Pleasant Hill City Council
September 11, 2023

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM
The meeting will be held both in person at
City Hall, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
and remotely via Zoom in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act Watch on YouTube at: www.pleasanthillca.org/councilmeeting To provide comments via teleconference, click on the meeting link and enter the meeting ID and Passcode:

Meeting link: www.zoom.us
Meeting ID: 829 9754 8509
Passcode: 761715
The meeting ID and Passcode will change each meeting. See more information on Public Participation Options below.

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 1 September 11, 2023
City Offices, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Telephone (925) 671-5267

MAYOR TIMOTHY FLAHERTY COUNCILMEMBER SUE NOACK

VICE MAYOR MATTHEW RINN COUNCILMEMBER ZAC SHESS

COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN VINSON
Options for observing the meeting and participating in public comment are provided below.

Public Communication. The public is welcome to address the City Council on items on the Consent Calendar or other items not listed on the agenda but within the Council’s jurisdiction during the general Public Comment period. There is an opportunity for the public to comment on other agenda items at the time they are discussed.

Comments are generally limited to three minutes.

Public Participation Options
1) Watch the Meeting via Youtube Livestream at www.pleasanthillca.org/councilmeeting. 2) Submit Written Comments by 4 pm the Day of the Meeting to [email protected] (comments received by deadline will be provided to the City Council before the meeting). Please specify that the correspondence is for public comment at the Council meeting. 3) Make Public Comment During the Meeting
When the Mayor invites public comment (or public comments on specific agenda items), you may participate in one of the following three ways:

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 September 11, 2023
a. Via Zoom
Go to www.Zoom.us using your computer/smart device and enter the Meeting ID and Passcode provided near the top of this page. We ask that you state your name and city of residence for the record when you start your comments. Please use the "Raise hand" feature in Zoom. You will not be seen or heard until it is your turn to speak. You will be invited into the meeting and asked to speak when it is your turn.
b. Via Phone
Call (669) 900-6833 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID and Passcode. Press *9 to “raise your hand” to alert staff that you wish to speak.
c. In Person
Members of the public may attend the meeting in person and may speak on any matter within the City Council's jurisdiction. Please fill out a speaker's card, available at the entry to the Council Chambers, and turn it in to the City Clerk Recorder.

If, due to a disability, a reasonable accommodation is needed to participate in this meeting, please refer to the Providing Accessible Communication to the Public Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and AB 2449 document online at www.pleasanthillca.org/accessiblecommunications and contact the ADA Coordinator 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 671-5267 or via California Relay at 711.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available to the public in the City’s Public Records Portal at https://cityarchive.pleasanthillca.org/WebLink/ (click on City Council Agenda Packets) or by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 925-671-5267.

City Council Meeting Recordings and Broadcasts.

Recorded City Council meetings are broadcast on Comcast Channel 28, Wave Channel 1029, and AT&T UVerse Channel 99 on the Wednesday following the meeting. Video recordings are generally available within 48 hours of the meeting, and may be viewed on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/MeetingVideos and selecting “City Council” from the meeting groups.

Agendas are Available for Review on the City Hall official noticing bulletin board (100 Gregory Lane), at the Pleasant Hill Police Department (330 Civic Drive), the Pleasant Hill Senior Center (233 Gregory Lane), and on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/agendas. Agenda packets will be available to the public on the City’s website at the same time as they are made available to the City Council.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 September 11, 2023

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 Update on East Bay Regional Park District by Ward 6 Board Member John Mercurio

5.2 Update on the Contra Costa Water District by Director John Burgh

5.3 Update on the East Bay Municipal Utility District by Director John Coleman

6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
(Brief updates on pending City business without discussion by the City Council.)

7. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

7.1 Reports from Councilmembers on Meetings or Conferences Attended at City Expense (A) Contra Costa Mayors Conference Hosted by the City of Clayton on September 7, 2023 (B) Other Meetings Attended at City Expense

7.2 Announcements from Councilmembers

8. PUBLIC COMMENT:

The public is welcome at this time to address the City Council on items on the Consent Calendar or other items not listed on the agenda but within the Council’s jurisdiction. There is an opportunity for the public to comment on other agenda items at the time they are discussed.

Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. To provide public comments, please see the Public Participation Options above.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under “Consent Calendar” are considered by the Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate Council discussion of these items unless requested by a Councilmember prior to the time Council votes on the motion to adopt.

9.1 Approve Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of August 7, 2023

9.2 Approve Checks Dated: August 4, 2023; August 11, 2023; August 18, 2023; August 25, 2023

9.3 Approve Appointment Recommendations to the Commission on Aging and Diversity Commission

9.4 Approve Response to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 2306 – Affordable Housing "A Plan Without a Home"
City Council Meeting Agenda Page 4 September 11, 2023

9.5 Adopt Ordinance No. ___ Amending Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Section 5.05.240, Business Licenses, Section 18.15.040, Commercial Use Classifications, Section 18.15.070, Temporary Use Classifications, Section 18.20.020, Land Use Regulations for all Residential Districts, Section 18.20.030, Development Regulations in all Residential Districts, Section 18.20.040, Additional Development Regulations for all Residential Districts, Section 18.25.020, Land Use Regulations for all Commercial, Retail Business, Neighborhood Business, Office and Light Industrial Districts, Section 18.25.030, Development Regulations in all Commercial, Retail Business, Neighborhood Business, Office and Light Industrial District, Section 18.25.040, Additional Development Regulations for all Commercial, Retail Business, Neighborhood Business, Office and Light Industrial Districts, Section 18.50.110, Tree Preservation, Section

18.55.030, Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required, Section 18.55.070, Electric Vehicle Parking, Chapter 18.60, Signs, Section 18.65.030, Restoration of Non-Conforming Structures, Section 18.85.010, Zoning Permit Applicability, Section 18.115.020, Architectural Review Permit Approval Authority, & Section 18.140.010, Definitions Exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Ace (CEQA)

9.6 Adopt Resolution No. ___-23 Approving Side Letter of Agreement with the Management Pay Plan Group to Add a New Classification to the Management Compensation Pay Plan

9.7 Adopt Resolution No. ___-23 Accepting the Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447 (Reliez Terrace) as Complete

10. ACTION CALENDAR

10.1 Adopt Resolution No.__-23 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract Change Order with Franco Engineering Inc. for the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04- 23 10.2 Adopt Resolution No. ___-23 Accepting the Diablo Vista Water System (DVWS) 12" Main Rehabilitation Phase II Project No. PSC-02-22 as Complete and Authorize the Public Works Manager to Issue and Record a Notice of Completion
Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301 - Minor Alteration to Existing Facilities

11. ADJOURNMENT
Next City Council Meeting: October 2, 2023

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: APPROVE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2023

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve the minutes.

ATTACHMENT(S):

August 7, 2023 – Tentative Minutes
Prepared by: Carol Wu, City Clerk Recorder

9.1 Packet Pg. 5

MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING – CITY COUNCIL
August 7, 2023
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 August 7, 2023
Mayor Flaherty called a Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 7:00 PM, in the Council Chambers, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA, complete proceedings of which were electronically recorded. The meeting was a hybrid of both in person and teleconferenced attendees. The meeting agenda was posted on the City Hall outdoor bulletin board at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA on August 3, 2023, by Acting City Clerk Juanita Davalos.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Timothy M. Flaherty Mayor Present
Matthew Rinn Vice Mayor Present
Sue Noack Councilmember Present
Allen Vinson Councilmember Present
Zac Shess Councilmember Absent

4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Mayor Flaherty reported that there were no closed sessions and there is nothing to report.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 Acknowledgement of Caitlyn Mehl as Honorary Mayor for a Day Mayor Flaherty introduced Caitlyn Mehl as the Honorary Mayor for a Day. Honorary Mayor Mehl assisted Mayor Flaherty at the City Council Meeting.

5.2 Introduction of Planning Commissioner David Field
Mayor Flaherty introduced David Field, the new Planning Commissioner.

6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager, reported that:
 The Pleasant Hill Library’s first anniversary party was held on July 29, 2023;  Summer Concert by the Lake will be held on Sunday, August 20, 2023; and  The State of California Community and Housing Development Department did not certify City’s submitted Housing Element.

7. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

7.1 Reports from Councilmembers on Meetings or Conferences Attended at City Expense

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: August 7 2023 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 August 7, 2023
(A) Contra Costa Mayors Conference Hosted by the City of Lafayette on August 3, 2023
Mayor Flaherty and Councilmember Noack reported their attendance at the Contra Costa Mayors Conference. Councilmember Noack summarized the discussion topic. (B) Other Meetings Attended at City Expense
None

7.2 Announcements from Councilmembers
Councilmember Noack reported her attendance at the Pleasant Hill Library’s anniversary party and thanked the party organizers.

Councilmember Vinson reported his attendance at the Pleasant Hill Library’s anniversary party and a Summer Concert by the Lake.

Mayor Flaherty and Vice Mayor Rinn reported their attendance at the Pleasant Hill Library’s anniversary party. Mayor Flaherty thanked staff and The Friends of the Library.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Flaherty opened public comment.

The following members of the public appeared in person to provide a comment:
 Bob Kattenburg
 Matt Kennedy
 Baljit Bhandol
 Peggy Magilens
 Matt Regan
Mayor Flaherty closed public comment.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion (Vinson/Rinn) to Approve all consent items excluding item 9.3, which was pulled for further discussion, carried as follows:

AYES: Noack, Rinn, Vinson, Flaherty

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: August 7 2023 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 August 7, 2023

9.1 Approve Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of July 17, 2023

9.2 Approve Checks Dated: July 14, 2023; July 21, 2023; and July 28, 2023

9.4 Adopt Resolution No. 60-23 Approving the Execution of a Contract with All City Management Services for the Provision of Crossing Guard Services for the 2023-2024 School Year

9.3 Approve Letter of Opposition to California Senate Bill 532: San Francisco Bay Area Toll Bridges, Tolls, Transit Operating Expenses – Item Pulled from Consent
Councilmember Noack made clarifications regarding bridge toll data and State budget funding.

Motion (Noack/Rinn) to Approve all item 9.3, carried as follows:

AYES: Noack, Rinn, Vinson, Flaherty

10. ACTION CALENDAR

10.1 Adopt Resolution 61-23 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with First Carbon Solutions, Inc., for Environmental Compliance Monitoring for the Approved Library Project (Part of the Oak Park Properties Specific Plan)
Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer, delivered a presentation regarding the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan included in the City of Pleasant Hill Oak Park Properties Specific Plan. Mr. Kanagasundaram explained the required consulting services to be provided by First Carbon Solutions.

No one from the public spoke on the item.

Motion (Noack/Rinn) to Approve item 10.1, carried as follows:

AYES: Noack, Rinn, Vinson, Flaherty

10.2 Adopt Resolution No. 62-23 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration for $300,000 and Approving the Appropriation for the 2022-2023 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Comprehensive Action Plan Project and Project Transfers for Required Local Match Funds from Measure K Funds
Ryan Cook, Senior Civil Engineer, delivered a presentation concerning impact of the Safe Streets and Roads for All federal grant of $300,000 awarded to the City on January 31, 2023.

No one from the public spoke on the item.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: August 7 2023 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 August 7, 2023
Motion (Rinn/Noack) to Approve item 10.2, carried as follows:

AYES: Noack, Rinn, Vinson, Flaherty

10.3 Public Hearing and Introduce Ordinance No. ___ Amending Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Section 5.05.240, Business Licenses, Section 18.15.040, Commercial Use Classifications, Section 18.15.070, Temporary Use Classifications, Section 18.20.020, Land Use Regulations for all Residential Districts, Section 18.20.030, Development Regulations in all Residential Districts, Section 18.20.040, Additional Development Regulations for all Residential Districts, Section 18.25.020, Land Use Regulations for all Commercial, Retail Business, Neighborhood Business, Office and Light Industrial Districts, Section 18.25.030, Development Regulations in all Commercial, Retail Business, Neighborhood Business, Office and Light Industrial District, Section

18.25.040, Additional Development Regulations for all Commercial, Retail Business, Neighborhood Business, Office and Light Industrial Districts, Section 18.50.110, Tree Preservation, Section 18.55.030, Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required, Section 18.55.070, Electric Vehicle Parking, Chapter 18.60, Signs, Section 18.65.030, Restoration of Non-Conforming Structures, Section 18.85.010, Zoning Permit Applicability, Section 18.115.020, Architectural Review Permit Approval Authority, & Section 18.140.010, Definitions
Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner, summarized the proposed amendments to various sections of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC) Title 18), and related changes to business license regulations (PHMC Title 5). Ms. Croffoot explained that the proposed amendments are necessary to comply with changes in State law, changes based on past City determinations, as well as staff-initiated revisions proposed to clarify and streamline various sections of the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Croffoot, Troy Fujimoto, City Planner, and Janet Coleson, City Attorney, answered questions from Councilmembers.

No one from the public spoke on the item.

Motion (Noack/Rinn) to Approve item 10.3, carried as follows:

AYES: Noack, Rinn, Vinson, Flaherty

10.4 Adopt Resolution No. 63-23 Accepting the 2022 Street Resurfacing Project No. PSC01-22 as Complete and Authorizing the Public Works Manager to Issue and Record a Notice of Completion
Ann James, Public Works Manager, reported that MCK Services has completed the 2022 Street Resurfacing Project No. PSC-01-22, to the City’s satisfaction. Ms. James summarized the scope of the project.

No one from the public spoke on the item.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: August 7 2023 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 August 7, 2023
Motion (Rinn/Noack) to Approve item 10.4, carried as follows:

AYES: Noack, Rinn, Vinson, Flaherty

11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Flaherty adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. The next Regular City Council meeting will be held on Monday, September 11, 2023, beginning at 7:00 p.m.

CAROL W. WU, CITY CLERK RECORDER

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: August 7 2023 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: APPROVE CHECKS DATED: AUGUST 4, 2023; AUGUST 11, 2023; AUGUST 18, 2023; AUGUST 25, 2023

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve the check register.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Check Register
Prepared by: Maria Alfredo, Accounting Technician I
Approved by: Erick Cheung, Finance Manager

9.2 Packet Pg. 11

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

9.2.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)
100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3323 – (925) 671-5270 www.pleasanthillca.org

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Councilmembers
FROM: Interview and Nominating Committee
Mayor Tim Flaherty, Councilmember Allen Vinson
DATE: September 11, 2023
SUBJECT: Approve Appointment Recommendations to the Commission on Aging and Diversity Commission
The Interview and Nominating Committee recommends the following appointments and requests the City Council’s confirmation:

APPOINTMENTS TERMS/EXPIRATION DATES
Commission on Aging
Carol Bateman Unfilled term through April 2026
Diversity Commission
Freda Weng Chu Unfilled term through April 2025

9.3 Packet Pg. 57

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: APPROVE RESPONSE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 2306 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING "A PLAN WITHOUT A
HOME"

SYNOPSIS
City staff is requesting the City Council’s approval to transmit a response letter to the recent Civil Grand Jury report entitled “Affordable Housing: A Plan Without a Home.”

DISCUSSION
Background
The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury is annually empaneled to investigate city and county governments, special districts and certain nonprofit corporations to ensure functions are performed in a lawful, economical and efficient manner. Recommendations resulting from these investigations are provided to the jurisdictions.

In accordance with Section 933(c) of the California Penal Code, the governing body of a public agency or its designated administrator must respond to these recommendations to the presiding judge within 90 days. These responses are a matter of public record and are available, upon request, from the clerk of the Superior Court.

Analysis
The 2022-2023 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury issued a report in June 2023 entitled “Affordable Housing: A Plan Without a Home” (report number 2306). City staff has reviewed the report and prepared a letter to the Civil Grand Jury containing the City’s responses to each of the report’s findings and recommendations applicable to Pleasant Hill. Staff recommends that the City Council approve transmittal of the letter to the Civil Grand Jury.

FISCAL IMPACT
Some of the Grand Jury’s recommendations, if followed by the City, could have a fiscal impact on the City; however, with the responses in the letter, the City is not expected to experience any fiscal impact.

9.4 Packet Pg. 58

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve transmittal of the response letter by City staff.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Do not approve transmittal of the response letter and provide direction to City staff.

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. City of Pleasant Hill Response Letter Regarding Civil Grand Jury Report B. Letter from Contra Costa County Grand Jury and Report No. 2306, “Affordable Housing:

A Plan Without a Home”
Prepared by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager

9.4 Packet Pg. 59
September 11, 2023
Honorable Jill C. Fannin, Judge of the Superior Court
Cynthia Roberts, Foreperson, 2022-2023 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553
Also via email to [email protected]
RE: City of Pleasant Hill’s Response to Report No. 2306, Affordable Housing “A Plan Without a Home”
Dear Judge Fannin and Foreperson Roberts:

In June 2023, the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury issued Report No. 2306 entitled “A Plan Without a Home.” Below find the City of Pleasant Hill’s responses to the report’s findings and recommendations.

Findings:

Fl. Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.

City Response:

Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 1 because, while the City is responsible for reporting on RHNA permitting targets, the City does not develop housing projects. State Housing Law only requires that jurisdictions plan to address barriers to development, accommodate various types of housing based on the RHNA allocations, and report their progress towards RHNA. The City of Pleasant Hill Planning Division is responsible for preparing the Annual Progress Report (APR) as required by State Housing Law, which City staff presents to City Council early in the calendar year and prior to submission to HCD. Furthermore, each jurisdiction’s Housing Element identifies the City department or division responsible for implementing the Housing Element’s Plans and Programs.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: A - Grand Jury Response Letter (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) F2. City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.

City Response:

Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 2 because, while the City recognizes the challenges ahead, the City of Pleasant Hill Housing Element identifies a clear path to accommodate the RHNA targets. The City actively and continuously explores and implements policies, programs, and strategies to satisfy state-mandated RHNA targets. Despite the complexity of the task, the City is committed to finding viable solutions and collaborating with stakeholders to address the housing needs of the region. While it may be a challenging endeavor, the dedication and proactive approach of the City demonstrates a commitment to addressing the housing crisis and fulfilling obligations in accordance with state mandates. Although the City is not a housing developer and therefore does not physically construct any units, the City is currently streamlining and accommodating housing projects by revising applicable sections of the zoning ordinance and providing information to community members and the development community in order to facilitate the construction of affordable housing units.

F3. There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.

City Response:

Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 3, as a noncompliant Housing Element does disqualify the City from receiving various State originated grant funding for various City purposes, which is a measureable financial penalty. In addition, there are currently no legal or financial penalties if the City of Pleasant Hill does not achieve its RHNA targets, though there are penalties for not accommodating RHNA in a Housing Element and the consequences for not issuing adequate permits can be considered punitive.

In addition, jurisdictions are subject to penalties if they do not adopt a Housing Element that is certified by the State, including designating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA targets.

For example, cities and the County may be subject to litigation from individuals, housing rights’ organizations, developers, and/or HCD. Depending on court decisions, local control may be further diminished, beyond that prescribed in State law, including, for example, the suspension of a city’s authority to issue building permits or approve certain land use permits. A city may also be subject to court-issued fines, court receivership, and streamlined approval processes that remove local discretion.

F4. Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing allocations.

The allocation requirements continue to increase (l6x for very low-income and 4x for low- income residents).

City Response:

Partially Disagree. It is true that many cities and the County as a whole missed their RHNA targets for very low and low-income housing, and that the RHNA for very low- and low-income housing has continued to increase. However, the increase in RHNA is not to the extent mentioned in this report. RHNA numbers from the past three cycles demonstrate that the current cycle (the

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: A - Grand Jury Response Letter (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) 6 th cycle) has had the largest increase - 2.5 times greater than that of the 5th cycle for very lowand low-income housing requirements.

Cycle Very Low % permitted Low % permitted Source
1999 - 2006 6,481 44% 3,741 48% link
2007 - 2014 6,512 21% 4,325 24% link
2015 - 2020 5,264 16% 3,086 55% link
2023 - 2031 13,346 n/a 7,685 n/a link
F5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very low- and low-income housing, including:
a. Limited availability of land;
b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d. Limited available funding;
e. Lack of community support;
f. NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.

City Response:

Partially Disagree, as noted below:
a. The City of Pleasant Hill is mostly built-out, with small pockets of vacant land available throughout the City. This results in the majority of development projects to be infill in nature. Despite this, the City has identified housing sites in our approved-but-not-yetcertified Housing Element that have been considered acceptable to HCD. b. Zoning policies apply to all residential development; affordable housing does not have a more restrictive provisions. In addition, existing State law and more recent legislation streamline the process and grant affordable housing projects advantages that are not applicable to market rate housing projects, including concessions and waivers from local zoning regulations.
c. The City has approved multiple affordable housing projects (SAHA Senior Affordable Housing, Hookston Senior Apartments, Grayson Creek Apartments) within the City. d. Though available funding can hinder the development of affordable housing, the City has addressed this in the Housing Element programs, policies, and actions to the extent feasible and considered acceptable to HCD.
e. When sited and designed consistent with surrounding development, affordable housing does not enjoy any less community support in the City of Pleasant Hill. f. The Pleasant Hill City Council has approved affordable housing projects throughout the City despite NIMBY resistance, including 401 Taylor Boulevard (small lot residential), 85 Cleaveland Road (five story apartment complex), and 490 Golf Club Road (affordable senior housing) .

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: A - Grand Jury Response Letter (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) F6. Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development. Zoning obstacles include:
a. Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b. Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c. Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.

City Response:

Partially Disagree, as noted below:
a. The recent City Housing Element identifies affordable housing sites within close proximity to alternative modes of transportation and necessary services. However, comments from the State HCD have required revisions to the City’s inventory of opportunity sites that have reduced access to alternative modes of transit and necessary services. b. The City is in the process of a comprehensive rezoning effort that will provide more flexible height and density in Pleasant Hill to allow for higher density development. c. The City of Pleasant Hill has had an inclusionary housing ordinance since 1996.

F7. Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval City Response:

Agree
F8. Builder's Remedy and S835 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.

City Response:

Partially Disagree. While Builder's Remedy and SB35 are tools available to developers to expedite review of affordable housing development proposals, they may not comprehensively address all the ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that hinder the completion of approved AH projects. The effectiveness of these streamlined processes can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and while they can help overcome certain barriers like restrictive zoning policies and prolonged approval timelines, other challenges mentioned in the report, such as limited available funding, community support, and NIMBY opposition may continue to persist in diverse degrees in different locations. To achieve the successful completion of approved AH projects and effectively address these obstacles, a multifaceted and jurisdiction-specific approach is required, taking into account the unique circumstances and complexities faced by each locality.

F9. When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA's) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: A - Grand Jury Response Letter (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) City Response:

Partially Disagree. While the County and cities did not create or find new sources to fund affordable housing development after the State discontinued 452 RDAs, State law limits local jurisdictions’ ability to create new funding sources. Voters need to approve virtually all new funding or financing mechanisms to generate the revenues or funds needed to preserve existing affordable housing and construct or finance new affordable housing. The Board of Supervisors and Town/City Councils cannot, for example, float bonds any longer without voter approval.

While voters approved Measure X, the countywide, 20-year, half-cent sales tax, in November 2020, Measure X is projected to provide up to $12 million annually for “housing and related services” for the entire County (emphasis added). Measure X Affordable Housing funds will be distributed through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process, a competitive process.

Fl0. Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low- income residents.

City Response:

Agree
Fl1. Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer's overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.

City Response:

Partially Disagree. Bond funding requires voters’ approval. Given timing considerations (economic conditions and bond measures for other competing interests), bond financing has not been the most significant source of affordable housing financing. While local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund in Contra Costa County are a beneficial component to help fund affordable housing construction, the amount of funding available from Measure X is not high enough to bolster a developer's overall ability to raise funds for an affordable housing (AH) development. Under the Measure X Program Allocation Summary, only $10 million dollars (about 13% of FY 2022-23 funding and about 4.5% of total funding) were allocated to a Local Housing Trust Fund; for FY 2023-24, $12 million dollars were allocated. The Measure X Housing Funds are to be dispersed by the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) and the Health Services’ Health, Housing and Homeless (HSD-H3) Services, and the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa. While a contributing factor and certainly welcome, Measure X dollars are too small to be considered “critical” to the overall ability of the jurisdictions to meet their RHNA requirements for affordable housing.

F12. Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: A - Grand Jury Response Letter (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) City Response:

Partially Disagree. The City agrees that proactive strategies can help attract affordable housing developers and mitigate the barriers to housing production; however, proactive strategies alone do not yield affordable housing projects. For example, while the City of Pleasant Hill engages in many of the above strategies, a variety of other obstacles to affordable housing development exist beyond a local jurisdiction’s control. This includes the gap in financing between constructing market-rate versus affordable housing; high land costs, especially for Central County jurisdictions like Pleasant Hill; land-to-building ratios for properties with underutilized structures; the cost to upgrade or renovate an existing nonresidential building to accommodate housing; infrastructure costs (on- and off-site); fees for public utilities and special districts (particularly for non-municipal utilities), etc.

Fl3. The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very low- and low-income housing.

City Response:

Agree
Recommendations:

RI. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.

City Response:

The recommendation has been implemented. California’s Housing Element Law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demands of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. The City is not responsible for the development and construction of housing to achieve the allocated RHNA targets. Instead, the City is responsible for effectively implementing its housing element and associated programs to address any existing constraints to housing and for tracking and reporting the jurisdiction’s progress toward achieving their RHNA. The City of Pleasant Hill Planning Division is assigned the responsibility for these tasks.

R2. Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income.

Cities and the County should communicate their progress, biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor meetings.

City Response
The recommendation has been implemented, as the City of Pleasant Hill completes State of California Annual Housing Reports that provide this information on an annual basis. Before the report is sent to the State, it is reviewed and accepted by the City Council.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: A - Grand Jury Response Letter (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) R3. Each City and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community voice in the process and helping to identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community.

City Response:

The recommendation will not be implemented. We appreciate the thoughtful recommendation to create a dedicated Affordable Housing (AH) commission comprising a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens, led by a current, non-elected, city expert in planning. While we acknowledge the potential benefits of such a commission, after careful consideration, we have decided not to pursue its implementation for the following reasons:

Resource Constraints: Establishing and maintaining a dedicated AH commission would require additional financial and administrative resources. At present, our city is already allocating resources to multiple initiatives aimed at addressing affordable housing needs. Adding another commission might spread resources too thin and hinder the efficiency of current efforts.

Efficient Decision-Making: By involving a diverse range of citizens and experts in existing planning and housing committees, we maintain a balanced and inclusive approach. This integration ensures streamlined decision-making processes and comprehensive representation of community interests without creating an additional layer of bureaucracy.

Alternative Approaches: Instead of forming a separate AH commission, we are committed to strengthening the involvement of community members and experts in our existing planning and housing committees. Enhancing public outreach and encouraging community feedback will remain focal points in our efforts to address obstacles hindering affordable housing development.

R4. Each City and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RHNA allocation targets for very low- and lowincome housing in their community.

City Response:

The recommendation has not been fully implemented, but will be implemented in the future, as the City is starting a comprehensive zoning ordinance update that will consider provisions of the recently adopted Housing Element, and will better address development for affordable housing projects. In addition, the adopted Housing Element contains various programs that will better address the creation of affordable housing in the City.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: A - Grand Jury Response Letter (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) R5. Each City and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.

City Response:

The recommendation has been implemented, as the City prepares annual reports, submits it to the State that notes progress against RHNA targets, and is available for public viewing. In addition, the City does maintain a project list for all active projects in the city, including residential projects. The City will consider creating and maintaining a dashboard of residential housing projects on the City website that can be reviewed by the public, as suggested.

R6. Each City and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned "suitable for residential use," without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.

City Response:

The recommendation has been implemented, as the City of Pleasant Hill recently adopted its Housing Element that addresses the recommendation noted above. Many housing opportunity sites identified in the approved element are located in areas that have access to existing services, and the zoning ordinance is being updated to better address development patterns to accommodate affordable housing projects.

R7. Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.

City Response:

The recommendation has been implemented. Through the Housing Element process, the City has reviewed its existing zoning policies and identified potential affordable housing development constraints. The City included Housing Element Programs that outline forthcoming changes to zoning policies with specified timeframes to address the identified constraints.

R8. Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of2023 (if not already in place).

City Response:

The recommendation has been implemented, as the City adopted its inclusionary housing ordinance in 1996.

R9. Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: A - Grand Jury Response Letter (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) City Response:

The recommendation has been implemented, as the adopted Housing Element includes a policy/program that provides prioritization of AH projects. In addition, the adopted Housing Element includes policies and programs that promote AH development including Policies H2.2, H-2.3, H-3.1, H-3.3 and Programs V, X, Z, CC, JJ.

RI0. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents.

Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.

City Response:

The recommendation has been implemented, as the City in the process of following the wishes of the voters, applying any Measure X funding received, and allocating to affordable housing, specifically to projects that accommodate very-low and low-income residents. When these project are approved, the City will include this information in the publicly available annual report. In addition, the use of Measure X funds for housing are reported by the County here:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/8530/Measure-X.

Please feel free to contact me for additional information regarding the City’s response at 925-671-5224.

Sincerely,
Troy Fujimoto
City Planner
Cc:

Timothy M. Flaherty, Mayor
Matthew Rinn, Vice Mayor
Sue Noack, Vice-Mayor
Zac Shess, Councilmember
Allen Vinson, Councilmember
Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
Janet Coleson, City Attorney
Attachments: Letter from Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Regarding Report Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Report

9.4.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: A - Grand Jury Response Letter (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Grand Jury
June 16, 2023
Pleasant Hill City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Dear City Council of Pleasant Hill:

Contra
Costa
County
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091
Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Affordable Housing: "A Plan Without a Home" prepared by the 2022-2023 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury.

In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 et seq., we are submitting this report to you as the officer, agency, or department responsible for responding to the report. Please respond to the Findings and Recommendations as they apply to your agency. Please also confirm in writing that the person responding to the report is authorized to do so. As the responding person or person responding on behalf of an entity, please indicate one of the following actions with respect to each finding:
(1) You agree with the finding.
(2) You disagree with the finding.
(3) You partially disagree with the finding.
(Pen. Code,§ 933.05(a).) In the cases of both (2) and (3) above, please specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons therefor.

In addition, Section 933.05(b) requires you to reply to each recommendation by stating one of the following actions:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing the implemented action.

2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.

3. The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scope and parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury Report.

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing)

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation thereof.

The Penal Code also prescribes the obligations of a governing board or elected county official with regard to responding to the grand jury's findings and recommendations. Specifically, if the report contains one or more recommendations directed to you as an elected county official, or to the governing board of which you are a member, you must respond to these recommendations and to the supporting findings, as directed in the report.

After reviewing the response to ensure that it includes the above-noted mandated items, please send (1) a hard copy of the response to the Grand Jury at P.O. Box 431, Martinez, CA 94553; and (2) an electronic copy by e-mail to [email protected]. The response must be submitted to the Grand Jury no later than September 13, 2022.

Finally, please note that this report is provided at least two working days before it is released publicly. Section 933.05 specifies that no officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public release.

Please immediately confirm receipt of this letter and the attached report by responding via e-mail to [email protected]. gov.

Sincerely,
C¼tr--··
Cynthia Roberts, Foreperson
2022-2023 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
cc: June Catalano, City Manager

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
2022-2023
Contra Costa County
Civil Grand Jury
Report 2306
June 14, 2023

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing)

A REPORT BY
THE 2022-2023 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
725 Court Street
Martinez, California 94553
Report 2306
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home

APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY
Date C::,- ~L\ - 2 0"2--::>.:>

ACCEPTED FOR FILING
Date 6-/ L.(- c.02.-3

CYNTHIA ROBERTS

GRAND JURY FOREPERSON
n.JILL C. ~ FANNIN

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) TO:

Contact: Cynthia Roberts
Foreperson
(925) 608-2621
Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 2306
Affordable Housiing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
City Councils for All Cities in Contra Costa County

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- - ---------------~ ~----------~---- - - - - - -- -~ ~-- - - - Table of Contents
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 3 DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 3 INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 12 RHJ\TA TARGETS AND CITY AND COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY ........................................... 12 ADDITIONAL OBSTACLES THAT HINDER THE DEVELOPMENT OF AH ........................ 13 Limited Availability of Land ............................................................................................... 13 Restrictive Zoning Policies Specific to AH Development .................................................... 13 Developer Interest to Bring Projects Forward ...................................................................... 14 Limited Funding .................................................................................................................. 14 Lack of Community Support ............................................................................................... 14 NIMBY Opposition & City Council response to NIMBY opposition ................................... 14 CITIES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ........................ 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 16 FINDINGS: ............................................................................................................................ 16 RECOA;flv!E,VDATIONS: ........................................................................................................ 17 REQUIRED RESPONSES ........................................................................................................ 19 REFERENCES: ........................................................................................................................ 20 BIBLIOGRAPHY: ........................................ .. ........................................................................ 20 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... ..

A-1. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME 2022 ................................. 21 A-2. 2022 CCC WAGES, RENT TO INCOME, AMI STATUS ................................................ 22 A-3. BAY AREA RHNA ALLOCATIONS AND PROGRESS ................................................... 23 A-4. SB 35 VERY LOW-INCOME AND LOW-INCOME DETERA1INATION SUMMARIES .. 27 A-5. NEWS ARTICLES REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ........................................ 34 Contra Costa 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 f®]i of i Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - -- --- ~---------------~~ -------------

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AH Affordable Housing
Allocations State-issued housing goals by income category that must be planned for and included in each County and city housing element plan AMI Area Median Income - Refer to Table 1
Builder's Remedy A provision found in California's Housing Accountability Act (HAA) that allows developers of affordable housing projects to bypass the zoning code and general plan of cities that are out of compliance with the Housing Element Law.

Extremely Low 30% or less of area AMI
Income
HEP Housing Element Plans
HCD The State Department of Housing and Community Development Inclusionary Housing Regulation, when adopted by a city or the County, requires new Ordinance residential developments to include a minimum percentage of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households into residential developments of five units or more (generally 15%)
Low Income (LI) 50- 80% or less of area AMI.

RDA Redevelopment Agency - dedicated to urban renewal.

RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Measure X Housing Contra Costa County's 20-year, $12 million annual share of Measure Fund X ½ cent sales tax to be used for housing & services.

NIMBY Not in my back yard
SB 35 California Senate Bill 35 streamlines the housing construction process for cities and counties that fail to build enough housing to meet state-mandated requirements for very low- and low-income households.

Very Low Income 30-50% of area AMI. Qualifications for this designation are based on (VLI) the collective income of all the persons in a household (total household income).

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [q@1 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - ~~-

SUMMARY
The civil grand jury began this investigation to understand how Contra Costa County is addressing the need for affordable housing. We started by reviewing California Housing and Community reports titled Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) results for the County.

These reports, issued at the end of each Housing Element cycle, show housing permits issued for various resident income classification groups against state mandated targets. Each city plus unincorporated County areas of responsibility results are listed. Appendix 3 comprises results for the past 3 Housing Element cycles plus targets for the latest cycle 2023-2031.

After reviewing these reports, we realized that most cities and our County were not providing the required number of housing permits primarily for very low- and low-income resident housing.

Close examination of these reports reveals the scale and accelerated progression of missed targets. Additionally, these reports show that the very low- and low-income resident categories reflect the largest percentage of missed RI-INA and plan targets over the past 20 years.

Based on these initial findings, we focused our efforts on housing for residents classified as very low or low income. We wanted to understand who in local government is responsible for implementation of approved housing plans and why were those plans failing to address permit targets for very low- and low-income residents. What are the drivers/obstacles behind these missed targets, and what actions were being taken to increase the availability of affordable housing for these residents throughout our County.

What we found was that although there is ownership for the creation and approval of Housing Elements that address affordable housing targets, we could not find clear assigned responsibility inside local government to implement plans after approval. This problem, combined with the myriad of challenging obstacles outlined in this report has translated into years of missed targets for residents classified as very low or low income. Without significant changes to how local governments address affordable housing, cities and the County risk the imposition of State mandated solutions that bypass local development protocols. This report is a summation of our work, findings and recommendations for improvement.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~J}2 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - --- - - - - -- - -- -- ----- - - -- - - - - -

METHODOLOGY
Documents
The grandjury reviewed numerous documents from local, County, regional, and State agencies. For a comprehensive list see the References section of this document.

Interviews
The grand jury conducted interviews with city and County leaders knowledgeable about the housing development process in the west, central and east County cities. We also interviewed:
• developers that specialize in affordable housing construction projects • leaders with experience in addressing housing development issues • various staff members with housing responsibilities
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@}3 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ---~-- -- - --- -- ------- - --- ~ --- - - -

BACKGROUND
The housing element cycle was introduced in 1969, when the California State Legislature passed laws requiring that all cities and counties adequately plan to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels in the community. California's local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their "general plan" (also required by the state).

The process involves significant planning from experts in local government, and citizens are asked proactively for input on these proposed plans before being submitted to the State for approval. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approves all HEPs.

The role of the state, besides approval of each HEP, is to identify the total number of homes required by resident income classification so that cities and counties can include these numbers in their HEPs. These numbers are required to be included in each city and County HEP.

Determining individual income classifications is a County-specific exercise. It starts with a determination of County Area Median Income (AMI). As noted in Table I below, the state defines for each County, which is then extrapolated into specific resident income classifications.

After development of housing allocation numbers by HCD, the data is passed down to the regional authority, the Association of Bay Area Governments, (ABAG), as a Regional Housing Need Detennination (RHND). This is the first step in California's process to plan for the housing needs in each region of the state. It is RHND's responsibility to also track permits issued against allocation targets in each Housing Element Plan (HEP). This tracking of progress against targets is communicated through ABAG issued reports (Appendix 3).

The next step, allocation, is also the role of the regional authority, ABAG. It is their responsibility to allocate a share of the RHND housing numbers to each city and County as a Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). These numbers are broken out by resident income, classified as very low income, low income, moderate income and above moderate income.

The next two tables reflect Contra Costa County's average median income, occupation, and wages of some of the County residents. We wanted to understand who in our community is part of the very low- and low-income groups. We realized that we all probably know someone who may be impacted by the shortage of affordable housing in the County.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@]4 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - -------------------- - - - ----- - -- - Table 1 below, from the California Department of Housing and Community Development website, shows the state definition of income limits for residents in Contra Costa County based on the calculation of the average median income (AMI). AMI is based on the collective income of all the persons in a household (total household income).

Table 1: 2022 State Income Limits by Household
2022 State Income Umlts
Contra Costa County
Income Umits by Household Size -Effective May 13, 2022
. Median Family Income -$142,800
Acutely Low Extremely Low Very Low · Moderate
Persons per Lowlncome Median
Household Income Income Income 80"AMI . .income Income
15"AMI 309'AMI 50%AMI .. 1209' ~· , '1'
1 $15,000 $30,000 $50,000 $76,750 $99,950 $119,950
2 $17,100 $34,300 $57,150 $87,700 $114,250 $137,100
3 $19,250 $38,600 $64,300 $98,650 $128,500 $154,200
4 $21,400 $42,850 $71,400 $109,600 $142,800 $171,350
5 $23,100 $46,300 $77,150 $118,400 $154,200 $185,050
6 $24,800 $49,750 $82,850 $127,150 $165,650 $198,7SO
7 $26,550 $53,150 $88,550 $135,950 $177,050 $212,450
8 $28,250 $56,600 $94,250 $144,700 $188,500 $226,200
For lnduslonary Housing, Density Bonus, and calculating rents and for-sale prices Income Limits from 2022 State Income Limits from the Department of Housing and Community Development State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant ellglblUty (based on the level of household income) and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs for applicable housing assistance programs. Use of State Income Limits are subJett to a particular program's definition of Income, family, family size, effective dates and other factor$, In addition, definitions applicable to Income categories, criteria, and geographic areas sometimes differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting In some programs using other Income limits.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@]5 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- -- -- - - - ---~-- - ---- -- -- Table 2 below contains data from govsalaries.com. It identifies by occupation some of the County occupations that fall into the very low- and low-income classifications as well as a few occupations that are just over the threshold, falling into the median income group.

Table 2: 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status
Oc:cupatton Mean Annual % of Monthly % of Monthly Income Status - % of Wage(2022) Income Needed Income Needed AMI*
for a 2-Bedroom for a 3-bedroom
Unit Unit
Food Service Worker $36,488 87% 113% Extremely Low
(<30%AMI)
Dishwasher $38,853 82% 107% Extremely Low
Hairdressers $42,203 75% 98% Extremely Low
Retail Salespersons $43,018 74% 97" Very Low
(50%AMI)
Security Guards. $45,998 69% 90% Very Low
Receptionists and $46,833 68% 89" Very Low
Information Clerks
Preschool Teachers $46,103 69% 90% Very Low
Medical Assistants $59,313 54% 70% Very Low
Education and Childcare $66,492 48% 62% Very Low
Administrators
Licensed Practical and $78,255" 41% 53% Low
Licensed Vocational (80%AMI)
Nurses
$91,041 34% 46% Low
Education Teachers,
Postsecondary
Police and Sheriff's Patrol $126,289 25% 33% Median
Officers
Computer and $132,023 24% 32% Median
Mathematical
Occupations
In addition to residents in these occupational categories, a lack of very low- and low-income affordable housing impacts senior County residents ( over the age of 65). Seniors are one of the fastest growing population segments in the County. The most recent US Census for the County indicates that 6. 7 percent of the total population, over 200,000 residents, is over the age of 65, an increase of 12.5 percent since 2010. The California Department of Aging projects that this group of residents will grow by over 150 percent by 2060.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~:6 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- --- ----------~ -------~- -- ------ The next two charts contain data extracted from published ABAG housing reports (Appendix 3).

They highlight the disappointing results in housing permits issued against mandated allocations for very low- and low-income residents.

Chart 1 shows a 21-year decline in the percentage of permits issued for very low-income residents, even as allocation targets stayed relatively flat. For the upcoming 2023-2031 allocation cycle for very low-income housing, allocations have tripled.

Chart 1: Very-low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC 11'1
16 14
12 10
-g 8 n,
11'1
:,
_g 6 ....
4 2
0 Contra Costa County Very Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
1999-2006 Progress 2007-2014 2015-2020
-
RHNA Cycle
2023-2031
- RHNA Allocation Permits Issued • Percent of Allocation Permitted Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
(I/
50% tlO
n,
....

C:
40% (I/
u
...
(I/
30% 0.
20%
10%
0%
~}7 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - --- - -~--- --~- ~ ~----- - -- - - - Chart 2 shows a 15-year decline in low-income housing permits, with an uplift in the most recent allocation cycle. However, the County still only issued permits for about half of the allocations mandated by the state for this same period. And again, the upcoming allocation cycle for 2023- 2031 has a significant bump in the mandated allocation for low-income housing. 9 8
7 6 V'l
-0
~ 5 V'l
::,
_g4
I3
2 1
0 Chart 2: Low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC 1999-2006 Progress
Contra Costa County Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
2007-2014
■ 2015 - 2020 Progress
Progress4325
RHNACycle
2023- 2031
- RHNA Allocation - Permits Issued Percent of Allocations Permitted 100%
90%
80%
70%
Cl/
60% QI)
I'll
..., 50% C
Cl/
u
... 40% QI

0..
30%
20%
10%
0%
The data published in charts 1 & 2 above illustrates that over the period 1999-2020 the County has failed to provide the number of housing units mandated by the State of California and as they have planned for in their individual city and County element plans for very low- and low-income residents.

To understand the allocation targets and whether all income groups were equally impacted, the grand jury again looked at whether there had been any progress made against RHNA targets within any of the other income groups. What we found was that housing permits for high income housing had outpaced other income groups, with high income permits more than double all other income group housing permits combined. Close examination of the details published in the reports found in Appendix 3 validates this reality. The next 2 charts again use graphic descriptions of this published data to reinforce the magnitude of the problem.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@B of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ------------~- - ---- - -- --
Chart 3 looks at the past three Housing Element cycles results against allocations for the four income categories measured by RHNA reports for Contra Costa County. It also identifies new allocations for the current 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle. The income categories are VLI (very low), L (low), M (moderate), and H- (above moderate), which align with income categories measured in RHNA published progress reports. This chart also shows what percentage of the planned permits ( allocation) resulted in a corresponding permit (Permits Issued) being issued for each income group as a percentage (Percent Permitted).
40 35
30 "' -g 25 n:,
"' 5 20 ..c
I- 15
10 5
0 VLI L
Chart 3: Contra Costa County
RHNA Allocations and Permits by Income Group
•I
I
M H vu
Contra Costa County RHNA Allocations
and Permits
.Ii ...
_/. I 'i\
I ~
L M H vu L M H VLI L
I
M
1999-2006 2007-2014 2015-2020 2023-2031
- Allocation - Permits Issued Percent Permitted
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
H
[@]9 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - - - ---- --~- --- - - -- - - - Chart 4 below takes a representative sample of cities in the County and shows the percentage of housing permits issued for very low- and low-income residents measured against all housing permits issued for the time period 1999-2020. Most of the cities identified fell short of their allocation goals.

Chart 4: Very Low and Low-Income Housing Permits as a % of All Permits by City 1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 -6 C:
g 0
·.:: > C:
< 0 "'
,. I ~ ~ "' .. > CJ 0 CJ "' c:, g :f ::5 -~ a C: :;; ·.;:: ~ "' t ;:. 8 ;;: c Q "' C: :I: ::i: ., ,: r: II'>
C: "'
1999·2006
- VU Permits Issued
-" £ C: ~ ,,., ... > CJ 0 -" .:; C CII g "' C, c:, 0 ~ = ::i:i c:, 0 ::! 2 -~ a .§ :;; CJ '-' > C: &. u .2 > ~ c "' ,. ... :; 8 C: c c ,:
<: u Q "' . .,, ~ C: ; < 0 Q ;::! :I: :a ,. ,: "' C: ;; ., 7:
:l: C: :l:
"' N > w c:, ., CJ 0 :f
~ :! :;; C: ... 8 C: c c:, ,. :I: "' ::E .,
,.

QI
ii:
2007-2014 2015-2020
- Low Permits Issued - vu & L Permitted as a% of all Permitted 0 ::E
~
C:
,:
..,,
~
"' e
'-'
:i
C:
7:
~
70%
60%
50"/4
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Chart 5 is a listing of all 19 cities in the County, showing how much housing was permitted for very low- and low-income residents in the last Housing Element cycle 2015-2020 and what is expected to be accomplished in 2023-2031. As the chart shows, the State of California has increased the mandatory allocation for very low- and low-income housing for many Contra Costa County cities and for the County itself.

Chart 5: Very Low and Low-Income Permit Allocations by City 7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000 I 0 • • .. 1. .... -·- • •' -· • • . I I I ' I •
2015-2020
■ VLI Allocation LO\'J Allocation Total Alloc-1tions
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 2023 • 2031
~iJ10 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - - -- - --~ - - - - - - - - - - - - Whether reviewing individual city details in Appendix 3 or reviewing the County results overall, the track record regarding very low- and low-income permitted units for affordable housing over the past 20 years is dismal. How will each city and the County meet more challenging targets (Appendix 5) for very low- and low-income housing in the next Housing Element cycle and what might enable attainment in the future?
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@}11 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - -----~ -~--~~- - -

DISCUSSION
In every interview the grand jury conducted with city and County officials, all communicated that they care deeply about the affordable housing issue in their communities. However, none of those interviewed acknowledged or identified themselves, their department or any other agency as having responsibility for the actual attainment of RHNA housing targets. Although we found the Housing Element Plans on the various city and the County entities, we did not find any language or group description that identified an owning entity that is either accountable or responsible for the execution of the Housing Element Plan, identifying and addressing obstacles, or attaining state mandated targets. The grand jury was unable to find any owner for the actual achievement of state mandated housing targets. Meaning that once a Housing Element plan containing the mandated housing targets for each income group was approved, no individual or department was responsible for implementing the approved Housing Element plan or accountable for the progress/results against the established targets within the plan.

Our investigation looked at three specific areas that should enable affordable housing. First, the RHNA targets identified in housing element plans and who in local government takes ownership to implement approved HEPs. Second, what control do our cities and the County have in the affordable housing development process? Finally, the state's relationship with our cities and the County: how decisions by the state impact affordable housing development in our County.

RHNA Targets and City and County Responsibility
Each city is required by the State of California to provide an updated housing element plan for approval every eight years. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a Bay Area local government consortium whose mission is to strengthen cooperation and collaboration across local governments in order to build healthier and stronger communities, receives the affordable housing target data from the state. This data outlines how much housing will be needed, by income category, for the next reporting cycle. ABAG distributes the individual targets for each city and the County for the current cycle. ABAG then provides a report, before the next housing element cycle, which documents each city and the County results against targets.

Contra Costa County city and County performance in issuing housing permits for very low- and low-income residents for the last three housing element cycles, 1999-2006, 2007-2014 and 2015- 2020, showed significant misses of actual permits issued against the targets.

The charts in Appendix 3 reflect the number of permits issued by city, against RHNA allocation targets for each housing element. Appendix 5 is the final RHNA allocation for 2023-2031. All data presented in appendices 3 and 5 reflect that our cities and County are permitting housing, primarily for residents in the 120 percent of median or higher income classification.

City and County officials are primarily focused on getting HCD to approve an individual housing element plan. In multiple interviews with various city officials, after HEP approval we did not find examples of consistent communication of progress to meeting targets for very low- and lowincome residents. In these same interviews, RHNA targets were described as "aspirational, not Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@]12 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- - -- - - - ------ - - ---- - - - - - realistic, or not attainable." Interviewees used different words, but overall, RHNA targets were considered mostly an academic exercise that no one takes seriously. Furthermore, we did not find a specific o-wner for attainment of the housing element plan allocations, leading us to believe that this could well be one of the key reasons for our County's failure to realize (permit and build) affordable housing for very low- and low-income residents.

Additional Obstacles that Hinder the Development of AH
Six additional obstacles to the development of AH for residents identified as very low- and lowmcome are:
• limited availability of land;
• restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; • limited developer interest to bring projects forward; • limited funding;
• lack of community support;
• NIMBY - au industry term that denotes opposition to development in a neighborhood, community, or city.

These obstacles are not uniform or constant across the County. Rather, some are more pronounced in one area or at one time.

Limited Availability of Land
Cities with less available land, but access to mass transit hubs, benefit from incentives to build AH close to transit centers. West County cities have benefitted the most from these projects. East County cities with large tracts of undeveloped land have had recent success in building AH projects for very low- and low-income residents. The Antioch Family and Senior Apartments project, completed in 2022, is an example of a successful AH project, in that it was submitted, approved, and completed in a relatively short time period with minimal roadblocks (References/ Bibliography East Bay Times October 22, 2022). Central County cities must balance extremely high land costs against AH development needs.

Restrictive Zoning Policies Specific to AH Development
City zoning ordinances vary greatly throughout the County but in many instances are not conducive to the development of AH. For instance, we conducted a limited proactive review of existing zoning policies to see ifthere were any subtle changes to local building codes that could be made to ease the approval of AH projects. Some cities zone land for AH development, but land that is far from basic services, in very expensive-to-develop areas, or in environmentally sensitive locations. Some cities have restrictive height zoning ordinances. Many cities do not have an inclusionary housing ordinance. (An inclusionary housing ordinance requires developers to set aside select units for very low- and low-income residents when proposing projects or to pay cities for the exclusion creating a local funding opportunity.) Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http:l/www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~]13 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - -- - -- -- ---------- - - ---- --~ - - Developer Interest to Bring Projects Forward
Actions by local city councils greatly influence how developers view their ability to successfully create an AH development. In our interviews with city officials and developers, it was determined that city councils that work openly to mitigate community concerns, don't flip flop after a project has been properly vetted, and are willing to team with developers as partners throughout the long approval and development process are viewed as fostering conducive and supportive environments for AH development. Failure to team with a developer or to actively address obstacles during the approval and development process often results in failing to meet AH targets.

Limited Funding
The lack of funding and the complexity associated with getting funding support for AH projects are obstacles. The state prioritizes AH projects that provide some local funding support.

Developers who rely on tax incentives to help secure project funding get a better place in line to have their projects approved if there is demonstrated local funding support. City officials attribute the elimination of redevelopment agencies as a local funding source in 2012 as a key reason local funding has been so difficult to obtain. The County has been slow to provide alternative funding sources. Voters passed Measure X in 2020, and housing funds will finally be available in 2023. Other Bay Area counties took a more assertive role in providing alternative funding support for their cities.

In 2016, Alameda County passed measure Al, which dedicated $580 million for AH. In 2016, Santa Clara County passed Measure A, which allocated $950 million for AH. In Contra Costa County,·Measure X carved out $240 million as a dedicated housing fund, with a stipulation that only $12 million annually for 20 years will be allocated to support housing. No funds are dedicated specifically to building housing for very low- and low-income residents, and there is no direct link of fund requests to achieving RHNA targets.

Lack of Community Support
Cities across the County have a wide range of policies around outreach and education about AH.

The effort to educate communities as to why this housing issue is so important is broadly different across the County. In reviewing successful AH projects completed in the County citizen involvement and participation has shown to lessen local opposition to AH.

NIMBY Opposition and City Council response to NIMBY Opposition NIMBY opposition was frequently cited by the developers that we interviewed as a primary cause of wasted resources and unnecessary project delays. Communities where projects get tied up in extensive local battles with non-supportive citizens or with city councils that reverse earlier decisions made through the normal local development process were cited by developers as influencing whether they would consider proposing AH projects in these communities.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury r@J14 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ~----- - ------- - - --- - --- ~ - -- - - - Cities and Their Relationship with the State of California The state grants cities and counties broad independence to do what is best for their community regarding housing development. But the state retains the ability to override local city jurisdiction.

The Builder's Remedy provision in California's Housing Accountability Act has been in place since 1990. It grants developers the authority to bypass any local zoning or approval process and move projects forward if a local government entity is not in compliance with its current Housing Element plans. Compliance has meant meeting the requirement to have an approved HEP. While in place for many years, the state, until recently, has rarely enforced this provision. City and County officials who were interviewed recognize that there is now a more intense state oversight process to plan submissions, and there are potential penalties for poor content plans or plans that do not get approved by state deadlines. This renewed intensity of focus has forced cities and counties to improve the quality of their Housing Element plans. The Builder's Remedy is the draconian solution that the state may enforce if cities insist on proposing Housing Element plans that are not implementable. The city and County officials interviewed for this investigation expect to get their housing element plans approved. But again, plan approval does not equal plan implementation.

Senate Bill 35 allows qualifying development projects with certain minimum affordable housing guarantees to move more quickly through the local government review process. The bill amended the Government Code to restrict the ability of local governments to reject these projects. A project approved under SB 35 cannot be challenged under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is an important feature of projects developed under SB35 as much has been discussed publicly about how CEQA lawsuits have been used to slow or stop the development of AH projects. Appendix 4 identifies individual cities and counties that have met their prorated very low- and low-income RHNA goals for the latest reporting period.

It's a small list. In this County, only El Cerrito qualified for exemption from SB 35. We did not find examples of projects being developed in this County that have been or could be streamlined under SB 35.

Cities in this County that propose Housing Element plans, implement their approved plans, and meet RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents will not run the risk of losing local development control through either Builder's Remedy or SB35.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~]15 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ---- -- - - ----~- --- ------- -- ---- Findings and Recommendations
Findings:

FI. Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.

F2. City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.

F3. There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.

F4. Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low-income and 4x for lowincome residents).

F5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very lowand low-income housing, including:
a. Limited availability of land;
b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d. Limited available funding;
e. Lack of community support;
f. NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.

F6. Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development.

Zoning obstacles include:
a. Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b. Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c. Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.

F7. Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval F8. Builder's Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.

F9. When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA's) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~J16 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ---- - - - ----- -
FlO. Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and lowincome residents.

F 11. Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer's overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.

Fl 2. Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.

Fl3. The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very lowand low-income housing.

Recommendations:

Rl. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.

R2. Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress, biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor meetings.

R3. Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community voice in the process and helping to identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community.

R4. Each city and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RI-INA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in their community.

RS. Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.

R6. Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned "suitable for residential use," without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~}17 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ---- --- --- ---~ -~~- - - -
R7. Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.

R8. Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of 2023 (if not already in place).

R9. Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.

Rl 0. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury f@J18 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ~ --~ - - --- ---~-- ----- ~~--- -

REQUIRED RESPONSES
As required by California Penal Code sections 933(b) and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Contra Costa County civil grand jury requires responses from the following governing bodies:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors F1--F13 R1-R7 & R9-R10 t\ntioch City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Brentwood City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Clayton City Council F1-F13 R1 -R10
Concord City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Danville City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
El Cerrito City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Hercules City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Lafayette City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Martinez City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Moraga City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Oakley City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Orinda City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pinole City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pittsburg City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pleasant Hill City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Richmond City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
San Pablo City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
San Ramon City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Walnut Creek City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
These responses must be provided in the format and by the date set forth in the cover letter that accompanies this report. An electronic copy of these responses in the form of a Word document should be sent by e-mail to [email protected] and a hard (paper) copy should be sent to:

Civil Grand Jury - Foreperson
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [~]19 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ------- ----- -- - ---- --
REFERENCES:

Bibliography:
• Association of Bay Area Governments:
o RHNA 1999-2006 Final Report
o RHNA San Francisco Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2007-20 I 4 o RI-INA 2015 - 2020 Bay Area Building Permit Activity Report o RHNA Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: San Francisco Bay Area. 2023-2031
o RHNA- Regional Housing Needs Allocation
o RHNA: Housing Element Law Changes from 1969 to 2020
• U.S. Census Quick Facts I Contra Costa County, CA
• Fannie Mae Area Median Income Lookup Tool/ Contra Costa County, CA • CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act
• 8B35 Affordable Housing: Streamlined Approval Process • Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.51): Builder's Remedy and Housing Elements
• Mercury News, February 13, 2023: New bill would extend controversial California housing law
• Mercury News, October 20, 2022: Antioch unveils its newest and largest affordable income apartment complex
• Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, 2015-2016~ Report 1614: Where Will We Live? The Affordable Housing Waiting List is Closed
• Contra Costa Conservation and Development: Measure X Housing Fund • Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing: 2016 Measure A -Affordable Housing Bond
• Alameda County HCD: Measure Al Implementation Policies - Rental Housing Development Fund & Innovation and Opportunity Fund
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [q@20 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ~- --- ------- -- - -
Appendices
A-1. Contra Costa County Average Median Income 2022
2022 State Income Umlts .t , l.:.1; ;;
Contra Costa County
Income Umits by Household Size • Effective May 13, 2022 , · , Median Family Income ~ $142,800 .t• ·r , i,i/;. . • -~ -...:t \ ., Extremely low Very low ,, l• ~~\~f,-J'f~_~•- .,. ,, Moderate ' \ ,:,\~..,, ,: Acutely low , low Income ... :.~;fJ' ; .f• ,j P!~~sper Income ' ' Income lncome i /'~AMI .•,. ~'- ·-- ~- ~-. ;: income Household ·is,fAMI 3°"AMI S°"AMI
c· ·income .r UOKAMI ., . ,,,,_
\' ,•
1 $15,000 $30,000 $50,000 $76,750 $99,950 $119,950
2 $17,100 $34,300 $57,150 $87,700 $114,250 $137,100
3 $19,250 $38,600 $64,300 $98,650 $128,500 $154,200
4 $21,400 $42,850 $71,400 $109,600 $142,800 $171,350
s $23,100 $46,300 $77,150 $118,400 $154,200 $185,050
6 $24,800 $49,750 $82,850 $127,150 $165,650 $198,750
7 $26,550 $53,150 $88,550 $135,950 $177,050 $212,450
8 $28,250 $56,600 $94,250 $144,700 $188,500 $226,200
For lnduslonarv Housing, Density Bonus, and calculatlng rents and for-sale prices Income Umlts from 2022 State Income Umlts from the Department of Houstnc and Community Development State Income Umlts apply to designated programs, arc used to determine applicant cliglblllty (based on the level of household income) and may be used to calculate affordable houslna costs for appl/cablC! hoiulna assistan,c: programs, Use of State Income Limits are? subject to a particular program's dc:finltlon of Income, famlly, family size, effective dates and other factors. In addition, definitions applicable to Income categories, criteria, and aeosraphlc areas sometimes differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting In some programs using other Income llmlts.

Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [~]21 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ~-- --- ----~------ - -- ---~- -- - --- A-2. 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status
Occupation Mean Annual " of Monthly " of Monthly
wase(2022t Income Needed Income Needed
for a 2-Bedroom for a 3-bedroom
Unit Unit
Food Service Worker $36,488 87% 113%
Dishwasher $38,853 82% 107%
Hairdressers $42,203 75% 98%
Retail Salespersons $43,018 74% 97"
Security Guards $45,998 69% 90%
Receptionists and $46,833 68% 89%
Information Clerics
Preschool Teachers $46,103 69% 90%
Medical Assistants $59,313 54% 70%
Education and Childcare $66,492 48% 62"
Administrators
Licensed Practical and $78,255 41% 53%
licensed Vocational
Nurses
$91,041 34% 46%
Education Teachers,
Postsecondary
Police and Sheriff's Patrol $126,289 25% 33%
Officers
Computer and $132,023 24% 32%
Mathematica I
Occupations
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Income Statu$ - " of
AMI•
Extremely Low
(<30"AMI)
Extremelv Low
Extremely Low
Very Low
(50%AM0
Vervlow
Very Low
Vervlow
Very Low
Very Low
Low
(80%AMI)
Low
Median
Median
[@]22 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- - ~~---- ---- - ----- ---- --- ------ -- A-3. Bay Area RHNA Allocations and Progress
CCC Progress in Meeting 1999-2006 Regional Housing Need Allocation Very low low Moderate
Pe«entof PelUlltof Plrcentof
IUINA Permits Allocallon RHNA PenniU AllocaUon IUINA Permits Allocatlon Alloutlon ISsutid Ptrmltltd Allocation Issued P1rmlltld Alloc,llon luued Pennllttd tonlrl Costa County
Antioch• 921 435 47% 509 403 79'6 1,156 1.923 166"
Brentwood' 906 376 42" 476 238 5°" 958 2,166 226"
Clayton• 55 67 122" 33 17 52" 84 16 19"

1.onr:ord' 453 171 381 m 115 42" 606 76 13"
Dall.tile' 140 85 61" 88 56 64" 216 84 39"
EIC!nlto' 37 0 °" 23 5 22" 48 19 40%
Htreule$' 101 96 95" 62 68 110'11 195 93 48"
~ayetl!' 30 15 5°" 17 2 12" 42 0
M¥tiner' 248 0 °" °" 139 0 °" 341 D
Moqp' °" 32 Z1 66% 17 0 °" 4S 0 °" Olklev' 209 168 8°" m 293 m" 321 51 16" Orinda' 31 0 °" 18 0 °" 43 0 °" Pinole' 48 34 71" 35 6 17" 74 80 10n Pittsburg' 534 247 46" 296 381 129'1 696 800 11S"
Pleasan11t111' 129 95 74" 79 69 87" 175 226 129'1
Rldlmond' 471 200 42" 273 1,093 41m1 62S 131 211
wPablo• 147 214 146" 69 70 101" 123 16 13"
SanRamon1 599 157 26" 372 .C07 109" 984 1,1<0 116"
Walnut 0-eek' 289 99 34" 195 8D 41" 418 175 4~
UnincO(pOrated' 1,101 372 34" 642 177 28" 1,.COl 77 5"
Total &,411 z.asz 4'" 3,741 3,480 "" 1,551 7,ffl m
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury AbcM Modttatt
Pffltntof ,-
Total
IIHNA Pttmlts Allocatlon ,..

Alloutlon Ir.sued Pfflnlttld ...
1,873 3,213 172" 5,974
1,733 7,687 444'11 10,46]
274 119 43" m
987 2,411 244" \ 2.m
666 496 74" · ' 721
77 21D 273" "' 434 1,818 419'1 2,075
1D5 186 177% 203
613 424 69'1 424
120 6S 54" 1M
S53 1.888 341" , 2,40(
129 157 122" 157
131 52 40% m
987 2,4n 251'' ~- . '.3,90!:
331 362 109" · 1~
1,234 805 651 2,ill
15S 366 236" 666
2,492 5,538 222" 7,24!
7S1 1,123 151a t.rn
2,292 5,151 225" :'y> s,m
15,937 34,541 217,j - ,ff.tu
[@}23 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ------------------ - ----------- -- -- --- ------ - --- CCC Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation Vs lowfMOUMI) low(SNOIAMI) Moderate (IO-UOI AMI) AIIMMaderlte~ AMII Tolal CONTRA COSTA Petant Pwnt Percent Pelan! COUNTY Vfrmb Pwntof Pnits ofllHHA Ptmb olRHHA l'ltmlls of RIINA Permils of RIINA RIINA Issued RIIHAMtt RHNA lulled Mel RIINA IUued Met RHNA Issued Met RHNA IUll!d Met Anli«h 516 8 2" 339 20 "' 381 834 2191 1,046 381 • ll82 120 54! Btentwool 717 192 27ll 435 58 "" 480 175 H 1.073 1,608 150K 2,705 2.033 7§1 Cllt!OII 49 "" 35 I 3" 33 2 R 34 46 1351 151 49 32t
Concord' 639 2 OI 426 OIi 498 8 2" 1.480 216 , 1W 3.o43 226 " llan'lllle' 196 2 111 130 84 65" 146 101 691' 111 287 . 2591 583 474 1111 Eltfflb 93 142 153' 59 38 641 80 13 161 199 163 ll'I '31 356 m ll«Wles1 143 Ill 74 °" 73 °" 163 1S3 !M1' 453 1S3 34"
taf.lWl!l 113 47 4H 77 8 1"" 80 8 l°" 91 170 117ll 361 233 65" Martil!el 261 48 1111 166 "" 179 4 2" 454 1'8 33" 1.060 200 19" Morafa 73 OIi 47 °" 52 °" 62 9 1511 234 9 411
0~ 219 m 111!1 no 191 15911 88 874 993' m 33l 95~ ns 1.638 2m :>rinda 70 n IOJ!I 48 20 421 55 22 «I" 45 137 304!1 218 251 115!1 Pinole 83 2 Z!I 49 1 2" 48 10 211 143 59 UI 323 72 2l!I ~lbull m 79 25,i m 126 S71 296 666 2lS1 931 839 90I 1.m 1.710 97' Ple.antHill 160 9 611 105 1 111 106 8 8" 257 1!14 75l 628 212 341 Rkhmaad 391 74 1911 339 153 4S1 540 m '5l 1.556 892 S71 2,826 1,362 4811 SinPablo 22 "" 38 1 3" 60 3S 58" 171 "" 298 36 m
~Ramal 1,174 196 171 715 m ~ 740 302 4U 834 2,247 - 3,463 3,IXXI 87!1 w~~Creet 456 150 33!1 302 2S 1% 374 19 511 826 1,206 1461 1,958 1,400 m rnnin Costa eoontv• 81S 88 ll'll S98 S3 9'11 687 no • 1.408 1.672 119" l.508 2,143 61' COIIIIYTce. uu J,353 21'1 if,J2S 1.G3S 241 4.995 J,&St ml u.m ID,751 - 27117Z 16,a m CCC Progress in Meeting 2015 - 2020 Regional Housing Need Allocation I -•·--~.::,.__ , - •~ ~, ..... __ - , ~ ·: • -:· •
I I I I I I.... ,l I • • • ·'
.. ,·• · i ... · i ·· ·· ··· / .. ·:: ·· ... 1 · · · ·. · -~-~-~-~------ u .... IIA
- 11' I& Ill "' I llA • HO 1 0 I • .. Ul • II 0 0 • 0 ' JI ,. • • • • - • • 0 ..,. • • • 1 Ill I n • u. 1• u 0 u u • • • • 0 "' 0 0 • Ill • .. " MIii • UI 1 • I ,. • • • .. "' • • • n • • I JI • " • • • '" • 0 • - .. • u, • 0 • m u, • IN .. '" i.
.. 0 0 0 . , • 0 ., • • 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 ... 4.1 0 _, " • " m ,. ... ,u - ... • n, 0 0 0 .. II I " - .. 0 •• M 0 ,. IQ\ II D II 11K '10 0
S6 0 0 0 " J • I ta " • m 11, 0 It ,,. .. • ., 111' ., ... ... .. 0 " - .. .. • - ., ,,. • u I II ... ,,. • m - UI 11 Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ,.

LIU
I
' WI IE
• &a ... u Ult
u, .,,, Jal
- .. " -.. • • I • • • • • - JIO Ill .,,, • Q 1M
I I 1' 1A a 11 n 11' ... .,. ., .. ,n SU
• 0 "" l.M1 ,u II ,. .. ,. It t
0 ... .. uo .. '" UII 1ft USI .. t - w Ul&
@JJ24 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ------ ------ -- ------------ - ---- - ---- - --- --- ------ -- --- Antlocll ·-341 175 le 193 11%
"" ■ 205 299 300 1
..
... 214
--■■ 0
Brentwood 23' 2 0 2 '"' 124 8 10 18 U'l6 123 a
Clotl<>n 51 0 0 0 0'1, 25 0 5 5 JOii 31 a
Conoonl 788 0 0 0 0'16 «4 0 0 0 0'1, 559
Den\illt 190 20 0 20 10'16 111 27 30 Z7% 124 2
EICentlo 100 82 a 82 02'16 83 8 0 8 1ft 80 0
He!Qlleo 220 0 0 0 Oli 118 0 16 10 ,.,. 100 0
i..fllyeltt 138 7 Q 7 1% 79 6 0 e 1% 85 24
Maninez 124 0 0 0 0% 72 0 0 0 °"' 78 0
Mo,age 75 0 0 0 011 44 0 0 0 °"' 50 0
0a1'1ey 317 a 0 8 3'16 174 170 170 99,r, 175 28
Oflndl 04 0 0 0 0% 47 0 0 0 O'I, 54 0
Plnole 80 0 0 0 D'I, 48 0 0 a fl'Ao 43 0
Pmsl>u,V 392 75 0 75 ''" 254 708 34 742 na 318 0
PloaswHll 11a 0 0 0 ~ 89 19 0 18 Zl'I, 84 0
Rlcllrnofld 438 208 0 288 1111 305 81 0 81 27% 410 0
Sanl'llbb 5(1 0 0 0 0% 53 3 4 7 U% 75
Sen Ramon 518 25 0 25 '"' 278 87 0 87 3111. 212 164
WllnutCreek 804 98 0 98 ..... 355 18 10 28 .,. 381 0
Contra COslA 374 82 83 17'11. 218 174 a 183 04'1, un· eel 20 31 RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
%RHMA Met > I 00
75>%RHNA Met>l00
%RHNMet<75
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 34 as
0 38
13 217
40 34
15 0
10 40
13 217
84 JI °"
""
""
.,.
111,
U'I,
111'4
21,.
75%
0 0 11'1
208 234 ,~
30 30 IK
1%
71 71 12¥,
41 41 41'K
0 0 0'11
21 29 U'I,
0 164 ""'
89 130 '*"'
Ill 880 795 11'nl
278 3.19:l ..... 3-4 a 24'11

1.877 501 IO%
12$ - '"'" 1114 451 2m
24<1 509 20ft
99 318 ua
195 aa "" 80 ee 14ft
502 1.273 ~
42 254 tofft
126 25 JO%
1,083 878 8~
177 112 m,

1.282 812 41'11
285 sa 14%
340 1,547 41ft
805 1,210 ISW
!S2 1,534 2M
r@}25 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ----------- -- -- - ---- --
Final RHNA Allocations for 2023-2031
VERY LOW INCOME lOWINCOME MODERATE INCOME
Jurisdktfon (<SO-.ofAIN (50-80% of Alfi {80·120'rtofAm Mtd"ian Income) Medi111 lncomt) MtdwtlncON)

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Antioch 792 456 493
Brentwood 402 232 247
Oayton 170 97 84
Concord 1,292 744 847
Danville 652 376 338
El Cerrito 334 192 241
Hercules 344 198 126
Lafayette 599 344 326
Martinez 350 201 221
Moraga 318 183 172
Oakley 279 161 172
Orinda 372 215 215
Pinole 121 69 87
Pittsburg 516 296 346
Pleasant Hill 566 326 254
Richmond 840 485 638
San Pablo 173 100 132
San Ramon 1,497 862 767
Unincorporated Contra Costa 2,072 1,194 1,211
Walnut Creek 1,657 954 890
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury "ABOVE MODERATE
t ;; · INCOME " . i ~ <-\ ' -r//'' ,, . (>1MofArN ., •i /f!I: Mtdlln lna>mt) -:·, TOTAL
1,275 3,016
641 1,522
219 570
2,190 5,073
875 2.241
624 1,391
327 995
845 2,114
573 1,345
445 1,118
446 1,058
557 1,359
223 500
894 2.052
657 1,803
1,651 3,614
341 746
1,985 5,111
3,133 7,610
2,304 5,805
[@J26 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- ---- -- - -- - --- - - -- - - -- A-4. SB 35 Very Low Income andLow-lncome Determination
Summaries
Cities and Counties Not Currently Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions This determination represents Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) data received as of June I, 2022. The following 38 jurisdictions have met their prorated Lower (Very-Low and Low) and Above-Moderate Income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the Reporting Period and submitted their latest APR (2021 ).

These jurisdictions are not currently subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining), but the jurisdictions are still encouraged to promote streamlining. All other cities and counties beyond these 38 are subject to at least some form of SB 35 streamlining, as indicated on the following pages.

For more detail on the proration methodology or background data see the SB 35 Determination Methodology.

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 ATHERTON 20 MILL VALLEY
2 BELL 21 MONTE SERENO
3 BELLFLOWER 22 NEWPORT BEACH
4 BEVERLY HILLS 23 NORWALK
5 BUENA PARK 24 PLUMAS CO.
6 CALISTOGA 25 ROHNERT PARK
7 CARPINTERIA 26 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
8 CORTE MADERA 27 SAINT HELENA
9 EL CERRITO 28 SAN BERNARDINO CO.
1 O FOSTER CITY 29SANTAANA
11 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 30 SANTA CLARA CO.
12 GUADALUPE 31 SANTA MONICA
13 HILLSBOROUGH 32 SIERRA CO.
14 INDUSTRY 33 SOLVANG
15 LA HABRA 34 SONOMA CO.
16 LA QUINTA 35 UKIAH
17 LAGUNA NIGUEL 36 VILLA PARK
18 MENDOCINO CO. 37 WESTMINSTER
19 MENLO PARK 38WOODSIDE
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ---- - --- -- -- -----~ - ~- -
Cities and Counties Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions When Proposed Developments Include ~ 10% Affordability
These 263 jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their Above Moderate income RHNA and/or have not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) (2021) and therefore arc subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 10% affordability.

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 ADELANTO 28 BURBANK 55 DEL REY OAKS
2 ALAMEDA CO. 29 BUTTE CO. 56 DELANO
3 ALISO VIEJO 30 CALAVERAS CO. 57 DESERT HOT SPRINGS
4ALTURAS 31 CALEXICO 58 DIAMOND BAR
5AMADOR 32 CALIFORNIA CITY 59 DORRIS
6AMADORCO. 33 CALIPATRIA 60 DOS PALOS
7 APPLE VALLEY 34 CARSON 61 DUNSMUIR
8ARCADIA 35 CERES 62 EAST PALO ALTO
9ARCATA 36 CHOWCHILLA 63 EL CAJON
10 ARROYO GRANDE 37 CITRUS HEIGHTS 64 EL CENTRO
11 ARVIN 47 38 CLAYTON 65 EL MONTE
12 AUBURN 39 CLEARLAKE 66 ESCALON
13AVALON 40 CLOVERDALE 67 ESCONDIDO
14AVENAL 41 COACHELLA 68 ETNA
15AZUSA 42COLMA 69 EUREKA
16 BAKERSFIELD 43COLTON 70 EXETER
17 BANNING 44COLUSA 71 FAIRFAX 107
18 BARSTOW 45 COLUSA CO. 72 FARMERSVILLE
19 BEAUMONT 46 COMMERCE 73 FERNDALE
20 BELVEDERE 47 COMPTON 74 FILLMORE
21 BENICIA 48 CONCORD 75 FIREBAUGH
22 BIGGS 49CORCORAN 76 FORT JONES
23 BISHOP 50CORNING 77 FORTUNA
24 BLUE LAKE 51 COSTA MESA 78 FRESNO CO.
25 BLYTHE 52 CRESCENT CITY 79GLENN CO.
26 BRADBURY 53CUDAHY BO GONZALES
27 BRAWLEY 54 DEL NORTE CO. 81 GRASS VALLEY
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~}28 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home --~----------~ ----- ------- - --~-

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
82 GREENFIELD 117 LEMON GROVE 152 NOVATO
83 GRIDLEY 118 LEMOORE 153 OCEANSIDE
84 GUSTINE 119 LINCOLN 154 OJAI
85 HALF MOON BAY 120 LINDSAY 155 ORANGE COVE
86 HANFORD 121 LIVINGSTON 156 ORLAND
87 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 122 LOMA LINDA 157 OROVILLE
88HAYWARD 123 LOMPOC 158 OXNARD
89 HESPERIA 124 LOOMIS 159 PACIFICA
90HIGHLAND 125 LOS ANGELES CO. 160 PALMDALE
91 HOLTVILLE 126 LOS GATOS 161 PARLIER
92 HUGHSON 127 LYNWOOD 162 PASO ROBLES
93 HUMBOLDT CO. 128 MADERA 163 PATTERSON
94 HUNTINGTON BEACH 129 MADERA CO. 164 PERRIS
95 HUNTINGTON PARK 130 MARICOPA 165 PICO RIVERA
96 HURON 131 MARTINEZ 166 PINOLE
97 IMPERIAL 132 MARYSVILLE 167 PLACERVILLE
98 IMPERIAL CO. 133MAYWOOD 168 PLEASANT HILL
99 INGLEWOOD 134 MCFARLAND 169 POMONA
100 INYO CO. 135 MENDOTA 170 PORTERVILLE
101 IRWINDALE 136 MERCED CO. 171 PORTOLA
102 ISLETON 137 MILLBRAE 172 POWAY
103 KERMAN 138 MODESTO 173 RANCHO CORDOVA
104 KERN CO. 139 MONTAGUE 174 RED BLUFF
105 KINGS CO. 140 MONTEBELLO 175 REDLANDS
106 KINGSBURG 141 MONTEREY 176 REDONDO BEACH
107 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 142 MONTEREY PARK 177 REEDLEY
108 LA MIRADA 143 MORENO VALLEY 178 RIALTO
109 LA PUENTE 144 MORRO BAY 179 RICHMOND
110 LAKE CO. 145 MOUNT SHASTA 180 RIDGECREST
111 LAKE ELSINORE 146 NATIONAL CITY 181 RIO DELL
112 LAKEPORT 147 NEEDLES 182 RIPON
113 LAKEWOOD 148 NEVADA CITY 183 RIVERBANK
114 LANCASTER 149 NEVADA CO. 184 RIVERSIDE
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [~J29 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ------------------- - --- -~---

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
115 LASSEN CO. 150 NEWMAN 185 RIVERSIDE CO.
116 LAWNDALE 151 NORCO 186 ROLLING HILLS
187 ROSS 213 SANTEE 239 TUOLUMNE CO.
188 SACRAMENTO 214 SARATOGA 240TURLOCK
189 SACRAMENTO CO. 215 SAUSALITO 241 TWENTYNINE PALMS
190 SALINAS 216 SEASIDE 242 VALLEJO
191 SAN BERNARDINO 217 SEBASTOPOL 243 VENTURA CO.
192 SAN BRUNO 218 SELMA 244 VICTORVILLE
193 SAN DIEGO CO. 219 SHAFTER 245VISAUA
194 SAN DIMAS 220 SHASTA CO. 246 WATERFORD
195 SAN FERNANDO 221 SHASTA LAKE 247WEED
196 SAN GABRIEL 222 SIGNAL HILL 248 WEST HOLLYWOOD
197 SAN JACINTO 223 SISKIYOU CO. 249 WEST SACRAMENTO
198 SAN JOAQUIN 224 SOLANA BEACH 250 WESTLAKE VILLAGE
199 SAN JOAQUIN CO. 225 SONORA 260 251 WESTMORLAND
200 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA 226 SOUTH GATE 252 WHEATLAND
201 SAN LEANDRO 227 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 253 WILDOMAR
202 SAN MARINO 228 STANISLAUS CO. 254 WILLIAMS
203 SAN MATEO CO. 229 STOCKTON 255 WILLITS
204 SAN PABLO 230 SUISUN CITY 256WILLOWS
205 SAN RAFAEL 231 SUTTER CO. 257WINDSOR
206 SAND CITY 232 TAFT 258 WOODLAKE
207SANGER 233 TEHACHAPI 259YOLO CO.
208 SANTA CLARITA 234 TEHAMA 260YREKA
209 SANTA CRUZ CO. 235 TEHAMA CO. 261 YUBA CITY
210 SANTA MARIA 236 TORRANCE 262 YUCAIPA
211 SANTA PAULA 237 TULARE CO. 263 YUCCA VALLEY
212 SANTA ROSA 238 TULELAKE
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury r@J30 of 38
-

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ------- - --------~----- - --- -
Cities and Counties Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions When Proposed Developments Include~ 50 Percent Affordability These 238 jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their Lower income RHNA (Very low- and low-income) and are therefore subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 50% affordability. If the jurisdiction also has insufficient progress toward their Above Moderate income RHNA, then they are subject to the more inclusive streamlining for developments with at least 50% affordability.

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 AGOURA HILLS 28 CANYON LAKE 55 DINUBA
2ALAMEDA 29CAPITOLA 56 DIXON
3ALBANY 30 CARLSBAD 57 DOWNEY
4ALHAMBRA 31 CARMEL 58 DUARTE
5ALPINE CO. 32 CATHEDRAL 59 DUBLIN
6 AMERICAN CANYON 33 CERRITOS 60 EASTVALE
7 ANAHEIM 34 CHICO 61 El DORADO CO.

SANDERSON 35 CHINO 62 EL SEGUNDO
9 ANGELS CAMP 36 CHINO HILLS 63 ELK GROVE
10 ANTIOCH 37 CHULA VISTA 64 EMERYVILLE
11 ARTESIA 38 CLAREMONT 65 ENCINITAS
12 ATASCADERO 39CLOVIS 66 FAIRFIELD
13ATWATER 40 COALINGA 67 FOLSOM
14 BALDWIN PARK 41 COLFAX 68 FONTANA
15 BELL GARDENS 42 CONTRA COSTA CO. 69 FORT BRAGG
16 BELMONT 43CORONA 70 FOWLER
17 BERKELEY 44CORONADO 71 FREMONT
18 BIG BEAR LAKE 45 COTATI 72 FRESNO
19 BREA 46 COVINA 73 FULLERTON
20 BRENTWOOD 47 CULVER CITY 74 GALT
21 BRISBANE 48 CUPERTINO 75 GARDEN GROVE
22 BUELLTON 49CYPRESS 76 GARDENA
23 BURLINGAME 50 DALY CITY 77 GILROY
24 CALABASAS 51 DANA POINT 78 GLENDALE
25CALIMESA 52 DANVILLE 79 GLENDORA
26 CAMARILLO 53 DAVIS 80 GOLETA
27CAMPBELL 54 DEL MAR 81 GRAND TERRACE
82 GROVER BEACH 114 LOS ALAMITOS 146 OAKLEY
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@}31 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing)

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
83 HAWTHORNE 115 LOS ALTOS 147 ONTARIO
84 HEALDSBURG 116 LOS ALTOS HILLS 148 ORANGE
85 HEMET 117 LOS ANGELES 149 ORANGE CO.
86 HERCULES 118 LOS BANOS 150 ORINDA
87 HERMOSA BEACH 119 LOYALTON 151 PACIFIC GROVE
88 HIDDEN HILLS 120 MALIBU 152 PALM DESERT
89 HOLLISTER 121 MAMMOTH LAKES 153 PALM SPRINGS
90 IMPERIAL BEACH 122 MANHATTAN BEACH 154 PALO ALTO
91 INDIAN WELLS 123 MANTECA 155 PALOS VERDES ESTATES
92 INDIO 124 MARIN CO. 156 PARADISE
93 IONE 125 MARINA 157 PARAMOUNT
94 IRVINE 126 MARIPOSA CO. 158 PASADENA
95 JACKSON 127 MENIFEE 159 PETALUMA
96 JURUPA VALLEY 128 MERCED 160 PIEDMONT
97 KING CITY 129 MILPITAS 161 PISMO BEACH
98 LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 130 MISSION VIEJO 162 PITTSBURG 99 LA MESA 131 MODOC CO. 163 PLACENTIA
100 LA PALMA 132MONOCO. 164 PLACER CO.
101 LA VERNE 133 MONROVIA 165 PLEASANTON
102 .LAFAYETTE 134 MONTCLAIR 166 PLYMOUTH
103 LAGUNA BEACH 135 MONTEREY CO. 167 POINT ARENA
104 LAGUNA HILLS 136 MOORPARK 168 PORT HUENEME
105 LAGUNA WOODS 137 MORAGA 169 PORTOLA VALLEY
106 LAKE FOREST 138 MORGAN HILL 170 RANCHO CUCAMONGA
107 LARKSPUR 139 MOUNTAIN VIEW 171 RANCHO MIRAGE
108 LATHROP 140 MURRIETA 172 RANCHO PALOS VERDES
109 LIVE OAK 141 NAPA 173 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
110 LIVERMORE 142 NAPA CO. 174 REDDING
111 LODI 143 NEWARK 175 REDWOOD CITY
112 LOMITA 144 OAKDALE 176 RIO VISTA
113 LONG BEACH 145 OAKLAND 177 ROCKLIN
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~]32 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ----------~---------~- - ------ ---~- -

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
178 ROSEMEAD 199 SEAL BEACH 220 TULARE
179 ROSEVILLE 200 SIERRA MADRE 221 TUSTIN
180 SAN ANSELMO 201 SIMI VALLEY 222 UNION CITY
181 SAN BENITO CO. 202 SOLANO CO. 223 UPLAND
182 SAN CARLOS 203 SOLEDAD 224 VACAVILLE
183 SAN CLEMENTE 204SONOMA 225VENTURA
184 SAN DIEGO 205 SOUTH EL MONTE 226VERNON
185 SAN FRANCISCO 206 SOUTH PASADENA 227 VISTA
186 SAN JOSE 207 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 228WALNUT
187 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 208STANTON 229 WALNUT CREEK
188 SAN LUIS OBISPO 209 SUNNYVALE 230WASCO
189 SAN LUIS OBISPO CO. 210 SUSANVILLE 231 WATSONVILLE
190 SAN MARCOS 211 SUTTER CREEK 232 WEST COVINA
191 SAN MATEO 212 TEMECULA 233 WHITTIER
192 SAN RAMON 213 TEMPLE CITY 234 WINTERS
193 SANTA BARBARA 214 THOUSAND OAKS 235 WOODLAND
194 SANTA BARBARA CO. 215 TIBURON 236 YORBA LINDA
195 SANTA CLARA 216 TRACY 237 YOUNTVILLE
196 SANTA CRUZ 217 TRINIDAD 238YUBACO.
197 SANTA FE SPRINGS 218 TRINITY CO.
198 SCOTTS VALLEY 219TRUCKEE
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@J33 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home --- - ~~ --- ~- - -- - - -
A-5. News Articles Regarding Affordable Housing
Bay Area News Group article
NEWHOM&s
Bay Area cities may
not hit state deadline
OnJy Alameda has bad
housing element OKH
ahead of Jan. 31 date
oe:n :rear to 1lD&Uu lbelt IOai!led bauiq---- c1otalled road fflaPI to aettbelr m~
~lncreuad--- boualq pal& loBrBIIIDVilllul tWWD2C>23Uld20aJ,tbeen. -~--.

BIQ' Area dUea
.
are t'U.DJliu.r
::
"1,000
==-:::
new boma fbr remoat of time to dMae plans for dealllotalltncaaae~more =newbomeatoeuethe thadoallletbtawatbrtbe
~baulngcn, cu.mat eight.,.,..._ Iii - tud ao far, ablt.e otlclals Al atlut--. tbe Ca1ib, areNndingfflOltottbelr plau Illa Departmer,t of ~ ~O:,~ ~ board. aDl1 Cbomuntt,,Deveq.a,1mt dictions have W:1 J• .. J31wu,• bad rcdected drafta flun ot ..., 0 IIOIMiN•MGSID Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury r®}34 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ---- ----- - -- --- - --- -
Ille 15 llq lama IDUDlcJpajilla It bad ft'Wiffled 110 W - Wllh Ala~• W lolle -Tbe agency I.old San
Franc:l co, Oalcland,
SUnll1ftle, Mou!U&ln View,
Redwood Cltr, Antlocb
and othen to rttrb tllrir
dra.fl.l to prV\'ldll proof
tile tillll ldmtU!cd (01' tu• tllrt bomea 111,e a rulla· ttc:cb-ofclewlopmmt,
aad to o&r the pouiblllty
of raoolq muln 11t1Jh•
bofboodtfOl'droittbowl·
Ing. -na Yllrloua crther
lllltl'IICUoDa.

Publlcollldab and hc,asln1 espert& NY the dmlala
ftffll'\ alllrprUe llw:n tl!e
mte'e hlch plan11lq a• pect&tloDL 1'hly antld.,.U
IJIU'1GIOl'e n;ec:UoQ kU1n 11'1 GD Ille ..,. But HCD'I lwd 111111 II ral;aina q11utloo1 about u..~-•
whither llqAINdlla 1111d
COllllliet can IIINt Ute filot•
approacb1ns bmslln, plao
dcldllne ~ tlll cad al JmsOII CA-11,0l t,lJMICl(I- IIM,r •tt0toa,l,.,....II Aw- of ■ •llllnO ., .. II Ao .. 11,ld Ylff41{1911)ftlffl<tnt1 du,ing '"' UflllO Ol)lnl"9 ~Dlntklfl ill Alemetl1 IHI month.

Alameda II lhe only Bar,., .. clly ,.1,o,. housing tlfffltnl pl1111 hot i,..., llflPICMld ~ the 11,1, uuy. FIIIUD& to do t0 rilb Mal11ew Recd, dlrtt•
mlulq out an IJl'Ol'dable tor of policy tw UK! SUI•
boas!naand lafrutnlctunl COD Vll1Jq alfonlllMe boldfllndln&u,d-'d JG1Ju .... In& adrocacy CJ'OUP SVO dktlont In jeapudJ of la• ~. aid fbe stale II dtSlllta. ft11t1 and the loll af 111111dln1 far more Uia11 local Cfflluol ffiff land•UH durlq prior plannln1 pededalool. rlodJ. For n.a111pla, dtla •1 dan'l know tfwe're ID- and eoutles are aaw ff·
la, to meet the deadllnr." pected to eddma bowlns
said Mol&aWII \lltw ~ cq11II)' and dllcttmlnallon
Lucu Ramlm. '"We'n p,- laua la tl!flr plan1 pro•
1111 to do the bClt WP can. It actlvely. But~ Nld 1111 ma, ffl')'well be lbal HCD AreaJurildlctklNlbouldn'l ...,_ 1111a II a Jtton& ,tart, u,e !hat lncrn.Rd bu!'lffll but J'DU ba,e te> do t>'CII at &11-- mott.• "lt'I bceft appan!III llw Jud&1111 br how th• If )'OIi doa'l rt.tdl ~ bar
boull111 elaMD1 proccaa (.ut bf th• state). rou'll
1w llffl8 ID other paru of 11aw: man, won: lie Aid.
the 1tate. tbal 1111111t - •rm IIClt rurt Ille public or poalble for mlldl of the fleeted uffldalt have becll Bay A,.. la Sauthem Cal· as comduus of !bat fart."
lfomla, J111ua al 1H local Official• In Alasncda
aowera- In U. ftlloo spea1,...,. prtplilaslhelr IIIMllll:amlaedllowi11&ek- 22S•P&Cf boa1tD1 plaa, mellllll!Wmoll bkwthdt wllkb tbettmappl'Oftd1n :>ct°""'1021 IW4'lt_,. .ti,, .. ,111 lil•nnltw1 FM_. ...

Andmr Tbe>mu uld while,
,ome tttkkn\l pra!Nttd U,, 111111J bland ell)"a plaftl
lollCO!Dmoclalem<nlhan
5,800MWhomu,l1WPlm·
portlllll lo llnlllllt Ulc dral'I 111 tile City Council i:ould adlipt II before Ulc d«1lon
In Nofflnbcr.
"Tbb II the City Coun- cil tllll'I beco ln\'Olml ID
Ult~ ofthla doc· 1111111nt ror the Ian thm )'Un, and we decided lhla lhauld ~ the Cltr Counc:11
lbel makes the llaal cled· alon.. Tbomu said.

Go, Oavlo Ncwarom, at a bill 1l1nlng ~nnt wt month ID Saa Fran• r:IKO, IIIW clur that UD·
Uke 1n ,..,.,,. past, 11aw of.
llclalt arenl 111111¥ lo look
IIM other way if eitln and
COUnllfl l&ncff their hou.l•
lnl fffl)Oll.libllille.l. I a Al!-
Cllllon 10 Wlthholdlqp-&111 lo_u ... •-• 1-.......a .... _ .. ,.. dAtof7 raomna Umdlna,
tbe ,we b lhl'CUA!llln& to tue IIOIJCIOIIIPllanl Ju:i,dklloN to c,umptl a .lu41it to tau _, the Pn>tCII tor 1pprovb11 and Jll"rmlttll11
ncwhomea.
"Atlbi!Clldofthedlr,r""'
iieed Ul 1C1C local -111·
ab1U11,• Newtom uld,
•we're p>ln1 Ul ttlcbrale r--. bal we're eolDI to call 11111 failurf. • At the event, Ncweom hl&bll&bted a tlral-C~r atate Ull'l!lllpdon by HCD
lnLo San,~ nstrlctl"" bou1ln1 polldea. He
alJo 1lnp,d au\ lbe -n
of Atlitrtoa, lhe --.llbJ San Maleo c.oum, ncla'le
tlw pined natloll&l iaeoUm earlier t.1111 11!&r wbm
11 ICNbbed Ill hauliQJ lle- mcm draft of town llama
afltr tech llldaslry fflli·
dtnla - lndudln1 billion· ~·-•--~• .._ I• •••
And.--n - ft'~
objl,ctftl ta addln& multi•
tamU, bollllnaln an lnttrYI- lut
montb, At.hnton Mayvr
lllc:lc DeOollll Mid blllldl111
mulllfaml'1 bomea con•
1-'-d llll'ordllhle b)' lta1c
atandudll lln'tpndlcal boc:u:uie tblc:m1 otland In tbl town It around '8 mlllloa per am. &lid lbcn l• llllle
publlcly owned land to de· "1!1op, loalclld, Alhenoo'I
bowlril eltmcn& dreft fc,. ~Oll procr mtohdp
bo-ncnaatcrwwllli... UDIII far 1'1!111.
"lf(11a&eoffld1Wrcfll,e,
Wl!'N 11)1111 to bf In a flstlt
with lhem." DeGolla Aid.

Judaln1 b)' SolltlJ,:rn Cal· lfoml■"• cumple, he t.t· .,.cu to baw lllllll the ml of 2023 to come to "IOllle
.ulemall wttb llJeam.•
R~d. wit~ SV.Homc,
contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 .

Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandJury bani." he wd. "the ,apec,
tal.lOa II to 1111/1, 'Wllal CID
,ou c1o to addnu - or
lilt lhinp lhal an Dlakl111
It bani?' And lM Upttt.a• lfonillll&b,~
~
In Ot.kland, IDWlwbile,
oflhe ll,-Al>-
1111Jp ltlJlcuiclp netsbborhood an, alcfnl the dtJ 10
plan for IIIOl"e panlllCIIIS
and IAIWn ~ In INIT
ami11M1nlty. In lbdr ffJcc,, lion of OIJllaP<h IIDQsln1 cltlllf1lt. ilate olllcla!I dln,dfd the dtJ to aamllle ~lllldebJ
the R«krid&it C-Jlllllllty l'lannlq01Gndl
"Webcllnwlhat...,..
1111 llplflcan1 aumbtn ol lrfl' ~ to llodtl".ldle
would bt mlll"fly CO!lllalmt wllb aur vatun and
tb1 dlt>rllbed hlatorlcsl)J
dlft!nll dlanic:ter or our oeiplborbood," I.be sroap
Wrole In a lfl\er 10 ct11
plannl111 lblf, A.I lht cerllficlthlu
de:adhneappl'<IIICba..bQw ..

Ins adVllC lc• an, WAfl\•
1111 Cilia IJf anoU>tt, rel.I· Uw-lf llfllt,known tan1111• qlle'IICe or fl.lllna to llnWi
lbdr bolula1 «IHICIIU tn llm~: tbe "builden' nim•
edy." The tblft-Cl«ade-old
law ro=_. aoncompllJ.111
cllll!II toucept !up bout·
Ing proJ«t• with alratd·
&bit llDIS., fffll when lhct
clewtupmewit, far-.! lo- cal zocln1 llmlte.

CblU F.llllffldnrf, a law ._,_at UC blll'IJ,uld
llw wtillr then 1ft ,_
lcnowa lnllucn or lht
bulldcra' resnedy comln&
lato plq, dncJapcn haft In rtoct:at,-n baliome ea,.
bNlnledlOtwadwanSlp
of ClWcrlltlllehoulJll .....
!hat brJ,ell local -ln>I.
-We're -'111 the emer- pm:<' of dneloper, who an aoc rd)'tna on tbelr rc- latiomblp1 wtlh di)' CGIIDclll and llllteMI cm lbclr rl1hu ullder dtalc law,• he
~J}35 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- - -----~~------~~- -~--~ ~~ - --- --~- East Bay Times article
. ' \Sl IIAV TIMtS » SATURDAY, OCI08ER l2. 20l2
ORELOCAL :WSaEASTeAYTlMES.COM
AROEftUfEAf.i'l'mNCONTRA COBTACOU1ffY
Newsanyaurphone:

Download the East Bay
Times mobile 8pp for
lPhone or Android
000 SECTION B
'-ltiuch unveils affunlmle mlSing complex
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 2i}36 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ----------~- - -- ---- - -- - -- - - - - - Builder's Remedy Article - The Fix
-···-·---·-----... -
The 'fix'
almost
nobody
wants
The 'builder's remedy' could OK
projects in cities behind on their
state-mandated housing plans
S,IIUlanVUiaD ftlarioll.~,.,,,.._
ll'a a NIMBY'• wom nllhtmare; hlsb•rllc
apartment buiJdlnpgoinguplnlubl.utiannelp,
borboods - Uld local officials hdplm to bah
c:onstructJon.

Thatecenario could 900D becume a poaJbWty
for Ba, AJea cl!Jea large ancl small lbonkl lhoyfall to convince the statelhey're dollll enougb to help IOive a ~Ing houl1111 crills.

IL'I all tlww lo a JlttJe-uaed eec:don of state
huuatDI laW known u UIC "balldl!r'I ~•Uncertafntla ranaln, buttbe th~ provision could enable cleYelopm to push thl'OUlh projects of virtually &!l,Y lbe aJUIOlt auywbett lher please. u long u a portion of the building Includes affordable units.

The bulJder'I remedy 11wld only app(y tn Bll)r
Area clt1ea wlthoUI &ll.ale-lPPffl'ed plan to meet
their upcominJ bomebulldtq INla. whicb are updated evuy dpt ~•n. Thr paaallJ doan\ kick in WltD eady Dat yar. but man, ,JwlldlctionsappearunUlcel)'to bln'e~ radyfntlme.

IIOldlngaperqudld\lOClllfll113tbltJDND1
asurpolpropoulsma,beon 1hebarfloa. apedaUy In waltbJer.,.. that bate made It e:bal· lengiDJto baflddema-homlng. but wbaednel·
open ltandtosee blgha-proflta lfthlyanbulld. "If ,ou're not to1n& to tell dewlGpers .... tbey C&ll build multlfamllY boullna. the 1ta1e 11 IIQ'Ull they don't have to follow )'QIU' ruJel,,• l&ld
San Prancllco ral eatat.e attonwy J>ulel Gollsb. · Mmr-n,Naa ---
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury r@]37 of 38

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury Response - Affordable Housing) G) (") -, 0
I» ::,
::, a. -
al c... (") C 0 '< en
::0 pf
(I) (")
-0 0
0 C
;:::i. ::,
en - I» '<
ro I\)
-0 0
0 I\)
en N -· (I) I\)
Q.O
I» I\) _w
:T (") ~ -· ~~-
Ii . a.
0 c... <;> C
8«
C ::0
;:::i. (I)
~"O
0 0
ca ::i.
ca- I\) al (,) ::, 0
a.O>
......

C
'<

9.4.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: B - Grand Jury Report No 2306 - Affordable Housing - A Plan Without a Home (Grand Jury

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. ___ AMENDING PLEASANT HILL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.05.240, BUSINESS LICENSES,
SECTION 18.15.040, COMMERCIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS,
SECTION 18.15.070, TEMPORARY USE CLASSIFICATIONS, SECTION

18.20.020, LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, SECTION 18.20.030, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 18.20.040, ADDITIONAL

DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, SECTION 18.25.020, LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR ALL

COMMERCIAL, RETAIL BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS,
OFFICE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 18.25.030,

DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN ALL COMMERCIAL, RETAIL

BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, OFFICE AND LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, SECTION 18.25.040, ADDITIONAL

DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL, RETAIL

BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, OFFICE AND LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 18.50.110, TREE PRESERVATION, SECTION 18.55.030, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACES REQUIRED, SECTION 18.55.070, ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING,
CHAPTER 18.60, SIGNS, SECTION 18.65.030, RESTORATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, SECTION 18.85.010, ZONING PERMIT APPLICABILITY, SECTION 18.115.020, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT APPROVAL AUTHORITY, & SECTION 18.140.010,

DEFINITIONS

SYNOPSIS
The City is proposing amendments to various sections of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC) Title 18) and related changes to business license regulations (PHMC Title 5). The proposed ordinance includes amendments necessary to comply with changes in state law, changes based on past City determinations, as well as staff-initiated revisions proposed to clarify and streamline various sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ordinance was introduced at a public hearing held on August 7, 2023, and is now submitted for a second reading and consideration for adoption.

9.5 Packet Pg. 113

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda, staff report, and attachments are posted on the City’s webpage.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager

9.5 Packet Pg. 114
1 ORDINANCE NO. __

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL AMENDING PLEASANT HILL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.05.240, BUSINESS LICENSE, SECTION 18.15.040, COMMERCIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS, SECTION

18.15.070, TEMPORARY USE CLASSIFICATIONS, SECTION 18.20.020, LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 18.20.030, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 18.20.040,

ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 18.25.020, LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL, RETAIL

BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, OFFICE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 18.25.030, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN ALL COMMERCIAL, RETAIL

BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, OFFICE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, SECTION 18.25.040, ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR ALL

COMMERCIAL, RETAIL BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, OFFICE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 18.50.110, TREE PRESERVATION, SECTION

18.55.030, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACES REQUIRED, SECTION

18.55.070, ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING, CHAPTER 18.60, SIGNS, SECTION 18.65.030, RESTORATION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES, SECTION 18.85.010, ZONING PERMIT APPLICABILITY, SECTION 18.115.020, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT APPROVAL AUTHORITY, & SECTION 18.140.010, DEFINITIONS
WHEREAS, amendments to Title 5 and Title 18 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code are proposed to amend provisions related to related to applicability of zoning code regulations, parking, signs, tree preservation, architectural review permits, accessory structures, fences and walls, use classifications, and definitions; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to clarify and streamline various sections of the zoning code that have has created confusion and questioned its applicability; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing before the Planning Commission on the proposed ordinance was noticed for May 9, 2023.

The meeting was then cancelled due to a lack of quorum and the item was continued to May 23, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing and received public comment where all interested persons might appear and be heard, and adopted Resolution No. 11-23 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance; and WHEREAS, after notice having been duly given, a public hearing on the proposed ordinance was held by the City Council on August 7, 2023, where all interested persons might appear and be heard.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill does ordain as follows:

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 2 Section 1. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.

Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment as the proposed activity (ordinance amendment) is exempt as it will not have a significant effect on the environment as it does not directly approve any physical development. The adoption of this ordinance is therefore exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

Section 3. Section 5.05.240.O, Exempt activities and organizations for Business Licenses is amended as follows:

5.05.240.O Exempt activities and organizations.

O. Residential care facility or residential family day care home. Residential care facility or residential family day care home of six people or less, whether adults or children or a small or large residential family day care home. (See generally: Health and Saf. Code §§ 1502, 1502.5, 1523.1(a)(3), 1566.2, 1568.05(b), 1569.18, 1596.78(c), 1596.803(a)(3), 1597.42, 1597.45(b).)
Section 4. Section 18.15.040, Commercial use classification for “automobile maintenance, limited”, “automobile washing”, and “retail sales”, is amended as follows:

18.15.040 Commercial use classifications.

Automobile maintenance, limited. An establishment engaged in the limited maintenance of automobiles, including but not limited to, the replacement and refurbishment of motor vehicle fluids (excluding fuel), chassis lubrication, minor tuneups, smog inspection, and window tint installation, or other similar maintenance of automobiles and light vehicles, excluding washing of the vehicle, waxing, and other cleaning or surface treatment of the vehicle, and those services described under the “automobile, vehicle and equipment repair” use classification.

Automobile washing and exterior protection. Washing, waxing, or cleaning of automobiles or similar light vehicles and the installation of exterior body wraps, coating and protective film, excluding exterior paint.

Retail sales. An establishment engaged in retail sales of goods, including, but not limited to, the retail sale of merchandise not specifically listed under another use classification.

This classification includes but is not limited to a department store, clothing store, secondhand store, furniture store, and business retailing the following goods as examples:
toys, hobby materials, groceries, hand-crafted items, jewelry, cameras, photographic supplies, electronic equipment, records, sporting goods, kitchen utensils, hardware, appliances, art, antiques, art supplies and services, baseball cards, coins and other collectibles (e.g., cards or comics), comics, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 3 covering, medical supplies, office supplies, bicycles, and new automotive parts and accessories (including installation, but excluding service activities).

Section 5. Section 18.15.070, Temporary use classifications is amended as follows:

18.15.070, Temporary use classifications.

Uses that are short-term or temporary in nature are classified separately for purposes of the land use regulations; provided, that the use does not exceed any time limits specified. (Reference: PHMC Chapter 18.100, Temporary Use Permit.) If the event takes place partly or wholly on public property, see PHMC Chapter 6.20, Special Event Permit.

Agricultural sales. Seasonal sales of agricultural or horticultural products, including Christmas trees, pumpkins and firewood.

Animal shows or sales. Exhibitions of domestic or large animals. This classification includes animal sales.

Arts and crafts shows, outdoor. Display and sale of painting, sculpture, hand crafts and similar objects.

Civic and community events. Special events open to the public.

Commercial filming, limited. Commercial motion picture or video photography at the same location.

Eating and drinking use. Serving of prepared food or beverages for consumption on or off the premises on a site that is not permanently occupied by, or related to, an existing legally established on-site, a eating and drinking establishment.

Farmers’ market. Recurring sales of agricultural, horticultural and other food products that are seasonal in nature.

Live entertainment event. Concert, carnival, circus, fair, or other similar event.

Personal property sales. Sales of personal property by a resident. This classification includes garage sales.

Real estate sales. An on-site office for the marketing, sales or rental of residential, commercial or industrial development. This classification includes “model homes.”
Recreational events. Events featuring sports, exercise, physical play or competitions.

Religious group assembly. Religious services conducted on a site that is not permanently occupied by a religious assembly use.

Retail sales, outdoor. Retail sales of merchandise in an open or covered outdoor area on the site of a legally established retail business.

Street fair. Provision of games, eating and drinking facilities, live entertainment, or similar activities not requiring the use of roofed structures.

Swap meet. Retail sale or exchange of new, hand-crafted, or secondhand merchandise.

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 4 Trade fairs. Display and sale of goods or equipment related to a specific trade or industry.

Section 6. Section 18.20.020, Land use regulations for “home occupation,” “accessory uses,” and temporary “real estate sales” in all residential districts is amended as follows:

SCHEDULE 18.20.020
R AND MR DISTRICTS:

LAND USE

REGULATIONS
P Permitted
U Use Permit Required
T Temporary Use Permit Required
L Limited (see specific limitations listed following schedule) – Not Permitted
R20
R15
R10
R10AR-7
R-6 MRVL MRL MRM MRH Additional Use Regulations
Residential Uses
Home occupation P P P P P P P See PHMC § 18.20.070.

Accessory Uses P P P P P P P See PHMC § 18.15.060 and §

18.20.050.

Temporary Uses See PHMC Chapter 18.100.

Real estate sales P P P P P P P

1. Schedule 18.20.030, Development regulations for “scenic routes” in all residential districts is amended as follows:

SCHEDULE 18.20.030

DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
R-20 R-15 R-10 R10A R-7 R-6 MRVL MRL MRM MRH
Additional Development
Regulations (See PHMC
§ 18.20.040)
Scenic Route 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 L
Section 7. Section 18.20.040, Additional development regulations corresponding to residential development is amended as follows:

18.20.040.I, 18.20.040.K and 18.20.040.L, Additional development regulations corresponding to Schedule 18.20.030.

I. Fences and walls. The maximum height of any fence or wall (including a retaining wall) is six feet, except three feet within required front and corner side yards, unless otherwise specified below. The maximum height of any fence located within the front yard of a lot is six feet along any portion of the property line that abuts an adjacent side or rear yard, all other portions of the front yard fence that does not abut an adjacent side or rear yard is limited to three feet for single-family residences on corner lots, a five-foot

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 5 setback from the corner side property line is required for a wall or fence over three feet in height. (See also subsection C of this section.) Height is measured pursuant to PHMC § 18.145.050.B. The maximum height of any fence or wall must also comply with visibility requirements if located at a street intersection (see PHMC §18.50.100.A) or at a driveway (see PHMC §18.55.130).

K. City-wide objective design standards. All single-family residential and multifamily residential development shall comply with objective design standards, as adopted by city council resolution.

1. Streamlined residential projects. If a proposed residential development project qualifies for streamlined permit review, as determined by state law, the zoning administrator shall review the proposed project to verify compliance with the objective design standards applicable to such projects. Proposed qualifying residential development projects that comply with all objective design standards shall be subject to a ministerial architectural review process. Qualifying projects that do not comply with the objective design standards, or projects not seeking streamlined permit review, as determined by state law, shall be subject to a discretionary architectural review permit process, as specified in PHMC Chapter 18.115.

L. Scenic Routes. See 2040 General Plan, Land Use Goal 2 (LU-2).

Section 8. Schedule 18.25.020, Land use regulations for “fitness studios,” “retail sales,” and “temporary uses” within all commercial, retail business, neighborhood business, office and light industrial districts is amended as follows:

SCHEDULE 18.25.020
NB, RB, PAO, C, AND LI DISTRICTS:

LAND USE REGULATIONS
P Permitted
U Use Permit Required
T Temporary Use Permit Required
L Limited (see specific limitations listed following schedule) – Not Permitted
NB RB PAO C LI Additional Use Regulations
Fitness studio U U U – L12
Retail sales, less than 20,000 square feet P P L-2 P L4 Firearms sales – L16L-16 L16L16
This regulation also applies to
firearms sales in any planned unit
district (PUD).

With enclosed or unenclosed outdoor dropoff, display or storage of goodsU U – U – Retail sales, more than 20,000 square feet L5P L-2 P L4

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 6 SCHEDULE 18.25.020
NB, RB, PAO, C, AND LI DISTRICTS:

LAND USE REGULATIONS
P Permitted
U Use Permit Required
T Temporary Use Permit Required
L Limited (see specific limitations listed following schedule) – Not Permitted
NB RB PAO C LI Additional Use Regulations
Automobile parts and accessory sales with
incidental installation located entirely within
an enclosed building
– P – P P
Temporary Uses See PHMC Chapter 18.100.

Eating and drinking use T T T T T
Real estate sales T T T T T
Section 9. Schedule 18.25.030, Development regulations for “scenic routes” in Commercial, Office and Limited Industrial Districts is amended as follows:

SCHEDULE 18.25.030 – DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND LIMITED

INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS

NB RB PAO C LI
Additional
Development
Regulations
Scenic Route (feet) 50 50 50 50 50 (I)
Section 10. Section 18.25.040.I, Additional development regulations related to Schedule

18.25.030 is introduced as follows:

I. Scenic Routes. See 2040 General Plan, Land Use Goal 2 (LU-2).

Section 11. Section 18.50.110.J, Tree preservation is amended as follows:

J. Tree Removal Permit Expiration. An approved Tree Removal Permit shall be valid for a period of one year from the approval date, unless the tree is removed, or the permit renewed by the zoning administrator or other hearing body that originally approved it.

K. Appeals. Any decision to approve or deny a tree removal may be appealed by the applicant or any interested party pursuant to the procedures specified in PHMC Chapter 18.130.

Section 12. Schedule 18.55.030, Off-street parking and loading spaces required for “family day care home, large,” and “family day care home, small” is amended as follows:

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 7 SCHEDULE 18.55.030A

OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACES REQUIRED
Use Classification Off-Street Parking Spaces
Off-Street Loading
Spaces:

Schedule 18.55.030B
Group Number
Residential
Family day care home,
large
See applicable single-family or multi-family residential parking requirements.

Family day care home,
small
See applicable single-family or multi-family residential parking requirements.

Section 13. Section 18.55.070.A.3, Electric vehicle (EV) parking is amended as follows:

A. Electric vehicle (EV) parking – Number required.

1. Commercial use classifications. New development shall provide a minimum of one EV parking space (including charging facility) when the parking lot has 25 to 50 parking spaces, and one additional EV parking space (including charging facility) for every 50 additional spaces. Existing parking lots that are modified and subject to the provisions of PHMC § 18.55.020.A shall also be required to comply with this section.

2. All other use classifications: as specified by architectural review, use or development plan permit.

3. Development regulations: contained in PHMC § 14.75.

Section 14. Section 18.60.020.R, Exempt signs is amended as follows:

R. Real estate sign.

1. One temporary on-site real estate sign not exceeding six square feet in R, HPUD, and residential areas of PUD and PPD districts or 32 square feet in other districts that advertises the sale, lease or rental of a structure or land. Any freestanding sign shall not exceed six feet in height. The sign shall be removed within seven working days following the sale (close of escrow), lease or rental of the property.

2. Up to 24 square feet of sign area for temporary on-site real estate signage shall be permitted during the construction and for the grand/initial opening of multifamily residential developments and single-family residential subdivisions containing three or more homes for sale.

3. Up to four off-site open house signs, each not exceeding four square feet in area and three feet in height, to be placed as necessary at street intersections leading to the open house, plus one on-site real estate company open house sign, are allowed only on the weekends or for the Contra Costa Association of Realtors-sponsored broker’s open house. Only one sign is allowed per intersection regardless of the number of open houses in the direction indicated by the sign. No

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 8 temporary off-site directional real estate sign shall be located on a wall or fence in the public right-of-way, on a utility pole, or on a public street, median strip, traffic island, public landscaped area, sidewalk or private property without permission of the owner.

Section 15. Section 18.60.020.X, Exempt signs is amended as follows:

X. Vehicle or trailer sign. An identification sign painted on or affixed to a vehicle or trailer if all of the following apply:

1. The vehicle or trailer is legally parked within a single, delineated parking space; and

2. The sign is incidental to the primary use of the vehicle or trailer. The following criteria may be used in determining whether the sign is indeed incidental to the primary use of the vehicle or trailer, in which case it may be exempt, or where the primary purpose of the sign is to advertise a product or business or direct people to a business or activity located on the same or other property, in which case it is prohibited:
a. Whether the sign is painted upon or applied in a permanent manner directly to an integral part of the vehicle or trailer or merely temporarily attached to the vehicle;
b. Whether the vehicle or trailer is in operating condition, currently registered and licensed to operate on public streets when applicable; c. While the business is open, the vehicle is not moved and the vehicle is so parked or placed that the signs thereon are displayed to the public; d. Whether the vehicle or trailer is regularly parked in a location and in a manner so as to be observed by passersby;
e. Whether the vehicle or trailer is actively used as a vehicle in the daily function of the business to which such signs relate;
f. Whether the vehicle or trailer is associated with, and necessary to, performing a service at the property in which the vehicle or trailer is located; and
g. Whether the sign includes directional copy that would only be applicable if parked in the vicinity of the use.

It is not necessary that any one or all of the listed criteria be present in order to determine that a vehicle sign falls into the exempt or prohibited category; the criteria are intended to guide City staff toward making consistent determinations on the matter.

Section 16. Section 18.60.030.B, Required sign permits is amended as follows:

B. Sign permit for permanent sign. A sign permit is required for a permanent sign including the following types: wall sign, freestanding sign, shingle sign, off-premises sign, multiple-story office sign, theater or cinema sign, and variations from an approved master sign program for individual signs. The application and approval procedures are set forth in PHMC Chapter 18.105.

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 9 Section 17. Section 18.60.040.C, Calculating maximum sign area, is amended as follows:

Section 18.60.040.C.4 Calculating maximum sign area. In determining compliance with maximum sign area, the following general regulations apply:

1. Only one side of a building is used in calculating the building frontage. The zoning administrator may designate another side of a building as the building frontage if it is determined that: (a) the primary access to the tenant spaces is from a side facing an interior side lot line; and (b) the interior lot line is longer than the front lot line.

2. Only the street frontage that is developed or approved for development is counted for purposes of determining the maximum allowable sign area. Vacant land reserved for future development is not counted.

3. No sign or sign area permitted on one tenant’s building frontage shall be transferred to another tenant’s building frontage within a shopping center or other multi-tenant structure or development except in accord with a master sign plan prepared under PHMC § 18.60.080.

4. Sign area shall be computed by measuring the simplest geometric shape that will encompass the extreme limits of the sign. Negative space that is bounded by sign elements must be counted as sign area. For panel signs (see definition), the background area of the panel (surrounding the lettering) shall not be included in the calculation of sign area; provided, that the background of the panel does not contain text, is designed to complement the sign design and the building facade, is proportionate to the size of the sign lettering, and is compatible with the colors, materials and design of the sign.

Section 18. Section 18.60.050.B.3, Sign illumination, is amended as follows:

Section 18.60.050.B.3 Illumination – Movement. The following regulations apply to a sign which is illuminated or which moves.

5. No sign may have exposed fluorescent tubes or incandescent bulbs unless determined by the decision-making authority to be an enhancement to the design of the sign and complementary to the architecture of a building facade.

6. If a sign is indirectly illuminated, the lighting shall be white or amber colored.

7. A sign directly visible from a residential zoning district shall not be illuminated between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., except during the hours the business is open.

Section 19. Section 18.60.050.G, Wall Signs, is amended as follows:

Section 18.60.050.G Wall Signs. A wall sign must comply with the maximum sign area requirements of PHMC § 18.60.040 and shall not:

8. Project above an eave or parapet, including the eave of a simulated mansard roof;

9. Project more than six inches from the face of the building; or

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 10 10. Include illumination between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., except during the hours a business is open, when facing a residential zoning district as set forth in PHMC Section 18.60.050.B.3.

Section 20. Section 18.65.030.C, Restoration of nonconforming structures is amended as follows:

Section 18.65.030.C. Restoration.

11. If a nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire or other calamity or is voluntarily razed or is required by law to be razed, to the extent of 50% or less, the structure may be restored (and the nonconforming use resumed); provided, that restoration is started within six months and diligently pursued to completion.

12. If a nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire or other calamity or is voluntarily razed or is required by law to be razed, to an extent greater than 50%, the structure shall not be restored except in full conformity with the regulations for the district in which it is located. However, a residential structure in an residential zoning district that does not conform to yard setbacks, height, or number of stories, or a residential garage that does not conform to the minimum dimensional limits may be reconstructed with the same floor area, provided there is no increase in any nonconformity, and upon issuance of a use permit by the zoning administrator.

13. The extent of damage or partial destruction under subsection C.1 or C.2 of this section shall be based upon the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its condition before the damage or partial destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed before the damage or partial destruction. Estimates for this purpose shall be made by or shall be reviewed and approved by the chief building official.

14. Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection C, a structure, or any portion of it, which is legally existing as of February 24, 2010, and which is located within a creek setback area under PHMC § 18.50.150.A may be replaced in kind if the property owner obtains a building permit within 18 months (within the same building footprint and without increasing the degree of nonconformity) without the requirement of a use permit under this section.

15. Notwithstanding the requirements of PHMC § 18.20.050, an accessory structure, or any portion of it, which is legally existing as of September 28, 2011, which exceeds the allowable height and/or size only, may be replaced or reconstructed in kind without the requirement of a use permit under this section (refers to the nonconforming structure provisions of the zoning ordinance) if the property owner obtains a building permit within 18 months of the voluntary or involuntary destruction of the structure; and provided, that the replacement structure will not exceed the height, floor area, lot coverage, or otherwise increase the degree of nonconformity of the original structure.

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 11 16. Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection C, a care facility, large, licensed or unlicensed, which is legally existing within any single-family residential zone district as of June 20, 2012, may be replaced in kind if the property owner obtains a building permit within 18 months (within the same building footprint and without increasing the degree of nonconformity or intensity of use) without the requirement of a use permit under this section.

Section 21. Section 18.85.010, Zoning permit applicability is amended as follows:

Section 18.85.010. Purpose and Applicability.

A zoning permit is required before issuance of a building or grading permit, before a change in use of a property or establishment of a new business, issuance of a Section 6409(a) permit, or before modifying, replacing or constructing an accessory structure, replacing or constructing a fence or wall within a residential front or street side yard. The purpose is to ensure that each new or expanded use of a site and each new or expanded structure complies with this chapter. Small and large family day care homes, and other uses exempt under state law, are exempt from this requirement.

Section 22. Section 18.115.020, Architectural review permit approval authority is amended as follows:

18.115.020, Approval authority.

A. Architectural review commission. Except as provided in subsections B and C of this section, the architectural review commission has the authority to approve architectural review permits. The architectural review commission is established under PHMC Chapter 3.10.

B. Zoning administrator. The zoning administrator has the authority to approve an architectural review permit for any of the following improvements if the zoning administrator finds that such improvements will not have a significant visual impact.

1. A minor alteration to an existing structure in a PUD, PPD or HPUD development that is consistent with the original approval and has the approval of the homeowners association, if one exists;

2. A minor alteration to an existing structure in the RB, NB, C, PAO or LI district that is consistent with the original approval. Minor alterations include improvements such as repainting, landscape modification, and window replacements;

3. An addition or repair to an existing structure if the exterior is not altered.

The zoning administrator may, in his or her discretion, refer an application directly to the architectural review commission. (Ord. 738 § 1 (Exh. C), 1999; Ord. 710 § 35-32.2, 1996; 1991 code § 35-32.2)

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 12 C. Streamlined ministerial review. Residential development projects qualifying for streamlined permit review, as established under PHMC Section 18.20.040.K, shall be subject to a ministerial architectural review process.

Section 23. Section 18.140.010, Definitions for “Structure, accessory” and “Yard types” is amended as follows:

Section 18.140.010, Definitions. “Structure, accessory” Structure, accessory. An accessory structure is a structure placed on a site, other than the principal, permanent residential structure. An accessory structure must be located on a site with an existing or proposed primary structure. Temporary containers or storage units regulated by PHMC § 18.20.140, fences or walls eight feet or less in height, decks attached to the principal permanent residential structure, free-standing decks 18 inches or less in height above ground, in-ground pools, and permanent basketball hoops shall not be considered accessory structures.

Section 18.140.010, Definitions. “Yard Types”
Corner side yard. A side yard on the street side of a corner lot. The depth of the corner side yard is the minimum horizontal distance between the corner side property line and a line parallel to it on the site. If a public or private vehicular easement exists, the measurement is from the edge of the easement closest to the structure. If a corner side yard abuts a vehicular access easement that serves only one property, then said yard shall be treated as an interior side yard for setback purposes.

Front yard. A yard extending across the full width of a site, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the front property line and a line parallel to it on the site. If a public or private vehicular easement exists, the measurement is from the edge of the easement closest to the structure.

Rear yard. A yard extending across the full width of a site, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the rear property line and a line parallel to it on the site. On a corner lot, the rear yard extends only to the corner side yard. If a public or private vehicular easement exists, the measurement is from the edge of the easement closest to the structure.

Side yard. A yard extending from the rear line of the required front yard, or the front property line of the site where no front yard is required, to the front line of the required rear yard, or the rear property line of the site where no rear yard is required, the width of which is the horizontal distance between the side property line and a line parallel thereto on the site, except that the corner side yard shall extend to the rear lot line. If a corner side yard abuts a vehicular access easement that serves only one property, then said yard shall be treated as an interior side yard for setback purposes.

Section 24. This ordinance is consistent with the following General Plan Policies and Programs:

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 13 a. Land Use Policy 4.4 – Capture Local Spending: Encourage the development of a broad range of commercial uses that capture a greater share of local spending and reduce resident’s reliance upon travel to nearby communities.

The proposed amendment provides further clarification and expansion of certain commercial land use classification such as limited automobile maintenance and retail sales uses that may help revitalize commercial areas, general local spending, and encourage uses that would otherwise consider locations in nearby communities.
b. Land Use Policy 8.2 – Incompatible Land Uses: Prohibit the introduction of new incompatible land uses and environmental hazards into existing residential areas.

The proposed amendment provides further clarification for certain commercial land use classifications such as limited automobile maintenance, automobile washing and exterior protection, and retail sales uses that will not impact the existing balance between residential development and commercial and office uses.

Additionally, the amendment introduces a use permit requirement for fitness facilities in the Professional and Administrative Office zone to ensure compatibility between office and other uses. Finally, the amendment clarifies policies surrounding fence provisions for privacy, and sign illumination when facing a residential district, to ensure reasonable balance is maintained between residential and commercial uses.
c. Economics and Economy Policy 3.5 – Underutilized Parcels: Facilitate appropriate reuse of underutilized parcels.

The proposed amendment provides further clarification for certain commercial land use classifications such as limited automobile maintenance and retail sales uses that may help to revitalize commercial areas and could lead to redevelopment of certain sites. Additionally, this amendment introduces a new ministerial architectural review process and clarifies when the process could be utilized for residential projects in compliance with state law, which will streamline the process for certain residential developments in appropriate, underutilized parcels. d. Housing Policy 2.3 – Streamline Review: Facilitate streamlined review of below market rate and special needs housing projects.

The proposed amendments introduce a new ministerial architectural review process and clarifies when the process could be utilized for residential projects in compliance with state law, many of which include provisions for affordable housing. This new process will streamline the process for certain residential developments.

Section 25. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this article is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.” Section 26. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption.

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 14 Section 27. Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in the three places designated by resolution of the City Council.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill held on the 7th day of August, 2023.

ADOPTED and ordered posted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, held on the 11th day of September, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
TIMOTHY M. FLAHERTY, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
JUANITA DAVALOS, Acting City Clerk

9.5.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (2023 Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-23 APPROVING SIDE LETTER OF

AGREEMENT WITH THE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN GROUP TO

ADD A NEW CLASSIFICATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

COMPENSATION PAY PLAN

SYNOPSIS
The City is continuously seeking ways to better manage operations and streamline staff work.

Human Resources staff looked closely at the functions in the City Manager’s office after the departure of the Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk in April 2023. After the incumbent left much of the analyst work was permanently redistributed amongst staff members who had interest and the bandwidth to take on additional duties that fit within their classification.

The City Clerk position must be filled per the City’s municipal code and the City does not have a standalone City Clerk classification at this time. Staff is seeking Council’s authorization to create a new classification in the management pay plan for a standalone City Clerk classification. This classification will replace the Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk in the budget, therefore there is no change in full time equivalent (FTE) employee count.

Adoption of the proposed resolution would authorize the City Manager to execute a side letter of agreement between the City of Pleasant Hill and the Management Pay Plan Group (MPP) to add the new classification City Clerk to the management compensation pay plan.

DISCUSSION
After a close review of the duties performed by the Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk it was determined that the most of the analyst work could be redistributed amongst other City staff, primarily in the City Manager’s office. However, the City Clerk role would need to be filled with a full time employee.

The City Clerk position is appointed by the City Manager as outlined in section 2.15.010 of the City’s municipal code and is responsible for critical functions such as administering and maintaining a complete and accurate legal/historical record of City Council proceedings; conducting municipal elections, and managing the City’s compliance with the Political Reform Act

9.6 Packet Pg. 129
in addition to other duties. Creating a standalone City Clerk classification will not only result in a salary savings but will also allow the individual appointed to this position to focus on traditional Clerk duties and provide exceptional service to City Council and the community.

After developing a City Clerk job description that fit the needs of the City, representatives of the City and the Management Pay Plan group (“MPP”) tentatively agreed to the City Clerk title and job description. A copy of the side letter of agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 and includes the addition of the new title in the relevant sections of the pay plan and the salary.

Analysis
The addition of the City Clerk title and job description will have minimal fiscal impact because the proposed changes will not change the FTE employee count in the budget. If approved, the City Clerk will replace the Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk in the budget. The proposed change will result in at least $18,960 salary savings for the City. Staff will immediately begin the recruitment process, as contemplated by the Personnel Rules, to fill this position if the resolution is approved.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed resolution will have minimal fiscal impact as the full time employee (FTE) count will not change. The salary savings is at least $18,960 and could go up to $61,482 annually.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public Contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department.

The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Side Letter of Agreement with MPP to add the new classification City Clerk.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Do not approve the resolution.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
Exhibit 1 – Side Letter of Agreement - MPP
Prepared by: Ericka Mitchell, Chief Human Resources Officer Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager

9.6 Packet Pg. 130
RESOLUTION NO. -23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL APPROVING A SIDE

LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH THE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN GROUP TO ADD THE NEW CLASSIFICATION CITY CLERK.

WHEREAS, representatives of the City and the Management Pay Plan group (“MPP”) tentatively agreed to the City Clerk title and job description; and
WHEREAS, enactment of the proposed side letter would provide a more efficient and streamlined organizational structure; and
WHEREAS, enactment of the proposed side letter would save the City at least $18,960 in salary costs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that the City Council does hereby approve and authorize the City Manager to sign Exhibit 1 Side Letter of Agreement – MPP, amending the compensation plan between the City of Pleasant Hill and MPP.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of September 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
TIMOTHY M. FLAHERTY, Mayor
ATTEST:

JUANITA DAVALOS, Acting City Clerk

9.6.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (New Classification - City Clerk)

ADDITION OF THE CITY CLERK JOB TITLE AND DESCRIPTION

SIDE LETTER OF AGREEMENT

AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN BETWEEN

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL AND

THE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN GROUP
Subject to the approval of the City of Pleasant Hill City Council, the City and the MPP hereby agree to add the job title and description for the classification City Clerk to Exhibit A and Exhibit B in the Management Pay Plan that is in effect September 1, 2022 through August 31, 2023. Modified Exhibits A and B are attached hereto. Except as set forth above, all other terms and conditions of employment remain unchanged and shall remain in full force and effect.

Agreed to this __________ day of ____________________ 2023.

City of Pleasant Hill: City of Pleasant Hill Management Group:
___________________________________ ____________________________________ Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager Matt Kristic, MPP Group Representative ____________________________________
Zach Seal, MPP Group Representative
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Janet Coleson, City Attorney

9.6.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Side Letter of Agreement (New Classification - City Clerk) EXHIBIT “A”
Management Classifications Covered by
the Management Pay Plan (as of September 1, 2022)
Accounting Manager
Assistant City Manager
Chief Building Official
Chief of Police
Chief Technology Officer
City Clerk
City Engineer
City Planner
Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager
Economic Development Manager
Finance Manager
Human Resources Manager
Maintenance Superintendent
Maintenance Supervisor
Police Captain
Police Lieutenant
Principal Management Analyst/City
Clerk Senior Civil Engineer
Senior Management Analyst
Senior Planner
Senior Traffic Engineer
23 9.6.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Side Letter of Agreement (New Classification - City Clerk) EXHIBIT “B”

MANAGEMENT GROUP SALARY RANGES
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 - 3%

POSITION MONTHLY

MINIMUM

MONTHLY

MAXIMUM
Accounting Manager $11,289 $15,014
Assistant City Manager $14,021 $18,649
Chief Building Official $10,582 $14,073
Chief of Police $16,578 $22,049
Chief Technology Officer $11,270 $14,992
City Clerk $10,115 $13,656
City Engineer $12,391 $16,978
City Planner $12,391 $16,978
Director of Community Development/Assistant City Manager $14,818 $19,707 Economic Development Manager $11,289 $15,014
Finance Manager $13,386 $17,805
Human Resources Manager $12,607 $16,768
Maintenance Superintendent $10,659 $14,176
Maintenance Supervisor $9,805 $13,041
Police Captain $14,048 $18,685
Police Lieutenant $12,648 $16,822
Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk $13,512 $15,236 Senior Civil Engineer $10,728 $14,266
Senior Management Analyst/Deputy City Clerk $10,728 $14,266 Senior Management Analyst/Public Info Officer $10,728 $14,266 Senior Planner $9,717 $12,924
Senior Traffic Engineer $10,728 $14,266
24 9.6.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Side Letter of Agreement (New Classification - City Clerk)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___ - 23 ACCEPTING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION 9447 (RELIEZ TERRACE) AS

COMPLETE

SYNOPSIS
Ponderosa Homes II, Inc. (Developer), has constructed the improvements for Subdivision 9447 (Reliez Terrace) in accordance with the terms of the Subdivision Agreement with the City. It is now appropriate for the City to accept these improvements as complete.

DISCUSSION
On May 22, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-18, approving Vesting Tentative Map (PLN 17-0013) for the Reliez Terraces Residential Major Subdivision at 2150 and 2189 Pleasant Hill Road. The Major Subdivision created two common area parcels and 17 new residential lots within the 4.42-acre project site, with residential lots ranging in size from 8,291 square feet to 12,808 square feet, at an average lot size of 9,424 square feet.

On August 19, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 45-19, approving the filing of the Final Map and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement.

The Developer entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City of Pleasant Hill on January 27, 2020, for the construction of street and other subdivision improvements associated with Subdivision 9447. Public improvements were constructed along Pleasant Hill Road from Boyd Road, south to the project limits just beyond the new Molino Court. The improvements included sidewalks along both sides of Pleasant Hill Road, a new median island, bike lanes, an enhanced crosswalk across Pleasant Hill Road at Molino Court, and street resurfacing. In addition, new sidewalks and street repaving were constructed along the project limits of Boyd Road. Private improvements include a new street and sidewalks, landscaping, and storm drain improvements with stormwater treatment facilities.

The Developer provided a Faithful Performance Bond and a Labor and Material Bond to guarantee the construction of the improvements. The Subdivision improvements are now complete, and the developer is requesting the bonds for this work be released.

The work was secured with the following bonds:

9.7 Packet Pg. 135
 Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bond #929643363 for on-site improvements in the amount of $1,231,296;
 Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Material Bond #929643362 for off-site improvements in the amount of $600,748.

Prior to the release of the Faithful Performance Bonds, the Developer will provide a Warranty Bond in the amount of $274,807 which is 15% of the total cost of the on-site and off-site improvements. The warranty bond will be held for twelve months after acceptance of the improvements. The Labor and Material Bond will be released six months after the acceptance of the improvements. The release of all improvement securities is in accordance with Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Section 17.35.070.D.

FISCAL IMPACT
The requested action has an impact to the City’s General Fund in annual maintenance costs estimated at $7,000 for City-maintained off-site improvements such as median landscaping and irrigation on Pleasant Hill Road. There will be an increase in property tax revenue because of the higher value of the housing development as compared to the previous land use conditions.

The constructed private improvements (street and sidewalks) will be maintained by the abutting property owners or homeowners association.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department.

The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed resolution accepting the improvements for Subdivision 9447 (Reliez Terrace) as complete.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
None recommended. The City is required to accept the constructed improvements once the applicant complies with the terms of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. The Warranty Bond ensures the constructed improvements will be guaranteed through the one-year maintenance and warranty period.

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. Proposed Resolution
B. Subdivision Improvement Agreement
C. Final Map
Prepared by: Ryan Cook, Senior Civil Engineer

9.7 Packet Pg. 136
Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager

9.7 Packet Pg. 137
RESOLUTION NO. -23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL TO ACCEPT SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION 9447 (RELIEZ TERRACE)
WHEREAS, Ponderosa Homes II, Inc., the developer of Subdivision 9447, previously entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement dated January 27, 2020, and authorized by City Council Resolution No. 45-19, with the City of Pleasant Hill, to complete improvements associated with Subdivision 9447, in accordance with plans on file with the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the public and private improvements are complete in accordance with said plans, and any approved modifications thereto, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the developer provided a Faithful Performance Bond and a Labor and Material Bond, each in the amount of $1,231,296 for on-site improvements, and $600,748 for offsite improvements; and WHEREAS, the developer shall provide a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $247,807 to guarantee the on-site and off-site improvements for a one-year period; and WHEREAS, the Faithful Performance Bonds, and Labor and Material Bonds will be released in accordance with Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Section 17.35.070.D.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill approves and accepts the subdivision improvements for Subdivision 9447 (Reliez Terrace) as complete.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of September, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
TIMOTHY M. FLAHERTY, Mayor
ATTEST:

JUANITA DAVALOS, Acting City Clerk

9.7.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: A - Proposed Resolution (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT B

9.7.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Accept Subdivision Improvements for Subdivision 9447)

ATTACHMENT C

9.7.c
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: C - Sub 9447 Reliez Terrace Recorded Map (Accept Subdivision Improvements for

ATTACHMENT C

9.7.c
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: C - Sub 9447 Reliez Terrace Recorded Map (Accept Subdivision Improvements for

ATTACHMENT C

9.7.c
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: C - Sub 9447 Reliez Terrace Recorded Map (Accept Subdivision Improvements for

ATTACHMENT C

9.7.c
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: C - Sub 9447 Reliez Terrace Recorded Map (Accept Subdivision Improvements for

ATTACHMENT C

9.7.c
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: C - Sub 9447 Reliez Terrace Recorded Map (Accept Subdivision Improvements for

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.__-23 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER WITH FRANCO
ENGINEERING INC. FOR THE OAK PARK BOULEVARD SIDEWALK
GAP CLOSURE PROJECT NO. 04-23

SYNOPSIS
The Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23 will provide approximately 700 linear feet of new ADA-compliant concrete sidewalk along the north side of Oak Park Boulevard between Hook Avenue and the Pleasant Hill Library, new rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFB) at two existing crosswalks, and new signage and striping. The purpose of this item is to receive authorization for the City Manager to execute a contract change order with Franco Engineering, Inc. for 200 linear feet of additional ADA-compliant concrete sidewalk on the south side of Oak Park Boulevard.

DISCUSSION
Background
The Project is identified as part of the FY 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) (Project MK-3D). City Council had previously allocated $75,000 to fund and complete engineering design in FY 2023-2024. The City received higher than anticipated Measure K revenues, thus allowing the City to proceed with public bidding and construction after completion of Project design. On February 27, 2023, the City Council allocated an additional $805,000 for Project construction for a total Project budget of $880,000 and updated the CIP (Project MK-3D R1) budget accordingly.

Construction Contract Award. On July 17, 2023, via Resolution No. 59-23, the City Council awarded the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23 (Project) to Franco Engineering, Inc. (Contractor) in the base bid amount of $503,261.00, plus 15 percent contingency funds in the amount of $75,489.15, for a total not-to-exceed construction cost of $578,750.15, which is $226,249.85 below the budgeted construction figure of $805,000.

Construction Details. Construction began on July 31, 2023, and the base bid scope of work is scheduled for completion in 35 working days or by September 19, 2023.

10.1 Packet Pg. 157
Project Details. The Project is in a high priority location for pedestrian and bicycle improvements based on collision history, proximity to schools, number of nearby destinations, and traffic volume. The Project will connect residents to popular nearby destinations, including Pleasant Hill Middle School, the Pleasant Hill Library, Pleasant Oaks Park, pedestrian walking trails, and future athletic fields.

Budget Committee Request. On July 25, 2023, the Budget Committee directed staff to explore the cost of possibly expanding the Project to include a 200-linear-foot gap closure on the southern portion of Oak Park Boulevard between Manor Avenue and Via Del Sol. The Budget Committee noted that, provided the cost of construction did not exceed the allocated project budget, it would be supportive of revising the original project scope to include this additional sidewalk gap closure work.

Analysis
Original Project. On July 11, 2022, City Council previously allocated $75,000 to fund and complete engineering design in FY 2023-2024. In light of higher than anticipated Measure K revenues, on February 27, 2023, City Council allocated an additional $805,000 for Project construction for a total Project budget of $880,000 and updated the CIP (Project MK-3D R1) budget accordingly.

On July 17, 2023, the City Council approved the construction contract for the Project, and the accepted bid came in lower than expected. Accordingly, there are Measure K funds available should the City Council wish to consider additional sidewalk gap closures, such as that for which the Budget Committee expressed support.

Change Order. Franco Engineering, Inc. has submitted an estimate to install an additional 200 linear feet of ADA-compliant concrete sidewalk to the Project site on the southern portion of Oak Park Boulevard between Manor Avenue and Via Del Sol, as follows:

1. Additional 200 linear feet of ADA-compliant concrete sidewalk, curb, $61,060.22 gutter.

2. Asphalt concrete conform for 200 linear feet of new ADA-compliant $39,439.92 sidewalk.

3. Adjust 2 each water meter, relocate 3 each mailbox, remove 2 each $14,523.00 trees, clearing and grubbing, install 3 each roadside signs, install 400 linear feet of thermoplastic striping.
_______________________________________________________________________ Total $115,023.14

10.1 Packet Pg. 158
Engineering staff has reviewed the estimates provided by Franco Engineering, Inc. (Contractor), and has found them to be reasonable. The Contractor is already working onsite along the north side of the street and could begin construction of these additional facilities in a timely manner.

The Contractor estimates 12 working days to complete installation on the south side of the street.

The proposed change order cost is $115,023.14. It is reasonable to include a construction contingency of 15 percent ($17,253.47) to cover unforeseen field conditions that would result in minor changes to the proposed change order. The total of the proposed change order with contingency is $132,276.61. If Council were to approve the change order, construction cost of the sidewalk project (including contingency) would increase from $578,750.15 to $711,026.76.

Grant Funding. On August 7, 2023, City Council adopted Resolution No. 62-23 authorizing the City Manager to execute the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Grant Agreement on behalf of the City for a Comprehensive Action Plan and approving a new CIP project, SS4A Action Plan (MK-6), for $300,000 with $240,000 reimbursed by FHWA grant and $60,000 allocated in Measure K local match funds. City Council authorized staff to transfer $60,000 in Measure K funding from Project MK-3D R1 to Project MK-6.

On September 6, 2023, the City received Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant funds from the state in the amount of $70,000, which further increases the overall project budget from $880,000 to $950,000.

FISCAL IMPACT
As outlined below, the proposed change order will be funded by the FY 2023/24 Oak Park Sidewalk Gap Closure Project (MK-3D R1). There are adequate funds remaining in the Measure K Fund, as shown below, should City Council desire to fund the change order:

Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project MK-3D R1:

Total Funding $880,000
TDA Grant $70,000
Design ($75,000)
Engineering Staff Time and Services ($15,000)
Gap Closure Project No. 04-23 (Construction) ($578,750) Transfer to MK-6 (SS4A Grant Match) ($60,000)
Remaining Budget in MK-3D R1 $221,250
Contract Change Order for the Oak Park Gap Closure Project No. 04-23 with Franco Engineering, Inc. (including 15% contingency) ($132,276.61) Total Remaining $88,973.39

10.1 Packet Pg. 159
If approved, the proposed change order would increase the contract with Franco Engineering, Inc. for the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23, as follows:

Original Contract $503,261.00
Contingency $75,489.15
Proposed Change Order $115,023.14
Contingency for Change Order $17,253.47
Total $711,026.76

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Move to authorize the City Manager to execute a change order with Franco Engineering, Inc. for the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23, in the amount of $115,023.14 and change order contingency funds in the amount of $17,253.47 (15%) for a not-to-exceed total of $132,276.61

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Alternatively, City Council may choose not to authorize the proposed change order for the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23.

Prepared by: Omar Adina, Assistant Engineer
Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
Attachment(s):

Proposed Resolution
Exhibit A – Franco Engineering, Inc.’s Proposed Change Order Exhibit B – Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Sheet MK-3D R1

10.1 Packet Pg. 160
RESOLUTION NO. -23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER WITH FRANCO ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE OAK PARK BOULEVARD GAP CLOSURE PROJECT NO. 04-23
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the FY 2022–2027 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which includes the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23, (Project MK-3D) in the CIP as a funded Project; and
WHEREAS, the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23 addresses pedestrian and bicycle safety by providing a new, continuous ADA sidewalk along the north side of Oak Park Boulevard from Hook Avenue to the Pleasant Hill Library; and WHEREAS, the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23 will provide new rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFB) at existing crosswalks at Oak Park Boulevard/Manor Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard/Via del Sol intersections to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, access, and visibility; and
WHEREAS, the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23 will provide new signage and striping adjacent to the improvements, including the installation of Class II bike lanes; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2023, via Resolution No. 59-23, the City Council awarded the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23 to Franco Engineering, Inc. (Contractor) in the base bid amount of $503,261.00, plus 15 percent contingency funds in the amount of $75,489.15, for a total not-to-exceed construction cost of $578,750.15, which is $226,249.85 below the approved construction budget of $805,000; and WHEREAS, a contract between the City of Pleasant Hill and Franco Engineering, Inc. was executed on July 24, 2023, for the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2023, the Budget Committee directed staff to explore the cost of constructing additional sidewalk gap closure improvements along the southern portion of Oak Park Boulevard between Manor Avenue and Via Del Sol, and supported revising the original scope of work to include these improvements if construction costs did not exceed the approved Project budget; and
WHEREAS, City staff has obtained a proposed change order from Franco Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $115,023.14 with an added 15 percent contingency of $17,253.47 (total change order cost of $132,276.61) to be included in the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23 currently under construction; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2023, City Council adopted Resolution No. 62-23 authorizing the City Manager to execute the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Grant Agreement on behalf of the City for a Comprehensive Action Plan; approving a new CIP project, SS4A Action

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project 04-23 - CCO) Plan (MK-6) for $300,000 with $240,000 reimbursed by FHWA grant and $60,000 in Measure K local match funds; and approving a $60,000 project budget transfer in Measure K funding from the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project (MK-3D R1) as the local match to SS4A Comprehensive Action Plan (MK-6); and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2023, the City received Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant funds from the state in the amount of $70,000, which augments the overall project budget from $880,000 to $950,000.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that:

1. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract change order (Exhibit A) with Franco Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $115,023.14 for the installation of additional ADA-compliant concrete sidewalk improvements for the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure, Project No. 04-23.

2. The City Council authorizes an additional 15 percent in contingency funds, or$17,253.47, for a total not-to-exceed change order cost of $132,276.61 at the unit prices set forth in Franco Engineering, Inc.’s proposal.

3. The City receive $70,000 from the TDA grant funds and increase the overall project budget for the Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project No. 04-23, (Project MK-3D) from $880,000 to $950,000.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of September, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
TIMOTHY M. FLAHERTY, Mayor
ATTEST:

JUANITA DAVALOS, Acting City Clerk

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project 04-23 - CCO) City of Pleasant Hill
Sidewalk Gap Closure Improvements Project
Oak Park Boulevard & Hook Avenue
Project No. 04-23
EXHIBIT “A”

PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER FORM
City of Pleasant Hill
Proposed Contract Change Order No. 2
Project: Sidewalk Gap Closure Improvements
Project, Oak Park Boulevard & Hook
Avenue Project No. 04-23
Change Order No.: 2
Orig. Contract Amt.: $503,261.00 Days 35
Contract No.: 04-23
Contractor: Franco Engineering, Inc. Prev. Appvd. Changes: $9,885.65 Days 1 Owner: City of Pleasant Hill This Change: $115,023.14 Days 12 Revised Contract Amt.: $628,169.79 Days 48
This Change Order covers changes to the subject contract as described herein. The Contractor shall construct, furnish equipment and materials, and perform all work as necessary or required to complete the Change Order items for a lump sum price agreed upon between the Contractor and City of Pleasant Hill, otherwise referred to as Owner.

Item
No. Description of Changes
Increase/
(Decrease)
in Contract
Amount
Contract
Time
Extension,
Days
1 Additional 200 linear feet of concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, and asphalt concrete conform installed on the south side of Oak Park Boulevard between Manor Avenue and Via Del Sol. Work includes the following:
adjust water meter (2 each), relocate mailbox on new post (3 each), remove existing tree (2 each), clearing/grubbing/tree trimming, install new roadside sign (3 each), thermoplastic traffic striping detail 39 (400 LF).
$115,023.14
12 Totals $115,023.14 12
This Contract Change Order consists of 2 pages and any exhibits attached to this Contract Change Order shall not be part of the Contract Change Order unless specifically initialed by or on behalf of both the Contractor and the City of Pleasant Hill.

Contract Change Order #2 Page 1 of 2
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Exhibit A - Change Order (Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project 04-23 - CCO) City of Pleasant Hill
Sidewalk Gap Closure Improvements Project
Oak Park Boulevard & Hook Avenue
Project No. 04-23
The amount of the contract will be increased by the sum of $115,023.14 and the contract time shall be extended by 12 working days. The undersigned Contractor approves the foregoing Change Order #2 as to the changes, if any, in the contract price specified for each item including any and all supervision costs and other miscellaneous costs relating to the change in work, and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the entire work on account of said Change Order #2. The Contractor agrees to furnish all labor and materials and perform all other necessary work, inclusive of the directly or indirectly related to the approved time extension, required to complete the Change order items. This document will become a supplement of the contract and all provisions will apply hereto. It is understood that the Change Order shall be effective when approved by the Owner.

Contractor accepts the terms and conditions stated above as full and final settlement of any and all claims arising out of or related to the subject of this Change Order and acknowledges that the compensation (time and cost) set forth herein comprises the total compensation due for the work or change defined in the Change Order, including all impact on any unchanged work. By signing this Change Order, the Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the stipulated compensation includes payment for all Work contained in the Change Order, plus all payment for any acceleration or interruption of schedules, extended overhead costs, delay, and all impact or cumulative impact on all Work under this Contract. The signing of this Change Order acknowledges full mutual accord and satisfaction for the change and that the stated time and/or cost constitute the total equitable adjustment owed the Contractor as a result of the change. The Contractor hereby releases and agrees to waive all rights, without exception or reservation of any kind whatsoever, to file any further claim or request for equitable adjustment of any type, for any reasonably foreseeable cause that shall arise out of, or as a result of, this Change Order and/or its impact on the remainder of the Work under the Contract.

Accepted:
(Signature) Contractor’s Authorized Representative Date Approved:
(Signature)
ƚŚĂŶŝŶĚĞƌŶĂŐĞů, City DĂŶĂŐĞƌ Date
This Contract Change Order consists of 2 pages and any exhibits attached to this Contract Change Order shall not be part of the Contract Change Order unless specifically initialed by or on behalf of both the Contractor and the City of Pleasant Hill.

Contract Change Order #2 Page 2 of 2
ture) Contractor’s Authorized

/2023

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Exhibit A - Change Order (Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project 04-23 - CCO) Daily Extra Work Report
Project: City of Pleasant Hill - Sidewalk Gap Closure Improvements Date Performed:

Report Number: Lump Sum Proposal Date of Report: 8/1/2023 Work Performed By: Regular Labor Surcharge (Per Caltrans): 9% Description of Work: OT Labor Sucharge (Per Caltrans): 9% LABOR Sub Work ?: No
Labor Name Regular Hours Overtime Hours Subsistence Extended Craft ID Int. Last Name Hrs Rate Hrs Rate Units Rate Amount FM 16 $75.00 $1,200.00
LAB 16 $65.00 $1,040.00
LAB 16 $65.00 $1,040.00
LAB 16 $65.00 $1,040.00
LAB 16 $65.00 $1,040.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost of Labor $5,360.00
$482.40
15% OH & Profit $876.36
Labor Total $6,718.76

EQUIPMENT
Equipment Description Regular Time Overtime Extended
Equip ID Class Make Attach Hrs Rate Hrs Factor Amount
Utility Truck 16 $54.71 $875.36
Pickup 16 $42.39 $678.24
Dump Truck 64 $93.59 $5,989.76
Bobcat 16 $35.36 $565.76
Mini Ex 0 $68.68 $0.00
Trailer 16 $7.43 $118.88
Roller 16 $41.33 $661.28
Equipment Cost $8,889.28
15% OH & Profit $1,333.39
$10,222.67

MATERIALS/SPECIAL COSTS
Vendor Name Invoice No. Description Units Unit Cost Amount Antioch Building Materials AC 50.0 $100.00 $5,000.00
Antioch Building Materials AB 45.0 $15.00 $675.00
Antioch Building Materials Dump 5.0 $350.00 $1,750.00
DR Traffic Control Traffic Control 2.0 $1,820.00 $3,640.00 Antioch Building Materials Tack Oil 1.0 $500.00 $500.00 Grinder 1.0 $7,000.00 $7,000.00
Materials/Specialist Costs $18,565.00
Contractor: Carlos F - Franco Engineering 15% OH & Profit $2,784.75 $21,349.75
Subtotal $38,291.18
Owner Rep: Omar A - City of Pleasant Hill $1,148.74
Total Due This Report $39,439.92
Equipment Total
Material/Special Costs Total
3% Bond Fee (No Markup)
Code
PCO No. 1 - Added Asphalt Concrete on South Side of Oak Park Blvd between Manor Ave and Via Del Sol. Approximately 200 LF Franco Engineering
9% Labor Surcharge

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Exhibit A - Change Order (Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project 04-23 - CCO) Daily Extra Work Report
Project: City of Pleasant Hill - Sidewalk Gap Closure Improvements Date Performed:

Report Number: Lump Sum Proposal Date of Report: 8/1/2023 Work Performed By: Regular Labor Surcharge (Per Caltrans): 9% Description of Work: OT Labor Sucharge (Per Caltrans): 9% LABOR Sub Work ?: No
Labor Name Regular Hours Overtime Hours Subsistence Extended Craft ID Int. Last Name Hrs Rate Hrs Rate Units Rate Amount FM 56 $75.00 $4,200.00
LAB 56 $65.00 $3,640.00
LAB 56 $65.00 $3,640.00
LAB 56 $65.00 $3,640.00
LAB 56 $65.00 $3,640.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost of Labor $18,760.00
$1,688.40
15% OH & Profit $3,067.26
Labor Total $23,515.66

EQUIPMENT
Equipment Description Regular Time Overtime Extended
Equip ID Class Make Attach Hrs Rate Hrs Factor Amount
Utility Truck 56 $54.71 $3,063.76
Pickup 56 $42.39 $2,373.84
Dump Truck 56 $93.59 $5,241.04
Bobcat 56 $35.36 $1,980.16
Mini Ex 56 $68.68 $3,846.08
Trailer 56 $7.43 $416.08
$0.00
Equipment Cost $16,920.96
15% OH & Profit $2,538.14
$19,459.10

MATERIALS/SPECIAL COSTS
Vendor Name Invoice No. Description Units Unit Cost Amount Antioch Building Materials PCC 22.0 $250.00 $5,500.00
Antioch Building Materials AB 18.0 $15.00 $270.00
Antioch Building Materials Dump 6.0 $350.00 $2,100.00
DR Traffic Control Traffic Control 3.0 $1,820.00 $5,460.00 Forms 1.0 $250.00 $250.00
Yard Space Lease 1.0 $600.00 $600.00
Materials/Specialist Costs $14,180.00
Contractor: Carlos F - Franco Engineering 15% OH & Profit $2,127.00 $16,307.00
Subtotal $59,281.76
Owner Rep: Omar A - City of Pleasant Hill $1,778.45
Total Due This Report $61,060.22
Franco Engineering
9% Labor Surcharge
Equipment Total
Material/Special Costs Total
3% Bond Fee (No Markup)
Code
PCO No. 1 - Added Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter on South Side of Oak Park Blvd between Manor Ave and Via Del Sol. Approximately 200 LF

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Exhibit A - Change Order (Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project 04-23 - CCO) Daily Extra Work Report
Project: City of Pleasant Hill - Sidewalk Gap Closure Improvements Date Performed:

Report Number: Lump Sum Proposal Date of Report: 8/1/2023 Work Performed By: Regular Labor Surcharge (Per Caltrans): 9% Description of Work: OT Labor Sucharge (Per Caltrans): 9% LABOR Sub Work ?: No
Labor Name Regular Hour Overtime Hours Subsistence Extended Craft ID Int. Last Name H Rate Hrs Rate Units Rate Amount $0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost of Labor $0.00
$0.00
15% OH & Profit $0.00
Labor Total $0.00

EQUIPMENT
Equipment Description Regular Time Overtime Extended
Equip ID Class Make Attach Hrs Rate Hrs Factor Amount
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Equipment Cost $0.00
15% OH & Profit $0.00
$0.00

MATERIALS/SPECIAL COSTS
Vendor Name Invoice No. Description Units Unit Cost Amount BI# 18 - Adjust CCWD Water Meter 2.0 $750.00 $1,500.00
BI# 21 - Relocate Mailbox on New Post 3.0 $500.00 $1,500.00 BI# 23 - Remove Existing Tree 2.0 $3,000.00 $6,000.00
BI #24 - Clearing Grubbing & Tree Trimming 1.0 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 BI #32 - Install New Roadside Sign 3.0 $500.00 $1,500.00 BI# 35 - Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe - Detail 39 400.0 $4.00 $1,600.00 Materials/Specialist Costs $14,100.00
Contractor: Carlos F - Franco Engineering 15% OH & Profit $14,100.00
Subtotal $14,100.00
Owner Rep: Omar A - City of Pleasant Hill $423.00
Total Due This Report $14,523.00
Franco Engineering
9% Labor Surcharge
Equipment Total
Material/Special Costs Total
3% Bond Fee (No Markup)
Code
PCO No. 1 - Various Contract Items on South Side of Oak Park Blvd between Manor Ave and Via Del Sol. Approximately 200 LF

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Exhibit A - Change Order (Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project 04-23 - CCO) CITY OF PLEASANT HILL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FY 2022/2027 PROJECT: OAK PARK BOULEVARD

SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE PROJECT
PROJECT PROPOSED BY: Engineering Division
PROJECT MANAGER: Engineering Division
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION: City Projects
PROJECT LOCATION: Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project PROJECT BEGIN: February 2023 PROJECT COMPLETE: August 2023 Account 12 -5579 PROJECT STATUS X NEW CONTINUING PROJECT SCOPE OF SERVICES FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 TOTALS (1190) Design $75,000 $75,000 IS A CONCEPTUAL
(0100) Eng Staff $15,000 $5,000 $20,000
(4225) Project Admin. $3,000 $2,000 $5,000 PLAN AVAILABLE YES X NO (1390) Construction $712,000 $68,000 $780,000
(1145) C. Management LEAD AGENCY X CITY OTHER
TOTAL $805,000 $75,000 $880,000

PROJECT TRAFFIC
FUNDING SOURCE FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 TOTALS SAFETY PRIORITY X CRITICAL N/A CASE BY Measure K Fund $805,000 $75,000 $880,000 CASE BASIS

IS RIGHT OF WAY

REQUIRED YES NO X NOT

EXPECTED

MAINTENANCE
TOTAL $805,000 $75,000 $880,000 COST IMPACT X INCREASE N/A DECREASE MAINTENANCE IMPACT FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2024-25 FY 2022-23 TOTALS New sidewalks and ADA ramps will cause maintenance costs to increase.

PROJECT BENEFIT: This project will eliminate sidewalk gaps between the EBMUD trail and Hook Avenue.

PROJECT
MK-3D R1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The proposed gap closure project will construct approximately 635-ft of ADAcompliant sidewalk along Oak Park Boulevard and Hook Avenue. The purpose of the new sidewalk is to connect residents to popular nearby destinations including several schools (Pleasant Hill Middle School, Montessori School, and a daycare), Pleasant Oaks Park, Pleasant Hill Library, EBMUD paved asphalt trail, and future athletic fields. The proposed 5-6 ft wide concrete sidewalk will connect existing sidewalk located on the west end of the project limits at the EBMUD Trail, to existing sidewalk located at Hook Avenue (sidewalk already exists at the Aegis Senior Living facility).

Minor drainage and landscape modifications will be required. Existing Class III bike route will be upgraded to Class II bike lane where possible, and will connect to the newly installed Class II bike lane adjacent to the Pleasant Hill Library.

Higher than anticipated Measure K revenues allows for completion of this project.

10.1.c
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Exhibit B - Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Sheet MK-3D R1 (Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___ -23 ACCEPTING THE DIABLO VISTA WATER SYSTEM (DVWS) 12" MAIN REHABILITATION PHASE II
PROJECT NO. PSC-02-22 AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZE THE

PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER TO ISSUE AND RECORD A NOTICE OF

COMPLETION

SYNOPSIS
The Diablo Vista Water System (DVWS) 12” Main Rehabilitation Phase II Project No. PSC-02-22 provided improvements to improve water service reliability and continued operations of the Diablo Vista Water System. The contractor, Paulson Cox Construction, Inc. has completed all of the work to the City’s satisfaction. The purpose of this item is to consider the acceptance of the DVWS 12” Main Rehabilitation Phase II Project No. PSC-02-22 as complete and to authorize the issuance of a Notice of Completion.

DISCUSSION
Background
The City of Pleasant Hill operates a non-potable water system, the DVWS, which supplies irrigation raw water to approximately 475 homes within the City. Non-potable water is supplied to the DVWS by a pump station which draws untreated water from a canal (operated by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)). This section of water main is the transmission line from the pump house to the distribution system. It is over 65 years old and has experienced numerous leaks due to pipe failures in the past, which required the entire system to be shut down for repairs. Replacement of the water main was required to provide reliable service to the system.

On December 5, 2022, the City Manager, under the powers authorized by the City Council in Resolution No. 105-22, executed a contract with the low bidder, Paulson Cox Construction, Inc. for the DVWS 12” Main Rehabilitation Phase II project. A total budget of $561,550.15 (including 15% contingency) was authorized for the construction of the project.

The DVWS 12” Main Rehabilitation Phase II project is a City Project and is identified in the approved Capital Improvement Plan FY 2022 – 2027(CIP). For funding purposes, the project had been broken into two separate phases. Phase I, completed in 2018, replaced approximately 1,275 linear feet of the 12” main, including all valves, laterals and appurtenances on Stevenson Drive,

10.2 Packet Pg. 169
Byron Drive, and Marvin Drive along the existing right-of-way. Phase II rehabilitated the remaining 725 linear feet of 12” main located within the Contra Costa Canal (United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)) right-of-way, on Stevenson Drive, and between Oakvue Road and Roberta Avenue by utilizing the “Open-Cut” and the “Cured-in-Place-Pipe” method. Staff obtained all necessary permits from the USBR and required easements from the private property owners at 83 Roberta Avenue to complete the work.

The Project Bid Schedule for this project also listed an alternative work scope, Alternative Bid 1, which replaced 150 linear feet of 12” pipe along the USBR right-of-way (i.e. the canal trail, from the Diablo Vista Pump House to Stevenson Drive). Due to favorable bid prices, this work was approved by the City Council at the time of project award and incorporated into the project scope of work.

Analysis
The DVWS 12” Main Rehabilitation Phase II Project No. PSC-02-22 is now complete to the satisfaction of the City in accordance with the construction plans and specifications. Project work began on January 30, 2023, and was substantially completed by April 14, 2023, within the project contact time and prior to the start of resident irrigation service. There have been no issues with the newly installed system since irrigation service began this spring.

The cost of construction (including change orders) is $525,275, which is $36,275.15 below the City Council-approved project budget of $561,550.15. Change order work included the installation of an additional 160 linear feet of new 12” water main on Stevenson Drive, from the canal trail to Elliot Drive. This work, originally part of the Phase I project, had been deleted from the Phase I project scope due to a lack of available materials, and was incorporated into the Phase II work.

After project acceptance, the City will have a one-year maintenance period with the contractor to address any problems that occur within that time frame.

FISCAL IMPACT
The final project cost is $525,275. The project was funded by available and programmed DVWS Fund 82 funds.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

10.2 Packet Pg. 170

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the Diablo Vista Water System (DVWS) 12” Main Rehabilitation Phase II Project No.

PSC-02-22 as complete, and authorize the Public Works Manager to issue and record a Notice of Completion.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
None Recommended.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Ann James, Public Works Manager
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager

10.2 Packet Pg. 171
RESOLUTION NO. -23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL ACCEPTING THE DIABLO VISTA WATER SYSTEM 12” MAIN REHABILITATION PHASE II PROJECT NO. PSC-02-22 AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC

WORKS MANAGER TO ISSUE AND RECORD A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WHEREAS, the Diablo Vista Water System 12” Main Rehabilitation Project No. PSC-02- 22 was identified in the approved FY 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Plan as a funded project; and
WHEREAS, the Diablo Vista Water System 12” Main Rehabilitation Project No. PSC-02- 22 provides for rehabilitation of 875 linear feet of 12” main located within the Contra Costa Canal (United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)) right-of-way, on Stevenson Drive, and between Oakvue Road and Roberta Avenue, to improve water service reliability and continued operations of the existing Diablo Vista Water System; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 105-22, which awarded the construction contract to Paulson Cox Construction, Inc.; and WHEREAS, all project work has been performed on time to the satisfaction of the City, and Paulson Cox Construction, Inc. is requesting final payment for the completed work; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill finds that the work performed as the Diablo Vista Water System 12” Main Rehabilitation Project No. PSC-02-22 is complete to the satisfaction of the City and is hereby accepted as complete.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Public Works Manager is authorized to execute a Notice of Completion and record it with the Office of the Recorder of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, within ten (10) days from the date thereof.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of September, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
TIMOTHY M. FLAHERTY, Mayor
ATTEST:

JUANITA DAVALOS, City Clerk

10.2.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Accept DVWS 12" Main Phase II Project)