City of Pleasant Hill 2023-2031 Housing Element
HCD Comment/Response Matrix on the Draft Housing Element April 27, 2023
Please note: All page numbers reference the track change version of the Revised HCD Draft Housing Element
Topic HCD Comment Response
AFFH Enforcement and Outreach: While the element
included a summary of fair housing complaints on a
county-wide basis, it should include information on
fair housing complaints specific to the City and analyze those complaints for trends and impact on protected
classes. The element must also evaluate any findings,
lawsuits, or judgements related to enforcement
actions regarding fair housing. In addition, the analysis must describe compliance with existing fair housing
laws and regulations and include information on fair
housing outreach capacity. For additional information,
please see pages 28-30 on HCD’s Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Guidance Memo at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/AFFH_Document_Final_4-27- 2021.pdf.
Added a discussion of local
resources that contribute
to city’s outreach capacity
and a statement about
compliance with fair
housing laws. In addition,
we have reached out to
ECHO and Bay Area Legal
Aid for local information on
fair housing cases, but have
yet to receive any
additional data. The City
will continue to investigate
these and future fair
housing compliant. See
pages A-9 and A-10.
AFFH Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA): The element does not analyze census tracts or
neighborhoods that are considered an RCAA.
Additionally, HCD’s fair housing data viewer indicates
that majority of the City is considered an RCAA. The
element must evaluate the census tracts considered
RCAA, including trends, neighborhood conditions
relative to other neighborhoods, local data and
knowledge and other relevant factors. Based on the
outcomes of this analysis, the element should include
significant and meaningful programs to promote
housing mobility (not limited to the regional housing
need allocation (RHNA)). For more information, please
visit: https://affh-data-resourcescahcd.hub.arcgis.com.
Added a discussion of
RCAAs and figure beginning
on page A-24
AFFH Local Data, Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors:
The element included some information about
regional history, referenced stakeholder comments
and discussed the location of assisted projects and
housing choice vouchers. However, the element needs
to provide information and analysis that relates,
supports, or supplements the existing analysis, fair
housing conclusions and contributing factors. The
Added discussion of
historical trends related to
development patterns
beginning on page A-66.
Topic HCD Comment Response
element must consider other relevant factors that
have contributed to certain fair housing conditions.
This analysis must consider information that is unique
to the City, such as governmental and
nongovernmental actions, historical land use and
zoning practices (e.g., past redlining/greenlining,
restrictive covenants, planning documents, etc.),
disparities in investment to specific communities
including transportation investments, seeking
investment or lack thereof, efforts to promote
affordability and inclusion, local initiatives, or other information that may have impeded housing choices
and mobility. The element should complement
federal, state, and regional data with local data and
knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging
trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from
local and regional advocates, public comments, and
service providers.
AFFH Contributing Factors: The element includes
contributing factors to fair housing issues but should
re-evaluate and prioritize these factors based on a
complete analysis to better respond to the fair
housing issues.
Added meaningful actions
to the contributing factors
table. See page A-63
AFFH Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element analyzed the identified
sites for various fair housing components including
race, income, access to opportunity and
disproportionate housing needs and generally
concluded that sites do not exacerbate current fair
housing conditions. The analysis indicates that the City is generally higher resourced with few neighborhoods
that are considered low and moderate resourced
areas specifically on the far north-east edge of the City and neighborhoods on the eastern side of the City
bordering Concord and Walnut Creek. While the City is
generally higher resourced, the element identified
majority of its lower-income Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) in low and moderate resource areas
that also corresponds with other fair housing
coincidences including higher concentrations of low
moderate-income households, higher environmental
hazards and higher rates of individuals that are part of a protected class. Additionally, the element identifies most of the City’s moderate and above moderate
income RHNA in higher resourced areas. The element
must include a significant analysis and reasoning about the location of sites and impact on current fair housing Revised the AFFH analysis
of the sites inventory based
on the revised inventory.
The revised inventory
disperses lower-income
units throughout the city,
including in higher
resource areas on the
western and central
portions of the city where
fair housing issues are less
concentrated. The revised
inventory does not site any
lower-income units in low
resource areas. Moderateand above moderateincome capacity is also spread more equitably
throughout the city. See
the AFFH analysis of the
sites inventory beginning
on page A-71.
Topic HCD Comment Response
conditions. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify programs with specific
commitment, metrics, milestones and geographic
targeting that is commensurate with the level of
isolation of the RHNA to promote inclusive
communities and equitable quality of life.
Needs Overpayment: While the element identifies the total number of households overpaying for housing, it must
quantify and analyze the number of lower-income
households overpaying for housing by tenure (i.e.,
renter and owner) and add or modify policies and
programs as appropriate.
This information is
provided in the Draft
Housing Element under the
heading Income and
Overpayment, beginning on
page 4-74. In this section
we analyze Overpayment
by tenure, income level,
race, and household size,
as well as overpayment
among seniors.
Needs Housing Stock Conditions: The element utilized
housing age to determine number of units likely
needing major rehab or replacement. However, the
element should supplement this analysis with other
data sources to better reflect the number of units in
need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example,
the analysis could include estimates from a recent
windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the
code enforcement agency, or information from
knowledgeable builders/developers, including
nonprofit housing developers or organizations. For
additional information, see the Building Blocks at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/housingelements/buildingblocks/housing-stockcharacteristics.
Revised the description on
page 4-90 to include the
following:
The City estimates that less
than five percent of the
housing stock is in
substandard condition or in
need of major
rehabilitation. This number
was determined based on
Code Enforcement cases,
building department
permits issued, and field
observations, In Pleasant
Hill, most homes that have
these conditions are
typically purchased for
remodel and resale with a
very quick turnaround.
Sites Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element identifies 380 units as progress towards the RHNA. Of the 380
units, 109 units currently have approved entitlements
or pending approvals. The element must demonstrate
the availability of these units during the planning
period. For example, the element could discuss and
analyze any outreach with the applicants, anticipated
timelines for final approvals, remaining steps for
projects to request building permits, any known
barriers, the City’s past completion rates on pipeline
Revised the text on page 4-
126 to include the
following:
Generally, once submitted,
pipeline projects that do
not need extensive CEQA
review come for decision
within two to four months,
with single family projects
Topic HCD Comment Response
projects, or any other information to demonstrate the
availability or likelihood of development in the
planning period.
usually completed within
two months. Multifamily
projects, depending on the
level of CEQA review, will
usually remain in the
pipeline for approximately
three to six months. If
extensive CEQA review is
necessary, projects can be
in the entitlement process
for up to eight months. The
City is in regular contact
with each applicant and
works diligently to provide
information necessary to
assist in the application
process. These projects are
expected to receive
entitlements in 2023.
Additionally, one project
(106 Lorenzo) was moved
from Pending Projects to
Entitled or Approved
Projects because
entitlements were issued in
2023.
Sites Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element included a description of each nonvacant site including a
discussion of size, type of existing uses, improvement
to land value (ILV), building age, etc., However, the
analysis should address how these factors are
indicative of redevelopment potential. For example,
the element referenced ILV and building age for most
sites. To support the assumption that ILV and building
age can demonstrate redevelopment potential, the
element can provide examples of local or regional
projects that have redeveloped with similar ILV and
building age. Additionally, the element noted that the
City conducted property owner outreach; the element
can indicate which sites have seen owner interest.
Additionally, while the element discussed site
characteristics and trends, it must specifically address whether the existing uses impede additional
development. Finally, specific analysis and actions are necessary when the housing element relies upon
nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50
Revised the sites inventory.
The revised sites inventory
provides for more than 50
percent of the lower
income RHNA through
pipeline projects, ADUs,
and vacant sites.
Identified underutilized site
redevelopment trends
beginning on page 4-149
under the heading
Underutilized Site
Redevelopment Trends and
have noted recent projects
that provide examples that
support feasibility
assumptions on housing
Topic HCD Comment Response
percent of the RHNA for lower income households. For
your information, the housing element must
demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to
additional residential development and will likely
discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, §
65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential
development and will not be utilized toward
demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the
RHNA.
opportunity sites with
lower income assumptions.
These example projects
include Choice in Aging and
85 Cleaveland, both of
which redeveloped aging
structures for multifamily
uses.
Based on factors such as
ILV and underutilized
parking areas, recent
development trends, and
additional density, FAR,
height, and lot coverage
available under the
proposed mixed use
rezoning, the existing uses
on underutilized housing
opportunity sites do not
impede additional
development. It has been
noted this in the summary
of each underutilized site.
Finally, revised many of the
underutilized sites to
assume moderate- and
above moderate- income
capacity.
Sites/
Programs
Replacement Housing Requirements: Absent a
replacement housing program, nonvacant sites with
residential uses meeting specified criteria are not
adequate sites to accommodate lower-income
households. The replacement housing program has
the same requirements as set forth in Government
Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). The housing
element must be revised to include such analysis and a
program, if necessary.
Site H: Monument Triangle
includes two single-family
homes. These units are not
deed restricted, but may
be occupied by lowerincome tenants. Updated
the description of the site
in the sites inventory and
included Program BBB:
Replacement Unit
Program, in compliance
with State law.
Sites AB 725: For jurisdictions that are considered
Metropolitan, the element must identify at least 25
percent of the remaining moderate and abovemoderate RHNA on sites that allow at least four units The City has met this
requirement and has
included a writeup and
analysis under the heading
Moderate- and Above
Topic HCD Comment Response
of housing (e.g., four plex or greater) (Gov. Code, §
65583.2, subd. (c)(4)).
Moderate-income Capacity
Allowing Multifamily Uses
on page 4-189.
Sites Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element is
projecting 320 ADUs for an average of 40 ADUs per
year over the eight-year planning period to
accommodate a portion of its RHNA. The element
notes that while the City has permitted an average of
25 ADUs per year, the City will be projecting 40 ADUs
each year throughout the planning period.
Furthermore, the element notes that the projection is
based on trends from 2019-2021. However, HCD’s
records indicate through the City’s Annual Progress
Reports (APR) that between 2019-2021, the City
permitted an average of 11 ADUs per year. The City’s
past performance does not support a four-fold
increase. The element should reconcile these figures
and adjust assumptions based on a realistic estimate
of the potential for ADUs or provide stronger analysis
and supporting information for more aggressive
assumptions. Lastly, the element should include
significant policies and programs that commit to
incentivizing ADUs. Depending on the analysis, the
element must commit to monitor ADU production and
affordability throughout the planning period and
implement additional actions if not meeting target
numbers anticipated in the housing element. If
necessary, additional actions should be taken in a
timely manner (e.g., within six months). The degree of
additional actions should be in stride with the degree
of the gap in production and affordability. For
example, if actual production and affordability of
ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or
something similar would be an appropriate action. If
actual production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing
might be more appropriate.
Revised our analysis based
on a meeting held with
Paul McDougall on April 4,
2023.
Please see the revised
analysis under the heading
Projected Accessory
Dwelling Units, beginning
on page 4-128.
Included Program P to
encourage and incentivize
ADU production, as well as
to commit the City to
monitoring development
trends and establishing
additional incentives and
outreach measures if
trends are not meeting the
metrics and milestones
outlined in the program.
Sites Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the
City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize
standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.
Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-andcommunitydevelopment/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to This form will be submitted
with the Adopted Element,
as required.
Topic HCD Comment Response
HCD at [email protected] for technical
assistance
Sites Water Sewer Priority: 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 element should discuss
compliance with these requirements and if necessary,
add or modify programs to establish a written
procedure by a date early in the planning period. For
additional information and sample cover memo, see
the Building Blocks at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/housingelements/buildingblocks/priority-water-and-sewer.
Added a discussion of
compliance under the new
heading, “Engagement with
Local Providers” (page 4-
190) in the analysis of
Availability of
Infrastructure. We have
also included a new
program (Program CCC) to
commit the City to
engaging local providers
and providing the Certified
Housing Element to each
provider within 10 days of
certification.
Zoning for a
Variety of
Housing Types
Emergency Shelters: The element discusses parking
requirements for emergency shelters and includes
Program O to address the capacity requirements of AB
139 (Statutes 2019). However, in addition to the
capacity requirements, the element must also address
the new parking provisions under this requirement.
Specifically, Pursuant to Government Code section
65583, subdivision a)(4)(A), also referred to as AB 139, parking for emergency shelters should only be the
number of spaces necessary for staff working in the
shelter and no more than other uses in the same
zones. The element should demonstrate compliance
with this requirement or include a program, if
necessary.
Revised our analysis in the
Needs Assessment on
pages 4-6 and 4-99 to
identify parking
requirements that do not
comply with AB 139.
Also revised Program O to
include commitment to
revising parking standards
for emergency shelters in
compliance with AB 139.
Zoning for a
Variety of
Housing Types
By-right Permanent Supportive Housing: The element
indicated that pursuant to AB 2162, the element
allows transitional and supportive housing in all
residential zones in the same manner as similar uses.
However, by-right permanent supportive housing has
unique requirements and shall be a use by-right
(without discretionary action) in zones where
multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including
nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses
pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The
element must demonstrate compliance with these
requirements and include programs as appropriate.
Updated our analysis of
governmental constraints
related to transitional and
supportive housing on
pages 4-3, 4-55, 4-94, and
4-99.
Revised Program O to
commit the City to allowing
transitional and supportive
housing by-right (without
discretionary action) in all
multifamily and mixed use
zones.
Topic HCD Comment Response
Zoning for a
Variety of
Housing Types
Accessory Dwelling Units: While the element generally
discussed the City’s process to permit ADUs, it must
specifically discuss whether ADUs are allowed in all
zones that permit residential uses and include or
modify program, if necessary. Additionally, after a
cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered
several areas which were not consistent with State
ADU Law. This includes, but is not limited to, timing
and process, maximum sizes and set-back
requirements. The element must include a program to
update the City’s ADU ordinance in compliance with
state law. Lastly, the City should submit a copy of the most recent adopted and executed ADU ordinance.
For questions, please contact the ADU team through
the following:
https://calhcd.servicenow.com/csp?id=csm_sc_cat_ite
m_public&sys_id=19d0846297794910edea398c1
253af2a.
The City allows ADUs in all
residential zones without
requiring a CUP. We have
updated our analysis
accordingly on pages 4-4
and 4-98.
Revised Program O to
commit the City to update
the ADU Ordinance in
compliance with all recent
State laws, including, and
to immediately contact
HCD staff to identify
compliance issues.
Zoning for a
Variety of
Housing Types
Employee Housing: The element must demonstrate
zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act
(Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.)> Specifically, section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or
fewer employees to be treated as a single-family
structure and permitted in the same manner as other
dwellings of the same type in the same zone. For
additional information and sample analysis, see the
Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planningandcommunity-development/housingelements/building-blocks/farmworkers.
Updated our analysis on
page 4-100 related to
Housing for Agricultural
Employees.
Also updated Program O to
commit the City to define
agricultural employee
housing for six or fewer
employees as a singlefamily structure, permitted
in the same manner as
other dwellings of the
same type in the same
zone in compliance with
Health and Safety Code, §
17000 et seq.
Constraints Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as
potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should evaluate land use controls
independently and cumulatively with other land use
controls, address any impacts on cost, supply, housing
choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and
ability to achieve maximum densities and include
programs to address identified constraints. The
analysis must specifically address heights, parking, lot coverage, scenic route setback requirements and
minimum unit size requirements, as follows: • For
Revised our analysis of
development standards as
recommended by HCD.
These revisions are
provided under the new
heading Residential
Development Standards
beginning on page 4-106.
Also updated Program H to
commit the City to
removing constraints
Topic HCD Comment Response
heights, the element notes that the City has a
maximum height requirement of 35 feet and only 2.5
stories. Further, the element has also identified sites that allow for up to 70 du/ac. The element should
describe how height requirements impacts the ability
to achieve maximum densities and add or modify
programs as appropriate. • For parking, the element
indicated that studio units are required to provide 1.5 parking spaces and multifamily units must provide one
guest space for every two units. The element should
evaluate the impacts of 1.5 spaces on smaller
bedroom units (e.g., studios) and guest parking
requirements. • For lot coverage, the element notes
that maximum lot coverage is 40 percent. The element
should analyze how this requirement impacts the
ability to achieve maximum densities. • For scenic
routes, setbacks must be 50 feet. The analysis should
specifically address how this impacts supply, cost,
feasibility and ability to achieve maximum densities. • For minimum unit sizes, the element address the
impact of these requirements on smaller bedroom
types, housing choices, cost of development and
ability to achieve maximum density.
related to height, lot
coverage, parking, and
setbacks along scenic
routes, as identified by
HCD.
Constraints Fees and Exaction: The element indicated that while there is some variation between fees for multifamily
and single-family housing, they are generally the
same. Additionally, the analysis shows that fees for
multifamily are 24 percent of total development costs.
Fees that are more than 10-15 percent of the total
cost of a unit and requiring multifamily housing to
incur the same costs of fees as single family may be
considered a constraint. The element should analyze
this constraint for impacts on the cost and supply for
housing and include programs that specifically address
and mitigate this constraint. For additional
information and a sample analysis and tables, see the
Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/constraints/feesandexactions.shtml.
Table 4-24 miscalculated
the cost of multifamily
development in Pleasant
Hill. We have revised the
table based on
construction costs reported
in the analysis of nongovernmental constraints
beginning on pages 4-117
and 4-118 and added a
footnote on Table 4-114
outlining the methodology
for calculating total cost to
development per unit.
After calculating total costs
correctly, the estimated
proportion of fee cost to
overall development cost is
11.9 percent.
Constraints Code Enforcement: While the element indicates that building codes are verified through the plan check
Added a summary of code
enforcement practices
Topic HCD Comment Response
process, it should describe and analyze how the City
enforces building codes (e.g., complaint versus
proactive based).
under the new heading
Code Enforcement on page
4-116.
Constraints Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element should address public comments on this draft
submittal and discuss compliance with the Permit
Streamlining Act and intersections with CEQA and
timing requirements, including streamlining
determinations and add or modify programs as
appropriate.
Added an analysis under
the new heading Permit
Streamlining Action and
CEQA Timing
Requirements, on page 4-
115.
Also added Program DDD
committing the City to
adopting a policy to ensure
compliance.
Constraints On/Off-Site Improvements: While the element lists generally on/off-site improvements, it must identify
subdivision level improvement requirements, such as
minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street
width), and analyze their impact as potential
constraints on housing supply and affordability. For
additional information and a sample analysis, see the
Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planningand-community-development/housingelements/buildingblocks/codes-and-enforcement-andonsite-offsite-improvement-standards.
Revised our analysis to
include subdivision-level
improvement standards
under the new heading Onand Off-site Improvements,
beginning on page 4-116.
Constraints on
Housing for
Persons with
Disabilities
Group homes (Residential Care Facilities) – The
element notes that unlicensed small facilities (6 or
fewer persons) are allowed in residential zones with a
use permit and that parking requirements are also
determined by the use permit. The element also notes
that licensed facilities for seven or more persons are
only conditionally permitted multifamily zones and
thus excluded from several zones that allow for
residential uses. Lastly, the element indicates that the City imposes a minimum spacing requirement of 300
feet.
For your information, zoning should simply implement
a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special
regulations such as the number of persons, population
types and licenses. These housing types should not be
excluded from residential zones, most notably lowdensity zones, which can constrain the availability of housing choices for persons with disabilities. Requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or
conditional use permit (CUP) could potentially subject
Revised the Housing
Element to identify
separation requirements
for residential care facilities
as a constraint under the
new heading Additional
Relevant Standards,
beginning on page 4-112.
Also identified use permit
requirements for small
unlicensed care facilities
and large care facilities as a
constraint to the
development of these
housing types under the
heading Residential Care
Facilities beginning on page
4-112.
Added actions in Program
O committing the City to
Topic HCD Comment Response
housing for persons with disabilities to higher
discretionary standards, unlike other residential uses.
The element should evaluate these requirements as
constraints and include specific commitment to amend
zoning and permit procedures to allow these uses in
all zones allowing residential uses with objectivity to facilitate approval certainty similar to other residential uses of the same form. For more information, please
see HCD’s guidance at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/plan
ning-andcommunity/group-home-technical-advisory2022.pdf. updating the Municipal
Code to:
• Permit small
residential care
facilities (licensed and
unlicensed), as well as
large care facilities in
all zones allowing
residential uses with
objectivity to facilitate
approval certainty
similar to other
residential uses of the
same form.
• Remove separation
requirements for
residential care
facilities of all sizes.
Constraints on
Housing for
Persons with
Disabilities
Other Requirements – The element must describe the
City’s reasonable accommodation procedure including
the process and decision-making criteria such as
approval findings and analyze any potential
constraints on housing for persons with disabilities.
Additionally, the element must identify and analyze
the City’s definition of family used in zoning and land use.
Added an analysis of the
City’s reasonable
accommodation procedure
to discuss requests for
reasonable
accommodation, approval
authority, and findings,
beginning under the new
heading Reasonable
Accommodation, beginning
on page 4-109.
Added an analysis of the
City’s definition of “family”
under the new heading
Definition of Family on
page 4-109
Constraints Permit Times: The element must be revised to analyze the length of time between receiving approval for a
housing development and submittal of an application
for building permits that potentially hinder the
construction of a locality’s share of the regional
housing need.
Included an analysis of
permit times based on
recent trends under the
new heading Permit Times:
Recent Trends, beginning
on page 4-102
Special Needs
Housing
Analysis of Special Housing Needs: The element
quantifies the City’s special needs populations and
broadly discusses the challenges faced by the
population. However, a complete analysis should also
Revised the Housing Needs
chapter to include
discussion of available
resources, as well as
Topic HCD Comment Response
evaluate the existing resources to meet those needs
(availability senior housing units, number of large
units, number of deed restricted units, etc.,), an
assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed
policies and programs to help address those gaps.
programs to help address
gaps in resources under
each heading. See
information under the
following new headings,
• Resources for Seniors
beginning on page 4-50
• Resources for Residents
with a Disability,
including the
Developmentally
Disabled, beginning on
page 4-55
• Resources for Large
Households, see page 4-
61 • Resources for Residents
Experiencing
Homelessness,
beginning on page 4-69
• Resources for Farm
Workers, page 4-73
Programs Shortfall of Sites – Program F (Increase Allowable Densities): The element demonstrates that most sites
for lower-income require rezoning with new
designations or up-zoning to accommodate the RHNA.
For your information, if zoning is not in place by
beginning of the planning period (January 31, 2023) to
approve projects at the densities and uses as
identified in the inventory, the element must include a program to commit to adopting the zoning changes.
Additionally, for sites that are expected to
accommodate the City’s lower-income RHNA,
programs must commit to housing element rezone
requirements pursuant to Government Code section
65583.2 (h) and (i).
While the element included Program F to comply with
some of the requirements to address a shortfall of
sites, the program must also commit to:
• acreage and anticipated units; and
• at least 50 percent of the lower-income need must
be accommodated on sites designated for residential
use only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that
accommodate all of the very low and low-income
housing need, if those sites:
Added acreage and
expected unit totals to
Program F, as required.
The City met the 50
percent threshold for lower
income capacity, however,
to ensure compliance with
State law, we have
included the required
language (outlined under
the second bullet) in
Program F.
Topic HCD Comment Response
o allow 100 percent residential use, and
o require residential use occupy 50 percent of the
total floor area of a mixed use project.
Programs Replacement Housing Requirements: The housing
element must include a program to provide
replacement housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd.
(g)(3).) The replacement housing program must
adhere to the same requirements as set forth in
Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c),
paragraph (3).
Added Program BBB:
Replacement Unit
Program.
Programs As noted in Findings A4 and A5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and
nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the
results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any
identified constraints.
Added several programs
based on HCD comments.
See the responses to
individual comments above
for more info.
AFFH
Programs
Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: As noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete AFFH
analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis,
the City may need to revise or add programs.
Specifically, while the element included programs and
actions related to increasing housing choices and
affordability in high resourced areas, the element
must also include strong actions related to enhancing
housing mobility and place-based strategies for
neighborhoods considered low and moderate
resource and have coincidences of fair housing issues
such as higher concentration of lower-income
households and more disparate access to
opportunities compared to other parts of the City.
Additionally, based on a complete analysis the
element must be revised to add or modify goals and
actions. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized
contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome
identified patterns and trends. Lastly, actions must
have specific commitment, metrics, milestones and
geographic targeting to promote inclusive community
and equitable quality of life.
Aadded meaningful actions
related to outreach and
enforcement,
displacement, and the
location of sites to meet
the RHNA.