parking minimums, leaving it up to the developer to decide theright balance of parking and housing at a site. Please consider lowering parking minimums to 1 space per unit, with no guest parking,throughout the entire city.Site specific feedback:For all non-vacant sites:
ensity
ycle
Site A: DVC Overflow parking lotSite B: Former JC Pennys -70 to 70-100 du/acre to increase the feasibility of development, even these higher densities can still beachieved with 5- thus would permit optimal development of those sites n with the
property owners.Site H: Monument Triangle
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
over 1 hour for public transit just to run to the drug store or to try and lug a week's worth of groceries home on a bus. Parents use vehicles topick kids up from school and take them to extra curricular activities or day care. Traffic around schools attests to the use of cars fortransportation. People living in apartments do not seem less likely to live without a vehicle either. If proof is needed, just drive by some ofthe apartment complexes in Pleasant Hill and note the abundance of cars parked on the street.Living near the Oak Park Shopping Center we are inundated with street parkers to the establishments. I do not see very many people usingbikes, scooters or other alternative means of transportation to these venues. Lack of parking only inconveniences the local residences byhaving to endure constant on-street parking as well as deterring patrons from going to the other local businesses because of lack of parking. Ialmost never do business in Walnut Creek because of traffic and parking. I do not want to see Pleasant Hill become like Walnut Creek.Parking is essential to a well functioning City and a prosperous business community.Minimizing parking requirements also conflicts with electric vehicle charging goals. Charging EVs takes more time than filling a tank with gas,and it is reasonable to expect that residents in new multi-family housing in mixed-use developments will need to charge their vehicles.I hope that you will take these comments into consideration in the new housing element.Thank You Wendy Gollop Dear City Council and Planning Commission
I want to comment on setbacks for housing developments and commercial areas.I think that it is important to have setbacks and planting areas around development to grow trees and other living vegetation. Trees andlandscaping soften a city's hardscape and makes it more livable. Trees clean the air and reduce the heat island effect. A new study of thePortland area showed that the parts of the city with more trees encouraged people to walk more and resulted in a healthier and less stressedpopulation. Trees in parking lots large enough to produce shade are much sought after on hot summer days. Planting strips also help withwater runoff and bioswales help to clean water before it enters the local waterways. These are all things that a city can do to make a citymuch more liveable and help to mitigate global warming and help our environment. Many argue for setbacks to be minimum, but thisconflicts with other General Plan goals. Please consider keeping setbacks and planting areas to provide for a quality urban environment.
Following the General Plan and Housing Element Updates, the City willundertake a comprehensive zoning code update. Development standardswill be reviewed at that time.
Wendy Gollopand Alan Bade
Dear Planning Commission and City CouncilI would like to request that heights for proposed densities be included in the discussion of the housing elements. This will give people abetter idea of what is proposed. If, for example, 70 to 100 units per acre are the proposed zoning for a parcel, then a maximum possibleheight should be included in the description. Consequently, consideration should be given to how this would shade adjacent lower risebuildings nearby. Many people are adding expensive solar power panels systems to their properties and to have them shaded when aproposed new building is built would negate the considerable investment in the solar system.High Density mixed use development next to single family housing needs to be carefully integrated into the neighborhood. Operational ruleswill make these developments much more successful. Issues such as noise from maintenance, deliveries and patrons can cause conflict.Odors from restaurants as well as overflow parking is another. Truck traffic and idling next to single family homes needs to be addressed.Some roads in older neighborhoods are not as wide as current code would require and this can be a problem with large semi delivery trucksand pedestrians in the area. There needs to be a way to deal with these issues and not just to pretend that they will not come up. It isimportant to remember that how these developments are implemented greatly influences their livability and success. Policies need toaddress delivery schedules, idling truck noise and air pollution, and parking, among others.Housing Element H5 and H6 have goals to maintain and enhance the quality of Pleasant Hill neighborhoods so that they retain their value asthey mature. It also has goals to retain existing housing. Yet the General Plan and the housing element wants to rezone entireneighborhoods. For example, focus area 5 is proposed to be rezoned from single family to mixed use 12 to 40 units per acre. This is in Following the General Plan and Housing Element Updates, the City willundertake a comprehensive zoning code update. Development standardswill be reviewed at that time.The City needs to provide capacity for high-density residential uses tomeet State-mandated target of 1,803 units.
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
conflict with those goals. Rezoning houses backing up to Contra Costa blvd makes sense, but the whole area does not need to be zoned withthe new density. These houses are much more affordable than the new single family houses that are currently being built or arezoned to be built in other areas. Building high rise buildings and mixed use in the middle of single family houses will be very disruptive to theneighborhood and is not compatible with the goals in the general plan to preserve the character of Pleasant Hill and its neighborhoods.Thank you Wendy Gollopand Alan Bade
Dear City Council and Planning Commission.The new housing Element is proposing much denser development than is present today. One of the goals in the General Plan is a goal of 3acres of open space/parkland per 1000 residents. I do not see a plan in place to be able to achieve this goal. Most areas of the city already donot meet this goal. With the addition of much higher density, this ratio will only get worse. There needs to be a plan to achieve these goalsor they will not be met. Please look for areas that could meet this goal and consider them as you inventory building sites in the housingelement. I know that new developments need to contribute to a parkland dedication fund to support this goal. I think that at the very least,there should be some pathway in the housing element or the General Plan to achieve the goal of 3 acres per 1000 residents. If areas are notidentified as possible places to add to parks or open space while listing housing sites, it will not be possible. It will just be an item that makesthe General Plan sound good but really will not have any value.Thank You Comment noted.
Marshall Lewis Hello,
I have several major concerns with the draft Housing Element. First and foremost, I want to echo the concerns voiced by East Bay forEveryone in their letter[1] to the city that the draft HE may not comply with applicable housing law. In particular, the concentration of low- income sites near 680 may not be consistent with the requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, and the language in the programssection likely needs significant strengthening in order to relate to specific, concrete, achievable goals. Failure to have a compliant, HCD- approved Housing Element by the January 31, 2023 deadline means that the city will become ineligible for certain state funds and will loseBeyond the compliance issues, we currently face a housing crisis and a climate crisis, and the draft HE does not rise to either of thesechallenges. Scientists agree that transportation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and that new suburban sprawl hasserious ramifications for the fight against climate change. On the other hand, dense infill projects near transit reduce vehicle miles traveledand the associated emissions.[2] Pleasant Hill is an already built-up area near several BART stations and job centers, and is thus a clearlocation for densification. Every housing unit that we fail to build is a unit that gets built in Tracy or Patterson, with the associated longcommutes and high greenhouse gas emissions.Even setting aside the climate implications, Pleasant Hill needs both a greater amount of housing and a greater diversity of housing types. -known and extensively documented. As a 2015 LAO report summarized:
s bid up the cost
of housing in coastal regions. In addition, some of the unmet demand to live in coastal areas spills over into inland California, driving up prices espond to high land costs by building more housing
metros, however,
this response has been limited, meaning higher land costs have HNA and
ement, on the other hand, only identifies capacity for 118% of RHNA, just The City has added the following action to Program Q: Place-basedDensity Increases:
The City shall evaluate and consider adoption of SB 10 provisionsthat allow for up to ten units on urban-infill sites in transit richareas.
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
overwhelmingly consists of single-family homes, which are wonderful for raising families, but are not well-suited to young adults. Someone who is just entering the workforce does not need (and cannot afford) a2,000 sq ft single family home. Instead, young adults typically live in apartments, of which Pleasant Hill has a serious shortage. When I wasyoung, I ended up being displaced from the city because there were so few housing options for young single adults like me. I ultimatelymoved back to the city after getting married, but most of the members of my generation who left did not return. This represents a seriousfailing of public policy, and I hope that we will learn from our mistakes and avoid subjecting the next generation to similar experiences.The single best way to address the above problems (especially given the limited amount of time before the 1/31/2023 deadline) is to takeadvantage of SB10, which supports the development of small-scale multi-family units. Units of this type are already found tucked away inunobtrusive corners of the Diablo Valley, and integrate seamlessly and unremarkably with the surrounding single-family homes. My old -suited to this kind of development because of its proximity to both Pleasant Hill and LafayetteBART stations, and also because its existing architectural diversity makes it easier for new designs to blend in. My current neighborhood nearMorello would also be well-suited because of its proximity to DVC, which results in strong demand for single-occupant units. (We also havesome particularly excellent restaurants, which are more likely to remain in business if they have more customers nearby.)I encourage Council to implement SB10 and make any required zoning changes across the whole city. Council should also identify additional strengthen the
language in the programs section. By promoting the development of new multi-family projects, the city will move towards a healthier mix ofsingle and multi- climate crises that we face.Thank you, PlanningCommissionKhalfin
Related to Program CC: Priority Processing (for special needs, senior, and workforce housing). Please move the timeframe up. The City has revised the timeline for review of processing procedures to comprehensive zoning code update.
CouncilmembersNoack andCarlson
Minor revisions requested for clarity:
Policy 5.1: High Quality Neighborhoods
Provide additional detail that maintaining and enhancing the quality of neighborhoods is accomplished through high qualitydesigned projects, ensuring new development respects, and is designed, while taking into consideration surrounding uses,and through maintenance and improvement of public infrastructure such as roads and public spaces.
Program H- ZoneAllowPage 79 of the staff report:
Clarify that the City is proposing no rezoning on the Mangini-Delu site in the Housing Element, but that the Preferred LandUse Alternative (General Plan Update) does include a new land use designation.
Clarify that much of Fund 34 is already committed to various affordable housing projects within the City.
The City has revised the Housing Element accordingly.
East BayMunicipal UtilityDistrict
See scanned document included below. Comments noted and passed to the General Plan Update Team working on the Environmental Impact Report.
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022
Comments on Public Review Draft Housing Element
December 2022