Attachment M - Final EIR — Pleasant Hill City Council, May 18, 2023

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse #2022070095
prepared for
City of Pleasant Hill
Planning Division
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
Contact: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 24, 2023
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse #2022070095
prepared for
City of Pleasant Hill
Planning Division
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
Contact: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 24, 2023
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1

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

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

3.2 Staff-initiated Changes.................................................................................................... 3-8 City of Pleasant Hill
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
ii
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
1 Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Pleasant Hill has evaluated the comments received on the Pleasant Hill General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The responses to the comments and errata, which are included in this document – together with the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – form the Final EIR for use by the City of Pleasant Hill in its review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
1-2
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Responses to Comments
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan as well as responses to such comments.

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-2
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-3
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-4
Letter A1
COMMENTATOR: Michael Burger, Engineering Technician, Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
DATE: February 10, 2023
Response A1-1
The commentator requests that a map of the watersheds within the General Plan Update area be created.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-5
Response A1-3
The commentator requests that they be included in the review of all drainage facilities that have a region-wide benefit, that impact region-wide facilities, or that impact FC District-owned facilities.

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-6
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-7
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-8
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-9
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-10
Letter A2
COMMENTATOR: David J. Rehnstrom, Manager of Water Distribution Planning, East Bay Municipal Utility District
DATE: March 1, 2023
Response A2-1
The commentator requests that all projects being planned within or immediately adjacent to EBMUD property would need to follow EBMUD’s Procedure 718 – Raw Water Aqueduct Right-Of-Way NonAqueduct Uses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-11
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-12
Letter A3
COMMENTATOR: Judith Zachariasen PhD, PG,CEG, Senior Engineering Geologist, California Geological Survey
DATE: February 22, 2023
Response A3-1
The commentator requests that the reference on the liquefaction map provided in the Draft EIR be corrected.

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

3.5-9:

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-13
The citation revision to the figure does not change the analysis within the Draft EIR and does not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-14
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-15
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-16
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-17
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-18
Letter A4
COMMENTATOR: Mark Leong, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation DATE: March 15, 2023
Response A4-1
The commentator acknowledges that the proposed plans vehicle miles traveled analysis is consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-20
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-21
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-22
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-23
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-24
Letter O1
COMMENTATOR: Heather Rosmarin, Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks DATE: March 15, 2023
Response O1-1
The commentator states appreciation for the Draft EIR’s recognition of the creeks and riparian corridors in Pleasant Hill and their importance to the local environment. The commentator also states appreciation for the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and programs aimed at supporting protection and restoration of these features.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-27
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-28
Letter I1
COMMENTATOR: Bruce Irion
DATE: February 25, 2023
Response I1-1
The commentator expresses a desire for the General Plan to have broad protections of wildlife and open space.

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-29
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-30
Letter I2
COMMENTATOR: Celia Chiang
DATE: March 12, 2023
Response I2-1
The commentator expresses a desire to define guidelines and incentives to ensure the diverse housing options would meet the City’s Environment and Sustainability Goals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-31
Response I2-6
The commentator requests the link to the Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan. The commentator further requests information on reach codes on zero net energy building electrification and increased EV charging capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, while future redevelopment of buildings 45 years or more in age may result in a significant and unavoidable impact, the City is still able to make a Statement of Overriding Consideration when deemed necessary if all feasible mitigation would not reduce impacts to Less than Significant. This revision to the City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-33
Draft EIR text would not change the impact analysis or the findings of the Draft EIR and would not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-34
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-35
Letter I3
COMMENTATOR: Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade
DATE: March 15, 2023
Response I3-1
The commentator requests that noise from street sweeping be added to the list of noise generating activities in Goal HS-7 of the General Plan.

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-36
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-37
Letter I4
COMMENTATOR: Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade
DATE: March 15, 2023
Response I4-1
The commentator requests that the effects of light and glare on biological resources be analyzed as well.

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-38
City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-39
Letter I5
COMMENTATOR: Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade
DATE: March 15, 2023
Response I5-1
The commentator requests that the EIR should discuss the air quality and greenhouse gas impacts of idling trucks in residential neighborhoods.

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill Responses to Comments
2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report 2-40
This page intentionally left blank.

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-2
Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
Sub-Section 3.5.2, Environmental Setting
Draft EIR Page 3.5-9:

Figure 3.5-4 Liquefaction Potential within the General Plan Area Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3
Draft EIR Page 3.5-11:

Figure 3.5-5 Landslide Potential Susceptibility within the General Plan Area City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-4
Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Sub-Section 3.6.3, Regulatory Framework
Draft EIR Page 3.6-20:

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

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

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

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

Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-5
Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality
Sub-Section 3.8.2, Environmental Setting
Draft EIR Page 3.8-2:

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

City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-6
Figure 3.8-2 Surface Water in Pleasant Hill
Draft EIR Page 3.8-7:

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

Figure 3.8-43 Flood Hazard Areas in and Adjacent to General Plan Area Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-7
Section 3.12, Transportation
Sub-Section 3.12.3, Regulatory Framework
Draft EIR Page 3.12-12:

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-8

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

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

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

The City shall add further details to 2040 General Plan Program M that state the following:
 The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history or history (as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 61). The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify potential historical resources within the proposed development site. All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence. If the property is already listed in the NRHP or CRHR, the historical resources evaluation described above shall not be required.  If historical resources are identified within the site of a proposed development, efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated. Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professional Qualification Standards, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources evaluation report shall also identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities.
 Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professional Qualification Standards. In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-9
review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how a project complies with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.  If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. Mitigation measures may include documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) report, or equivalent. The report shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Professional Qualification Standards and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

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

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

The City shall add further details to 2040 General Plan Program M that state the following:
 Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the Northwest Information Center (NAHC) and a Sacred Lands File search maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around a project site. A Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken at a project site that is on previously undeveloped land in order to locate any surface cultural materials. By performing a records search, consultation with the NAHC, and a Phase I survey, a qualified archaeologist shall be able to classify a project site as having high, medium, or low sensitivity for archaeological resources.  If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected by a project, the archaeological resources assessment shall also include Phase II testing and evaluation. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be identified in the Phase II evaluation. These measures shall include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City and any interested Tribes, as stated in the 2040 General Plan Tribal Consultation Implementation Program outlined by Goal ENV-5. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less-than-significant levels by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into a cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples shall occur as specified by the archaeologist in consultation with the City and any interested Tribes. As stated in the 2040 General Plan Tribal Consultation Implementation Program outlined by Goal ENV-5, the final disposition of artifacts not directly associated with Native American graves shall be negotiated during consultation with interested tribes. If Native American tribes do not accept the artifact, it shall be offered to an institution staffed by qualified City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-10
professionals, as determined by the City Planner. Artifacts include material recovered from all phases of work, including the initial survey, testing, indexing, data recovery, and monitoring.

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

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

Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-11
Page ES-14 through ES-15:

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-12
Chapter 2, Project Description
Sub-Section 2.5, Proposed Plan Components
Figure 2-6 Pleasant Hill Housing Opportunity Sites Locations Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-13
Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sub-Section 3.4.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

The City shall add further details to 2040 General Plan Program M that state the following:
 The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history or history (as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 61). The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify potential historical resources within the proposed development site. All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence. If the property is already listed in the NRHP or CRHR, the historical resources evaluation described above shall not be required.
 If historical resources are identified within the site of a proposed development, efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated. Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professional Qualification Standards, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources evaluation report shall also identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities.  Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professional Qualification Standards. In conjunction with a development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how a project complies City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-14
with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.
 If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. Mitigation measures may include documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) report, or equivalent. The report shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Professional Qualification Standards and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

Level of Significance
Significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

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

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

The City shall also adopt Pleasant Hill CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds of Significance that are consistent with the Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan by Summer 20242025 for use in future Errata
Final Environmental Impact Report 3-15
CEQA GHG emissions analyses through 2030 and consistent with SB 32. In addition, upon completion of future Climate Action Plan updates and as necessary, the City shall update the CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance to be consistent with each climate action plan update.

Level of Significance
Significant and unavoidable
City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
3-16
This page intentionally left blank.

Pleasant Hill City CouncilMay 18, 2023

Pleasant Hill City Council
May 18, 2023