The maximum life expectancy of a typical roof, concrete driveway, and other housing components is about 40 years. The City estimates that less than five percent of the housing stock is in substandard condition or in need of major rehabilitation. This number was determined based on Code Enforcement cases, building department permits issued, and field observations, In Pleasant Hill, most homes that have these conditions are typically purchased for remodel and resale with a very quick turnaround.
Rehabilitation needs can also be complicated by an aging population and high housing costs.
Elderly people may be less able to maintain their homes, and people paying a high proportion of their incomes for mortgage may have little left over for maintenance and replacing major building components. High housing costs can also lead to more rapid deterioration as more people crowd 176
1,429
2,692
2,174
2,527
3,043
1,111
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
1939 or
Earlier
1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 Units
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-92
into units to afford rents or mortgages. This need can also be addressed by the Housing Rehabilitation loan program.
Affordable Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion
While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.
The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 193 assisted units in Pleasant Hill in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 0.0 percent are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion. No elderly units nor nonelderly units are at-risk of conversion during the next ten years.
Table 4-16 Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Risk of Conversion Pleasant Hill Contra Costa County Bay Area Low 193 13,403 110,177
Moderate 0 211 3,375
High 0 270 1,854
Very High 0 0 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 193 13,884 116,459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.
Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) -While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table.
-Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing developments at-risk of converting to market rate uses. This document provides aggregate numbers of at-risk units for each jurisdiction, but local planning staff should contact Danielle Mazzella with the California Housing Partnership at [email protected] to obtain a list of affordable properties that fall under this designation. -California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:
--Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
--High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
--Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
--Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-93
Table 4-17 Affordable Unit Inventory
Development
Total
Units
Affordable
Units Subsidy Type
Date Deed
Restrictions
Expire
Grayson Creek Apartments
100 Chilpancingo Pkwy 70 70
Housing
Successor, CDBG,
MHP
2070
Hookston Manor Senior
Apartments
80 West Hookston Rd
100 99 Housing
Successor, CDBG 2075
Garden Park Apartments
2387 Lisa Ln 29 27 Housing Successor, CRL 2072
Villa Montanaro
Apartments
203 Coggins Dr
157 12 Housing
Successor 2036
IMT Pleasant Hill (formerly
Lincoln Green Apartments)
225 Coggins Dr
252 4
Housing
Successor Yes, Date Unknown
DVC Triplex Associates
716 Stubbs Rd 21 1 None 2099
Gallery Walk
61 Matisse Ct 133 11 Housing Successor Yes, 45 years
Ellinwood Apartments
400 Longbrook Way 154 19 None 2073
Total 917 244
Source: City of Pleasant Hill, 2022. Pleasant Hill Successor Annual Report, 2019-2020 *Industrial tax bonds with no affordability requirements; units must be occupied by low- or moderate-income households.
Cost and Funding for Affordable Housing Preservation
State law requires the analysis of at-risk housing to identify “the total cost of producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace the units that could change from lowincome use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments.” In 2014, the California Housing Finance Agency (“CalHFA”) along with the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"), the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee ("TCAC"), and the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee ("CDLAC") completed a large-scale affordable housing development cost study within California. The study took a deep dive into the various costs associated with providing new affordable housing across 11 defined regions in California. Pleasant Hill falls into the North & East Bay Region defined in the report, which is reported to have an average cost per unit of $345,000 per unit of affordable housing built.
Therefore, if, for example, 10 units were at-risk and were lost, the total replacement cost would be approximately $3.45 million.
An alternative to new construction is preserving at-risk units through the purchase of affordability covenants. Preservation cost is estimated as the difference between market rent and affordable rent. Assuming an “affordability gap” of approximately $700 to $1,000 per month per unit, the total cost of preserving 10 units would be approximately $8,500 per month or $102,000 per year, a
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
--
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-94
vastly lower price than replacing lost units. If needed, the City of Pleasant Hill could finance preservation through federal block grant programs, such as the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which can help maintain and create affordable housing.
Qualified Affordable Housing Management Organizations
After the dissolution of the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency, the Contra Costa Housing Authority and local organizations have taken the primary role of acquiring and managing affordable housing properties. The Housing Authority and local organizations, such as Hope, Inc., have a long history of managing and holistically meeting the needs of housing insecure individuals and families. For a more extensive list of organizations which are qualified to acquire and manage affordable housing, see the Community Resources section.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-95
5. Housing Constraints
Constraints on the development of housing are divided into governmental constraints and nongovernmental constraints. Potential governmental constraints include land use controls, codes and code enforcement, on and off-site improvements, fees and exactions, processing and permit procedures, and regulations affecting housing for persons with disabilities. Non-governmental constraints include the price of land, cost of construction, flooding, conservation easements and long-term vineyard leases, and a lack of rental accessory dwelling units.
Key Findings
▪ Pleasant Hill’s Zoning Code allows for a variety of housing types in the city including multiple-family units, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, manufactured and mobile homes, and accessory dwelling units. However, Pleasant Hill should update the Municipal Code to allow for low-barrier navigation centers and to allow transitional and supportive housing by-right in zones allowing multifamily and mixed uses.
The City should also update the Density Bonus Ordinance and Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance for compliance with recent State law.
Governmental Constraints
Although local governments have little influence on such market factors as interest rates and availability of funding for development, their policies and regulations can affect both the amount of residential development that occurs and the affordability of housing. Since governmental actions can constrain availability and affordability of housing, state law requires the Housing Element to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.”
There are no significant undue or uncommon governmental constraints to housing in Pleasant Hill.
Pleasant Hill allows a variety of housing types by right and continually monitors the effects of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and former Measure B provisions for any possible negative effect on housing production. Pleasant Hill also prioritizes affordable housing projects throughout the discretionary review process to reduce any undue time constraints that may come from review.
The City is committed to reducing and or removing any governmental constraints, where appropriate, to encourage affordable housing development.
Former Measure B Provisions
Various provisions contained in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance originate from a previous City initiative measure termed “Measure B” that ceased to be effective in 1996. This measure, in addition to building height and mass limitations, imposed limitations on rezoning to higher residential densities. While the measure ceased to be effective in 1996, and is no longer applicable, the City Council incorporated various provisions into the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. One of those limitations only allowed increased residential density when 75 percent of the boundary of the area to be re-designated was adjacent to land with the same or higher density.
That provision, incorporated into the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, did not significantly constrain housing potential because the city is substantially built-out, and the majority of vacant residentially zoned land lies in the Downtown and Schoolyard areas, both of which allow higher
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-96
density multifamily and mixed-use development. The provision was repealed by City Council unanimously in February 2020 as a part of Resolution 20-20.
The Zoning Ordinance also incorporated a provision that limits the height of structures to 35 feet.
Through 2022, that provision did not create any demonstrated impacts on the development of affordable housing as development could exceed this height limitation through approval of a variance or Planned Unit Development District process. The City has approved building heights greater than 35 feet throughout the City on multiple occasions.
According to city staff, no projects have been denied due to former Measure B provisions. In order to ensure that these provisions do not pose an unreasonable constraint to future housing development, Program H commits the City to monitoring development annually. If it is determined that these provisions are preventing the rezoning of parcels needed to accommodate a portion of the City’s needs for lower-income housing, an amendment to those provisions will be initiated.
Inclusionary Housing
The City of Pleasant Hill Zoning Ordinance includes an inclusionary provision to provide affordable housing. This ordinance has been in place since 1996 and was updated in 2004, 2005, 2016, 2017, and 2019. It requires developments of five or more units to provide affordable housing or in extraordinary circumstances, allows payment of a fee in-lieu of building the unit(s). The developer may choose to restrict five percent of the units to very-low income; 10 percent of the units to lowincome; 20 percent of units as accessory dwelling units to low-income; or 25 percent of units to qualifying seniors. Fractional units are addressed through the payment of a corresponding fraction of the in-lieu fee. There are no restrictions on what types of units (i.e., ownership or rental) may be provided to satisfy the Inclusionary Ordinance.
Per the ordinance, “in extraordinary circumstances, the approving body may authorize the payment of a fee in lieu of providing the inclusionary units required under subsection A of this section as follows: (a) for projects of nine units or less; (b) for any fractional unit in projects of 10 or more units; or (c) if the developer demonstrates, in connection with the first approval for the development (tentative subdivision map, or development plan if no subdivision is involved), that specific characteristics of the development site make the site unsuitable for households at the required income levels.”
While the requirement to provide affordable units as part of a housing development could adversely affect the financial feasibility and profitability of a project, the City offers incentives such as density bonus, modified development standards and/or financial subsidies that help to offset these costs. In addition, development entitlements often result in a significant increase in property value. For these reasons, the inclusionary requirement does not present an unreasonable constraint to housing production.
During prior planning periods, a number of low- and very-low-income units were produced as a result of this ordinance including eight very-low and four moderate units at Villa Montanaro and four low-income units at Iron Horse Park Apartments. The City also has $543,000 of in-lieu fees being held in a fund that is dedicated to being used solely for affordable housing. The City recently earmarked $400,000 in December 2020 to assist with a pending affordable housing project at 250 Cleaveland Road.
Through Ordinance No. 928, the Inclusionary Ordinance was amended to allow for new residential developments to satisfy Inclusionary Ordinance requirements through allocating twenty percent of
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-97
dwelling units as inclusionary accessory dwelling units. Inclusionary accessory dwelling units are defined as deed-restricted low income ADUs on site on a larger residential property or project. The report was approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Several public meetings were held to discuss this subject with no public opposition. The new method of fulfilling the Inclusionary Ordinance was used by the 401 Taylor Boulevard multi-family residential project, which included 6 deed restricted units and 0.2 units paid by an in-lieu fee during its planning phase.
Many developers use the accessory dwelling unit option to comply with the inclusionary ordinance.
In fact, some developers have stated that the accessory dwelling units are a positive amenity.
In order to ensure that the inclusionary provisions do not pose an undue constraint to housing production, Program U is included in the Housing Plan to monitor the effect of the inclusionary housing ordinance on the cost and supply of housing. Additionally, the program stipulates such that if the ordinance does present an obstacle to development of the City’s fair share of regional housing needs, the City will revise the ordinance accordingly.
Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home Parks
Manufactured homes, defined by California state law as factory-built housing whereas all concealed parts or processes of manufacturing cannot be inspected before installation, account for 0.6 percent of Pleasant Hill’s housing stock with 83 total units.
California Government Code 65582.3 states that manufactured homes, given that they are certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, shall be subject to the same development standards to which a conventional single family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject to with any additional architectural requirements imposed on manufactured homes being limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material.
Manufactured homes are permitted in all residentially zoned districts with a certificate of compatibility, which is subject to approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The requirements of the certificate of compatibility conforms to the allowable regulations of manufactured homes as defined in California Government Code 65582.3. The following, as detailed in PHMC Section 18.20.090(B) are the requirements for a certificate of compatibility:
PHMC § 18.20.090(B) Manufactured homes – Requirements for certificate of compatibility.
1. Location criteria. Manufactured homes are not allowed:
a. On substandard lots that do not meet the dimensional standards of PHMC § 18.20.030; or b. On a lot with an average slope of more than 10%, or on any portion of a lot where the slope exceeds 15%.
Except as modified herein, all other provisions contained in this section shall remain in full force and effect.
2. Design criteria. A manufactured home shall be compatible in design and appearance with residential structures in the vicinity and shall meet the following standards:
a. It must be built on a permanent foundation approved by the chief building official; b. It must have been constructed after June 15, 1976, and must be certified under the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974;
c. The unit’s skirting must extend to the finished grade; d. Exterior siding must be compatible with adjacent residential structures, and shiny or metallic finishes are prohibited; e. The roof must be of concrete or asphalt tile, shakes or shingles complying with the most recent edition of the adopted building codes under PHMC Title 14;
f. The roof must have eaves or overhangs of not less than one foot;
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-98
g. The floor must be no higher than 20 inches above the exterior finished grade; and h. Required covered parking shall be compatible with the manufactured home design and with other buildings in the area.
There is only one mobile home park in the city limits, Park Royale Mobile Home Park, which is located on the eastern border of the city adjacent to Concord. As of June 2022, there are 30 travel trailers and 12 mobile homes located in the Park, which accounts to 42 units.
During the planning period, no manufactured home projects were denied as a result of these provisions and no applications for certificate of compatibility were submitted to the City. Program J commits the City to continually allowing the development of manufactured housing subject to applicable State and Federal laws, in addition to local architectural design standards.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as secondary dwelling units, have been identified nationwide and by the State as an important strategy in addressing the needs of low-income households and communities with high rental prices. ADUs are not considered a housing constraint and comply with State law.
With the passage of SB 13 and AB 68 in 2019, ADUs have become an even more important option for homeowners to gain additional income and assist with the Bay Area’s long standing housing crisis. The City of Pleasant Hill has implemented a state law-compliant ordinance that considers various types of ADUs, how they are permitted, and how they are defined.
In Pleasant Hill, there are three primary types of ADUs: Junior ADUs (JADU), Single-Family ADUs, and Multi-Family ADUs. JADUs are dwelling units created within existing single-family dwellings that do not exceed 500 square feet in size. For example, a family could convert a master bedroom in their single-family home, provide a separate entrance, and file through the City to create a JADU that could be rented out. Single Family ADUs can come in three forms: conversion, detached, and attached. Multi-Family ADUs can come in the conversion and detached forms.
The conversion ADU form comes from the conversion of existing space in a home to a housing unit. For example, in a single-family home, a garage can be converted to an ADU, while in a multifamily building, an unused recreation room can be converted into an ADU. The detached ADU form comes from the new construction of buildings on the same lot of an existing structure. This is commonly referred to as a casita or a granny flat in existing communities. Attached ADUs are connected additions to an existing single-family home, such as a new room being built from a yard.
To ensure that ADUs can be built without significant constraints, most ADUs are eligible for a building-permit only review process, which skips the ADU Permit review process. Specific stipulations for skipping an ADU permit are available from the City online or through the permit counter.
Given these various options, the low regulatory barrier of entry, the market demand for housing, and income opportunities, residents in Pleasant Hill have been building ADUs on their lots.
Between 2018 and 2021, 68 ADUs were permitted. Based on two online listings on Craigslist for ADUs for rent in April 2022, the average price is $2,398 per month for ADUs ranging from 754 square feet to 875 square feet. Based on state 2020 income limits for 2-person households, affordable rents are $2,009 for -low-income households and $2,511 for moderate-income households. Based on this market information, secondary units are an important strategy in addressing the needs of low to moderate income residents of the community.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-99
The City allows ADUs as a permitted use in all residential zones without need for a conditional use permit. Although the City updated the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance in December 2022 (Ordinance No. 960), the California Department of Housing and Community Development discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law. This includes, but is not limited to, timing and process, maximum sizes and set-back requirements. Program O commits the City to update the ADU ordinance in compliance with state law. Additionally, Program P commits the City to continuing its advocacy for accessory dwelling units through incentives and education.
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
SRO housing provides compact, studio-type units suitable for one or two persons with limited incomes such as college students or service employees. SRO housing is not considered a housing constraint and complies by State law. During the 2015-2023 planning period, the City passed an ordinance that allowed and established development provisions for single-room occupancy projects.
Section 18.20.085(A) of the Zoning Ordinance allows SROs in the multifamily, retail business and professional and administrative office zoning districts subject to design review and approval of a use permit. Development standards for SRO housing include a minimum of 150 square feet and a maximum of 400 square feet of floor area, maximum occupancy of two persons, and the provision of common area, laundry facilities, and private or shared kitchen and bathing facilities.
There are no special constraints to SRO housing in Pleasant Hill. Program N commits the City to continuing to allow SRO development in the future.
Emergency Homeless Shelter Management Standards
Senate Bill 2 of 2007 strengthened the planning requirements for local governments around emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing. Pleasant Hill, through PHMC § 18.20.085(B), currently complies with state law related to SB2.
Cities must estimate the number of persons in need of emergency shelter and determine whether adequate capacity currently exists to serve the need. If there is insufficient capacity, cities are required to identify at least one zone where emergency shelters may be established “by right” (i.e., without discretionary review such as a conditional use permit) or enter into a multi-jurisdictional agreement with up to two other agencies to provide adequate facilities. Section 18.20.085(B) of the Zoning Ordinance allows emergency shelters by-right in the Light Industrial (LI) zone subject to the following standards:
• Maximum of 50 beds
• Minimum separation of 300 feet from another emergency shelter, residential care facility or a pre-K through 12 school
• Approval of a management plan
• Maximum length of stay of 180 consecutive days
• Operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
• Location near public transportation, supportive services and commercial services to meet the daily needs of shelter residents
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-100
• Within the LI zone district, 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of gross floor area plus 1 space for every 2 employees, and 1 additional space for every facility vehicle. Within other zone districts, parking shall be as specified by use permit.
• External lighting
• Storage lockers and laundry facilities
The LI zone provides access to transit and commercial services and encompasses approximately 37 acres where shelter facilities could be established to meet the City’s needs. Buildings range in size from approximately 1,000 to 33,000 square feet and include some vacant space. Property records show that there are 19 buildings in this zone, however some of these buildings have been subdivided into small units.
The City’s parking requirements for emergency shelters do not comply with the new parking standards outlined in AB 139, which dictate that parking for emergency shelters should only be the number of spaces necessary for staff working in the shelter and no more than other uses in the same zones. Program O commits the City to adopting revisions to §18.20.085 Special housing for compliance with state AB 139.
AB 2339 Analysis
Due to new State law, AB 2339, which amended Government Code section 65583 and took effect in 2023, jurisdictions must now provide capacity for emergency shelters in a zone(s) that allow residential uses and must expand the definition of emergency shelters to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care. The City is currently (2023) not in compliance with State law as it only allows emergency shelters by-right in the LI zone – which don’t allow residential uses – and does not include other interim interventions within the definition of emergency shelters.
Zone Capacity
The Contra Costa County 2023 Homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) count identified 31 unsheltered individuals in Pleasant Hill. As discussed above, there are several parcels in the LI zone that could be appropriate for emergency shelters, including APN 148-371-010. The parcel includes 8,194 square feet of building area and 6,000 square feet of usable yard space. The underutilized site is in proximity to transit options along Buskirk Avenue. Based on the calculation methodology established within Government Code Section 65583 by AB 2339 that requires a minimum of 200 square feet per person, this parcel alone has potential capacity for more than 40 people, which exceeds the capacity identified in the most recent PIT count. Despite sufficient capacity, however, there are no parcels within the LI zone that are in proximity to goods and services, which is out of compliance with State law.
Conclusion
In response to the State law compliance issues identified above, Program O includes actions committing the City to revising the Municipal Code to allow for emergency shelters in compliance with recent amendments to Government Code section 65583 subdivision (a)(4), by:
• Allowing emergency shelters in a zone allowing residential uses with sufficient capacity to meet or exceed the most-recent point in time count; and • Revising the definition of emergency shelter to include interim interventions, including, but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-101
The program also commits the City to complete a capacity analysis at the time of the Municipal Code Amendment to ensure that the identified zone includes available sites appropriate for development as an emergency shelter.
Transitional and Supportive Housing
With the continuing prevalence of the housing crisis and associated homelessness crisis across the state, Assembly Bill 2162 (AB 2162) was passed in 2018 to help reduce the constraints of development for two types of housing, transitional and supportive housing, which are housing types targeted to those experiencing housing insecurity.
Transitional housing is housing defined as a rental housing development operated under program requirements that require recirculated housing units and the termination of assistance that at least allows for six months of assistance for an individual. Supportive housing is housing without a limit on the length of stay that provides support for everyday life and work for specifically vulnerable communities, such as those with mental illness, those with chronic health conditions, those eligible for service under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, veterans, and emancipated minors.1
AB 2162 specifically requires transitional and supportive housing, by right, to be allowed in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted. Through this law, transitional and supportive housing would be required to be subject only to restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings in the same type of zone. Pleasant Hill, through the specifically described residentially allowed uses in PHMC § 18.15.020, considers transitional and supportive housing as a residential use subject only to the same requirements that apply to other residential dwelling of the same type in the same zone. The City does not comply with state law associated with AB 2162. Program O commits the City to revising the municipal code to allow transitional and supportive housing in all multifamily and mixed use zones by-right (without discretionary action).
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
California Government Code Section 65660 identifies low barrier navigation centers as facilities that focus on moving people into permanent housing and connecting temporary residents with opportunities for income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Similar to displaced persons shelters, these facilities are intended to accommodate people with disabilities, pets and their owners, partners (if not a gender-specific site), the storage of possessions, and survivors of domestic violence. Specifically, the State mandates that low barrier navigation centers have services “to meet the diverse needs of (the) population.” By state law, low barrier navigation centers must be allowed by right in multifamily and multiple-mixed-use zones. In addition, local governments may not impose parking requirements on low barrier navigation centers.
The City is not currently in compliance and has included Program O to commit the City to amend the Zoning Code for compliance with California Government Code Program Section 65660. In updating the Code, the City shall list low barrier navigation facilities as allowed by-right wherever multiple-unit dwellings and mixed-use development are allowed. 1 For a full list of eligible groups, see California State Code § 65582(i).
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-102
Housing for Agricultural Employees
Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 of the California Health and Safety Code establish specific requirements for the permitting of agricultural employee housing in a jurisdictions’ zoning code.
Specifically, Section 17021.5 mandates that “employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use”.
Furthermore, designated employee housing, as defined above, cannot be subject to Conditional Use Permit requirements, zoning variance fees, taxes, or any other requirement other than those pertaining to a traditional single-family structure. Section 17021.6 pertains to larger employee housing facilities featuring a maximum of 36 beds in group quarters, or 12 single-family units.
Under this law, such units are deemed an agricultural land use and cannot be subject to any restrictions, conditional use permit requirements, zoning variance, fees, taxes, or other requirements not imposed on other agricultural uses in the same zone.
The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code does not define or allow employee housing for agricultural employees and is not in compliance with Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq. Program O commits the City to defining agricultural employee housing for six or fewer employees as a singlefamily structure, permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
Related to compliance with 17021.6, the City does not have any agricultural zones, does not allow agricultural uses, and does not subject larger employee housing facilities to any restrictions, conditional use permits requirements, zoning variance, fees, taxes, or other requirements not imposed on other agricultural uses in the same zone.
Development review procedures, fees, and standards
Housing production may be constrained by development review procedures, fees, and standards.
Residential projects proposed in Pleasant Hill may be subject to design, environmental, zoning, subdivision and planned unit development review, use permit control, and building permit approval.
These reviews together typically take from four weeks for a single-family remodel to up to approximately six months for a major multifamily project. The City of Pleasant Hill is committed to assisting developers with the permitting process, processing housing projects expeditiously, and preserving the quality of its neighborhoods.
To assist residents and developers with the process of completing permits for residential structural alterations, ADUs, or the construction of new buildings, the City has provided an online, interactive permit guide through Camino Technologies. This permit guide allows developers to move through the permitting process one step at a time to ensure they have all the materials and forms ready for all city permits. The guide also allows the creation of an account, which allows for easy reference and the saving of progress in the app. Additionally, the City has also provided two instructional videos to assist in the use of the online permit guide.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-103
Figure 4-47 Pleasant Hill Interactive Permit Guide
Table 4-18 describes—for single family residential, multifamily residential, and mixed-use projects—the types of permits issued, typical permit processing times, standard and discretionary approval procedures, and landscaping and design regulations. Since most Pleasant Hill sites are urban infill, categorical exemptions and negative declarations are used extensively to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act.
Discretionary reviews (such as Architectural Review and Development Plan) and Subdivision Review are conducted concurrently. Architectural review involves evaluating discretionary projects for consistency with the City’s adopted Design Standards and Guidelines and/or any other applicable site-specific design standards (e.g., within a specific plan area).
Streamlined Review. The City adopted Objective Residential Design and Development Standards (ODDS) for single-family and multi-family residential development in March 2022 to comply with the Housing Accountability Act, SB 35, and SB 330. The ODDS establish objective design standards for residential development in the city. Any residential development that complies with the ODDS is approved ministerially by City staff and is not subject to design review and approval hearings. The ODDS are available for public review on the City’s website (pleasanthillca.org/138) and include illustrations to visually communicate required project design features.
Priority Processing. Projects offering more than the minimal number of affordable housing units (as required under the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance) receive priority processing. Priority processing for affordable housing—which is the City’s current but informal practice—is recognized in this Housing Element and implemented administratively by Planning staff.
Permit Timing: Recent Trends
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-104
An analysis of 12 recent residential projects, a mix of single family and multi-family projects, showed an average the time from Planning Approval to Building Permit application is approximately 83 days. This timeline does not hinder the construction of the City’s share of the regional housing need in the planning period.
Table 4-18 Single Family Development Review Procedures
Action Process Time Period
1. Application for new single family
residence submitted
Architectural Review required prior to
issuance of building permit.
2. Completeness & Preliminary
Review
Includes routing of project plans to outside
Agencies and City Departments as needed. 2-4 weeks.
3. CEQA Determination2 Exempt. Concurrent with
permit process.
4. Architectural Review Permit
Processing3
Evaluate compliance with Design
Guidelines (Design Review), prepare staff
report, Architectural Review Commission
public hearing and decision.
4-6 weeks.
Table 4-19 Residential Subdivision Approval Procedures4 Architectural Review Process for ARC Permit Time Period Completeness &
Preliminary Review
Includes routing of project plans to outside
Agencies and City Departments for review and
comment.
3-4 weeks (concurrent with
Subdivision Application
review)
CEQA Determination Dependent on number of parcels created and project impacts.5
Concurrent with permit
process and is not completed
until subdivision permit is
reviewed. It should be noted
that if a Mitigated Negative
Declaration or Environmental
Impact Report is necessary
the timeframe is extended to
complete CEQA review.
City Review of Project
Includes review for project impacts and
compliance with Design and Development
Standards, Design Guidelines (architectural, site
design and landscaping), preparation of staff
report and conditions of approval.
8-16 weeks (can be
concurrent with Subdivision
Review)
Hearing and Action If project is of a significant size, expanded noticing occurs.6 10 days
2 All single family residences are Categorically Exempt (Class 3). 3 Public hearing includes notices mailed to Owners and Residents within 300 feet of project site. Notices for projects may also be sent beyond a 300 feet distance from the project site.
4 Minor subdivisions are four (4) or fewer parcels. Major subdivisions are five (5) or more parcels. 5 Most minor subdivisions are Categorically Exempt (Class 15) if in conformance with Section 15315 of CEQA. Major subdivisions could be either Categorically Exempt or could require a Negative Declaration. 6 If a project has significant issues or is of a significant size enhanced public noticing will occur and can include posting of A-frame neighborhood signs, website noticing, newspaper noticing, and a longer noticing period.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-105
Subdivision Map Process for Map Permit7 Time Period
The following processes for Map Permits run concurrent with each other.
Completeness &
Preliminary Review Review for submittal completeness. 3-4 weeks CEQA Determination Complete CEQA review
Concurrent with permit
process. It should be noted
that if a Mitigated Negative
Declaration or Environmental
Impact Report is necessary
the timeframe is extended to
complete CEQA review
City Review of Project
Ensure compliance with Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan, prepare staff report
and environmental documentation, conduct
Application Coordination Team (ACT) meeting.
8-16 weeks
Public Hearing and
Action
If project is of a significant size, expanded
noticing occurs.8 10 days
Final Map Final map approved by City Council to ensure
compliance with approved tentative map.
2-4 weeks, once final map
submitted to the City, but
occurs after entitlements, but
before physical site work.
Overall Review Time 14-25
Weeks
Optional Permits
Development Plan (if
required)9
Necessary specific application forms including
specific request information needed.
Concurrent with Map permit
process.
Use Permit (if
required)10
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance and General
Plan through public hearing.
Concurrent with Map permit
process.
Minor Exception (if
required)11
Necessary specific application forms including
specific request information needed.
Concurrent with Map permit
process.
Variance (if required)12
Necessary specific application forms including
specific request information needed. Concurrent with Map permit process.
Planned Unit
Development Rezone
(if required)13
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance and General
Plan through public hearing.
Concurrent with Map permit
process, and requires
additional time for review by
City Council review and
approval (four weeks).
7Minor subdivisions may be heard by the Zoning Administrator. Major subdivisions are heard by the Planning Commission. 8 If a project has significant issues or is of a significant size, enhanced public noticing will occur and can include posting of A-frame neighborhood signs, website and newspaper noticing and a longer noticing period. 9 Development plans are required for all new stores, motels, offices, restaurants, and similar structures designed for an occupancy load of 30 persons or more, property zoned PUD, or an addition of 7,000 square feet or more to an existing store, motel, office, restaurant, or similar structure. Construction or modification of single-family residences do not require development plans. (PHMC 18.90.010) 10 Use Permit required for any adjustments in required parking for multifamily. 11 Minor exceptions are subject to approval by the zoning administrator with appropriate and reasonable findings. Minor exceptions may be requested for fence or wall height, floor area ratio, landscaping area, open space, minimum yards, and other development standards subject to PHMC 18.11.020.
12 Variance required if requesting deviations from development standards and special circumstances exist. 13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) or a Precise Plan District (PPD) usually requested as part of a larger development where deviations to development standards will result in an improved project. Permit approval is granted by the City Council.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-106
General Plan
Amendment14
Necessary specific application forms including
specific request information needed
Concurrent with Map permit
process, and requires
additional time for review by
City Council review and
approval (four weeks)
14 A general plan amendment may be required for developments that do not match their underlying parcel’s general plan land use designation. Developments that meet density bonus requirements and receive a density bonus are not required to submit a general plan amendment if they exceed the allowed residential density of their underlying parcel’s general plan land use designation. (PHMC 18.20.150)
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-107
Table 4-20 Multifamily Development Review Procedures
Action Process Time Period
1. Application for
new multi- family
development
submitted
Architectural Review required prior to issuance of
building permit.
--
2. Completeness &
Preliminary Review
Includes routing of project plans to other outside
Agencies and City Departments for comment as
needed.
2-4 weeks.
3. CEQA
Determination15
Exempt. Concurrent with
permit process.
4. Zoning
Administrator review
Staff review for compliance with applicable
development standards.
1 week
5. Architectural
Review Permit
Processing16
Evaluate compliance with Design Guidelines (Design
Review), prepare staff report, Architectural Review
Commission public hearing and decision. A typical
review would include preliminary staff comments to
the applicant regarding project consistency with the
City’s adopted Design Guidelines; submittal of revised
plans by the applicant (if necessary) for review by the Architectural Review Commission; the Commission
would typically conditionally approve a project at the
first hearing if the submittal is complete and the
project is in substantial conformance with the
Guidelines. Review of final design details (e.g. colors, landscape, materials) is often delegated to the Zoning
Administrator to expedite the approval process. The
City has prepared an “Application Guide” for the
architectural review process to assist applicants in
preparing their submittals. The Application Guide, as
well as the City’s Design Guidelines, are posted on the City’s website for convenient reference.
4 to 6 weeks
(concurrently with
Zoning
Administrator
review).
15 All single-family residences are Categorically Exempt (Class 3). 16 Public hearing includes notices mailed to Owners and Residents within 300 feet of project site.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-108
Residential Development Standards
Table 4-21 summarizes Residential Development Standards. PUDs and projects with affordable housing may exceed the standards for building height, FAR, and coverage. While land use controls and standards for residential development do not adversely constrain the production of affordable housing under current zoning ,the City is proposing changes to the General Plan and Zoning Code to facilitate residential housing development up to 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and mixed use development up to 100 du/ac. Various current development standards constrain development at these densities. Program H in the Draft Housing Element commits the City to revising development standards through the upcoming Zoning Code Update, expected to be adopted in 2024.
As shown on the table below, under existing zoning, residential structures in the city may be 2.5 stories and 35 feet in height. These requirements constrain the development of housing at the densities proposed in the Draft Housing Element and General Plan Update.
Open space for multifamily projects is required at 200 square feet per unit and may be provided on private patios or balconies or in shared outdoor areas. These requirements do not constrain the development of multifamily housing.
Under existing zoning, maximum lot coverage is 40 percent. This requirement is a constraint to multifamily and mixed-use development at the densities proposed in the Draft Housing Element and General Plan Update.
Along scenic routes, front setbacks are required to be 50 feet. This requirement constrains the development of housing along scenic routes.
Table 4-22 summarizes the Zoning Ordinance requirements for residential off-street parking and the Ordinance language (§35-17.8) that permits the Planning Commission to reduce the required number of parking spaces upon making specific findings.
While parking requirements are generally low, studio units are required to provide 1.5 parking spaces and multifamily units must provide one guest space for every two units. These two requirements constrain the development of these two housing types.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-109
Table 4-21 Residential Development Standards Summary
PHMC §18.20.030 R-20 R-15 R-10 R-10A R-7 R-6 MRVL MRL MRM MRH Minimum Site Area per Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.)17 20,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 7,000 6,000 3,500 2,500 1,500 1,150 Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Minimum Lot Width (feet) 100 100 80 70 70 60 70 70 80 80 Minimum Lot Depth (feet) 120 100 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Minimum Yards:
Front (feet) 25 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 20
Rear (feet) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Corner Side (feet) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Side (feet) 15 10 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 7
Aggregate Side (feet) 35 25 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 15
Maximum Building Height (feet)1 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Maximum Number of Stories1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Maximum Lot Coverage1 25% 25% 30% 35% 35% 35% 40% 40% 40% 40% Maximum Floor Area Ratio1 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% - - - - Open Space - - - - - - - - - -
Scenic Route setback where applicable 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Minimum Site Landscaping - - - - - - 35% 35% 30% 25%
Fences and Walls - - - - - - - - - -
Supplemental Regulations - - - - - - - - - -
Nonconforming Structures - - - - - - - - - -
Additional development regulations may apply. For guidance, see the official PHMC Schedule 18.20.030. For more information, see PHMC 18.20.040. For creek setback information, see PHMC 18.50.150. For supplemental regulations, see PHMC 18.20.050 through 18.20.140 and Part 4. For nonconforming structures, see PHMC Chapter 18.65.
17 PUDs and/or projects with affordable housing may exceed these standards upon approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-110
Table 4-22 City Residential Parking Requirements
SCHEDULE 18.55.030A OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACES REQUIRED Use
Classification Off-street Parking Spaces
Accessory dwelling
unit
Generally, one off street parking space with several exceptions allowing for no need for dedicated parking. For more details, see PHMC § 18.20.095.
Bed and breakfast 1 per guest bedroom, plus 2 for the primary dwelling unit.
Care facility, small,
licensed Same as single family residential.
Care facility, small,
unlicensed As specified by use permit.
Emergency
homeless shelter
Within the LI zone district, 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of gross floor area plus 1 space for every 2 employees, and 1 additional space for every facility vehicle. Within other zone districts, parking shall be as specified by use permit.
Family day care
home, large 1 per 6 children.
Family day care
home, small 1 per 6 children.
Group residential 1 per sleeping room plus 1 per 100 sq. ft. used for assembly purposes or common sleeping areas.
Multifamily
residential
1.5 per studio or 1-bedroom unit of which 1 must be covered or 2 spaces per 2- bedroom or larger unit of which 1 must be covered; plus 1 guest parking space for every 2 units.
Multifamily senior 1 for each 2.5 units.
Single family
residential
For new construction, 2 spaces per dwelling unit both of which must be fully enclosed.
Single-room
occupancy Same as group residential.
Source: Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Schedule 18.55.030A and Section 18.20.095 Reduced parking for single uses (PHMC 18.55.050)
The zoning administrator may approve a use permit for up to a 10% reduction in the number of parking spaces and the planning commission may approve a use permit for more than a 10% reduction in the number of spaces to less than the number specified in Schedule 18.55.030A or 18.55.030B; provided, that the following findings are made:
A. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in the schedules; and B. The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand.
In reaching a decision, the zoning administrator or planning commission shall consider survey data submitted by an applicant or collected at the applicant’s request and expense. The use permit issued pursuant to this section shall be recorded in the county recorder’s office
Several development projects demonstrate that the cumulative effects of the City’s development standards do not pose an unreasonable constraint to housing, and particularly affordable housing.
Such projects include the following:
• The Choice in Aging Campus, a high-density low-income senior apartment complex built at 73 dwelling units per acre on an underutilized site with 82 units, of which 81 are lowerincome and 1 is above-moderate, reserved for an on-site manager of the facility; • 85 Cleaveland Road, a very high-density apartment complex built at 81 dwelling units per acre on an underutilized site with 189 units, of which nine are very-low income and nine are
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-111
moderate income. This project was granted its own General Plan land use designation, which allows for the highest ever density in the City’s history; • Villa Montanaro, a high-density apartment complex built at 39 dwelling units per acre with 147 units of which 8 are very-low income and 4 are moderate income. This project is located in the MRH/PUD district which has an allowable density range of 30 to 40 units per acre.
As mentioned previously, the City is currently undertaking General Plan and zoning code updates and has included Program H in this Housing Element committing the City to evaluate development standards related to height, parking, lot coverage, and setbacks along scenic routes to remove constraints to housing development through the Zoning Code Update. Additionally, Program M commits the City to providing opportunities for the Zoning Administrator approval of variances or exclusions from standards to encourage feasibility of construction of affordable units, as well as those for seniors and others with special housing needs and the local workforce.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Definition of Family
Since the last Housing Element, the City has addressed concerns about the definition of “Family” in the PHMC constituting a constraint for group housing facilities. The City amended the definition of “Family” in PHMC § 18.140.010 and complies state law.
PHMC 18.140: "Family. One or more persons occupying premises and living as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding or lodging house, hotel, club, or similar dwelling for group use. A family shall not include a fraternal, religious, social, or business group. A family shall be deemed to include domestic employees.
The City’s definition of “family” is not a constraint to housing for persons with a disability.
Reasonable Accommodation
Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The City’s Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance (PHMC 18.112) provides individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in regulations and procedures to ensure equal access to housing, and to facilitate the development of housing.
Policies for requesting reasonable accommodation under PHMC 18.112.030 include:
A. Request. A disabled person may request a reasonable accommodation in the application of the city’s land use and zoning regulations. Such a request may include a modification or exception to the requirements for the siting, development and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers. A reasonable accommodation cannot waive a requirement for a conditional use permit when otherwise required or result in approval of uses otherwise prohibited by the city’s land use and zoning regulations.
B. Availability of information. Information regarding this reasonable accommodation procedure shall be prominently displayed at the public information counters in the planning division, advising the
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-112
public of the availability of the procedure for eligible applicants, and be made available in any other manner as determined by the director.
C. Assistance. If an applicant needs assistance in making the request, the planning division will endeavor to provide the assistance necessary to ensure that the process is available to the applicant.
D. Balancing rights and requirements. The city will attempt to balance (1) the privacy rights and reasonable request of an applicant for confidentiality, with (2) the land use requirements for notice and public hearing, factual findings and rights to appeal, in the city’s requests for information, considering an application, preparing written findings and maintaining records for a request for reasonable accommodation.
Approval authority under PHMC 18.112.050 includes:
A. Approval authority.
1. Zoning administrator. The zoning administrator has the authority to review and decide upon requests for reasonable accommodation, including whether the applicant is a disabled person within the meaning of this chapter, except as noted in subsection A.2 of this section. The zoning administrator may refer the matter to the planning commission or architectural review commission, as appropriate.
2. Planning commission. The planning commission has the authority to review and decide upon requests for reasonable accommodation, including whether the applicant is a disabled person within the meaning of this chapter, when referred by the zoning administrator or when a reasonable accommodation request includes any encroachment into the front yard setback area, results in a building size increase above what is allowed in the applicable zoning district with respect to height, lot coverage and floor area ratio maximums, or whenever a reduction in required parking is requested.
3. Architectural review commission. The architectural review commission has the authority to review and decide upon requests for reasonable accommodation, including whether the applicant is a disabled person within the meaning of this chapter, when referred by the zoning administrator.
B. Notice. No advance notice or public hearing is required for consideration of reasonable accommodation requests by the zoning administrator. Requests for reasonable accommodation subject to review by the planning commission or architectural review commission shall require advance notice and a public hearing pursuant to the requirements of PHMC § 18.80.030.
C. Decision. The zoning administrator shall render a decision or refer the matter to the planning commission or architectural review commission within 30 days after the application is complete, and shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application, based on the findings set forth in PHMC 18.112.060. The decision shall be in writing and mailed to the applicant and to all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
If the application for reasonable accommodation involves another discretionary decision, the reviewing body for that decision shall accept as final the determination regarding reasonable accommodation by the zoning administrator, unless the reasonable accommodation request has been referred by the zoning administrator to the planning commission or architectural review commission for consideration.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-113
If the application for reasonable accommodation is referred to, or reviewed by, the planning commission or architectural review commission, a decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application shall be rendered within 20 working days after the close of the public hearing, based on the findings set forth in PHMC 18.112.060.
Findings for reasonable accommodation requests under PHMC 18.112.060 include:
A. Findings. The reviewing authority shall approve the application, with or without conditions, if it can make the following findings:
1. The housing will be used by a disabled person;
2. The requested accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a disabled person;
3. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city; and
4. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program or law, including land use and zoning.
B. Other requirements.
1. An approved request for reasonable accommodation is subject to the applicant’s compliance with all other applicable zoning regulations.
2. A modification approved under this chapter is considered a personal accommodation for the individual applicant and does not run with the land.
3. Where appropriate, the reviewing authority may condition its approval on any or all of the following:
a. Inspection of the property periodically, as specified, to verify compliance with this section and any conditions of approval;
b. Removal of the improvements, where removal would not constitute an unreasonable financial burden, when the need for which the accommodation was granted no longer exists; c. Time limits and/or expiration of the approval if the need for which the accommodation was granted no longer exists;
d. Recordation of a deed restriction requiring removal of the accommodating feature once the need for it no longer exists;
e. Measures to reduce the impact on surrounding uses;
f. Measures in consideration of the physical attributes of the property and structures; g. Other reasonable accommodations that may provide an equivalent level of benefit and/or that will not result in an encroachment into required setbacks, exceedance of maximum height, lot coverage or floor area ratio requirements specified for the zone district; and h. Other conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Appeals related to reasonable accommodation requests under PHMC 18.112.070 include:
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-114
A decision by the zoning administrator may be appealed to the planning commission and a decision of the planning commission and/or architectural review commission may be appealed to the city council in accordance with the appeal procedures of PHMC Chapter 18.130.
Generally, PHMC 18.112 , as outlined above, establishes administrative procedures for reviewing and approving such requests from persons with disabilities without imposing undue constraints on applicants or. However, the ordinance allows the reviewing authority to condition the approval of a reasonable accommodation request based on “e. Measures to reduce the impact on surrounding uses” and “f. Measures in consideration of the physical attributes of the property and structures.” subjectingThese findings subject requests to discretionary findings actions related to community character or compatibility with surrounding uses, which are essentially conditional use permit (CUP) findings. A reasonable accommodation should be a unique exception process from a CUP, especially given its importance in addressing barriers to housing for persons with disabilities.
Program O commits the City to amending the Municipal Code to remove constraints from the reasonable accommodation ordinance imposed by approval findings related to impacts on, or compatibility with, surrounding uses, including, but not limited to: 18.112.060(B)(3)(e) and (f). The City’s reasonable accommodation process is not a constraint to housing for persons with disabilities.
Additional Relevant Standards
In addition to PHMC 18.112, the Building Codes adopted by the City incorporate accessibility standards contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Other zoning regulations that could affect housing for persons with disabilities include the following:
• Separation requirements. The following separation is required between group homes or care facilities.
Table 4-23 Separation Requirements for Group Homes or Care Facilities Type of care facility
Minimum
distance from
another such
facility
Large, licensed intermediate care facility (7 or more residents) for the developmentally disabled (nursing) 300 ft.
Congregate living health facility 1,000 ft.
Residential care facility, but not applicable to a foster family home, residential care facility for the elderly, or transitional care facility. 300 ft.
The requirements outlined in table 4-23 are a constraint to the development of these housing residential care facilities. Program O commits the city to updating the Municipal Code to remove separation requirements for these uses.
Residential Care Facilities
California Government Code Section 65583 requires that housing elements provide a program to “address and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for,
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-115
intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.” In line with encouraging the development of housing for those with disabilities, the State requires that small, licensed residential care facilities (defined as facilities with six or fewer residents) be allowed “by right” in all residential zones. Additionally, the State, through HCD, requires that cities consider constraints to reasonable accommodation for large, licensed residential care facilities (defined as facilities with seven or more residents).
Small, licensed care facilities (6 or fewer residents) are permitted by right in all residential zones and small unlicensed care facilities (6 or fewer residents) are conditionally permitted in all residential zones. Large care facilities (7+ residents), which must be permitted, are conditionally permitted in all multi-family residential zones. Requirements for small unlicensed facilities and large facilities are a constraint to the development these units. Program O commits the City to updating the municipal code to permit small residential care facilities (licensed and unlicensed), as well as large care facilities in all zones allowing residential uses with objectivity to facilitate approval certainty similar to other residential uses of the same form.
Development Fees
Development review regulations and fees are mandated by State law or deemed necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community and protect existing residents from the otherwise external costs of new development. Fees collected by the City in the review and development process are limited to the City’s costs for providing these services.
Development processing and impact fees in Pleasant Hill are summarized in Table 4-24. These fees are comparable to other neighboring jurisdictions and do not pose an unreasonable constraint to housing production. Fees for typical developments represent approximately 12 percent of the total cost of a single-family home and 12 percent of the total cost of a multifamily apartment.
Table 4-24 Development Fees by Type, Effective September 1, 202218
FEE CATEGORY
Planning and Application Fees
FEE AMOUNT
Single Family Multifamily
Site Plan Review N/C N/C
Architectural Review (ARC) $1,319.31 $185.11/hour
Planned Unit Development $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Specific Plan $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Development Plan $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Building Permit (Building, Planning, Engineering) See Table 4-25 See Table 4-25
SUBDIVISION
Certificate of Compliance $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Lot Line Adjustment $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
18 All fees include 7 percent Accela technology services fee.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-116
Tentative Tract Map $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Final Parcel Map $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Vesting Tentative Map $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental Impact Report Actual Cost + 10% Actual Cost + 10% Negative Declaration $185.11/hour $185.11/hour
Mitigated Negative Declaration Cost + 10% Cost + 10%
IMPACT
Police N/C N/C
Fire $158
+ $632 for
sprinklers
$790 (per model)
Parks Based on Land
Value
Based on Land Value
Water $32,340.00
(CCWD)
$34,760.00
(EBMUD)
$25,728.00 (MWD)
Site Specific
Sewer Hook-up $9,300.00 to
$10,800
$6,752/unit
Solid Waste N/C N/C
Traffic Mitigation Fee $3,879.00/unit $3,110.00/unit
Drainage Fee $0.92/sq ft $0.92-$1.22/sq ft
School $4.08/sf $4.08/sf
Proportion of Fee in Overall Development Cost for a Typical Residential Development Development Cost for a Typical Unit Single Family Multifamily Typical estimated fees per unit $60,000 $43,000
Typical estimated cost of development per unit* $500,000 $360,000** Estimated proportion of fee cost to overall
development cost
12% 11.9%
* Single family home square footage estimate provided via personal communication in April 2022 with Sean Carroll of S&C Construction, Concord, CA., and Maria Campos of KLC Consulting Engineering, El Cerrito, CA. Multi-family home square footage estimate provided by the City of Pleasant Hill, with financing rates provided from Select Commercial Funding, LLC, and land costs calculated from Zillow data of a recent land sale at 170 Cleaveland Road. **Assumes 1,200sqft unit in a six-unit multifamily development, with total construction cost of $300/sqft exclusive of profit, but including land, fees, material, labor and financing. Construction costs per square foot for single and multifamily developments are documented in the Non-governmental Constraints section below.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-117
Table 4-25 Building Permit Fee Schedule – Pleasant Hill Building Value Scheduled Price
$1-500 $75
$510-2,000 $75 for the first $500 plus $4 for each additional $100, or a fraction thereof, to and including $2,000
$2,001-$25,000 $115 for the first $2,000 plus $17 for each additional $1,000, or a fraction thereof, to and including $25,000
$25,001-$50,000 $595 for the first $25,000 plus $12 for each additional $1,000, or a fraction thereof, to and including $50,000
$50,001-$100,000 $992 for the first $50,000 plus $9 for each additional $1,000, or a fraction thereof, to and including $100,000
$100,001-$500,000 $1,511 for the first $100,000 plus $4 for each additional $1,000, or a fraction thereof, to and including $500,000
$500,001-$1,000,000 $4,905 for the first $500,000 plus $6.0 for each additional $1,000, or a fraction thereof, to and Including $1,000,000
$1,000,001 and up $8,534 for the first$1,000,000 plus $5 for each additional$1,000, or a fraction thereof
Building Permit
Submittal Deposit 50% of Permit Fee
Source: City of Pleasant Hill, 2022.
As shown in the tables above, there are various development fees. These include citywide, planning division, building division, and engineering division fees. As many fees are subject to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual adjustment, please visit pleasanthillca.org/80 for the most up to date city fees. The fees listed in the Table 4-24 and Table 4-25 are according to fees enacted on August 31, 2021.
Pleasant Hill currently complies with all relevant state codes as noted regarding development procedures, standards, and fees. As such, there are no unnecessary governmental fee-based constraints to housing affordability or availability.
Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA Timing Requirements
While City practices comply with the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code § 65920 et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000 et seq.), the City has not adopted a policy to ensure compliance. Program DDD in this Housing Element commits the City to adopting a policy to ensure compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA timing requirements. The policy shall specify:
• Who is responsible for making CEQA determinations of PRC 21080.1 • That the determination will be made within the timeframe permitted by PRC 21080.2, and • That when the City determines a project is exempt from CEQA, the determination triggers the Permit Streamlining Act 60-day deadline under Gov. Code 65950(a)(5)
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-118
Building Codes
Pleasant Hill employs the current versions of the California Building Codes. No City amendments to these codes significantly affect housing costs.
Energy conservation measures can add to construction costs but can reduce housing costs for occupants. The City Building Inspection division enforces the State energy building code (Title 24) through its plan checking process. These regulations establish insulation, window glazing, air conditioning and water heating system requirements. The City environmental review may also require measures to reduce energy consumption. City and County rehabilitation programs often include attic and exterior wall insulation, door and window repair or replacement, weather stripping and caulking, duct insulation and water heater blankets in rehabilitation projects.
Code Enforcement
Generally, the City responds to complaints as they received. Once received, the City works with residents to bring their properties into compliance within a reasonable amount of time. This can result in building permit submittals or quick fixes to bring the issues into compliance as directed by the City. However, in some instances, the City does issue administrative penalties to gain compliance. Non code compliance complaints that pose an imminent threat to public safety are immediately referred to and handled by the appropriate department; all other complaints are prioritized by severity of violation.
On- and Off-site Improvements
Pleasant Hill and other agencies also require the installation of certain on-site and off-site improvements to ensure the safety and livability of residential neighborhoods. On-site improvements typically include streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and utilities, and amenities such as landscaping, fencing, streetlights, open space, and park facilities. Off-site improvements typically include:
• Sections of roadway, medians, bridges, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and lighting. • Drainage, including sections of channel, culverts, swales, and pond areas, (Contra Costa County Flood Control District).
• Sewage collection and treatment (Central Contra Costa Sanitary District). • Water systems, including lines, storage tanks, and treatment plants (Contra Costa County Water District, Martinez Water District, and East Bay MUD). • Public facilities for fire, school, and recreation.
• Geological hazard repair and maintenance where appropriate.
Subdivision-level Improvement standards for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and residential streets are listed below. These standards are minimum requirements to ensure public health and safety and are not a constraint to development.
▪ Curb: 6 inches wide
▪ Gutter: 18 inches wide
▪ Sidewalk: five feet wide
▪ 2-lane local streets (residential): 36 feet wide with parking, 20 feet without parking.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-119
Non-governmental Constraints
The availability and cost of housing is strongly influenced by market factors over which local government has little or no control. State law requires that the Housing Element contain a general assessment of these constraints, which can serve as the basis for actions that local governments might take to offset the effects of such constraints. The primary market constraints to the development of new housing are the costs of constructing and purchasing new housing.
Costs associated with the acquisition of land include the market price of land and the cost of holding land throughout the development process. These costs can account for as much as half of the final sales prices of new homes in small developments or in areas where land is scarce, which are both costs that come with heavily built out communities such as Pleasant Hill. Among the variables affecting the cost of land are its location and amenities, the availability and proximity of public services, and the financing arrangement made between the buyer and seller. Although vacant residential land in Pleasant Hill is generally not available for purchase, single- family vacant land would be estimated to sell for about $14 to $16 per square foot. According to Zillow, the most recently sold vacant single family zoned residential parcel within the city limits was sold in June 2020 at a cost of $15.41 per square foot. Just outside the city limits, another vacant residential parcel was sold in July 2021 at approximately $20.42 per square feet. Additionally, multifamily land, if available, is estimated to sell for an average of $25 per square foot.
Another primary nongovernmental constraint is the high cost of housing construction. Feedback from local housing developers indicates that the cost to develop housing (exclusive of profit, but including land, fees, material, labor and financing) in the city averages $500-550 per square foot for a single-family home and $275-325 per square foot for multifamily projects.19 Additionally, if a landowner wishes to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit, from start to finish, the cost of constructing and installing a small, manufactured ADU is approximately $260 per square foot. 20 The cost and availability of capital financing affect the overall cost of housing in two ways: first, when the developer uses capital for initial site preparation and construction and, second, when the homebuyer uses capital to purchase housing. The capital used by the developer is borrowed for the short-term at commercial rates, which are considerably higher than standard mortgage rates.
Although financing for single family residential development is readily available in the city, financing is difficult to obtain for multifamily construction, which poses a significant constraint on the production of affordable housing in Pleasant Hill. No mortgage- deficient areas or underserved groups have been identified in the city.
Requests to Develop Below Identified Densities
There have been no formal requests to develop a site lower than the required minimum density.
Pleasant Hill’s high cost of producing housing incentivizes denser development that accommodate a better return on investment.
19 Single family home square footage estimate provided via personal communication in April 2022 with Sean Carroll of S&C Construction, Concord, CA., and Maria Campos of KLC Consulting Engineering, El Cerrito, CA. Multi-family home square footage estimate provided by the City of Pleasant Hill, with financing rates provided from Select Commercial Funding, LLC, and land costs calculated from Zillow data of a recent land sale at 170 Cleaveland Road.
20 According to communication with Perpetual Homes of Concord. Figure given was $195,000 for a 750 square foot manufactured accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-120
6. Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires the “analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development.” 21 This is important due to the key role played by energy efficiency in determining the relative affordability of housing. Lower rates of energy usage decrease utility costs for residents, making a housing unit more affordable. The discussion that follows outlines current State policies and development standards along with City policies that promote energy conservation for new and existing development in the City of Pleasant Hill.
Given the constant increase in the living costs of Bay Area residents, energy costs serve as another major factor in affecting the affordability of living in the region. With the increased frequency of droughts and wildfires compounded by an antiquated electrical grid, California cities are empowered to do their part in reducing energy costs where possible. Pleasant Hill is committed to pursuing energy conservation holistically to not only provide residents with energy cost savings to residents, but to also promote environmental sustainability.
Title 24 Energy Budget Standards
Opportunities to promote sustainability and energy conservation begin from the very start of housing construction before a foundation is even laid. Pleasant Hill promotes this proactive planning by complying with State law requiring all new construction to comply with “energy budget” standards that establish maximum allowable energy use from depletable sources (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code).
These requirements apply to such design components as structural insulation, air infiltration and leakage control, setback features on thermostats, water heating system insulation (tanks and pipes) and swimming pool covers if a pool is equipped with a fossil fuel or electric heater. State law also requires that a tentative subdivision map provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, including designing the lot sizes and configurations to permit orienting structures to take advantage of a southern exposure, shade, or prevailing breezes.
By adopting building code requirements to consider and implement such designs, energy cost savings can be extended over time, increasing affordability for residents.
Green Building Standards (CalGREEN)
In addition to proactive planning, Pleasant Hill, through Municipal Code § 14.40, the City is in compliance with State law by implementing the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGREEN), which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote healthier places to live and work, and reduce energy and water consumption.
CalGREEN was first effective on August 1, 2009 with five key divisions: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental air quality. Since then, CalGREEN has undergone numerous revisions to meet environmental goals and ever evolving construction standards over the last decade.
Considering requirements brought about by CalGREEN and later the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), the City of Pleasant Hill has integrated standards within its Municipal 21 HCD Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements, “Opportunities for Energy Conservation.” Accessed September 24, 2008. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element/index.html.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-121
Code to promote responsible recycling of construction and demolition debris. According to the California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling, construction and demolition debris (C&D) account for between 21.7 percent to 25.5 percent of California’s waste stream. Reusing and recycling C&D debris are essential to further the city’s efforts to reduce waste and comply with AB 939 goals. C&D debris waste reduction and recycling have been proven to reduce the amount of C&D debris placed in landfills, increase site and worker safety, and is cost effective.
The California Green Building Standards Code requires locally permitted new residential building construction, demolition, additions, and alterations to recycle and/or salvage for reuse at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous C&D debris generated during the project. To ensure compliance, the City requires performance security, which is returned after successful compliance with CalGREEN regulations.
Green Pleasant Hill
Energy conservation involves everyone in the city working together to achieve lower costs and sustainability. To promote this goal, the City runs Green Pleasant Hill, a program that acts as a “bridge between the community and all of the programs and services” that promote community sustainability. This program involves cooperation between all groups, including residents, the private sector, and the public sector.
Green Pleasant Hill incorporates simple ideas such as harvesting rainwater and investing in drip irrigation with larger efforts, such as businesses working towards being certified as a part of the California Green Business Network, to achieve greater community energy cost savings.
Water Resource Conservation
The scarcity of water resources has become an even more pertinent issue with the increasing frequency of droughts across the state. Pleasant Hill recognizes this challenge and is doing its part by using reclaimed (recycled) water for landscaped medians, City Hall, and many local parks. Such water savings can help decrease energy costs citywide and contribute to the health of the local environment, including the nearby fragile Sacramento River Delta.
Solid Waste Reduction & Recycling
In compliance with SB 341 (2011), Pleasant Hill requires that all commercial buildings and multifamily residential complexes provide recycling service. Such requirements help improve sustainability through the substantial reduction of waste being sent to landfills. This program, outlined by PHMC § 13.10.030, complies with state law.
General Plan Goals
Beyond these specific programs, the City prioritizes energy conservation and environmental sustainability across its entire General Plan.
The Environment Element is the heart of the city’s sustainability goals, emphasizing water resource conservation, biological conservation, air quality improvement, historical preservation, and sustainability. The Environment Element includes a program on tree planting and maintenance, which helps reduce local ambient air temperature and reducing energy use that comes with the creation of urban heat islands.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-122
The Mobility Element encourages the development and use of diverse transportation modes to reduce vehicle trips to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and promote accessibility. The Mobility Element also encourages the maintenance and upgrade of the city’s bikeway program.
The Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element emphasizes the responsible use of local resources to promote sustainability and cost savings. For example, the element includes programs to promote education of energy efficiency and green retrofitting, both of which can contribute to city conservation measures.
The Hazards and Safety Element includes provisions regarding the general reduction of toxic waste and the responsible household disposal of hazardous waste, such as batteries, oil, and paint. Such measures can help reduce or eliminate the need for costly environmental remediation for sites.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-123
7. Housing Resources
Future Housing Need
State Housing Element law requires that a local jurisdiction accommodate a share of the region’s projected housing needs for the planning period, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Compliance with this requirement is measured by the City’s ability to providing adequate land with adequate density and appropriate development standards to accommodate the RHNA.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), as the regional planning agency, is responsible for allocating the RHNA to individual jurisdictions within the region.
For the sixth Housing Element cycle, the City of Pleasant Hill has been allocated a RHNA of 1,803 units, divided into four income levels as follows:
▪ Very Low Income: 566 units (31 percent)12F
22 ▪ Low Income: 326 units (18 percent)
▪ Moderate Income: 254 units (14 percent)
▪ Above Moderate Income: 657 units (36 percent)
The City must ensure the availability of residential sites at adequate densities and appropriate development standards to accommodate these units by income category.
Current & Projected Credits Towards RHNA
Projects with housing units approved or permitted that would not be occupied before the start of the planning period can be credited towards meeting the City’s RHNA. These units can count towards the RHNA based on affordability and unit count provided it can be demonstrated that the units can be built within the planning period of February 2023 through February 2031. Affordability (income category) is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability of the units within the project. In addition, the City can project the number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that may be built between 2023 and 2031, based on trends of ADU permitting during the last three years.
Entitled or Approved Projects
Pleasant Hill has a diverse variety of projects that provide housing opportunities for residents across all income ranges. Currently, there are 11 entitled or approved projects that are under construction or are pending construction that are expected to be completed during the sixth cycle RHNA period beginning July 2022. These projects may be under construction but haven’t been given an occupancy permit as of July 2022. These 11 projects account for 1 very low-income, 97 low-income, 10 moderate-income, and 252 above moderate-income units. Notably, the pending projects include new single-family homes along McKissick Street near Boyd Road, 81 low-income 22 The City has a RHNA allocation of 566 very low-income units (inclusive of extremely low-income units). Pursuant to State law (AB 2634), the City must project the number of extremely low-income housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50 percent of the very low-income units as extremely low. Therefore, the City generally estimates 283 extremely low and 283 very low-income units.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-124
units for seniors and those with special needs at the new Choice in Aging Campus facility on Golf Club Road, and 189 units at 85 Cleaveland Road, the densest development in Pleasant Hill thus far.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-125
Table 4-26 Entitled or Approved Residential Projects
Application
Address &
Name APN Zoning
Net Units
Description
Last
VL L M AM Motion Status
17-0386 2060 Lisa Ln
“Hendren” 148-061-034 R-7 1
Building a new single-family home on
vacant land
Building
permit
issued
Pending
18-0359 85 Cleaveland Rd
“Blake-Griggs” 150-210-059 PUD DSP 9 10 170
Demolish abandoned office building and
build new 189-unit multi-family complex
with 19 deed restricted units
Building
permit
issued
Under
Construction
18-0367 McKissick 149-061-026
149-061-033 R-10 4
Build four new single-family homes on
vacant land
Entitlements
approved
Under
Construction
18-0383
1750 Oak Park
Blvd
“Former Pleasant
Hill Branch
Library”
149-271-017 through
149-271-056
(except
149-271-051)
PUD
940 34
Demolish old Pleasant Hill Branch Library
and build a 34-unit single family
detached small unit subdivision
Building
permit
issued
Under
Construction
19-0028 401 Taylor Blvd 153-050-057
153-050-058
PUD
947 6 31
Demolish existing office building and
build a 31-unit residential subdivision
with six deed restricted lower-income
ADUs
Building
permit
issued
Under
Construction
19-0104 195 Cortsen Rd
“Eva” 166-070-054 R-10 1
Building a new single-family home on
vacant land
Entitlements
approved Pending
19-0323 1667 Oak Park Bl
“Manor Place” 170-082-009 R-10 2
Two new single-family homes on vacant
land
Building
permit
issued
Under
Construction
19-0345 Lot 27 (Janin Pl)
“Nazmi” 154-140-027 PUD 165 1
Building a new single-family home on
vacant land
Entitlements
approved Pending
19-0416 574 Creekside Rd
“Schmitt” 152-091-031 R-7 1
Building a new single-family home on
vacant land
Entitlements
approved
Under
Construction
21-0294 490 Golf Club Rd
“SAHA” 153-030-004 PUD 942 81 1
Demolish existing 75+ year old nonresidential use Mt. Diablo Center for Adult Day Care Center and build three
story deed-restricted 81-unit low-income
senior complex with 1 above moderateunit reserved for on-site management Entitlements
approved Pending
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-126
Application
Address &
Name APN Zoning
Net Units
Description
Last
VL L M AM Motion Status
20-0144 6200 Alhambra Av
“Sancerre Village”
154-680-008 through
154-648-014
(formerly 154-680-
002)
PPD
451 1 1 6 New Single-family homes on vacant land Entitlements approved Pending
Total 1 97 10 252
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-127
Pending Projects
Pleasant Hill’s optimal location and community has made it a desired destination for many who are moving into the Bay Area. However, a lack of land has restricted much new residential development in the city despite high demand. The following projects are residential developments that haven’t completed the planning review process and are still in the applications phase, under review by the Architectural Review Commission, or at any other stage whereas builders aren’t able to start their construction. All these projects are projected to be completed during the next planning period.
Currently, there are four pending projects in Pleasant Hill that yield net positive housing growth.
Notably, this list includes 85 Woodworth Lane and 250 Cleaveland Road, two properties the City inherited from the Redevelopment Agency that agreed to be sold to Habitat for Humanity.
Generally, once submitted, pipeline projects that do not need extensive CEQA review come for decision within two to four months, with single family projects usually completed within two months. Multifamily projects, depending on the level of CEQA review, will usually remain in the pipeline for approximately three to six months. If extensive CEQA review is necessary, projects can be in the entitlement process for up to eight months. The City is in regular contact with each applicant and works diligently to provide information necessary to assist in the application process.
These projects are expected to receive entitlements in 2023.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-128
Table 4-27 Pending Residential Projects
Application
Address &
Name APN Zoning
Net Units
VL L M AM Description Status
19-0002
230-240 Cleaveland
Rd
“Harb”
149-130-
032
PUD
410 1 1 5
New three-story multi-family
residential condominium complex
with nine units, of which one is lowincome and one very low-income housing
Incomplete permit
application
21-0495 106 Lorenzo Dr
“Harb”
127-063-
001 R-7 1 New single-family home
Approved, pending
building permit
submittal
22-0063
85 Woodsworth Ln
“Habitat for
Humanity”
150-150-
071
PUD
347 3 1
New four-unit multi-family
residential complex on vacant land
Pending, comments
provided
n/a 250 Cleaveland Rd
“Habitat for
Humanity”
149-130-
016
PUD
410 3 4
New seven-unit multi-family
residential complex on property
with two SF units
Pending, awaiting
application
Total 1 7 4 9
When combined pending projects (Table 4-27) and entitled and entitle projects (Table 4-26) equal 379 units, including 2 very low- and 104 low-income units (total of 106 lower-income units), as shown below.
Lower
Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Very Low Low
RHNA 566 326 254 657 1,803
Entitled or Approved Projects 1 97 10 252 360
Pending Projects 1 7 4 9 19
Total 2 104 14 259 379
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-129
Projected Accessory Dwelling Units
During the 5th cycle, Pleasant Hill found substantial housing growth from the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on residential lots across the City. Residents have found ADUs to be a cost-effective way to earn extra income, increase the City’s housing stock, and increase their property values. The City expects that this growth from ADUs will continue in the future to further meet housing needs.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.1, the City can satisfy its regional housing need using ADU and junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) trends and existing resources and incentives that promote their development. According to HCD’s records, the City approved nine ADUs in 2018, 14 in 2019, one in 2020, and 20 in 2021, and 25 in 2022. According to City records, as shown on Table 4-29 below, the City approved an average of 25 ADUs per year between 2019 and 2021. In a meeting with Paul McDougall, Senior Program Manager with HCD, on April 4, 2023, City staff indicated that they believe that HCD’s records for 2020 APR are inaccurate. Mr. McDougall suggested that the City use 2019, 2021, and 2022 to establish ADU trends and stated that 20 ADUs/year would be acceptable. City staff expressed an interest in setting a goal of 25 ADUs/year, based on upward trends. Mr. McDougall indicated that an assumption of 25 ADU’s per year (200 total ADUs) is acceptable if the City includes program actions committed to monitoring development trends and providing additional incentives to encourage development. To support this assumption, the City has included a Program P to encourage and incentivize ADU production, as well as to commit the City to monitoring development trends and establishing additional incentives and outreach measures if trends are not meeting the metrics and milestones outlined in the program.
According to an ABAG report on the affordability of accessory dwelling units, ADUs should be considered a housing type that is available mostly to moderate- and lower-income households. The calculations used, in comparison to ABAG recommendations are provided in Table 4-28.
Table 4-28 ADU Affordability Assumptions for the Sixth Cycle RHNA Income Group
ABAG Recommended ADU
Affordability Assumption Pleasant Hill ADU Projection
Very Low 30% 60
Low 30% 60
Moderate 30% 60
Above Moderate 10% 20
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. “Final Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units.” 14 June 2022.
Table 4-29 List of Approved Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), 2016-2022 Application Address Permit Approval Date
16-0723 840 Grayson Road 7/7/16
16-0759 1955 Elinora Drive 7/19/16
17-0438 106 Beverly Drive 7/28/16
16-0911 256 Douglas Lane 8/25/16
17-0807 112 Mazie Drive 7/7/17
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-130
Application Address Permit Approval Date
17-1470 961 Irvin Court 11/22/17
17-1598 16 Capri Lane 12/18/17
14-0371 539 Tananger Heights Lane 2/6/18
14-0371 507 Tananger Heights Court 2/6/18
14-0371 532 Tananger Heights Lane 2/6/18
14-0371 511 Tananger Heights Lane 2/6/18
18-0464 181 Devon Avenue 12/6/18
18-0496 1730 Mary Drive 4/23/19
19-0495 4 Kulani Lane 5/10/19
19-0539 2130 Orin Lane 5/20/19
19-0195 331 Boyd Road 5/31/19
19-0761 455 Fensalir Avenue 7/2/19
19-0791 218a Ashton Way 7/9/19
19-0025 10 Barocio Court 8/5/19
19-0334 168 Belle Avenue 9/10/19
19-0312 316 Third Avenue South 9/29/19
19-0404 2033 Hoover Avenue 10/28/19
20-0009 779 Hamilton Drive 1/3/20
19-0569 541 Freya Way 2/13/20
19-0505 247 Douglas Lane 2/21/20
20-0083 1749 Ruth Drive 2/27/20
20-0099 224 Oak Park Lane 4/7/20
18-0383 1750 Oak Park Boulevard 5/11/20
19-1287 206a Ashton Way 5/19/20
19-1289 220a Ashton Way 5/27/20
20-0576 226 Oak Park Lane 6/5/20
20-0076 119a Ashton Way 8/18/20
20-0083 125a Ashton Way 8/25/20
20-0369 1566 Ruth Drive 10/1/20
20-0959 119 Hubbard Avenue 10/5/20
20-0262 1700 Lucille Lane 10/8/20
20-0372 203 Hazel Drive 10/14/20
20-0378 237 Rainbow Lane 11/4/20
20-0431 111 Buxton Circle 11/19/20
20-0395 103a Ashton Way 11/19/20
20-0430 242 Elaine Drive 11/24/20
20-0089 909 Santa Lucia Drive 12/1/20
21-0016 1850 Lucille Lane 1/15/21
21-1219 909 Santa Lucia Drive 2/19/21
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-131
Application Address Permit Approval Date
21-0017 113 Vivian Drive 2/24/21
21-0176 1686 Pleasant Hill Road 3/18/21
21-0068 1661 Mary Drive 4/19/21
20-1245 100 Mercury Way 4/19/21
21-0139 176 Western Hills Drive 4/22/21
21-0038 201 Elderwood Drive 4/27/21
21-0519 20 El Rancho Drive 5/6/21
21-0196 267 Betty Lane 5/6/21
21-0659 174 Agnes Way 5/14/21
21-0756 34 Phyllis Drive 5/26/21
21-0209 261 Rainbow Lane 6/4/21
21-0154 1943 Peggy Drive 6/4/21
21-0166 1661 Mary Drive 6/17/21
21-0561 267 Betty Lane 6/18/21
21-0250 34 Phylis Drive 6/24/21
21-0228 754 Cumberland Court 6/24/21
21-0672 261 Rainbow Lane 6/25/21
21-0224 1655 Merian Drive 7/9/21
21-0975 295 Oakvue Lane 7/16/21
21-1007 754 Cumberland Court 7/21/21
20-0294 204 Poshard Street 7/27/21
20-0399 553 Golf Club Road 8/4/21
21-0834 700 Cumberland Court 8/4/21
21-0108 2988 Dorothy Drive 8/12/21
21-0221 2988 Dorothy Drive 8/12/21
21-1125 1531 Wendy Drive 8/17/21
21-0378 205 Astrid Drive 9/9/21
21-0028 401 Taylor Blvd 9/13/21
21-0251 242 Elaine Drive 9/15/21
21-0265 142 Sylvia Drive 9/30/21
21-0388 49 Pillon Real 10/7/21
21-0357 218 Steven Circle 10/13/21
21-1189 49 Pillon Real 10/18/21
21-0940 1767 Shirley Drive 10/18/21
21-1054 167 Cleopatra Drive 10/18/21
21-1129 218 Steven Circle 10/18/21
21-0469 51 El Rancho Drive 11/8/21
21-0423 2130 Geary Road 11/18/21
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-132
Application Address Permit Approval Date
21-0334 38 Alan Drive 11/18/21
21-0297 1767 Shelley Drive 12/8/21
21-1277 105 Oakvue Road 12/8/21
21-0463 30 Paradise Lane 12/30/21
21-1711 20 El Rancho Drive 12/31/21
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-133
Based on these calculations, the City is able to meet approximately 21 percent of the RHNA through pending and approved projects and 11 percent through ADUs. The City must accommodate another 1,224 units on the sites detailed in the sites inventory. See the table below for a summary:
Lower
Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Very Low Low
RHNA 566 326 254 657 1,803
Pending and Approved 2 104 14 259 379
ADUs 60 60 60 20 200
Remaining RHNA 504 162 180 378 1,224
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-134
Residential Sites Inventory
Following the analysis of RHNA credits, specific sites throughout the city were considered for potential for housing development. Site selection for the residential site inventory started with City owned sites where residential development is in line with short-term City goals, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residential use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residential development or residential development at a higher density. Several constraints were considered for each site, including environmental concerns, utility or infrastructure access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realistic capacity assumptions.
Sites identified for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 30 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores.
The figures on the following pages depict the sites inventory by type of site, sites identified as lower-income capacity, and sites identified as moderate- or above moderate-income capacity. Each figure shows the TCAC opportunity areas, as discussed in Appendix A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
City-Owned Surplus Sites
When the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency was dissolved in January 2012, the City of Pleasant Hill as Redevelopment Successor Agency inherited three vacant parcels in 2011 and 2012. Two parcels were viable for residential development, located at 250 Cleaveland Road and 85 Woodsworth Lane. The City entered into agreements in 2019 and 2021 to sell both sites to Habitat to Humanity for $10 each in order to develop 11 units of low and moderate income ownership housing (3 low and 4 moderate income at 250 Cleaveland Road and 3 low and 1 moderate at 85 Woodsworth Lane). Habitat is currently pursuing entitlements on both properties. Affordable units will count toward the 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycle. It is possible that the final number of units will change if restricted by site constraints.
The third parcel, located at the corner of West Hookston Road and Contra Costa Boulevard (APN 149-110-087), is currently still owned by the City and is unsuitable for residential development due to its small size and triangular shape.
The City no longer owns any surplus vacant properties or underutilized properties fit for residential development.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 20234-135
Figure 4-48 Identified Sites by Type
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 20234-136
Figure 4-49 Sites Identified as Lower-Income Capacity
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-137
Figure 4-50 Sites Identified as Moderate- of Above Moderate-Income Capacity
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-138
Vacant Sites
Pleasant Hill is almost entirely built out and contains little room for new development. Within the City limits, there are scattered vacant parcels that have potential for residential development that can provide capacity to meet and exceed the income-based allocation goals established by the RHNA.
In total, there are 37 identified vacant parcels that have a high likelihood of being developed during the planning period (Table 4-30). These 37 parcels are spread out across a large portion of the city and can accommodate a variety of housing types. In total, these sites can accommodate 508 new housing units.
While the majority of these sites are assumed for above moderate-income capacity due to small lot sizes or access issues, two are proposed for rezoning to provide capacity for lower income housing. To provide capacity for lower income housing sites must allow a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. As such, these parcels have been proposed for rezone to Multi-family Residential High Density, which allows 30 to 40 dwelling units per acre. These parcels are summarized in detail below, followed by Table 4-30, which summarized all vacant sites.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-139
Morello Terraces
APN(s): 154-140-015 (outlined in blue)
The Morello Terraces site is a vacant 6.55-acre site located at the northwest corner of Paso Nogal Road / Netherby Drive and Morello Avenue. The site is currently zoned as single-family low density and has a General Plan land use designation of Single Family with 20,000 square foot lots. The site is located near the top of a hill along Morello Avenue. The site has been identified as suitable for upzoning due to its close proximity to both single-family and multifamily uses, its location in a high resource area, and its large size. The large size of the parcel allows for well planned, cohesive developments that are able to incorporate additional density.
The site is the largest vacant site in Pleasant Hill. At the proposed zoning of Multi-family High Density (30-40 du/ac) the site is assumed to have a capacity of 196 lower-income units. The use of the site, which is located in a very high resource area, for low-income housing, ensures the City’s commitment to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and place-based strategies to overcome fair housing issues.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-140
Morello Terraces Vacant Site Summary
Site Description
Site Size 6.55 ac
Existing General Plan Land Use Single Family, 20,000 sq. ft. Lots Existing Zoning Single-Family Low Density
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Multi-Family High Density
Current Allowed Density 3 du/ac
Proposed Density 30-40 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 262 units
Realistic Capacity 196 units
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 196 lower-income
Current Use Vacant
Infrastructure Constraints
The Morello Terraces site lies adjacent to existing residential uses, with water and wastewater infrastructure in place.
Water service is provided by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The District’s water supply is sufficient to meet the needs of future residents on the site. The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes an analysis of water supply reliability for average, single-dry, and multiple dry water year types over the 25-year planning horizon. As outlined in the UWMP, in 2045 the District projects demand to equal 184,400 acre-feet and a total planned supply of 243,010 acre-feet (assuming average conditions), illustrating sufficient supply to meet projected population increases through the horizon year.
The District’s water supply reliability goal is to meet 100 percent of demand in normal years and a minimum of 85 percent of demand during dry conditions. The District’s ability to meet this goal is primarily due to the success of the District’s past water use efficiency measures, the reliability of the District’s existing contract for CVP water, and long-term water sales agreement with East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) as well as the investment in storage in Los Vaqueros Reservoir. In future years, multiple-dry year conditions may result in supply shortfalls of up to approximately 26,400 AF (15 percent of demand). Any potential supply shortfalls experienced during dry year conditions will be met through a combination of a short-term conservation program and/or short-term water purchases, consistent with the District’s FWSS. It is anticipated a planned purchase of up to 1,930 AF of additional water supply by 2045 in the 5th year of a multiple dry year is necessary to meet the water supply reliability goal.
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District provides water treatment service for the entire city. The District has sufficient capacity to meet the needs of future residents on the site under the proposed zoning. Wastewater treatment is provided at one centrally located plant, which is three miles north of Pleasant Hill at the junction of Interstate 680 and Highway 4 in unincorporated county land. The district is currently processing 34 million gallons of wastewater per day and has a total capacity of 54 million gallons per day.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-141
Environmental Constraints
This site is located on a hilly location that will require grading. Elevation profiles provided by Google Earth indicate a moderate 10 percent slope from the southernmost point of the parcel to the northern edge and a steep 20 percent slope between Morello Avenue and Douglas Terrace.
Although these slopes do not prohibit development (as evidenced by the existing residential uses surrounding the parcel), dDue to the costs involved with grading sloped sites, the City has included additional development incentives under Program EEE to work to overcome financial constraints related to gradingsloped sites. This program commits the City to providing incentives related to development standards, including additional density bonus beyond State law, additional height, FAR, or lot coverage allowances, and reduced setback requirements, as well as direct financial assistance to offset the costs of grading. The program also commits the City to seek out partnerships with local non-profit housing agencies in the pursuit of State and Federal grant funding to support affordable development on the site, with a goal of obtaining $200,000 in funding to support affordable development on the site.
Site-Specific Conditions and Constraints
Beyond the environmental constraints listed above, there are no site-specific constraints prohibiting development. Public comments indicated the potential presence of a sinkhole on the site, however, no such feature has been identified on the site. Additionally, public comments identified the site as an open space asset to the community, however, the parcel is a privately-owned residentially-zoned site and is not a protected open space area or park. As shown in the image below, the site is a vacant hilly parcel with little vegetation.
Development standards for hillside parcels can potentially constrain housing development.
Regarding sloped sites, Municipal Code Section 18.20.120 states, “An applicant for development of a parcel with an average slope of 15% or greater shall apply for rezoning to HPUD in accordance with PHMC Chapter 18.35, unless already subdivided to its
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-142
maximum density, and any development on the parcel must comply with PHMC §§ 18.35.040.B, D and E and 18.35.050. “
Based on this requirement, rezoning the site under current zoning requirements triggers PHMC
18.35.040 B, D, and E, which limit the grading to no more than 30 percent of the gross site area, height to no more than 35 feet, and density to no more than 2.9 du/ac. These requirements, however, are a constraint to housing development, and particularly lower-income housing development on this site. Through Program EEE, the City is committed to removing constraints to higher density residential multifamily residential uses imposed by Municipal Code Sections
18.20.120, 18.35.040, and 18.35.050.
Additionally, the City’s Residential Design Guidelines include guidelines for hillside areas that constrain development of larger structures, such as higher density multifamily uses. The Hillside Design Guidelines, however, only apply to single-family residential uses. Design for multifamily uses, regardless of slope, is guided by the City’s Multifamily Residential Design Guidelines or Objective Design Standards, depending on project affordability. Because affordable multifamily uses qualifying for streamlined ministerial review under SB 35 or SB 330 that comply with the City’s Objective Design Standards are not subject to discretionary design review, and Hillside Design Guidelines are not applicable to multifamily uses, the City’s Design Guidelines and Objective Standards are not a constraint to housing development on this site.
Outreach to Property Owner
Through Program EEE, the City has committed to engaging the property owner to discuss potential development of the site, as well as to provide information on the various programs incentivizing housing production on the site (see information under the heading “Programs to Encourage Development” below) annually throughout the planning period.
Realistic Capacity Calculation Methodology:
Realistic capacity for vacant residential sites is based on the minimum allowed density. As required by HCD, the City has included a commitment through Program F C to require a minimum of 196 units on this site when rezoning the site to Multi-family High Density. For more information, please see the HCD’s Sites Inventory Guidebook, page 19.
Programs to Encourage Development:
Program F C outlines requirements for sites rezoned to provide lower-income capacity to meet the RHNA shortfall. These sites shall be rezoned, in compliance with Govt. Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i), to:
▪ permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right (without discretionary approval) for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.
▪ accommodate a minimum of 20 16 units per site; and
▪ require a minimum density of 16 20 units per acre.
Program L commits the City to providing flexible parking standards for affordable housing.
Program M commits the City to providing streamlined ministerial review to affordable housing developments.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-143
Program S commits the City to allowing additional density bonuses to 100 percent affordable developments.
Program EE commits the City to adopting incentives to encourage development on housing opportunity sites and vacant lower-income sites, potentially including, assistance with entitlement processing, flexible development standards, streamlined processing for affordable housing projects, and financial support when available. Incentives will be applied to projects incorporating a minimum of 20 percent of units affordable to lower-income households.
Program FF commits the City to adopt additional incentives to encourage affordable multi-unit projects in highest opportunity areas, high opportunity areas, and low-density moderate opportunity areas where fair housing issues are less concentrated. This site, Morello Terraces, is in a high opportunity area and would quality for all incentives under this program.
Program JJ commits the City to providing financial incentives to developments in which five percent of units are affordable to ELI households. These incentives would apply to this site, if the affordability criteria is met.
Program EEE commits the City to incentivizing affordable housing development on sloped sites, including Morello Terraces.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-144
Paso Nogal
APN(s): 152-010-004 (outlined in blue)
The Paso Nogal site is a vacant 3.40-acre site located north of Paso Nogal Road’s junction with Pillon Real. The site is currently zoned as Single Family Low Density with a General Plan land use designation of Single Family with 15,000 square foot lots. The site is located on a hillside with a elevation gain of approximately 59 feet over a 286 feet distance, indicating an average of a 11.7 degree grade. The site has been identified as suitable for upzoning due to its proximity to existing single-family and multifamily uses.
The site is the next largest vacant site in Pleasant Hill. At the proposed zoning of Multi-family High Density (30-40 du/ac) the site is assumed to have a capacity of 102 lower-income units. The site is located in a moderate opportunity area on the western half of the city where fair housing issues are less concentrated and is directly adjacent to a high opportunity area. As such, the use of this site to accommodate low-income housing ensures the City’s commitment to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and place-based strategies to overcome fair housing issues.
The City has discussed the proposed rezone with the property owner. Following the release of the Draft Housing Element for GPAC, Planning Commission, City Council review, the owner has twice
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-145
contacted the City to discuss the proposed changes and show support for increased zoning density on the site. The owner supports the proposed rezone to allow 30 to 40 du/ac on the site.
Paso Nogal Vacant Site Summary
Site Description
Site Size 3.40 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Single Family, 15,000 sq. ft. Lots Existing Zoning Single-Family Low Density
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Multi-Family Very Low Density Current Allowed Density 3 du/ac
Proposed Density 30-40 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 136
Realistic Capacity 102
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 102 lower
Current Use Vacant
Infrastructure Constraints
The Paso Nogal site lies adjacent to existing residential uses, with water and wastewater infrastructure in place.
Water service is provided by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The District’s water supply is sufficient to meet the needs of future residents on the site. The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes an analysis of water supply reliability for average, single-dry, and multiple dry water year types over the 25-year planning horizon. As outlined in the UWMP, in 2045 the District projects demand to equal 184,400 acre-feet and a total planned supply of 243,010 acre-feet (assuming average conditions), illustrating sufficient supply to meet projected population increases through the horizon year.
The District’s water supply reliability goal is to meet 100 percent of demand in normal years and a minimum of 85 percent of demand during dry conditions. The District’s ability to meet this goal is primarily due to the success of the District’s past water use efficiency measures, the reliability of the District’s existing contract for CVP water, and long-term water sales agreement with East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) as well as the investment in storage in Los Vaqueros Reservoir. In future years, multiple-dry year conditions may result in supply shortfalls of up to approximately 26,400 AF (15 percent of demand). Any potential supply shortfalls experienced during dry year conditions will be met through a combination of a short-term conservation program and/or short-term water purchases, consistent with the District’s FWSS. It is anticipated a planned purchase of up to 1,930 AF of additional water supply by 2045 in the 5th year of a multiple dry year is necessary to meet the water supply reliability goal.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-146
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District provides water treatment service for the entire city. The District has sufficient capacity to meet the needs of future residents on the site under the proposed zoning. Wastewater treatment is provided at one centrally located plant, which is three miles north of Pleasant Hill at the junction of Interstate 680 and Highway 4 in unincorporated county land. The district is currently processing 34 million gallons of wastewater per day and has a total capacity of 54 million gallons per day.
Environmental Constraints
This site is located on a steep, hilly location that will require grading. Elevation profiles provided by Google Earth indicate a moderate 10 percent slope from the southernmost point of the parcel (at the intersection of Paso Nogal Road and Pillon Real) to the northern edge (at the intersection of Paso Nogal Road and Wildflower Drive), and a steep 26 percent slope at the center of the parcel measuring east to west. Although these slopes do not prohibit development, slopes greater than 20 percent require more extensive earth moving, retaining walls, and soil stabilization to create workable grades and prevent erosion.
Due to the costs involved with grading, the City has included additional development incentives under Program EEE to work to overcome financial constraints related to gradingsloped sites. This program commits the City to providing incentives related to development standards, including additional density bonus beyond State law, additional height, FAR, or lot coverage allowances, and reduced setback requirements, as
well as direct financial assistance to
offset the costs of grading. The
program also commits the City to
seek out partnerships with local
non-profit housing agencies in the
pursuit of State and Federal grant
funding to support affordable
development on the site, with a goal
of obtaining $200,000 in funding to
support affordable development on
the site.
Site-Specific Conditions and
Constraints
Beyond the environmental
constraints listed above, there are
no site-specific constraints
prohibiting development. Public
comments mentioned the site as an
open space asset to the community,
however, the parcel is a privatelyowned residentially-zoned parcel and is not a protected open space
area or park. As shown in the image
above, the site is a vacant sloped
hillside with little vegetation and no
informal walking paths or trails.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-147
Development standards for hillside parcels can potentially constrain housing development.
Regarding sloped sites, Municipal Code Section 18.20.120 states, “An applicant for development of a parcel with an average slope of 15% or greater shall apply for rezoning to HPUD in accordance with PHMC Chapter 18.35, unless already subdivided to its maximum density, and any development on the parcel must comply with PHMC §§ 18.35.040.B, D and E and 18.35.050. “
Based on this requirement, rezoning the site under current zoning requirements triggers PHMC
18.35.040 B, D, and E, which limit the grading to no more than 30 percent of the gross site area, height to no more than 35 feet, and density to no more than 2.9 du/ac. These requirements, however, are a constraint to housing development, and particularly lower-income housing development on this site. Through Program EEE, the City is committed to removing constraints to higher density residential multifamily residential uses imposed by Municipal Code Sections
18.20.120, 18.35.040, and 18.35.050.
Additionally, the City’s Residential Design Guidelines include guidelines for hillside areas that constrain development of larger structures, such as higher density multifamily uses. The Hillside Design Guidelines, however, only apply to single-family residential uses. Design for multifamily uses, regardless of slope, is guided by the City’s Multifamily Residential Design Guidelines or Objective Design Standards, depending on project affordability. Because affordable multifamily uses qualifying for streamlined ministerial review under SB 35 or SB 330 that comply with the City’s Objective Design Standards are not subject to discretionary design review, and Hillside Design Guidelines are not applicable to multifamily uses, the City’s Design Guidelines and Objective Standards are not a constraint to housing development on this site.
Outreach to Property Owner
As discussed above, the property owner has contacted the City on two occasions to discuss the proposed rezone. The owner supports the proposed rezoned to allow 30 to 40 du/ac on the site.
Through Program EEE, the City has committed to engaging the property owner to discuss potential development of the site, as well as to provide information on the various programs incentivizing housing production on the site (see information under the heading “Programs to Encourage Development” below) annually throughout the planning period.
Realistic Capacity Calculation Methodology
Realistic capacity for vacant residential sites is based on the minimum allowed density. As required by HCD, the City has included a commitment through Program F C to require a minimum of 102 units on this site when rezoning the site to Multi-family High Density. For more information, please see the HCD’s Sites Inventory Guidebook, page 19.
Programs to Encourage Development:
Program F C outlines requirements for sites rezoned to provide lower-income capacity. These sites shall be rezoned, incompliance with Govt. Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i), to:
▪ permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right (without discretionary approval) for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.
▪ accommodate a minimum of 20 16 units per site; and
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Needs Assessment
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-148
▪ require a minimum density of 16 20 units per acre.
Program L commits the City to providing flexible parking standards for affordable housing.
Program M commits the City to providing streamlined ministerial review to affordable housing developments.
Program S commits the City to allowing additional density bonuses to 100 percent affordable developments.
Program EE commits the City to adopting incentives to encourage development on housing opportunity sites and vacant lower-income sites, potentially including, assistance with entitlement processing, flexible development standards, streamlined processing for affordable housing projects, and financial support when available. Incentives will be applied to projects incorporating a minimum of 20 percent of units affordable to lower-income households.
Program FF commits the City to adopt additional incentives to encourage affordable multi-unit projects in highest opportunity areas, high opportunity areas, and low-density moderate opportunity areas where fair housing issues are less concentrated. This site, Paso Nogal, is in a moderate opportunity area on the western portion of the city and would quality for all incentives under this program.
Program JJ commits the City to providing financial incentives to developments in which five percent of units are affordable to ELI households. These incentives would apply to this site, if the affordability criteria is met.
Program EEE commits the City to incentivizing affordable housing development on sloped sites, including Paso Nogal.
Summary of Vacant Sites
Table 4-30 shows vacant sites included in the inventory. With the exception of the Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal sites, all vacant sites are assumed for above-moderate capacity.
Environmental Constraints Associated with Above Moderate-Income Vacant Sites The Beatrice / Cleaveland vacant sites (PUD 410) are in a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain and are bounded by a creek. However, flood risk can be mitigated when the site is developed.
Some other sites above moderate sites identified in Table 4-30 have environmental constraints, such as being adjacent to creeks, adjacent to floodplains, and being on steep hills. However, each of the sites with these constraints are reserved for above income units which can reasonably mitigate risks and challenges when the site is developed.
Environmental constraints related to lower-income vacant sites are shown on the site summary pages above. As discussed above, these sites have constraints due to hillsides and slopes. To support the lower-income assumptions on the sites, the City has included Program EEE to work to help overcome constraints due to grading for affordable projects on these sites.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-149
Table 4-30 Vacant Sites
Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Land Use
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental
Constraints
Morello Terraces
Morello Ave and
Paso Nogal Rd /
Netherby Pl
154-140-015 6.55 Single Family Low
Density
Multiple-family -
High Density (30-
40 du/ac)
196 196 lower Vacant site Site is sloped and
will require grading.
Paso Nogal
Paso Nogal Rd
and Pillon Real
north of 5 Pillon
Real
152-010-004 3.44 Single Family Low
Density
Multiple-family -
High Density (30-
40 du/ac)
102 102 lower Vacant site Site is located on a
steep, hilly location
that will require
grading.
Beatrice /
Cleaveland
Parcels
Interior parcel
Cleaveland Rd
west of 270
Cleaveland; 576,
590, 564, 570
Beatrice Road;
Northeast corner
Cleaveland Rd /
Beatrice Rd west
of 240 Cleaveland
Rd
149-130-020,
024, 021,
022, 023,
029, 030
5.13 (by
parcel:
2.47,
0.38,
0.36,
0.37,
0.36,
1.19,
2.19)
Planned Unit
District
Multi-Family
Medium Density
149
(by parcel: 51,
8, 7, 7, 7, 24,
45)
149 Above
Moderate
Sites do not need to
undergo lot
consolidation for
development
In a FEMA
designated 100-year
flood plain; creek
runs through sites
and may require
setbacks according
to PHMC
Mayhew Way and
Buskirk Ave
148-090-008 0.21 Professional &
Administrative
Offices
Office23 5 5 Above
Moderate
Consider lot
consolidation with
148-090-028
None
1900 Oak Park
Blvd
149-284-007 0.32 Neighborhood
Business
Mixed Use
Neighborhood
4 4 Above
Moderate
Vacant commercial
site on the corner of
two arterials
None
23 This site will require a conditional use permit (CUP) for use as a residential site.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-150
Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Land Use
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental
Constraints
1680 Oak Park
Blvd
149-260-020 0.45 Single Family–-
7000 sq ft Lots
Mixed Use
Neighborhood
6 6 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood on a
major arterial
None
Interior Parcel
Topaz Ln abutted
by: 216
Devonshire,
100/150 Topaz
152-021-016 2.12 Single Family–-
15,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
4 4 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
On a steep hill
Paso Nogal Road
southwest of 10
Pillon Real
152-010-028 0.29 Single Family–-
15,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
On a steep hill
5 Pillon Real 152-010-016 0.93 Single Family–-
15,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Flag parcel
between 2048
and 2060 Buttner
Road
164-052-029 0.50 Single Family–-
20,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
20 Donkey Flats
Court
164-052-026 0.46 Single Family–-
20,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Slater Avenue and
Taylor Boulevard
164-060-017 0.32 Single Family–-
20,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family Low
Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
1986 Geary Road 170-242-073 0.35 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
170-242-072 was
split between 170-
242-073 and 170-
232-035
Next to creek, may
require appropriate
setbacks according
to PHMC
2272 Pleasant
Hill Road
149-010-095 0.29 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-151
Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Land Use
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental
Constraints
24 Waterberry
Court
166-070-044 0.29 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
30 Oakvue Lane 149-172-038 0.26 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
83 Roberta
Avenue
149-171-026 0.23 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Oakvue Lane
north of 295
Oakvue Lane
149-172-023 0.36 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Approximately
600 Block
Gregory Lane
149-010-036 0.62 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood on a
major arterial
None
South corner
Taylor Blvd and
Pleasant Hill Rd
164-030-008 1.17 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Semi-Public and
Institutional
3 3 Above
Moderate
Vacant site adjacent
to Oasis Christian
Fellowship
None
389 Camino Las
Juntas
152-092-027 0.33 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
On a steep hill
387 Camino Las
Juntas
152-092-026 0.33 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
On a steep hill
North of
westward curve
on Iron Hill Street
164-560-049 0.73 Hillside Planned
Unit District
Single-Family
High Density
3 3 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
Portion of site is on
a very steep hill with
a flatter section
adjacent to Reliez
Valley Rd
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-152
Address APN Size
(acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Land Use
Realistic
Capacity
RHNA
Income
Categories
Notes Environmental
Constraints
Reliez Valley
Road at city limits
164-560-048 0.19 Hillside Planned
Unit District
Single-Family
High Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Adjacent to 406
Kahrs Avenue
(City is currently
(April 2023)
working to issue
a Conditional
Certificate of
Compliance)
149-032-038 0.19 Single Family–-
7000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
High Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Approximately
1755 Roche Drive
153-060-011 0.41 Single Family–-
7000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
High Density
2 2 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
Next to Grayson
Creek, may require
appropriate
setbacks according
to PHMC
245 Gregory Lane 150-141-002 0.19 Single Family–-
7000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
High Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
243 Gregory Lane 150-141-003 0.19 Single Family–-
7000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
High Density
1 1 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Interior parcel
bounded by
Camino Las
Juntas and
Tanager Heights
Ln
152-070-053 0.76 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Multi-Family Very
Low Density
6 6 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
On a steep hill
Flag parcel on
Topaz Lane east
of 685 Paso
Nogal Road
152-030-053 0.73 Single Family–-
10,000 sq ft Lots
Single-Family
Medium Density
6 6 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site in an
established
neighborhood
None
Southeast corner
Taylor Blvd /
Morello Ave
152-352-027 0.30 Planned Unit
District
Multi-Family Low
Density
4 4 Above
Moderate
Vacant residential
site at the corner of
two arterials
None
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-153
Progress Toward the RHNA
The table below calculates capacity to meet the RHNA through pending and approved projects, ADUs, and Vacant Sites.
Lower
Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Very Low Low
RHNA 566 326 254 657 1,803
Pending and Approved 2 104 14 259 379
ADUs 60 60 60 20 200
Vacant Sites 149 149 0 210 508
Remaining RHNA 355 13 180 168 716
The City’s combined lower-income RHNA is 892 units. If the City cannot provide capacity for 50 percent of this total (446 units) through pipeline projects, ADU projections, and vacant sites, HCD will automatically presume that the existing uses on nonvacant sites impede residential development.
The table below calculates the City’s progress toward the RHNA through Pending and Approved Projects, ADUs, and vacant sites. As shown, the City has met the goal of providing at least 50 percent of the lower-income RHNA through pending projects, ADUs, and vacant sites.
Lower-Income Capacity Summary, Pending, ADUs, and Vacant Lower-income Sites Type Combined Lower-Income Capacity in Units
Pending and Approved Projects 106
ADUs 120
Vacant Sites 298
Total 524
50% of Lower Income RHNA (goal) 446
Capacity beyond Goal +78
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-154
Underutilized Sites and Redevelopment Trends
Vacant sites are becoming less common in Pleasant Hill, which means that in response to high demand for new residential housing, underutilized sites across the city are set to redevelop into new, more dense uses that accommodate a larger amount of housing. This section identifies the City’s methodology for evaluating the potential impediments imposed by existing uses on underutilized sites and illustrates market demand for high density redevelopment through an analysis of local and regional development trends. Table 4-31 provides a list of recently completed or in progress housing developments that have occurred on underutilized sites in the city. These sites are those which meet at least one of the following criteria:
▪ Commercial/office/nonresidential/PUD zoned sites that have been redeveloped for residential uses (dedicated, or mixed-use)
▪ Residential projects that resulted in increased density/upzoning of the existing zone ▪ Redeveloped residentially zoned sites (excluding individual single-family homes) ▪ Subdivision of residentially zoned sites for further housing development ▪ Redevelopment performed towards a mixed-use concept
Existing Uses and Potential Impediments
To quantify and evaluate the potential impediment of existing uses, the City calculated the ratio of current assessed improvement value to current assessed land value. Generally, lower ratios suggest that existing uses are less likely to constitute an impediment to redevelopment. Recent multifamily and mixed-use residential developments have ratios between 0 and 2.7 (Choice in Aging), but are generally less than 1.0. Based on this, in combination with the growing scarcity of developable land and increased interest in redevelopment projects regionally, the City considers ratios under 2.0 as evidence that existing uses do not constitute an impediment to moderate and above moderate income residential and mixed use redevelopment. Further, although Choice in Aging is an affordable redevelopment project (81 of 82 units affordable to lower income seniors) with a higher ILV (2.7), the City considers ratios below 1.0 as evidence that existing uses do not constitute an impediment to lower income residential and mixed use redevelopment. As such, the City did not assume lower income capacity on any parcels within an underutilized site with an improvement to land value ratio (ILV) greater than 1.0.
In addition to ILV, the City also considered building age in the identification of sites with potential for redevelopment or intensification. Buildings that are more than 30 years old (built prior to 1993) often require costly repairs and maintenance, while buildings more than 50 years old (built prior to 1973) typically require replacement or substantial remodeling to be leasable at market rates, particularly non-residential and multifamily developments. Sites C, D, E, G, F, G, H, I, and J include structures built prior to 1970. For sites with multiple structures, the City did not assume lowerincome capacity on any parcels with structures constructed after 1990. Further the structure at site K was constructed in 1987 and is more than 30 years old.
Local Development Trends
Table 4-31 provides a list of recently completed or in progress housing developments that have occurred on underutilized sites in the city and region. These sites are those which meet at least one of the following criteria:
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-155
▪ Commercial/office/nonresidential/PUD zoned sites that have been redeveloped for residential uses (dedicated, or mixed-use)
▪ Residential projects that resulted in increased density/upzoning of the existing zone ▪ Redeveloped residentially zoned sites (excluding individual single-family homes) ▪ Subdivision of residentially zoned sites for further housing development ▪ Redevelopment performed towards a mixed-use concept
The two most recently approved large multi-family housing developments, the Choice in Aging Campus and 85 Cleaveland, are both built on previously underutilized sites. Both sites included the redevelopment of aging structures with underutilized or vacant uses. These sites, in combination with the regional development trends summarized in Table 4-32, provide the basis for typical density assumptions for redevelopment sites by income level.
Choice in Aging, a 100 percent affordable senior development, will provide 81 units of low-income senior housing and one manager’s unit on 1.12 acres of land, creating a density of 73.2 dwelling units per acre. The Choice in Aging property is currently a four-acre site with an existing commercial structure zoned Planned Unit Development and improvement to land value ratio of 2.7.
The site is being subdivided into two lots with the residential parcel totaling 1.12 net acres. The residential parcel will be designated as Multi-Family Very High Density, which allows for 40 to 73 dwelling units per acre. The development will build out to 100 percent of its maximum density under its zoning designation.
85 Cleaveland, Pleasant Hill’s largest multi-family housing development, will provide 189 units of mostly market-rate housing on 2.33 acres of land with an improvement to land value ratio of 1.2 prior to redevelopment, creating a density of 81 dwelling units per acre. 85 Cleaveland was zoned as a part of Planned Unit District No. 943, which is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan. 85 Cleaveland’s rezoning required an amendment to the 1991 Downtown Specific Plan to remove the parcel from the plan area. Additionally, the City, in preparation for this historic multi-family development, has created a special General Plan land use designation, Multi-Family Cleaveland Very High Density, just for the 85 Cleaveland parcel. This new designation allows for 40 to 93 dwelling units per acre, a new high for the City.
Given the continuing trends towards higher density redevelopment in Pleasant Hill as evidenced by these two projects, it is assumed that, after adjusting for land use controls, the typical density of projects in Pleasant Hill will be at 95 percent of their maximum allowed density under its zoning designation. With the stable high value of land in Pleasant Hill, affordable projects are assumed to have higher density to make up for land expenses and initial capital costs.
Regional Development Trends
Table 4-32 identifies recent development projects in the region and identifies the characteristics shared with nonvacant housing opportunity sites included in the sites inventory to support assumptions related to market demand and the feasibility of redevelopment. Characteristics evaluated include improvement to land value ratio, site size, existing uses, density of redevelopment, and mix of affordable units.
The findings of this analysis provide evidence of the following:
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-156
▪ Residential and mixed-use developments built on commercial properties are feasible in the region;
▪ Residential developments that are 100% affordable to a majority of lower-income households are feasible in the region;
▪ High densities for 100% affordable housing built on commercial parcels are feasible in the region; and
▪ High densities for mixed use redevelopment projects built with a mix of incomes are feasible in the region.
Conclusion
Table 4-31and Table 4-32 provides a comprehensive review of redeveloping or developed sites that provide evidence of both the market demand and sufficient incentive towards the future growth of redevelopment on underutilized sites in the city and region, and support feasibility assumptions related to underutilized sites included in the sites inventory.
In summary, sites that are significantly undervalued (improvement-to-land-value ratio less than 1.0 for lower income, and less than 2.0 for moderate income), have aging non-residential uses (buildings greater than 50 years old for lower income, 30 years old for moderate income and market rate), and those where a large portion of the site is used for parking are anticipated to have a higher likelihood of development in the planning period. These factors were informed by GIS data, County assessor data, multiple General Plan Advisory Committee meetings, a multi-day community design charette, two community workshops, information provided by the Planning Commission and City Council, and knowledge of past and current development projects.
In conclusion, redevelopment trends, both locally and regionally, related to redevelopment of commercial, retail, or office uses into residential uses suggest that existing commercial uses are not an impediment.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-157
Table 4-31 Recent Underutilized Sites Redeveloped for Residential uses, 2017-2022 Application Address APN Net Units Existing/Previous Use Project Description Result PLN 21-0294
490 Golf Club Rd
“SAHA” (Choice in
Aging)
153-030-004
82 (81 Low, 1
Above
Moderate)
75+ year old office building
currently in use by Mt. Diablo
Center for Adult Day Care
Demolish existing 75+ year old
non-residential use Mt. Diablo
Center for Adult Day Care Center
and build three story deedrestricted 81-unit low-income senior complex with 1 above
moderate-unit reserved for onsite management
Approved, site
improvements
underway
PLN 18-0359 85 Cleaveland Rd
“Blake-Griggs” 150-210-059
189
(9 Low, 10
Moderate, 170
Above
Moderate)
Abandoned Wells Fargo Bank
office building and parking lot
Demolish abandoned office
building and build new 189-unit
multi-family complex with 19
deed restricted units
Under
Construction
PLN 17-0013
2150, 2198 Pleasant
Hill Rd
“Reliez Terraces”
149-051-021
thru 149-051-
037
16 (Above
Moderate)
Molino’s Ravioli commercial
building/ restaurant (2150)
and single-family home
(2198)
Demolished commercial building
and single-family home and built
a 17 unit planned unit
development.
Under
Construction
PLN 19-0028 401 Taylor Blvd 153-050-057
153-050-058
37 (31 above
moderate and 6
ADU’s (deed
restricted to low
income)
Office building
Demolish existing office building
and build a 31 small lot single
family with six deed restricted
lower-income ADUs.
Under
Construction
MS 08-002 and
ARC 10-007 297 Cortsen Road
166-050-007
166-060-045
166-070-048
3 (1 existing)
Above Moderate Single family residence Four lot subdivision Map approved;
construction not
started.
PLN 19-0416 574 Creekside Rd 152-091-031 1 Above
Moderate Vacant Single Family Residence Completed
PLN 19-0323 Corner of Oak Park
and Manor Road 170-082-009 Two Above Moderate Units Vacant Two lot subdivision Under construction PLN 17-0063 2187 & 2189 Pleasant
Hill Road
166-090-068
166-090-069
Two Above
Moderate Units Single Family Residence Three lot subdivision Completed PLN 22-0015 255 Rainbow Lane 170-020-020 1 (1 existing) Above Moderate Single family residence Two lot subdivision Under Planning Review PLN 20-0123 425 Roberta Avenue 149-143-013 1 (1 existing) Above Moderate Single family residence Two lot subdivision Approved PLN 19-0345 Lot 27 (Janin Place) 154-140-027 1 (1 existing) Above Moderate Vacant New single-family residence Approved
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-158
Application Address APN Net Units Existing/Previous Use Project Description Result PLN 19-0002 230-240 Cleaveland
Rd 149-130-032
7 (two existing
residences) 1
low income, 1
very low income
and 5 above
moderate
Two single family residences
Demolish two SF residential
units, and build nine-unit multifamily residential
Under Planning
Review
PLN 15-0339 100 Mayhew Way 148-070-004
44 Above
Moderate & 15
ADU’s
PGE Office Building
Demolish existing building and
build 44 small lot single family
residential units and 15 ADU’s
Completed
PLN 14-0371 Taylor Blvd and
Mercury Wy
152-070-003
152-070-010
152-070-012
152-070-014
152-070-016
18 Above
Moderate Units
(6 ADU’s Low
Income)
Vacant Develop 18 single family
residential units and 6 ADU’s Completed
PLN 21-0192 Sancerre Village 148-490-049
8 (6 Above
Moderate and 1
low and 1 very
low ADU)
Vacant Eight unit single family
residential subdivision
Modification to
previously
approved plan
PLN 19-0216 590 Creekside Rd 152-091-004
2 (1 existing
unit) Above
Moderate
Single family residence Three lot subdivision Final Map approved
PLN 18-0383 1750 Oak Park Blvd 149-271-014
34 Above
Moderate units
& 7 ADU’s
Library
Demolish and relocated library
and build 34 small lot single
family residences with 7 ADU’s
Under
construction
PLN 18-0367 0 McKissick Street 149-061-026 &
149-061-033
4 Above
Moderate Vacant Four lot subdivision Under construction Table 4-32 Regional Development Trends
Project Units Existing Use
Project Description,
including Improvement to
Land Value Ratio (ILV), if
known Similar Housing Opportunity Sites
Heritage Point,
1550-1540 Fred
Jackson Way,
North Richmond
42 (41
affordable)
Single-family, vacant
commercial, and
vacant underutilized
parcels
Completed in 2019
Density: 60 du/ac (117
percent of max)
ILV: unknown
Small site (0.5-1.5 acres) similar to sites: C, D, I, J, L Affordable development similar to sites: A, C, D, J, K
Redeveloped commercial/retail uses similar to sites: C, D, E, G, I, J High density development (greater than 40 du/ac) similar to sites: C, D,
E, G, H, I, J, K, L
The
Argent/Concord
181 (179 lower
income, 2
moderate/above
moderate
income)
Underutilized/vacant
commercial site
Under Construction
Density: 110 du/ac (110
percent of max)
ILV: 0.0
Large site (greater than 150 units) similar to sites: A, H Affordable development similar to sites: A, C, D, J, K
Redeveloped commercial/retail uses similar to sites: C, D, E, G, I, J Very high-density development (greater than 70 du/ac) similar to site A.
Extremely Low ILV similar to sites: A, D, E, H, K
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-159
Project Units Existing Use
Project Description,
including Improvement to
Land Value Ratio (ILV), if
known Similar Housing Opportunity Sites
RMG Affordable
Housing,
Concord
75 (30 lower
income, 45
moderate/above
moderate
income)
Underutilized
commercial and retail
Under Construction
Density: 136 du/ac (136
percent of max)
ILV: 0.28
Small site (0.5-1.5 acres) similar to sites: C, D, I, J, L Mixed Income development similar to sites: G, H, I
Redeveloped commercial/retail uses similar to sites: C, D, E, G, I, J Very high density development (greater than 70 du/ac) similar to sites:
Extremely Low ILV similar to sites:
25 Harbour Way,
Richmond
62 (54 low-, 7
very low-, and 1
market rate)
Underutilized
industrial warehouse
Completed in 2016
Density: 67 du/ac
ILV: unknown
Small site (0.5-1.5 acres) similar to sites: C, D, I, J, L Affordable development similar to sites: A, C, D, J, K
High density development (greater than 40 du/ac) similar to sites: C, D,
E, G, H, I, J, K, L
901 Los
Medanos Street,
Pittsburg
30 (29 very low-,
one market rate)
Underutilized
industrial warehouse
Completed in 2022
Density: 61 du/ac (211% of
max)
ILV: unknown
Small site (0.5-1.5 acres) similar to sites: C, D, I, J, L Affordable development similar to sites: A, C, D, J, K
High density development (greater than 40 du/ac) similar to sites: C, D,
E, G, H, I, J, K, L
2100-2200 Nevin
Avenue,
Richmond
271 (187 low-, 81
very low-, 3
market rate)
Underutilized office
building
Completed in 2021
Density: 67 du/ac
ILV: unknown
Large site (greater than 150 units) similar to sites: A, H Affordable development similar to sites: A, C, D, J, K
Redeveloped commercial/retail uses similar to sites: C, D, E, G, I, J High density development (greater than 40 du/ac) similar to sites: C, D,
E, G, H, I, J, K, L
28901-28987
Mission
Boulevard,
Hayward
151 very low Underutilized auto
repair building
Completed in 2016
Density: 105 du/ac
ILV: unknown
Large site (greater than 150 units) similar to sites: A, H Affordable development similar to sites: A, C, D, J, K
Redevelopment auto repair use similar to sites:
Very high-density development (greater than 70 du/ac) similar to site A. 1665 Chestnut
Street, Livermore
158 (112 lower-,
46 market rate)
Underutilized large
retail buildings
Completed in 2021
Density: 158 du/ac (130% of
max.)
ILV: unknown
Small site (0.5-1.5 acres) similar to sites: C, D, I, J, L Mixed Income development similar to sites: G, H, I
Redeveloped commercial/retail uses similar to sites: C, D, E, G, I, J Very high-density development (greater than 70 du/ac) similar to site A.
Galindo Terrace,
Concord
62 (61 lower, 1
market rate)
Redevelopment of
gas station
Under Construction
Density: 116 du/ac (116
percent of max)
ILV: 0.57
Small site (0.5-1.5 acres) similar to sites: C, D, I, J, L Affordable development similar to sites: A, C, D, J, K
Redeveloped gas station uses similar to site K.
Very high-density development (greater than 70 du/ac) similar to site A.
Extremely Low ILV similar to sites: A, D, E, H, K
1910 North Main,
Walnut Creek
135 residential
units and 7,000
square feet of
commercial
space
Redevelopment of a
one-story restaurant
and parking lot, the
project includes 11
very low-income units
for a density bonus
Under Construction
Density: 139 du/ac (136% of
max.)
ILV: 1.56
Small site (0.5-1.5 acres) similar to sites: C, D, I, J, L Market rate development similar to site L.
Redeveloped commercial/retail uses similar to sites: C, D, E, G, I, J Mixed use development, similar to sites: all
Very high-density development (greater than 70 du/ac) similar to site A.
Moderate ILV similar to sites: C, F, G, I, J
699 Ygnacio,
Walnut Creek
96 (95 low- and 1
moderate)
Redevelopment of a
gas station and
related structures
Under Construction
Density: 110 du/ac (222% of
max.)
ILV: 0.0
Small site (0.5-1.5 acres) similar to sites: C, D, I, J, L Affordable development similar to sites: A, C, D, J, K
Redeveloped commercial/uses similar to sites:
Very high-density development (greater than 70 du/ac) similar to site A.
Extremely Low ILV similar to sites:
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-160
Project Units Existing Use
Project Description,
including Improvement to
Land Value Ratio (ILV), if
known Similar Housing Opportunity Sites
1380 N.
California
Boulevard,
Walnut Creek
95 units
(including 20
“hotel” units
designed to be
convertible to full
residential
dwelling units)
and 15,000
square feet of
commercial
space
Redevelopment of a
one-story McDonalds
restaurant and
parking lot
Proposed Development
Density: 141 du/ac (285% of
max)
ILV: 0.77
Year: unknown
Small site (0.5-1.5 acres) similar to sites: C, D, I, J, L Mixed Income development similar to sites: G, H, I
Mixed use development, similar to sites: all
Redeveloped commercial/retail uses similar to sites: C, D, E, G, I, J Very high-density development (greater than 70 du/ac) similar to site A.
Extremely Low ILV similar to sites: A, D, E, H, K
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-161
Underutilized Housing Opportunity Sites
Demand for non-vacant site redevelopment in Pleasant Hill is still high, as evidenced in Table 4-31, and is expected to continue moving into the sixth cycle. The following housing opportunity sites have been identified as feasible sites for redevelopment within the sixth cycle. These sites are underutilized with low-density uses, large parking lots, old structures, and low improvement values compared to land values.
The City has notified all property owners of housing opportunity sites regarding their property’s inclusion within the sites inventory. Property owners that have felt that redevelopment at the proposed zoning designation was not feasible in the planning period were removed from consideration at this time.
In calculating unit capacity by income category, the sites inventory uses conservative estimates for mixed use housing opportunity sites. Although many of the mixed use sites allow 100 percent residential use, the sites inventory assumes a typical use mix of 75 percent residential and 25 percent nonresidential to ensure that the City provides enough available capacity to realistically meet the RHNA. Housing Opportunity Sites not positioned along Contra Costa Boulevard (sites A, H, I, J, K, and L) allow up to 100 percent residential uses. No mixed-use housing opportunity sites allow for less than 50 percent residential uses.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-162
Site A: Diablo Valley College Overflow Parking Lot
APN(s): 153-030-054 (outlined in blue)
Site A is composed of a large, singular parcel located at 440 Golf Club Road located in a moderate resource area near high-quality transit opportunities, amenities, and educational opportunities. The property is underutilized as an overflow surface parking lot for Diablo Valley College, which is located immediately south of the parcel. The parcel is owned by the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD). The parking lot, even during school days, often does not reach half its capacity. The current land use designation is School and the zoning is Single-family Residential. he proposed land use and zoning is Mixed Use Very High Density, 70-100 dwelling units per acre.
The site is considered underutilized based on extremely low improvement to land value ratio, as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the proposed zoning to Mixed Use Very High Density (70-100 du/ac). Uses on the site (parking) do not impede additional development. From a fiscal perspective, the property has an extremely low improvement ratio of
0.16 with the improvement value of the parking lot being $692,298 and the land value assessed at $4,156,736. The site’s proximity to the Choice in Aging site, which is a high-density senior facility currently under construction, makes Site A a prime location for high density housing.
If fully built-out the site can accommodate more than 700 units under definitions of the Mixed Use Very High-Density designation (70-100 du.ac), however, a more realistic capacity assumes development on seven acres of the site, which equates to 350 units. Given the density above the lower-income default density threshold (70-100 du/ac) and public ownership of the property, the site is appropriate for lower-income capacity. The City has allocated the realistic capacity of 350 units at the site toward lower-income capacity to meet the RHNA.
The City met with the representatives of Diablo Valley College to discuss plans for rezoning, who expressed interest in the City’s plans for rezoning the site. Additionally, recent projects, including both Choice in Aging (redevelopment of aging office building) and 85 Cleaveland (redevelopment of vacant office/commercial use and parking lot) provide examples that support feasibility of
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-163
redevelopment on this site, as they are examples of high density multifamily redevelopment on underutilized sites with low ILV. Additionally, Choice in Aging illustrates the feasibility of developing fully affordable projects on underutilized sites in Pleasant Hill, as is assumed at Site A. For a comparison to regional development trends, please see Table 4-32.
Table 4-32Table 4-33Site A Summary
Site Description
Site Size 10 acres (seven acres used to calculate lower-income realistic capacity)
Existing General Plan Land Use School
Existing Zoning Single Family – 7,000 Sq. Ft. Lots (R-7), 4.6-7.3 du/ac Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use Very High Density, 70-100 du/ac Current Allowed Density 7 du/ac
Proposed Density 70-100 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 700
Realistic Capacity 350
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 350 Lower
Current Use Institutional – Parking lot
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 0.17 (Extremely low) Year of Construction N/A
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-164
Site C: TAP Plastics (TAP 1)
APN(s): 127-050-052 (outlined in blue)
Site C is composed of a single 0.58-acre parcel located at 1476 and 1478 Contra Costa Boulevard in a moderate resource area with access to high-quality transportation opportunities and services along Contra Costa Boulevard. The site is underutilized with one existing single-story structure and a large parking lot. The 7,897 square foot building built in 1960 is occupied by two tenants: TAP Plastics and Sherwin William’s Paints. The proposed land use and zoning is Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 dwelling units per acre.
The site is considered underutilized based on age of the existing structure, low improvement to land value ratio, as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the proposed rezoning to Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac). The existing commercial use on the site does not impede additional development. Given the 60-year age of the structure, its prime location along Contra Costa Boulevard, and its proximity to other high density residential development, the site is poised to be a site of high interest for residential development. The site is very underdeveloped compared to existing surrounding structures east of the site. Although the density meets the default density threshold for lower income housing, due slightly higher improvement to land value ratio (1.29) the site is not assumed toward lower-income capacity goals.
The City has allocated the realistic capacity of 20 units at the site toward moderate-income capacity to meet the RHNA.
TAP 1
2 10.2.b
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-165
Table 4-33Table 4-34Site C Summary
Site Description
Site Size 0.58 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed Use, 12-40 du/ac
Existing Zoning Retail Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 12-40 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 40
Realistic Capacity 20
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 20 Moderate
Current Use Commercial – Community
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 1.29
Year of Construction 1960
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-166
Site D: Estates Consignment (Consignment or TAP2)
APN(s): 127-061-030 (outlined in blue)
Site D is composed of a single 0.95-acre parcel located at 1500 Contra Costa Boulevard in a moderate resource area with access to high-quality transportation opportunities and services along Contra Costa Boulevard. The site is underutilized with one existing single-story structure and a large parking lot. The 11,460 square foot building was built in 1959 and is occupied by Estate Consignments. The proposed land use and zoning is Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 dwelling units per acre.
The site is considered underutilized based on age of the existing structure, extremely low improvement to land value ratio, as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the proposed rezoning to Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac). The existing commercial use on the site does not impede additional development. Site D has a structure that has just reached 60 years old and has a large parking lot that makes it a much less dense use compared to surrounding properties. Additionally, according to assessor parcel data, the site has a higher land value than improvement value. The land is assessed at $2,192,600 and the improvement value is $1,130,040. This would make an improvement value ratio of 0.52, an extremely low ratio indicating a high demand for higher value uses. Given the density above the lower-income default density threshold (40-70 du/ac) and underutilization, the site is appropriate for lower-income capacity. The City has allocated the realistic capacity of 33 units at the site toward lower-income capacity to meet the RHNA.
Recent projects, including both Choice in Aging (redevelopment of aging office building) and 85 Cleaveland (redevelopment of vacant office/commercial use and parking lot) provide examples that support feasibility of redevelopment on this site, due to low ILV and extended age of existing improvements on site. Additionally, Choice in Aging illustrates the feasibility of developing fully TAP 1
2 10.2.b
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-167
affordable projects in Pleasant Hill, as is assumed at Site D. For a comparison to regional development trends, please see Table 4-32.
Table 4-34Table 4-35Site D Summary
Site Description
Site Size 0.95 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed Use, 12-40 du/ac
Existing Zoning Retail Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 12-40 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 66
Realistic Capacity 33
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 33 Lower
Current Use Commercial – Community
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 0.52
Year of Construction 1959
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-168
Site E: Gregory Gardens Shopping Center
APN(s): 150-052-009
Located at 1601 to 1699 Contra Costa Boulevard, Site E is a singular 3.59-acre parcel composed of a 43,902 square foot single-story structure that makes up the Gregory Gardens Shopping Center in a moderate resource area with access to high-quality transportation opportunities and services along Contra Costa Boulevard. The structure was built in 1950 and has fifteen tenants: California Dining and Barstools furniture store (1601), Donut King dessert shop (1607), Pho Saigon City #2 Vietnamese sit-down restaurant (1617), Pleasant Day Family Spa (1625), Cybercopy print shop (1631), MVP Sportscards specialty store (1637), Park Avenue Cleaners (1643), New York Pizza & Pasta (1649), Escape from Fisherman’s Wharf seafood restaurant (1661), Bay Area Properties real estate office (1663), Grocery Outlet (1671), National Liquors (1683), Perfect Haircuts & Nails (1687), Blue Cave Smoke Shop (1691), and Goodwill of the Greater East Bay, Pleasant Hill thrift store (1699). The proposed land use and zoning is Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 dwelling units per acre.
The site is heavily underutilized, as evidenced by its large parcel size, 72-year-old vintage, expansive parking lot, and extremely low improvement to land value ratio (0.32), as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the proposed rezoning to Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac). The existing commercial uses on the site do not impede additional development. With access to Contra Costa Boulevard, and a long history of commercial tenants, the site is tailored towards mixed use development. The site’s land value also vastly exceeds its improvement value. The site’s assessed land value is $5,236,880, while its improvement value is $1,696,444. This would create an improvement value ratio of 0.32, indicating a high degree of underutilization and an extremely high demand for higher value uses. Although the proposed density meets the default density threshold for lower income housing, the site is not assumed toward lower-income capacity goals. The City has allocated the realistic capacity of 126 units at the site toward moderate-income capacity to meet the RHNA.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-169
Table 4-35Table 4-36Site E Summary
Site Description
Site Size 3.59 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Commercial and Retail
Existing Zoning Retail Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 251
Realistic Capacity 126
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 126 Moderate
Current Use Commercial – Shopping Center / Supermarket
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 0.32
Year of Construction 1950
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-170
Site F: Contra Costa Boulevard – Gregory Lane North (CCB-GREG North) APN(s): 150-123-028, 150-123-025, 150-150-066, 150-123-023, 150-023-024 (outlined in blue) Site F is composed of five continuous parcels totaling 2.89 acres located between Vivian Drive and Woodsworth Lane, in a moderate resource area with access to high-quality transportation opportunities, amenities, and services along Contra Costa Boulevard. Street addresses include 1825, 1845, 1855, 1873, 1881, and 1885 Contra Costa Boulevard; 33 and 41 Woodsworth Lane; and 15 and 25 Vivian Drive. The site is underutilized with seven buildings and a large amount of parking.
The existing land use is Mixed Use, 20-40 dwelling units per acre.
The site is considered underutilized based on age of the existing structures, large parking areas, and low improvement to land value ratio (1.48), as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the existing land use designation of Mixed Use (20-40 du/ac). The existing commercial uses on the site do not impede additional development. 41 Woodsworth Lane is a small parcel at the southern end of the site that consists of one single story structure and a parking lot with approximately 15 spaces. The 2,780 square foot structure built in 1954 on the site, is occupied by Sichuan Fortune House sit-down restaurant, which opened at the location in January 2014.
To the east of 41 Woodsworth is a small shopping strip that consists of one single story structure and a parking lot that approximately takes up half of the parcel. The 5,832 square foot shopping strip built in 1963 composesconsists of addresses 1873 thru 1893 Contra Costa Boulevard and 33 Woodsworth Lane. The shopping strip has four tenants: Cigarettes! Outlet (1873), Sue’s Hair Salon (1881), Pleasant Day Spa (1885), and Launderland (33 Woodsworth Lane).
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-171
The central portion of Site F Is composed of two parcels which contain two single story structures and a large parking lot. These sites comprise the Pleasant Hill Service Center at 1845 and 1855 Contra Costa Boulevard. All tenants at the shopping center are catered towards car repair and service. 1845 Contra Costa Boulevard is a 6,624 square foot building built in 1985 with one tenant:
Big O Tires. 1855 Contra Costa Boulevard is a 9,965 square foot building built in 1985 with four tenants: Walnut Creek Automotive, Mike’s Automotive Service, and JT Motors.
The northeastern-most parcel of Site F has a singular one-story structure with rear parking that comprise 1825 and 1827 Contra Costa Boulevard. The structure is 5,192 square feet and was built in 1964. There is currently one tenant: Custom Car Alarms.
The northern parcel of Site F has two single-story structures with a large parking lot that comprise 15 and 25 Vivian Drive. The two structures, both built in 1988, total up to 12,168 square feet. There are currently four tenants on the parcel: Leslie’s Pool Supplies (25), I heart art studio (15A), Youth Homes Thrift Shop (15B), and Kunio’s Automotive Repair (15E).
Site F contains many structures are all of an advanced age, with most buildings built in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The site is also fragmented with a large portion dedicated to parking lots, which suggests heavy underutilization. Given the site’s direct access to traffic existing from Interstate 680 South, the site provides ample opportunities for high traffic commercial and highly serviced residential uses. The site also provides walkable access to Pleasant Hill Library, Crescent Plaza, and Safeway, making it an excellent location for sustainable low-income housing. Although the site currently allows 20-40 dwelling units per acre, which meets the default density standard for existing zoning for lower-income capacity, due to slightly higher improvement to land value ratio (1.48), the site is not assumed toward lower-income capacity goals. The City has allocated the realistic capacity of 57 units at the site toward moderate-income capacity to meet the RHNA.
Table 4-36Table 4-37Site F Summary
Site Description
Site Size 2.89 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed Use, 20-40 du/ac
Existing Zoning Planned Unit District No. 548
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use, 12-40 du/ac
Current Allowed Density 20-40 du/ac
Proposed Density 12-40 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 115
Realistic Capacity 57
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 57 Moderate
Current Use Commercial – General
Commercial – Community (1873)
Commercial – Office/Medical (1825)
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 1.48
Year of Construction 1954 (41), 1963 (1873-1893, 33), 1964 (1825, 1827), 1985 (1845, 1855), 1988 (15, 25)
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-172
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint Site G: Contra Costa Boulevard – Gregory Lane South (CCB-GREG South) APN(s): 150-150-019, 150-150-055, 150-150-058, 150-150-040, 150-150-079, 150-150-080 (outlined in blue) Site G is composed of five continuous parcels totaling 2.73 acres located between Woodsworth Lane and Gregory Lane with street addresses 1907, 1945, 2001, 2045, 2049, and 2051 Contra Costa Boulevard, in a high resource area with access to high-quality transportation opportunities, amenities, and services along Contra Costa Boulevard.. The site is underutilized with nine buildings and a very large amount of parking. The opportunity site can be split into five distinct sections which have their own parking lots. The proposed land use and zoning is Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 dwelling units per acre.
The site is considered underutilized based on age of the existing structures, large parking areas, and improvement to land value ratio, as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the proposed rezoning to Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac). The existing commercial uses on the site does not impede additional development.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-173
The first section, composed of a singular parcel at 2049 Contra Costa Boulevard, consists of a singular two-story structure built in 1973. The building is currently being leased by two tenants: VIP Smog, Diablo Ink Tattoo, and Pleasant Hill Psychic. The building also contains a small parking lot behind the building that is entirely filled with cars for VIP Smog’s services.
The second section, composed of a singular parcel at 2045 Contra Costa Boulevard, consists of three single story structures built in 1955 that make up the 26-room Sun Valley Inn Motel. The motel has a large portion of its property dedicated to parking for guests.
The third section, composed of two contiguous parcels at 1945 and 2001 Contra Costa Boulevard, consists of three single-story structures. 2001 Contra Costa Boulevard, the Pleasant Hill Square shopping center, is composed of two buildings built in 1989 totaling 16,119 square feet. The center has six current tenants: Three Brothers from China sit-down restaurant, INNOVATION. Hair salon, Fast & Easy Mart convenience store, Calico Corners furniture store, Dream Luxury Hair salon, and Pleasant Hill Bargain Cleaners dry cleaners. Given the high improvement value of the section, these parcels are assumed to be of above moderate capacity. This site is still suitable for redevelopment given the thirty-year-old age of the structures on the parcels. 1945 Contra Costa Boulevard, immediately north of Pleasant Hill Square, is composed of a singular 6,320 square foot building built in 1966. There are currently two tenants: The Pleasant Hill 94523 United States Post Office and Noni’s Pet Boutique and Grooming pet care. The parcel has significant amounts of parking in the back of the lot only accessible from Woodsworth Lane.
The fourth section, composed of a small parcel at 1907 Contra Costa Boulevard, consists of a singular single-story structure built in 1954. The building is currently being leased by two tenants:
Deb’s Flower Market and Minuteman Press signage printing. The lot has six parking spots.
The site contains aging structures (all over 30 years old) contrast drastically to the manicured appearance and high traffic of Crescent Plaza across Gregory Lane. Additionally, the site’s extremely divided nature with various parking lots makes it a highly underutilized site with high potential for a larger, more unified development with less acreage used for parking. This site is an example of a potential site that can take advantage of Program DD, which commits the City to facilitating affordable housing through lot consolidation. Although the density (40-70 du/ac) meets the default density threshold for lower income capacity, due to the higher improvement ratio for the total site, the City has distributed site capacity income assumptions as a mix of lower and above moderate-income levels. Parcels assumed for lower-income capacity have a very low combined improvement to land value ratio of just 0.78, while parcels with a higher ratio have been assumed toward above moderate-income capacity. At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac), realistic capacity for the site is 96 units; 37 lower-income, and 59 for above moderate-income.
Recent projects, including both Choice in Aging (redevelopment of aging office building) and 85 Cleaveland (redevelopment of vacant office/commercial use and parking lot) provide examples that support feasibility of redevelopment on this site due to low ILV and extended age of existing improvements on site. Additionally, 85 Cleaveland illustrates the feasibility of developing a highdensity mixed income project in Pleasant Hill, as is assumed at Site G. For a comparison to regional development trends, please see Table 4-32.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-174
Table 4-37Table 4-38Site G Summary
Site Description
Site Size 2.73 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed Use, 12-40 du/ac
Existing Zoning Planned Unit District No. 347
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 12-40 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 191
Realistic Capacity 96
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 37 Lower
59 Above Moderate
Current Use Commercial – Community (1945, 2001, 2049)
Commercial – General (1905)
Commercial – Motels (2045)
Commercial – Office/Medical (81)
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) Total Site: 1.48 Parcels assumed for Lower-Income Capacity: 0.78
Year of Construction 1954 (1907), 1954 (1907), 1966 (1945), 1970 (2051), 1973 (2049), 1989 (2059, 2001), 1990 (81)
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-175
Site H: Monument Triangle
APN(s): 148-010-012, 148-010-013, 148-010-019, 148-010-020, 148-010-021, 148-010-022, 148-010-023, 148-010-024, 148-010-026, 148-010-028
Site H is a site composed of ten parcels totaling 4.55 acres roughly aligned to a triangle bounded by Monument Boulevard, Lisa Lane, and Iron Horse Trail, located at 2060 thru 2290 Monument Boulevard in a moderate resource area with access to high-quality transit opportunities but within proximity to . The site is underutilized with fifteen structures across commercial, residential, and vacant land uses. A vast majority of the site is composed of parking lots, making it an extremely underutilized site. The proposed land use and zoning is Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 dwelling units per acre.
The site is considered underutilized based on age of the existing structures and extremely low improvement to land value ratio (0.50), as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the proposed rezoning to Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac). The existing uses on the site does not impede additional development.
At the far northwestern point of the site is a parcel currently occupied by Caliada Motors located at 2060 Monument Boulevard. On site, there are two structures, one which is a small attendant booth and the other, which is a small office, which is less than 500 square feet. The site is almost entirely occupied by parking for the dealership. The lot was formerly a gas station built in 1982.
Directly south of Caliada Motors is a series of three small parcels totaling 0.59 acres. These three parcels make up the majority of the parking lot and contain the main 1,920 square foot single story structure for the Pleasant Hill Xpress branch of Cresco Equipment Rentals. The building was built in 1960.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-176
Behind Cresco Equipment Rentals are three successive parcels shaped in an “L,” which contain nonconforming uses. 2082 Monument Boulevard is a 1,669 square foot single family home built in 1949 with half of its property being used as a parking lot for Cresco Equipment Rentals. 2084 Monument Boulevard is a vacant parcel being used entirely as further storage for Cresco Equipment Rentals. 2086 Monument Boulevard is a 1,065 square foot single family home built in 1949 with most of its property vacant and undeveloped. There are also three storage sheds on the property. All three of these parcels do not have direct access to Monument Boulevard and are instead serviced by an alley shared by Park Royale Mobile Home Park that is on the property of 2080 and 2082 Monument Boulevard. Neither of the single-family homes contained within Site H are affordable by deed restriction, however these units may be occupied by lower income households. To ensure that any units affordable to lower income households are replaced when the site is redeveloped, the City has included Program BBB committing the City to adopting a policy to require the replacement of housing units, in compliance with State law.
South of Cresco Equipment Rentals is the Pleasant Hill Medical Center, which is composed of two parcels with five separate buildings, all built between 1958 and 1960. The center encompasses all even addresses between 2100 thru 2258. Pleasant Hill Medical Center is composed of four buildings totaling 15,624 square feet and 2250 Monument Boulevard is composed of one single story 4,198 square foot building. The center contains more than twenty businesses centered around medical and veterinary care.
The southwestern most parcel of the site is a single-story strip mall totaling 4,198 square feet located at 2290, 2294, and 2298 Monument Boulevard. The strip mall was built in 1958 and currently has two tenants: Tacos El Patron Mexican restaurant (2290) and Lingerie Etc, a branch of Secrets Boutiques, adult merchandise store (2298). The strip mall has an alley with thru access to Lisa Lane.
Similar to Site G, Site H is a site of highly fragmented uses that could benefit greatly from lot consolidation. The site also contains a large number of buildings built in the 1950s, making them between 60 and 70 years old. The site also has a low improvement ratio of 0.5, signaling significant demand for a higher value use of the land. Combined, the sites total to an improvement value of $1.5 million with a land value of $3.08 million. Additionally, the site has uses that do not match surrounding land uses. The site is surrounded by high density and low-density residential development, which juxtaposes the industrial nature of much of the site. The site is near Fair Oaks Elementary School and many services in The Crossroads shopping center. For these reasons, Site H is prime for residential development. Although the density (40-70 du/ac) meets the default density threshold for lower income capacity, the City has distributed site capacity as a mix of lower and above moderate-income capacity, based on improvement to land value ratio. Parcels assumed for lower-income capacity have an extremely low combined improvement to land value ratio of just
0.14, while parcels with a higher ratio have been assumed toward above moderate-income capacity. At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac), realistic capacity for the site is 159 units; 85 lower-income, and 74 for above moderate-income.
Recent projects, including both Choice in Aging (redevelopment of aging office building) and 85 Cleaveland (redevelopment of vacant office/commercial use and parking lot) provide examples that support feasibility of redevelopment on this site, due to low ILV and extended age of existing improvements on site. Additionally, 85 Cleaveland illustrates the feasibility of developing a highdensity mixed income project in Pleasant Hill, as is assumed at Site H. For a comparison to regional development trends, please see Table 4-32.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-177
Table 4-38Table 4-39Site H Summary
Site Description
Site Size 4.55 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Commercial and Retail
Existing Zoning General Commercial
Retail Business (2100, 2250, 2290)
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 318
Realistic Capacity 159
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 85 Lower
74 Above Moderate
Current Use Commercial – Community (2060, 2098, 2290)
Commercial – Office/Medical (2100, 2250)
Commercial – General (2096)
Single Family (2082, 2086)
Vacant (2084)
Miscellaneous (2080)
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) Total Site: 0.50 Parcels assumed for Lower-income Capacity: 0.14
Year of Construction 1949 (2082, 2086), 1958-1960 (2290, 2294, 2298, 2100- 2258) (2098), 1982 (2060)
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-178
Site I: Gregory Lane Southeast (PH Greg SE)
APN(s): 149-380-007 (with commercial condominiums 149-380-001, 149-380-002, 149-380-003, 149-380-004, 149-380-005, 149-380-006), 149-380-090 (outlined in blue)
Site I is composed of two large parcels, and six commercial condominiums, totaling 1.13 acres in a high resource area with access to high-quality transportation options along both Gregory Lane and Pleasant Hill Road. The Site is located at 670 and 690 Gregory Lane. With two structures over 30 years old and a large amount of parking (approximately half the surface area), the site is considered underutilized. The proposed land use and zoning is Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 dwelling units per acre.
The site is considered underutilized based on age of the existing structures, expansive parking area, lower improvement to land value ratio (1.54), as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the proposed rezoning to Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac). The existing commercial uses on the site do not impede additional development.
The western parcel, 690 Gregory Lane, has one 4,309 square foot structure built in 1969. The building currently has four tenants: Grace Cleaners (690 #1), State Farm Offices of JP Reed (690 #2), Pleasant Hill Florist (690 #3), and Little Red Bistro (690 #4).
The eastern parcel, 670 Gregory Lane, has two single-story structures totaling to 7,042 square feet built in 1981. 670-A and 670-B are in the one structure and are one, combined condominium. 670-C thru 670-G are in the second structure and each is an individual, separate condominium. Seven businesses are operating out of the shopping strip: Teamwork Nail Spa (670-A), Myrna Casco Insurance Agency (670-B), Higher Ground Chiropractic (670-C), Diablo Stereo and Video (670-D), Diablo Boxing (670-E), Thai Village Restaurant (670-F), M.J. Studios Art and Music (670-G). The commercial condominium on site isn’t an additional constraint on the redevelopment of the property since all of the condominiums are owned by a singular owner.
The site is underutilized with the large amount of parking on site and the advanced age of the two structures on site. Site I is also located adjacent to high density residential uses, which makes the
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-179
site prime for more high-density residential housing. The site south of the parcel, Grayson Terrace Condominiums, has approximately 26 units of housing. Although the density (40-70 du/ac) meets the default density threshold for lower income capacity, the City has distributed site capacity as a mix of lower and above moderate-income capacity, with only the parking area acreage (0.5 acres) assumed toward lower income capacity. At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac), realistic capacity for the site is 36 units; 16 lower-income and 20 above moderate-income.
Recent projects, including both Choice in Aging (redevelopment of aging office building) and 85 Cleaveland (redevelopment of vacant office/commercial use and parking lot) provide examples that support feasibility of redevelopment on this site due to low ILV and age of existing improvements on site. Additionally, 85 Cleaveland illustrates the feasibility of developing a highdensity mixed income project in Pleasant Hill, as is assumed at Site I. For a comparison to regional development trends, please see Table 4-32.
Table 4-39Table 4-40Site I Summary
Site Description
Site Size 1.03 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Neighborhood Business
Existing Zoning Precise Plan District #460
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 72
Realistic Capacity 36
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 16 Lower
20 Above Moderate
Current Use Commercial – Condominium (670) 24
Commercial – Community (690)
Miscellaneous
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 1.54
Year of Construction 1969 (690), 1981 (670)
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint 24 Incorrectly noted in city data as Multifamily – Condominium. 670 Gregory is a Commercial Condominium.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-180
Site J: Gregory Lane Southwest (PH Greg SW)
APN(s): 166-081-031, 166-081-051, 166-081-052 (outlined in blue) Site J is composed of three contiguous parcels totaling 1.03 acres located at 2367 Pleasant Hill Road, 2397 Pleasant Hill Road, and 710 Grayson Road in a high resource area with access to highquality transportation options along both Gregory Lane and Pleasant Hill Road. The site is underutilized with three structures and lots of parking. The proposed land use and zoning is Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 dwelling units per acre.
The site is considered underutilized based on age of the existing structure, low improvement to land value ratio, as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the proposed rezoning to Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac). The existing commercial uses on the site do not impede additional development.
The southernmost parcel, 2367 Pleasant Hill Road, has one 776 square foot single story structure built in 1999 currently occupied by American Family Hot Tub and Therapeutic Massage. This business shares a parking lot with 2397 and has a large, fenced yard full of wares.
The largest parcel of the three, 2397 Pleasant Hill Road, which is directly on the southwest corner of Gregory Road and Pleasant Hill Road, has one 5,570 square foot two story structure built in 1951 with a large parking lot and wide setbacks. The anchor of this small shopping strip is Pleasant Hill
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-181
Market, a small local produce-focused grocery store. Along with the market is junior tenants Siren’s Deli and Juice Bar and The Hot Spot Pizza and Sandwich.
The westernmost parcel, 710 Grayson Road, has one 4,234 square foot single story structure built in 1984 with a small parking lot. The structure is currently being used for the dental offices of Michael E. Huget, D.D.S. and Associates.
Site J is underutilized as evidenced by the large amount of parking and the 70-year-old age of 2397 Pleasant Hill Road. This shopping center is located at a major intersection and sticks out in a lush, green residential area due to its large parking lot with undivided access from the road. This lack of a barrier, green or not, also inhibits safety through its lack of a protected sidewalk on both Grayson Road and Pleasant Hill Road. The site could be redeveloped more intensely with a mix of housing and commercial uses in a manner that would better reflect the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood while working to meet local housing needs. Although the density (40-70 du/ac) meets the default density threshold for lower income capacity, the City has distributed site capacity as a mix of lower and moderate-income capacity, based on improvement to land value ratio.
Parcels assumed for lower-income capacity have a very low combined improvement to land value ratio of just 0.62 while parcels with a higher ratio have been assumed toward moderate-income capacity. At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac), realistic capacity for the site is 39 units; 25 lower-income, and 14 moderate-income.
Recent projects, including both Choice in Aging (redevelopment of aging office building) and 85 Cleaveland (redevelopment of vacant office/commercial use and parking lot) provide examples that support feasibility of redevelopment on this site due to their low ILV and age of existing improvements on site. Additionally, 85 Cleaveland illustrates the feasibility of developing a high density mixed income project in Pleasant Hill, as is assumed at Site J. For a comparison to regional development trends, please see Table 4-32..
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-182
Table 4-40Table 4-41Site J Summary
Site Description
Site Size 1.13 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Neighborhood Business (2637, 2397) Office (710)
Existing Zoning Neighborhood Business (2367, 2397)
Planned Unit District #519 (710)
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 79
Realistic Capacity 39
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 25 Lower
14 Moderate
Current Use Commercial – Community (2367, 2397)
Commercial – Office/Medical (710)
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) Total Site: 1.12 Parcels assumed for Lower-Income Capacity: 0.62
Year of Construction 1951 (2397), 1984 (710), 1999 (2367) Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-183
Site K: Gregory Lane Northwest (PH Greg NW)
APN(s): 164-131-027 (outlined in blue)
Site K is composed of a singular parcel totaling 0.42 acres located at 2401 Pleasant Hill Road in a high resource area with access to high-quality transportation options along both Gregory Lane and Pleasant Hill Road. The site is underutilized with one gas station and accompanying convenience store on site. The Shell Gas Station was built in 1987 with the approximately 900 square feet Shell Food Mart convenience store. As with Site J, most of Site K is pavement. Site K’s pavement is used for cars queuing for gas and parking for the convenience store, sticking out from the green, residential nature of the surrounding community. The proposed land use and zoning is Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 dwelling units per acre.
The site is considered underutilized based on age of the existing structure, low improvement to land value ratio, as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the proposed rezoning to Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac). The existing commercial use on the site does not impede additional development.
Site K is a highly underutilized parcel with its current use. The gas station’s improvement value ratio is 0.5, with the improvement value assessed at $323,435 and the land value assessed at $646,875.
The low improvement value ratio indicates demand for a higher land use at the location. The site’s location at a major intersection makes it an excellent choice for mixed use development.
Realistically, the site can hold 14 units of housing at Mixed Use High-Density zoning. Although the proposed density (40-70 du/ac) meets the default density threshold for lower income housing, due to the small parcel size, the site is not assumed toward lower-income capacity goals. The City has allocated the realistic capacity of 14 units at the site toward moderate-income capacity to meet the RHNA.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-184
Table 4-41Table 4-42Site K Summary
Site Description
Site Size 0.42 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Neighborhood Business
Existing Zoning Neighborhood Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 29
Realistic Capacity 14
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 14 Moderate
Current Use Commercial – General
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 0.5 (Low) Year of Construction 1987
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-185
Site L: Gregory Lane Northeast (PH Greg NE)
APN(s): 152-132-047 (outlined in blue)
Site L is composed of a singular 1.06-acre parcel located at 611 Gregory Lane in a high resource area with access to high-quality transportation options along both Gregory Lane and Pleasant Hill Road. The site is underutilized with one commercial building and two parking lots taking up much of the parcel’s acreage. The only building on site is the 8,680 square foot Zio Fraedo’s Italian sitdown restaurant built in 2003. Zio Fraedo’s has operated in Pleasant Hill since the 1970s and relocated to its location from its previous location (701 Gregory) in 2003 after a fire. The proposed land use and zoning is Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 dwelling units per acre.
The site is considered underutilized based on large parking area, low improvement to land value ratio, as well as the additional density, FAR, height, and lot coverage available under the proposed rezoning to Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac). The existing commercial uses on the site does not impede additional development.
The site’s underutilization is attributed to the large amount of parking that is present on the parcel.
Parking accounts for approximately 60 percent of the site, making it prime for high value or higher density uses. Similarly, to Site I, Site L is adjacent to high density residential uses, which makes it an optimal site for further high-density residential growth. The parcel north of Site L contains Creekside Park, a condominium community that has approximately 36 units of housing. In the same acreage of Site L, Creekside Park has 18 units spread across three buildings. With a slightly
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-186
higher density, buildings on Site L can easily meet the 37 assumed capacity. At Mixed Use High Density, the site has the capacity for 37 units. Due to the age of the existing structure (2003) and higher improvement value, site capacity has been assumed as above moderate.
Table 4-42Table 4-43Site L Summary
Site Description
Site Size 1.06 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Neighborhood Business
Existing Zoning Neighborhood Business
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed Use High Density, 40-70 du/ac Current Allowed Density 0 du/ac
Proposed Density 40-70 du/ac
Maximum Capacity 74
Realistic Capacity 37
Realistic Capacity by Income Category 37 Above Moderate Current Use Commercial – General
Improvement Ratio (Improvement Value/Land Value) 4.68
Year of Construction 2003
Adjustment Factors
Realistic capacity 70% Based on development standards contained in the 2003 General Plan, past development trends, and programs to
incentivize development
Land use mix 75% Based on assumed mix of residential and nonresidential uses
Typical densities 95% Recent trends show that affordable projects are likely to build to maximum density or beyond (due to density bonus) Environmental constraints No adjustment No known site constraint Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, not a constraint Summary of Underutilized Housing Opportunity Sites
Table 4-43 summarizes Housing Opportunity sites and RHNA capacity.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-187
Table 4-43Table 4-44Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Site Total
Size
(Acres)
Existing Zoning Proposed
Zoning
Improveme
nt Ratio
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
Realistic
Capacity
LowerIncomeModerateIncomeAbove
ModerateIncome
A 10.00 Single-Family –
7,000 sq. ft. Lots
Mixed Use Very
High Density 0.17 70 du/ac 100 du/ac 350 350
C 0.58 Retail Business Mixed Use
High Density 1.29 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 20 20
D 0.95 Retail Business Mixed Use
High Density 0.52 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 33 33
E 3.59 Retail Business Mixed Use
High Density 0.32 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 126 126
F 2.89 Planned Unit District
No. 548 Mixed Use 1.48 12 du/ac 40 du/ac 57 57
G 4.18 Planned Unit District
No. 347
Mixed Use
High Density 1.51 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 96 37 59
H 4.55
General Commercial
(7 parcels); Retail
Business (3 parcels)
Mixed Use
High Density 0.5 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 159 85 74
I 1.03 Precise Plan District
No. 460
Mixed Use
High Density 1.54 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 36 16 20
J 1.13
Neighborhood
Business (2 parcels);
Planned Unit District
No. 519 (1 parcel)
Mixed Use
High Density 1.12 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 39 25 14
K 0.42 Neighborhood
Business
Mixed Use
High Density 0.5 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 14 14
L 1.06 Neighborhood
Business
Mixed Use
High Density 4.68 40 du/ac 70 du/ac 37 37
Total 36.19 967 546 231 190
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-188
Sites Identified in Previous Housing Elements
The Beatrice / Cleaveland vacant sites are the only identified sites from the 5th cycle Housing Element. All of the sites are identified as above moderate-income sites given the extra development cost of addressing flooding constraints based on the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain.
Moderate- and Above Moderate-income Capacity Allowing Multifamily Uses In metropolitan jurisdictions, including Pleasant Hill, the State of California requires that at least 25 percent of the capacity identified toward moderate- and above moderate-income goals be provided on parcels allowing multifamily uses. The City has provided capacity for 231 moderate- and 190 above-moderate income units on underutilized parcels proposed for rezone to Mixed Use (12-40 du/ac) and Mixed Use Very High (40-70 du/ac). These sites provide realistic capacity for 421 total units, Additionally, the Beatrice / Cleaveland vacant parcels are designated Multi-family Medium Density, providing an additional realistic capacity for 149 above moderate units. The combination of underutilized moderate and above moderate mixed-use sites and vacant above moderate multifamily sites totals 570 units, which equates to 62 percent of the combined moderate- and above-moderate RHNA of 921 units. The City has met this requirement.
Summary of RHNA Credits and Sites Inventory
In combination with the City’s pending projects and ADU development trends, the site inventory provides adequate sites to meet the City’s RHNA allocation and buffer requirements. Between these three methods, the city can accommodate a total of 2,124 housing units, including 1,157 lower-income, 308 moderate-income, and 659 above moderate-income units. Table 4-45 shows a summary of the number of housing units accommodated by pending projects, vacant sites, mixed use redevelopment, and ADU trends.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-189
Table 4-44Table 4-45Summary of 6
th Cycle RHNA Capacity
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Sixth Cycle RHNA 892 254 657 1,803 CREDITS
Assumed Accessory Dwelling
Units 120 60 20 200
Pending and Approved Projects 106 14 259 379
SITES
INVENTORY
Vacant Sites 298 0 210 508
Underutilized Housing Opportunity
Sites 546 231 190 967
Total Planned Sixth Cycle Units 1,070 305 679 2,054
RHNA with 20 percent buffer 1,070 305 65725 2,032
Surplus (beyond RHNA with buffer) 0 0 22 22
Percentage of RHNA Planned 120% 120% 103% 114%
Availability of Infrastructure
Water, sewer, and storm drainage capacity will be sufficient for any housing development within the City of Pleasant Hill during this planning period.
Engagement with Local Providers
Water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. The City encourages inter-agency cooperation between the City and local providers and engages these agencies as issues and opportunities arise. Additionally, the City has included Program CCC that commits the City to providing local service providers with a copy of the Final Housing Element within 10-days of certification. The program also commits the City to engage local providers within 30-days of receipt of an application for development of housing units affordable to lower-income housing.
Water Supply
Three different Agencies supply potable water to the residents of Pleasant Hill. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) provides service to most of the City, while the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) provides service to southwestern Pleasant Hill (mainly bounded on the east by Pleasant Hill Road), and Martinez Water District provides service to a small northwestern portion of the city close to Paso Nogal Park.
25 The additional 20 percent buffer is only required for lower- and moderate-income categories.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-190
CCWD, according to its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, is expected to increase its usable capacity with greater use of recycled water systems and importation of water from the Central Valley Project. These changes are expected to help CCWD meet projected population growth in the region. EBMUD, according to its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, is expected to meet all its projected customer demand projected until 2040 with affordances made for two years of drought conditions. There are approximately ten housing units projected in the Martinez Water District’s service area in this housing element. These additional units are not expected to make a significant impact on water demand for the utility.
All three districts have the capacity to serve development through the build-out of this Housing Element. Consistent with State law, affordable housing projects will be given priority for water services.
Water Treatment
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District provides water treatment service for the entire city.
Wastewater treatment is provided at one centrally located plant, which is three miles north of Pleasant Hill at the junction of Interstate 680 and Highway 4 in unincorporated county land. The district is currently processing 34 million gallons of wastewater per day and has a total capacity of 54 million gallons per day.
Storm Drainage
The City’s storm drainage system consists of underground pipes, surface culverts and open ditches that empty into several local creeks and their tributaries. The main creeks are Grayson Creek, Murderer’s Creek, and Walnut Creek. Recent improvements have been approved for storm drains across the city as a part of funding from Measure K, passed in 2016. System-wide storm drainage capacity will not impose a constraint on residential development. Further, the City requires new development projects to comply with a “zero net runoff” standard. That is, post-project hydrologic conditions must not exceed pre-project levels. This can be accomplished by reducing impervious surface areas (for example, installing more landscaping, or pervious surfaces as an alternative to concrete and asphalt), or by storing and metering runoff so as not to exceed previous levels.
Electricity
MCE, which offers sufficient additional capacity and connections for any new development in Pleasant Hill, provides electric service to the entire city. Residents may also choose to opt for service through PG&E instead of MCE.
Gas
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides gas services, electric delivery, billing, and power line maintenance in Pleasant Hill.
Telephone
The city is served by all four major cellular telephone providers: Verizon Wireless, American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T), T-Mobile, and Sprint. The City is also served by a variety of Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVMOs), such as Cricket Wireless, MetroPCS, and Boost Mobile, which offer service to lower income households.
Landline telephone service is provided through internet service providers, such as Xfinity and AT&T.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-191
Internet
The city is served by a variety of internet service providers that provide access to internet for households of all income levels. Pleasant Hill is served by Xfinity and AT&T Internet. Xfinity offers Internet Essentials for low-income households that are a part of certain public assistance programs.
Financial Resources
The City of Pleasant Hill does not have significant financial resources to expend directly towards housing development, however, it is continually looking for new ways to increase funding to help create and maintain affordable housing.
Housing Trust Fund
The Affordable Housing Trust Fund is a fund that receives in-lieu fees from developers who do not include prescribed affordable units in their development. The Trust Fund is the City’s primary source for funding affordable housing. The City primarily uses these funds to loan developers funding for new construction in exchange for enforcing deed restrictions when their property is ready for tenants. The City also has the option of using Trust Fund monies in other ways as the City sees fit to proactively support demand for affordable housing.
As of the beginning of the sixth cycle, the housing trust fund currently has low reserves. however, Program T commits the City to amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which sets in-lieu fees.
The City hopes to update the ordinance to better reflect the true price of developing affordable housing in this hot housing market.
Housing Successor Agency
The Pleasant Hill Housing Successor Agency, which was established in 2012 as redevelopment agencies were abolished under state law, has the responsibility of winding down the commitments of its predecessor. The Housing Successor Agency no longer owns any property; however, it still honors previously established loans issued to multi-family developments in Pleasant Hill. The Housing Successor Agency also receives housing rehabilitation loans. Table 4-46 shows the breakdown of the 224 affordable units the Housing Successor’s subsidizes as of the beginning of the sixth cycle. Table 4-47 shows inventory of 27 upcoming units the Housing Successor has committed to subsidizing.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-192
Table 4-45Table 4-46Housing Successor Subsidized Units
Development Total Units
Affordable
Units Deed Restrictions
Grayson Creek Apartments 71 71 2070
Hookston Manor Senior
Apartments
100 99 2075
Garden Park Apartments 29 27 2072
Villa Montanaro Apartments 157 12 2036
IMT Pleasant Hill (formerly
Lincoln Green Apartments)
252 4 Yes, Date Unknown
Gallery Walk 133 11 Yes, 45 years
Total Redevelopment Agency Subsidized Units 224
Source: City of Pleasant Hill, 2022; Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency Successor Annual Report, 2019-2020.
Table 4-46Table 4-47Upcoming Successor Subsidized Units Development Total Units
Affordable
Units
Successor Agency
Subsidized Units
Choice in Aging Campus 82 81 27
Source: Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency Successor Annual Report, 2019-2020.
Community Resources
Several organizations are operating across Contra Costa County to provide holistic resources to people experiencing housing insecurity. Public organizations help administer government-funded programs, such as Section 8, that aim to address homelessness. Many non-profit affordable housing organizations help not only help people have access to housing, but also provide a system of support through community, case workers, and employment.
Public Affordable Housing Resources
Important resources, including housing and healthcare, available to people experiencing homelessness through public agencies in Contra Costa County. A majority of programs are operated through the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa.
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa, shortened as Contra Costa Housing Authority, is a public agency that provides rental subsidies, manages, and develops affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities in the county. The Housing Authority operates much like a special district, operating separately from county government organizations, however still under the purview of the state government. The Housing Authority offers a variety of vouchers and programs which aim to help provide housing to people in need.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-193
Housing Choice Voucher
The Housing Choice Voucher, better known as Section 8, is a federally funded program for assisting very-low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled with access to housing. The Housing Authority is the local administrator of Housing Choice Voucher program. The program allows qualified applicants to use their voucher at low-income housing properties that allow for a subsidized rate of rent. Housing Choice Vouchers have the additional property of being portable, which means that if a family chooses to move to another property, their voucher can be transferred to their next home.
Project Based Voucher
A major component of the larger Housing Choice Voucher program, the Project Based Voucher Program is a federally funded program that encourages property owners to construct new or upgrade substandard rental housing for low-income families. The Housing Authority is the administrator of this program and issues Request for Proposals to notify property owners of housing funding opportunities. Property owners who participate in the program are subject to a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contract that lasts for up to a term of up to 20 years of rental subsidy. 726 units have been assisted by the voucher, including Hookston Senior Homes in Pleasant Hill, which provides 44 units of senior housing.
Shelter Plus Care
Shelter Plus Care, federally created under the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, is a program that aims to promote permanent housing with supportive services to persons with disabilities coming that are experiencing homelessness. The program distinguishes itself from the Housing Choice Voucher program by requiring supportive services that match equal to, or greater than the rental assistance award. Shelter Plus Care is administered by the Contra Costa Housing Authority with funding directly from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Shelter Plus Care is a program eligible to homeless people with mental illness, a substance abuse problem, HIV/AIDS, or a dual diagnosis, and have inadequate nighttime residence.
Veterans Affairs Supporting Housing Voucher Program
The Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Voucher Program (VASH) is a federally administered housing program aimed to provide chronically homeless veterans with housing and access to case management. VASH vouchers are distributed to public housing agencies, such as the Contra Costa Housing Authority, based on geographic need and administrative performance. The Contra Costa Housing Authority currently holds 93 VASH vouchers earned from three awards. The recipients will need to be deemed eligible by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Martinez in addition to being deemed eligible by the Contra Costa Housing Authority under Housing Choice Voucher guidelines.
Mainstream Voucher Program
The Mainstream Voucher Program provides rental assistance to non-elderly persons with a disability. There are currently 55 Vouchers active, all administered by the Contra Costa Housing Authority, which are available through the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list.
State of California Homekey Program
Homekey is a state-administered program that aims to develop a variety of housing types for those experiencing homelessness, including hotels, motels, hostels, single-family homes, and multifamily apartments. The program also includes funding top convert commercial properties to permanent or interim housing. Homekey is available to public agencies, such as the Contra Costa Housing Authority, to fund needed projects.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-194
Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS)
Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) is a department of Contra Costa County which provides public healthcare to all people in Contra Costa County with special attention to those who are most vulnerable to health problems. CCHS operates the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez, which is the County’s only public hospital. CCHS is funded almost entirely by state and federal programs. CCHS also administers the Continuum of Care (CoC) program of Contra Costa County, which helps coordinate resources for those who are experiencing homelessness. As a part of this program, CCHS operates the annual Point in Time (PIT) count, which counts the number of homeless people across Contra Costa County. Such data is important for cities across the County to make informed decisions for policies that generate affordable housing.
Non-Profit Affordable Housing Resources
In addition to public agencies and resources, Pleasant Hill is served by many non-profits which aim to help provide and support affordable housing across the city. Many of these agencies have been operating for decades in collaboration with civic leaders and local stakeholders.
Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Successor Agency
The Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Successor Agency is, as its name implies, the successor to the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency that was abolished by state law in 2012. The successor agency aims to wind down the affairs of the former Redevelopment Agency and pay off any debt obligations incurred by the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency has a significant role in helping fund many local low-income housing developments.
Choice in Aging
Choice in Aging is a non-profit organization focused on fighting against ageism and providing highquality, essential services to seniors across Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, and Solano counties.
Choice in Aging offers Home-based services, Alzheimer’s care, day programs, and caregiver support to create a more holistic senior care system. The organization also hosts Intergenerational programs which aim to help educate preschoolers with interaction and friendship with elder members of their communities. Choice in Aging has been an active member of Pleasant Hill’s community for years and is a major provider in affordable, senior housing for the sixth cycle RHNA through their Choice in Aging Campus project.
Hope Solutions
Hope Solutions, formerly known as Contra Costa Interfaith Housing, is a non-profit aiming to combat poverty and homelessness by providing housing solutions and support services. Hope Solutions has a long history of high impact projects that help the estimated 15,000 people who experience homelessness each year in the county. Hope Solutions also hosts their annual Gala which helps raise funds for homeless families and individuals. Hope Solutions provides housing directly through Garden Park Apartments, which houses 27 formerly homeless families in Pleasant Hill. Hope Solutions also oversees HUD-funded multi-site housing programs, which includes two units within Pleasant Hill.
Shelter, Inc.
Shelter, Inc. is a non-profit that provides “wrap-around services” that allow for long-term impact to not only provide housing but allow for success in regaining and maintaining a home. Shelter, Inc. also actively provides services that help prevent homelessness from the start with case managers ensuring the safety and security of people at risk of homelessness. The organization also helps individuals find employment to truly create a solid foundation for self-sufficiency. With 35 years of
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 4-195
service, Shelter, Inc. has been an important partner in helping end homelessness in Contra Costa County.
Eden Housing, Inc.
Operating for more than 50 years, Eden Housing is a local non-profit aiming to provide safe and affordable housing for families with a focus on long-term development and justice. Eden Housing helps provide not just housing, but stability to those in need of their services. Eden operates a large inventory of affordable housing located across California, with a large concentration in the Bay Area. Eden is continually focused on helping provide housing access and has two affordable housing projects adjacent to Pleasant Hill: Belle Terre in Lafayette and Virginia Lane in Concord.
Mercy Housing California
Mercy Housing California is a division of Mercy Housing, the largest nonprofit affordable housing developer in the country. Mercy Housing develops and operates affordable, service enriched housing for families, seniors, and people who have been homeless. Mercy Housing operates Garden Park Apartments on Lisa Lane in Pleasant Hill, which provides 29 units of affordable lowincome housing.
BRIDGE Housing Corporation
BRIDGE Housing is a corporation that helps provide affordable homes that display the same quality of design and construction as market-rate housing. BRIDGE housing helps develop a variety of projects, such as family and senior affordable housing, transit-oriented developments, mixed-use developments, and supportive housing facilities. BRIDGE operates the 70-unit Grayson Creek Apartments, one of Pleasant Hill’s largest affordable housing developments. BRIDGE also operates multiple properties near Pleasant Hill, including Coggins Square in Walnut Creek and Sycamore Place in Danville.
Brilliant Corners
Brilliant Corners is a non-profit agency that develops affordable housing, manages over 200 affordable housing properties, provides individual case management, and is a part of the highly successful Los Angeles County Flexible Subsidy Pool (FHSP). Brilliant Corners helps develop and operate residential care homes, multi-family developments, and other housing solutions across the state.
Christian Church Homes of Northern California
Christian Church Homes of Northern California (CCHNA) is a non-profit branch of Christian Church Homes (CCH) that develops and operates affordable senior housing across several western states.
CCH has served more than 100,000 residents since its establishment in 1961 and currently operates over 5,000 affordable apartment homes across 59 communities. CCHNC aims to provide senior residents with housing and resources that allow for aging-in-place with dignity and a feeling of being of more than a home.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Residential Sites Inventory
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 20234-196
This page is intentionally left blank.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 20234-197
Appendices
Appendix A: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)
Appendix B: Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element
Appendix C: Public Comments
Appendix D: Public Response to the Revised HCD Draft
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 20234-198
This page is intentionally left blank.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) September 2022 Administrative Draft
B-1
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-2 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Table of Contents
1.1 Introduction And Overview of AB 686......................................................................A-3
1.2 Analysis of Impediments Findings...........................................................................A-5
1.3 Analysis of Fair Housing ...........................................................................................A-6
1.4 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity.................................................A-8
1.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends................................................A-10
1.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities...................................................................A-34
1.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs...........................................................................A-50
1.8 Contributing Factors................................................................................................A-60
1.9 Local Knowledge .....................................................................................................A-65
1.10 Sites Inventory Analysis ..........................................................................................A-72
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-3
Tables
Table A-1 TCAC Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps.................................A-7 Table A-2 Organizations Active in Contra Costa County .........................................................A-9 Table A-3 Contra Costa County and Pleasant Hill Demographics, 2019 5-year Estimates A-13 Table A-4 Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill ...............A-15 Table A-5 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill .....................A-15 Table A-6 Neighborhood Income Segregation .......................................................................A-19 Table A-7 Population with Developmental Disability by Residence......................................A-29 Table A-8 Tenure by Household Type, Contra Costa County ................................................A-31 Table A-9 Tenure by Household Type, Pleasant Hill ..............................................................A-32 Table A-10 Employment Status by Disability Status (Contra Costa County) .........................A-42 Table A-11 Employment Status by Disability Status (Pleasant Hill) .......................................A-43 Table A-12 Summary of Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions.................................A-61 Table A-13 Units by TCAC Opportunity Areas ..........................................................................A-76 Table A-14 Number of Units by Income Characteristics of Census Tract..............................A-76 Table A-15 Number of Units by Demographics of Census Tract ............................................A-77 Table A-16 Number of Units by Housing Need Factors of Census Tract...............................A-78 Table A-17 Sites inventory by Fair Housing Factors of Census Tracts ..................................A-79 Figures
Figure A-1 Neighborhood Segregation, UC Berkeley, 2019 (Contra Costa County)..............A-13 Figure A-2 Racial Demographics (Contra Costa County)........................................................A-14 Figure A-3 Neighborhood Segregation, UC Berkeley, 2019 (Pleasant Hill)............................A-16 Figure A-4 Racial Demographics (Pleasant Hill) .....................................................................A-17 Figure A-5 Median Household Income (Contra Costa County)..............................................A-20 Figure A-6 Median Household Income (Pleasant Hill)............................................................A-21 Figure A-7 Low to Moderate Income Population (Contra Costa County)..............................A-22 Figure A-8 Low to Moderate Income Population (Pleasant Hill)............................................A-23 Figure A-9 TCAC Area of High Segregation and Poverty and Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ("R/ECAPs").........................................................A-25 Figure A-10 Persons with Disabilities (Contra Costa County)..................................................A-29 Figure A-11 Persons with Disabilities (Pleasant Hill)................................................................A-30 Figure A-12 Percent of Children in Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner Present Households, (Contra Costa County) ......................................................................A-33
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-4 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Figure A-13 Percent of Children in Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner Present Households, (Pleasant Hill) ....................................................................................A-34 Figure A-14 Walkability Score, Contra Costa County ................................................................A-37 Figure A-15 Walkability Score, Pleasant Hill ..............................................................................A-38 Figure A-16 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Contra Costa County) ..........A-40 Figure A-17 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Contra Costa County) ..........A-41 Figure A-18 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Contra Costa County).............................A-44 Figure A-19 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Pleasant Hill)...........................................A-45 Figure A-20 Jobs Proximity Index, 2014-2017 (Contra Costa County)....................................A-46 Figure A-21 Jobs Proximity Index, 2014-2017 (Pleasant Hill)..................................................A-47 Figure A-22 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Contra Costa County)..........................................................A-49 Figure A-23 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Pleasant Hill) .......................................................................A-50 Figure A-24 Overpayment by Homeowners (Contra Costa County) ........................................A-51 Figure A-25 Overpayment by Renters (Contra Costa County) ..................................................A-52 Figure A-26 Overpayment by Homeowner (Pleasant Hill) ........................................................A-53 Figure A-27 Overpayment by Renters (Pleasant Hill)................................................................A-54 Figure A-28 Overcrowding (Contra Costa County)....................................................................A-55 Figure A-29 Overcrowding (Pleasant Hill)..................................................................................A-56 Figure A-30 Sensitive Communities (Contra Costa County).....................................................A-59 Figure A-31 Sensitive Communities (Pleasant Hill) ..................................................................A-60 Figure A-32 Housing Choice Vochers as a Precent of Renter-Occupied Units, by Census Tract .........................................................................................................................A-72 Figure A-33 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Category ...................................................A-74 Figure A-34 Census Tracts..........................................................................................................A-75
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-5
1.1 Introduction And Overview of AB 686
In January 2017, Assembly Bill (AB) 686 introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing into California state law. AB 686 redefined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The bill added an assessment of fair housing to Housing Element requirements, which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities; an assessment of contributing factors; and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.
1.2 Analysis of Impediments Findings
Recipients of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development must prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years. This analysis is an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures that will be pursued to mitigate or remove identified impediments.
The 2020-2025 Contra Costa Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) provides indepth looks at a number of areas relevant to fair housing, including: demographic trends and characteristics; patterns of segregation and integration; identification of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs); disproportionate housing needs (including cost burden and the adequacy and safety of housing); disparities in access to opportunity (education, employment, low poverty exposure, and environmental health); disabilities and access; publicly-supported housing; and fair housing enforcement, outreach, and capacity. In addition to data, maps, and policy analysis, it examines barriers to fair housing and their underlying causes (“contributing factors”). Most importantly, its data and analyses (including community input) provide the foundation for meaningful fair housing goals that address specific local issues.
The AI identifies the following impediments to fair housing in Contra Costa County (region):
▪ Segregation in the county, the Bay Area, and the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek is primarily an inter-jurisdictional rather than an intra-jurisdictional phenomenon (that is, it is more apparent when comparing various jurisdictions rather than within the jurisdictions). ▪ Using an expanded definition of Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) based on local knowledge that includes all census tracts that meet the racial/ethnic composition threshold and have a poverty rate of 25 percent or more, the AI identifies R/ECAPs in Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Concord. ▪ Hispanic and Black residents face particularly severe housing problems. These housing burdens are greatest in portions of Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Hercules, Concord, Martinez, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley.
▪ There are significant disparities in the rates of renter and owner-occupied housing by race/ethnicity in Contra Costa County, although Antioch and Pittsburg have significantly higher homeownership rates by Hispanic and Black residents than in the county as a whole.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-6 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
▪ Access to opportunity is highest for non-Hispanic whites in Contra Costa County. The various report measurements show that county neighborhoods with the most whites have the most access to opportunity. Access to opportunity is lowest for non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics.
The various report measurements show that census tracts with the highest numbers of Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest scores in the categories that measure access to opportunity. ▪ Access to opportunity is lowest in western and north-eastern sections of the County, specifically in the cities of Richmond, Pittsburg, and in Antioch. Access is highest in central Contra Costa County, including Walnut Creek, Danville, Alamo, San Ramon, Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga. ▪ The amount of affordable, accessible housing across the region, the county, and cities within Contra Costa County is insufficient to meet the total need among low-income persons with disabilities who need accessibility features.
▪ Private discrimination is a significant contributing factor in Contra Costa County.
1.3 Analysis of Fair Housing
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires the City of Pleasant Hill to analyze areas of segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. These areas of impediment are analyzed below.
Resources
To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) AFFH Viewer, Urban Displacement Project (UDP), CalEnviroscreen, and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).
Housing and Community Development’s AFFH Data Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group- and tract-level data from an expansive collection of sources including American Community Surveys (ACS), U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), Urban Displacement Project (UDP), and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS).
The Data Viewer serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing.
The Data Viewer is intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination and increase access to safe and affordable homes.
Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
The UDP was developed as a research initiative by the University of California, Berkeley in partnership with the University of California, Los Angeles. The UDP developed a mapping tool to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts qualifying as disadvantaged neighborhoods per UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college-educated residents, non-Hispanic white population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-7
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. This tool is called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). CalEnviroScreen utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, the higher the score, the more impacted a community is by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities. Designated disadvantaged communities under Senate Bill (SB) 535 (2012) are those communities that scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California (CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher).
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
To assist in the analysis of integration and segregation in the context of race and income status, HCD and TCAC convened the California Fair Housing Task Force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains (economic, environmental and education) with each including a set of indicators. Table A-1 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
▪ Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line ▪ Racial Segregation: Tracts with a higher percentage of for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all people of color in comparison to the County
Table A-1 TCAC Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, Adult Education, Employment, Job Proximity, Median Home Value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values Education Math Proficiency, Reading Proficiency, High School Graduation Rates, Student Poverty Rates 2020 Contra Costa County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice As described above, the Contra Costa County Regional AI is a countywide effort to increase fair housing choices for residents across the county, developed by a regional collaborative with the County of Contra Costa as lead agency. The City of Pleasant Hill is a participating agency in this regional collaborative. The AI addresses fair housing issues on a countywide level and in each jurisdiction. The AI provides an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures to mitigate or remove identified impediments.
AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that explores data related to transit opportunity. The AllTransit performance score evaluates the social and economic impact of transit on a community, using metrics such as connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-8 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Community Engagement and Outreach
The following section summarizes the various methods of community engagement the City used as part of the Housing Element Update. The engagement program included branding, a project website, newsletters and e-blasts, announcements on the City website and social media, a workshop and a town hall meeting, General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings, and Planning Commission and City Council study sessions and hearings. For more information see Chapter 1: Introduction, and Appendix C.
The City created and maintained a website for the 2040 General Plan Update with a webpage dedicated to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Project documents were posted to the website, comments were encouraged through the provided "Comments" button on each page, and visitors were given a link to sign up to receive email updates. The City sent multiple email notifications (e-blasts) to announce upcoming events and the release of project-related documents.
The City held five public meetings, a public workshop, and a town hall meeting to discuss the Housing Element Update. The City received numerous comments as a result of these meeting which informed the housing element process including the selection of housing opportunity sites. A full list of these comments is available in Appendix C.
1.4 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
This analysis of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity evaluates the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are informed of fair housing laws and tenants’ rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.
Regional Trends
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits all housing providers, including local governments, from discriminating in housing development and all actions related to the provision of housing based on a wide variety of characteristics including sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, familial status, disability, or genetic information. Contra Costa County does not have an ordinance on fair housing. Of the incorporated cities within the county, only Concord has a comprehensive fair housing ordinance. Richmond has a housing ordinance that specifically prohibits discrimination based on past criminal conviction. Walnut Creek has a reasonable accommodation ordinance requiring that people with disabilities have equal access to housing.
Several organizations provide fair housing services in Contra Costa County. ECHO Housing conducts fair housing testing and provides counseling, mediation, and education in Antioch, Concord, Walnut Creek, the other cities in the County (except Pittsburg) and unincorporated Contra Costa County. Bay Area Legal Aid also works to eliminate housing discrimination through education, outreach, and enforcement throughout Contra Costa County while Pacific Community Services works in Pittsburg.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-9
Table A-2 Organizations Active in Contra Costa County
Organization Services
ECHO Housing Housing counseling, fair housing services, tenant/landlord services, rent review/eviction harassment program, fair housing investigations.
Pacific Community
Services
Fair housing pre-purchase education workshops, mortgage delinquency and default resolution counseling, rental housing counseling, and pre-purchase counseling for homebuyers Bay Area Legal Aid Civil legal advice, counsel, and representation to low-income individuals Source: Contra Costa County Regional AI, 2019
In 2021, there were a total of seven Fair Housing Equal Opportunity (FHEO) cases filed with HUD per 100,000 individuals residing in the county. Of these cases, four of every 100,000 individuals were cases of disability bias, one of every 100,000 individuals was a case of familial status bias, and one of every 100,000 individuals was a case of racial bias.
Local Trends
The City of Pleasant Hill is served by the Contra Costa County Housing Services Collaborative (Collaborative), which brings together the expertise of two housing service providers: Bay Area Legal Aid and ECHO Housing to provide fair housing and tenant/landlord services, including fair housing counseling and education and tenant/landlord counseling and mediation. The Collaborative provides counseling on issues such as security deposits; repairs; understanding lease terms; eviction for nonpayment of rent or alleged tenant misconduct; and obtaining rent payment assistance, including Section 8 vouchers. The Collaborative also offers a number of fair housing services, including investigating housing discrimination complaints, counselling individuals regarding their rights, responsibilities and options, and providing mediation, advocacy, and legal referrals. The Collaborative offers education and outreach to residents and staff of community-based organizations.
Bay Area Legal Aid provides legal aid to individuals facing discrimination in housing on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, family status or other protected classes. Bay Area Legal Aid also protect families from illegal evictions, including eviction after foreclosure, substandard housing conditions, and wrongful denials and terminations of housing subsidies. The practice also works to preserve and expand affordable housing and protect families from foreclosure rescue scams.
ECHO’s Fair Housing Counseling Program conducts site investigations and enforcement in response to reports of housing discrimination complaints, performs audit-based investigations to determine degrees of housing discrimination existing in designated areas, and provides fair housing education for members of the housing industry including managers, owners, and realtors. ECHO’s Tenant/Landlord Counseling Program provides information to tenants and landlords in Southern Alameda County on their housing rights and responsibilities. Additionally, ECHO has trained mediators to assist in resolving housing disputes through conciliation and mediation. The primary objective of the program is to build awareness of housing laws and prevent homelessness.
The City has local ordinances that comply with existing fair housing laws and regulations. Chapter
18.112 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the City’s reasonable accommodation policy to provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in regulations and procedures to ensure equal access to housing, and to facilitate the development of housing.
The City complies with all existing fair housing laws and regulations and is not subject to findings, lawsuits, or judgements related to enforcement actions regarding fair housing.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-10 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
According to the AFFH Viewer, between 2013 and 2021, there were a total of eight Fair Housing Equal Opportunity (FHEO) cases filed with HUD, for a rate of 0.23 inquiries per 1,000 people. Of these cases, one was on the basis of disability bias, and the remaining cases did not provide a basis. The City has reached out to ECHO to investigate these cases further, however no additional data is available at this time. The City will continue to investigate these and future cases throughout the planning period.
1.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics.
Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This can include two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area. ▪ Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20 percent Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80 percent Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.
▪ City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.
There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.
Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments.1 Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.
Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety.2 This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates.3
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and 1 Rothstein 2017
2 Trounstine 2015
3 Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-11
where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).
ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.
To adequately assess the patterns of integration and segregation, this section identifies trends at the regional scale (Contra Costa County) and at the local scale (Pleasant Hill). To identify socio-economic and demographic spatial trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis utilizes HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, which provides an expansive collection of data from sources including the 2015-2019 ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other regional and federal agencies. In its AFFH guidance document published in April 2021, HCD describes the importance of segregation and integration analysis in relation to fair housing:
Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race, ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, practices, and procedures—both public and private—that have had enduring and pervasive negative impacts. Overt and covert housing discrimination through land use policy, shifting housing markets, and patterns of investment and disinvestment, have restricted meaningful fair housing choice and equitable access to opportunity, particularly for communities of color. Historic patterns of segregation persist in California despite the longstanding federal mandate, established by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further the purposes of the FHA.
Past and present discriminatory policies and practices, including long-term disinvestment, have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock, limited access to opportunity, unsafe environmental conditions, underfunded schools, dilapidated infrastructure, and other disproportionately experienced problems. In addition, governmental policies have subsidized the development of segregated, high-resourced suburbs in metropolitan areas by constructing new highway systems—often through lower income communities of color— to ensure access to job opportunities in urban centers. This physical and policy infrastructure supports patterns of discrimination and high levels of segregation that continue to persist in California and across the country. All of these conditions persist despite the over 50-year-old obligation to prohibit discrimination and affirmatively further fair housing.4 For persons with disabilities, as explored below in Disability and Access, segregation also includes residents in congregate and/or institutional facilities that allow for limited interaction with people who do not have disabilities, regardless of where those dwellings are located. Integration, by contrast, consists of both relative dispersion or lack of concentration of protected class members and, for persons with disabilities, residence in settings like permanent supportive housing that provide opportunities for interaction with persons who do not have disabilities. As the passage of the Fair Housing Act by Congress in 1968 was, in large measure, a response to pervasive patterns of residential segregation to which government action contributed significantly, segregation and integration are essential topics in any fair housing planning process.5 4 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 5 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6-11-19
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-12 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Race and Ethnicity
Historic exclusionary governmental policies, biased mortgage lending practices, and other tactics have caused racial and ethnic segregation and spatial inequities. The ethnic6 and racial7 composition of a region can correlate to other demographic characteristics that can affect access to opportunity. The existence of concentrations of minorities living in one location may be an indicator that some minority groups in Pleasant Hill do not have as many housing choices as nonminority residents.
Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates (Table A-3), white8residents comprised the largest racial/ethnic group in Contra Costa County followed by Hispanic or Latino residents, and then Asian residents. Within Contra Costa County, segregation exists both within individual cities and between cities. The City of Concord is an example of a city with intra-city segregation: non-white residents make up over 95 percent of residents in census tracts on the west side, compared to around 30 to 40 percent in census tracts located in central Concord.
Figure A-1 highlights neighborhood segregation by a single racial group or by two to four group mixes.
There is a stark contrast between communities in the eastern and western parts of the county with high Black and Hispanic populations concentrated in cities such Antioch, Pittsburg, and Richmond, and white residents concentrated in the central parts of the county.
Figure A-2 highlights segregation by showing the percentage of the non-white population by block group in Contra Costa County. High percentages of non-white populations are concentrated in east and west county, and high percentages of white populations concentrated in central and south county. Two of the most racially segregated white neighborhoods in the entire Bay Area are located in Walnut Creek, which is 63 percent white.
There are also high concentrations of white residents in Martinez (69 percent white) and Lafayette (77 percent white). Along with these three cities, the communities of Clayton, Danville, Moraga, Pleasant Hill, and Orinda are also segregated, majority white cities. 9 6 Ethnicity determines whether a person is of Hispanic origin or not. For this reason, ethnicity is broken out in two categories, Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics may report as any race. 7 Race is defined by the Census Bureau as a person’s self-identification with one or more social groups. An individual can report as white, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or some other race. Survey respondents may report multiple races.
8 The data sets used in this report include slightly varying definitions for racial and ethnic categories. This report uses the following definitions:
• White: Non-Hispanic White
• Latinx: Ethnically Hispanic or Latino of any race
• Black: Non-Hispanic Black or African American
• Asian: Non-Hispanic Asian
• People of Color (POC): All who are not non-Hispanic White (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)
9 Segregation in the Bay Area Part 1, 2021, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-1
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-13
Table A-3 Contra Costa County and Pleasant Hill Demographics, 2019 5-year Estimates Race/Ethnicity
County
Population
Percent County
Population
Pleasant Hill
Population
Percent Pleasant
Hill Population
White (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) 637,904 55.8 25,600 73.5 Non-Hispanic white 500,592 43.8 22,448 64.4
Black or African American 99,642 8.7 896 2.6
American Indian 5,506 0.5 62 0.2
Asian 190,983 16.7 4,285 12.3
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander
5,631 0.5 265 0.8
Some other race 124,629 10.9 1,389 4.0
Two or more races 77,956 6.8 2,343 6.7
Hispanic or Latino 292,298 25.6 5,102 14.6
Total Population 1,142,251 100% 34,840 100%
Source: 2019: ACS 5-year Estimates, Demographic and Housing Estimates, Table DP05
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-14 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Dissimilarity and Isolation Indices
The Dissimilarity and Isolation indices, developed at the University of Chicago, are methods of measuring segregation. The Dissimilarity Index measures whether one particular group is distributed across census tracts in the metropolitan area in the same way as another group. The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (e.g., they tend to live in different neighborhoods). A high value indicates that the two groups tend to live in different tracts. A value of 0.6 (or above) is considered very high. It means that 60 percent (or more) of the members of one group would need to move to a different tract in order for the two groups to be equally distributed. Values of 0.4 or 0.5 are usually considered a moderate level of segregation, and values of
0.3 or below are considered fairly low.10
As measured by the Dissimilarity Index, Black residents face the highest levels of segregation of any racial or ethnic group in both the county and the region. Hispanics are the next most segregated group, followed by Asian or Pacific Islanders. While levels of Black-white segregation are above thresholds that social scientists would consider high segregation, index levels for Hispanics and Asians and Pacific Islanders suggest moderate segregation. The lower level of segregation for Asians and Pacific Islanders in the County than in the region is consistent with the relatively smaller concentration of 10 https://s4.ad.brown.edu/projects/diversity/index.htm
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-15
Asian or Pacific Islander residents in the county than in the region. In general, less populous groups tend to face lower levels of segregation.
Table A-4 Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill Race/Ethnicity
Pleasant Hill Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.195 0.234 0.196 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.271* 0.293* 0.312* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.118 0.141 0.126 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.147 0.177 0.148 0.168
Source: Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022.11 Within City of Pleasant Hill, the most isolated racial group is white residents. Pleasant Hill’s isolation index of 0.610 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is
61.0% white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Pleasant Hill for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table A-5 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.
Table A-5 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Pleasant Hill Race/Ethnicity
Pleasant Hill Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.104 0.157 0.174 0.245
Black/African American 0.020 0.025 0.033 0.053
Latinx 0.087 0.127 0.147 0.251
White 0.777 0.702 0.610 0.491
Source: Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022.12 Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates (Table A-3), white residents comprised the largest racial/ethnic group, at 64.4 percent of the population. This is approximately 20 percent higher than County as a whole, indicating an exclusion of non-white individuals. Hispanic residents follow as the second most prevalent residents at 14.6 percent, and Asian residents make up 12.3 percent of Pleasant Hill.
Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Pleasant Hill identifying as white has decreased—and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased—by 14.8 percentage points. In absolute terms, the Hispanic or Latino population increased the most while the white, non-Hispanic population decreased the most.
Within the city, segregation exists between census tracts (Figure A-3). In every census tract, the population is predominantly white, ranging from 47 to 80 percent. However, various census tracts are identified as mix-group neighborhoods by UC Berkeley’s analysis of neighborhood segregation. In the northern area of the city, as well as a small portion of the eastern area of the city, the population is 11 Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022. Accessed:
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/file/927857388028 12 Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022. Accessed:
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/file/927857388028
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-16 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
identified as a mix of Asian, Hispanic, and white residents. Centrally, the population is identified as predominantly Hispanic and white.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-17
Dissimilarity, Isolation, and Exposure Indices
Table A-4 provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Pleasant Hill between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020). In Pleasant Hill, the highest segregation is between Black and white residents (see Table A-4). Pleasant Hill’s Black /white dissimilarity index of 0.312 means that 31.2 percent of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and white residents. However, it should be noted that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size.
According to the Isolation Index, the most isolated racial group in Pleasant Hill is white residents.
Pleasant Hill’s isolation index of 0.610 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 61 percent white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Pleasant Hill for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table A-5. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-18 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in low-income households must have actual choice in housing opportunities—that is, when they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.
This section identifies household income disparities using data based on median household income and low- or moderate-income (LMI) geographies. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI, which means the household’s annual income is up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), as defined by HUD.13 Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, the median household income in Contra Costa County was $99,716. Figure A-5 shows the median household income by block group for Contra Costa County using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Lower-income block groups are generally concentrated in the northwest, east areas of the county and in Concord. LMI populations by block group for Contra Costa County are displayed in Figure A-7. Census tracts within the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, Martinez, Concord, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Concord contain the highest LMI populations in Contra Costa County. LMI populations are in communities that had a relatively greater percentage of children living in singleparent, female-headed households (Figure A-14) and a higher percentage of non-white population (Figure A-2).
The Bay Area has lower levels of income segregation compared to Pleasant Hill, according to the Isolation Index. Above moderate-income residents are the most segregated, receiving a score of 0.507.
This means that the average above moderate-income individual lives in a census tract that is 50.7 percent above moderate-income. However, according to the Dissimilarity index, the Bay Area has higher rates of segregation between groups below 50 percent of the AMI and above 120 percent of the AMI compared to Pleasant Hill (Table A-6). This may be because there is a higher percentage of lower income individuals in the Bay Area region than in Pleasant Hill. 13 HUD Exchange 2021: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-19
Table A-6 Neighborhood Income Segregation
Race/Ethnicity
Pleasant Hill Bay Area
2010 2015 2020
Isolation Very Low Income 0.193 0.234 0.269
Low Income 0.149 0.157 0.145
Moderate Income 0.181 0.184 0.183
Above Moderate Income 0.573 0.520 0.507
Dissimilarity Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.253 0.180 0.198 Below 50% AMI vs Above 120% AMI 0.279 0.192 0.253
Theil’s H Multi-Racial All 0.041 0.040 0.043
Source: Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022.14 Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, the median household income in Pleasant Hill is higher than the county, at $140,121. Figure A-6 shows the median household income by block group for Pleasant Hill. Within Pleasant Hill, median household income varies greatly by block group. Generally, western and central Pleasant Hill are higher income, with block group median income ranging from $91,930 to $190,000. Lower income households are concentrated in southern Pleasant Hill, with block group median income ranging from $54,214 to $80,515.
LMI populations by block group for Contra Costa County are displayed in Figure A-8. The block groups with the highest LMI populations within Pleasant Hill are located in the northern and southern areas of the city. Notably, a northern block group with a proportionally higher median income ($97,892) compared to the rest of the city also has one of the highest LMI scores in the city (54 percent). This may indicate that income segregation happens at a smaller scale than block groups. LMI populations are also in communities that had a relatively greater percentage of children living in single-parent, female-headed households (Figure A-15) and a higher percentage of non-white population (Figure A-4). 14 Segregation Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022. Accessed:
https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/file/927857388028
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-20 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023A-21
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-22 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-23
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) R/ECAPs are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations.15 HUD has developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAPs. In terms of racial or ethnic concentration, R/ECAPs are defined as census tracts with a non-white population of 50 percent or more of the population belonging to a given racial or ethnic group. With regard to poverty, R/ECAPs are census tracts in which 40 percent or more of individuals are living at or below the poverty limit or that have a poverty rate three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.
16 Identifying R/ECAPs facilitates understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty.
Regional Trends
There is only one area within Contra Costa County that meets HUD’s criteria for R/ECAPs. It is located in the Monument Corridor area of Concord. However, according to the countywide AI, the current R/ECAP criteria are not well-suited to this area because they use the national poverty rate. Due to the high cost of living in the San Francisco Bay Area, use of the national poverty rate severely 15 Office of the Secretary, HUD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, Sections 5.160 through 5.180 appear at 80 FR 42363, July 2015, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title24-vol1/pdf/CFR-2016-title24-vol1-sec5- 152.pdf. 16 133 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Open Data for R/ECAP Tract Current and Historic, https://hudgishud.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/56de4edea8264fe5a344da9811ef5d6e_0/explore?location=44.635862%2C58.263972%2C3.90
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-24 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
underestimates whether an individual is living in poverty. The AI expands the definition of R/ECAPs to include majority-minority census tracts that have poverty rates of 25 percent or more. Using those criteria, 12 census tracts in the county qualify as R/ECAPs.
The twelve identified R/ECAPs are located in the areas of Antioch, Bay Point, Concord, Pittsburg, North Richmond, Richmond, and San Pablo (Figure A-9). The cities of Richmond and Concord have the largest concentrations of census tracts living in poverty, with three each. As of the 2012-2016 ACS, 69,326 people lived in these R/ECAPs, or 6.3 percent of the county’s population as of that date.
Hispanics make up a disproportionately large percentage of residents who reside in R/ECAPs compared to the population of the county, comprising approximately 53 percent of all individuals living in R/ECAPs. Black residents also constitute a disproportionate percentage of R/ECAP residents in the county, making up nearly 18 percent of all R/ECAP’s but only nine percent of the county’s population.
Local Trends
Using the both the definitions used in the AI and by HUD, there are no identified R/ECAPs located in Pleasant Hill.
Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
While R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed. RCAAs are defined as affluent, white communities.17 According to a policy paper published by HUD, white residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States, and majority-white communities are typically more affluent than majority non-white communities. RCAAs have not been studied extensively, nor has a standard definition been adopted by HCD or HUD. Therefore, this assessment uses the percent white population and median household income as thresholds to identify potential RCAAs. The threshold that HUD uses to define a RCAA is a census tract where 80 percent or more of the population is white, and has a median income of at least $125,000.18 In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to LMI areas.
Regional Trends
Figure A-10 highlights the areas identified as RCAAs in Contra Costa County, which encompass much of the central, western, and southern portion of the county as well as parts along the eastern boundary.
Most of the aArea identified as RCAAs is includes both non-urbanized land located in unincorporated Contra Costa County and urban areas within incorporated cities. Additionally, tThe majority of several cities, including Danville, Alamo, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, and Clayton are classified as RCAAs. These RCAAs in Contra Costa County areas have higher median incomes, and higher concentrations of white residents, higher percentages of residents with a disability, and higher percentages of children living in female-headed, single-parent households compared to other areas with lower median incomes such as Antioch and Bay Point. RCAAs also have a higher percentage of owner- occupied units, and lower rates of cost burden and overcrowding than non RCAAs. RCAAs in the county consist of high resource areas with low rates of pollution burden, while non-RCAAs are a mix of moderate- and low-resource areas with moderate to high rates of pollution burden.
Local Trends
Most of Pleasant Hill is classified as an RCAA, except for the southeastern portion, and northeastern tip. Similar to trends occurring in Contra Costa County, areas RCAAs in Pleasant Hill have with higher 17 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, 2019. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf 18 Ibid.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-25
median incomes and are associated with a larger proportion of white residents compared to census tracts with lower median incomes. In general, residents in western and central Pleasant Hill are earn higher incomes. These areas also, have lower concentrations of LMI populations, and higher percentage of white residents compared to other areas of the city, as shown in Figure A-11. In RCAAs in the city, between 54.7 and 80.8 percent of the population identifies as non-Hispanic/Latino white and median income ranges from $105,329 to $203,929 to $122,315 per year. In comparison, in areas that are not RCAAs, to between 43.4 and 55.7 percent of the population identifies as non-Hispanic/Latino white and median income ranges from $102,393 to $122,315 per year.
Areas of the city that are not RCAAs also have a higher percentage of renter occupied units (27.9 to
57.3 percent) than most RCAAs in the city, which generally have less than 20.0 percent. The northern tip of the city has a high rate of cost burden among homeowners (42.4 percent) which is higher than in most RCAAs in the city. However, unlike the county, RCAAs do not have a lower rate of cost burden among renters or lower rate of overcrowding compared to areas that are not RCAAs. Some RCAAs have the highest rates of cost burden among renters and overcrowding in the city.
The distribution of RCAAs in Pleasant Hill may be caused in part by land use zoning laws, as a large portion of the northern tip of the city is zoned medium and high density residential. In comparison, most of the city is zoned low density residential. In addition, subsidized affordable housing is generally concentrated in the northern tip of the city.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-26 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-27
Disabilities and Access
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and need specialized care, often relying on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.
When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are often in need of not only affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.
Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity and homelessness, particularly when they lose aging caregivers.
State law requires housing elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities specifically. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and live with family members.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-28 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Regional Trends
According to the 2016 ACS, 60,768 residents of Contra Costa County have ambulatory19 disabilities, which represents 5.9 percent of the county’s population; 3.1 percent of residents have hearing disabilities; and 1.9 percent have vision disabilities. People with ambulatory disabilities may not need a fully accessible unit, particularly if they do not use wheelchairs. They may require a unit on the ground floor or in an elevator building, perhaps with some architectural modifications. The regional and County averages for ambulatory difficulties are both lower than any of the surrounding areas, suggesting that people with ambulatory difficulties are more likely to live in large cities where they may have more resources available.
Approximately 20 percent (20.9 percent) of people with disabilities have incomes below the poverty line, as opposed to 13.1 percent of individuals without disabilities. Another indicator of disability and limited income are the number of people receiving SSI, which is limited to people with disabilities. In the county, 26,494 residents receive SSI which is such a small subsidy that all recipients are extremely low income.20 Not all SSI recipients have the types of disabilities that necessitate accessible units, but due to the typical income level of people with disabilities, the need for affordable housing is greater than it is among people without disabilities.
People with disabilities in the county tend to be concentrated in the areas of the greatest population density. These areas include the bayside metropolitan area around Richmond, the cities to the north along the San Joaquin River such as Antioch, and the communities that run through the center of the county like Concord and Walnut Creek. However, while there is a correlation between areas of population density and areas where people with disabilities live, the relationship is far less apparent than one might expect. A comparison of the hard data the conclusion that R/ECAPs in Contra Costa have higher concentrations of people with disabilities than the general population of the county or the region.
Local Trends
According to the 2019 ACS data, there are a total of 3,525 individuals with a disability in Pleasant Hill, approximately 10.2 percent of the population. Of the population with a disability, 234 individuals, or approximately six percent, have developmental disabilities. Of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 38.1 percent, while adults account for 61.9 percent.
As shown in Table A-7, the most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Pleasant Hill is the home of a parent, other family, or guardian. As shown in Figure A-12, households including individuals with disabilities are concentrated in the northernmost and southernmost areas of Pleasant Hill.
19 The definition of ambulatory disabilities is “having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.” 20 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments, Contra Costa County. Accessed: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/FinalBOS-Approved-AI-6-11-19
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-29
Table A-7 Population with Developmental Disability by Residence Residence Type Value
Home of Parent / Family / Guardian 155
Independent / Supported Living 63
Community Care Facility 11
Other 5
Foster / Family 5
Intermediate Care Facility 0
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-30 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 and the martial status of the head of the household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining child to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Households with children are protected by fair housing law.
A 2016 HUD study studied the effects of housing discrimination based on familial status. The study found that landlords presented households with children fewer housing options, and the units shown were generally larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.21 Additionally, female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.
Regional Trends
Contra Costa County had 394,769 households in 2019. According to the 2015-2019 ACS estimates, households with children comprised 33.5 percent of the total households in Contra Costa County. 21 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-31
Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table A-8. Married couple families with children comprised the largest share of both owner- and renter-occupied households.
Single-parent, female headed households comprised approximately 2.7 percent of owner-occupied households and 12.2 percent of renter occupied homes. Of the 23,648 single-parent, female-headed households, 69.5 percent rented, and 30.5 percent owned their home.
Table A-8 Tenure by Household Type, Contra Costa County Household Type
Owner
Occupied
Percent of total
Owner-Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Percent Owner
Occupied
Total Households 260,244 100% 134,525 100%
Total Households with Children
Present
77,477 29.8% 54,827 40.8%
Married couple, with own children of
the householder under 18 years
66,588 25.6% 29,188 21.7%
Single-Parent, Male Household 3,674 1.4% 9,206 6.8%
Single-Parent, Female Household 7,215 2.7% 16,433 12.2% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.
As shown in Figure A-14, children living in female-headed households are concentrated in Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. Those communities are also areas of high combined Black and Hispanic population. By contrast, central county, and in particular the portions of central county to the south of the City of Concord, have relatively low concentrations of single mothers. These areas tend to be more heavily White or White and Asian and Pacific Islander communities.
Local Trends
Pleasant Hill had a total of 13,817 households in 2019. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, households with children comprised 27.5 percent of total households. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table A-9 and Figure A-15. Married couple families with children comprised the largest share of both owner- and renter-occupied households.
Compared to the county, single-parent, female-headed households comprised a smaller portion of total households in Pleasant Hill. Single-parent, female-headed households comprised approximately 3.4 percent of owner-occupied households and 5.8 percent of renter-occupied homes. Of the 582 singleparent, female-headed households, 48 percent rented, and 52 percent owned their home.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-32 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Table A-9 Tenure by Household Type, Pleasant Hill
Household Type
Owner
Occupied
Percent of total
Owner-Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Percent Owner
Occupied
Total Households 9,042 100% 4,775 100%
Total Households with Children Present 2,720 30% 1,086 22.7% Married couple, with own children of
the householder under 18 years
2,297 25.4% 669 14%
Single-Parent, Male Household 120 1.3% 138 2.9%
Single-Parent, Female Household 303 3.4% 279 5.8%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.
As shown in Figure A-14, in Pleasant Hill, children living in female-headed households are concentrated in the northern area of the city. Those communities are predominantly white. As shown in Figure A-3, however, these areas have a higher proportion of Hispanic and Asian community members then the rest of the city.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023A-33
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-34 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
1.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
According to HCD guidance, land use policies and urban planning impact the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far-reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.22
This section analyzes the following place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators: quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment. The primary objective is to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.
22 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-35
Transit Access
Reliable public transit access and active transportation options, such as walking and biking, are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities and medical appointments. Lack of transportation options can impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for low-income communities in accessing housing and employment opportunities.
Regional Trends
Contra Costa County generally has widespread access to public transit, although it is less accessible than in the surrounding Bay Area region. According to AllTransit, 74.9 percent of households in Contra Costa County are within a half mile of transit.23 In terms of fixed-route transit, the county is served by AC Transit, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), County Connection, Tri Delta Transit, and WestCAT.
Programs offered by other organizations include three adjacent city-operated paratransit programs in West County, the Lamorinda Spirit Van, and Walnut Creek’s Lyft Pilot Program.
The participating jurisdictions in the county received an average AllTransit performance score of 5.024 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling few people to take transit to work.
25 Performance scores vary greatly across the County. Performance scores are generally highest in areas of cities with access to BART, which includes Richmond, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Martinez, and Antioch. Areas on the outskirts of cities generally have limited access to transit, as do the cities of Danville and San Ramon. According to AllTransit, 17.2 percent of households are underserved by transit, meaning there is a mismatch between the strength of the transit market and the quality of transit service available to the households of that community.
Eighty-two percent of jobs in the county are located within a half-mile of a transit stop. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Some residents with unique needs, such as households with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home due to childcare needs, access to schools, and other considerations.
Areas that have concentrations of people with disabilities generally have high AllTransit performance scores, with Lafayette being an exception. Proximity to public transit does not necessarily mean it is accessible, however. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority released the Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan in March of 2021.26 This plan identified the growing senior population as leading to an increase in demand for paratransit services.
Contra Costa County has a wide range of walkability. The National Walkability Index, developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is a nationwide geographic data resource that ranks block groups according to their relative walkability. The data is based on measures of the built environment that affect the probability of whether people walk as a mode of transportation: street intersection density, proximity to transit stops, and diversity of land uses.27 Areas in the county that are densely 23 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
24 AllTransit Performance Scores range from 1 to 9+, with 1 being the lowest score and 9+ being the highest. 25 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
26 Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, 2021. https://ccta.net/wpcontent/uploads/2021/05/d212e7_17065ead5e7a4124bf45a8401ff0e23a.pdf 27 National Walkability Index, Methodology and User Guide, Accessed: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 06/documents/national_walkability_index_methodology_and_user_guide_june2021.pdf
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-36 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
populated, such as Concord, Walnut Creek, and Richmond have high walkability, while more rural areas in the county receive lower walkability scores (Figure A-16).
Local Trends
According to AllTransit, 88.9 percent of households are located within a half-mile of transit.28 Pleasant Hill is serviced by the following transit systems and programs:
▪ Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART): BART is a heavy-rail public transit system that connects the San Francisco Peninsula with communities in the East Bay and South Bay. BART service currently extends as far as Millbrae, Richmond, Antioch, Dublin/Pleasanton, and Berryessa/North San José. BART operates in five counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara) with 131 miles of track and 50 stations, carrying approximately 405,000 trips on an average weekday (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). There is one station near Pleasant Hill, located just south of the city. BART, buses, Highway 680 and the Iron Horse pedestrian and bicycle trail all converge to make this one of BART's most easily accessed stations. ▪ County Connection: provides fixed-route and paratransit bus service throughout the communities of Concord, Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Walnut Creek, Clayton, Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, San Ramon, as well as unincorporated communities in Central Contra Costa County. ▪ Senior Van: The Senior Van Service is operated by the City of Pleasant Hill and provides an alternative means of travel for seniors run entirely by friendly, reliable, capable volunteers. The fare is $1.50 each way. Priority is given to seniors travelling to medical or dental appointments on certain days of the week.
▪ 511 Contra Costa: 511 Contra Costa has a variety of programs to assist individuals in riding public transit. Programs include Guaranteed Ride Home, which reimburses individuals for rides home during unexpected emergencies, and e-bike rebates. Youth programs include Pass2Class, which provides free transit to students riding to school and Summer Youth Pass, which provides discounted rides over the summer.
Pleasant Hill receives an average AllTransit performance score of 5.2, which equates to a moderate combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling moderate number of people to take transit to work. Performance score in Pleasant Hill varies greatly by location. The southeast area of Pleasant Hill as well as the northeast area receives the highest performance score. The northwest area of the city, where bus service is reduced, receives the lowest performance score. According to AllTransit, 52.8 percent of households are underserved by transit. While the overall performance score in the city is higher than the county, there are significantly more households in Pleasant Hill that are underserved by transit. This indicates a higher disparity in transit access within the city of Pleasant Hill.
Areas with concentrations of individuals with disabilities (Figure A-12) vary in terms of transit access.
There is a higher concentration of individuals in the southern area of the city, which has a high AllTransit performance score. The northern area of Pleasant Hill also has a higher concentration of individuals with disabilities but receives a lower AllTransit performance score. The Senior Van and the County Connection LINK program provide transportation services to seniors and individuals with disabilities.
Generally, Pleasant Hill receives high walkability scores (Figure A-17), however two census tracts receive below average scores. These census tracts are located in the northern and southwesters area of the city.
28 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023A-37
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-38 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Access to Quality Education
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.29 Therefore, educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. To assess educational opportunities by geography, this analysis uses California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) education domain scores, which incorporates math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates at the census tract level.
The TCAC opportunity maps help to identify patterns of negative and positive economic, educational, and environmental outcomes across the state. Census tracts are ranked from low (negative outcomes) to highest resource (positive outcomes) based on TCAC’s Opportunity Maps analysis.
Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Contra Costa County in 2021 is illustrated in Figure A-18.
Educational attainment varied geographically, with lower outcome scores concentrated in jurisdictions on the outskirts of the county, and higher outcome scores concentrated central Contra Costa County jurisdictions. The disparities in access mirror the patterns of racial segregation in the county. Areas that received a higher education score generally line up with areas that have a higher percentage of 29 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-39
white and Asian individuals. Areas receiving low education scores are generally located in areas with a higher percentage of Black and Hispanic residents.
According to kidsdata.org, a data compilation program from the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, graduation rates in Contra Costa County vary by race. As of 2020, Asian students have the highest graduation rate at 96.4 percent, closely followed by white students at 93.1 percent.
Black students have the lowest graduation rate at 78.8 percent. The high school graduation rate across all populations is 88.7 percent.
The HUD School Proficiency Index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating the presence of higher quality neighborhoods schools. In California, the HUD School Proficiency Index uses data from the Great Schools 2013-14 dataset. While the index is initially computed for census block groups, HUD also estimates the index for protected classes at the jurisdiction level. The HUD School Proficiency Index relies on the geographic proximity of local schools to persons residing in the designated census block groups. These are not necessarily the same schools that individual children are assigned to (the HUD index does not use actual school assignment zones), but since all the school districts in Contra Costa County primarily assign children to their neighborhood schools, the HUD index serves as a good proxy.
Overall, there is considerable divergence across racial and ethnic groups in neighborhood access to high-performing elementary schools. The elementary schools to which Black and Hispanic students have access are lower performing than those of all other racial groups. By contrast, schools attended by non-Hispanic whites are the highest-performing, followed closely by Asian/Pacific Islanders. Similar results are evident at the regional level.30
Local Trends
The city of Pleasant Hill is served by Mount Diablo Unified School District, which has 31 elementary schools, nine middle schools, and five high schools. Mount Diablo also has 16 alternate schools and programs, as well as two adult education centers. The district boundaries include Pleasant Hill, Concord, Bay Point, and unincorporated Contra Costa County south of Concord. Pleasant Hill students generally attend one of seven elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school.31 According to kidsdata.org, the Mount Diablo Unified student body’s racial and ethnic demographics are
42.8 percent Hispanic/Latino, 29.5 percent white, 7.8 percent Asian American, 7.7 percent multiracial,
4.6 percent Filipino, 3.3 percent African American/Black, 0.6 percent Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 0.1 percent American Indian/Alaskan Native. Compared to the region, there is a slightly higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino students and slightly lower percentage Asian American students. The high school graduation rate for Mount Diablo Unified is slightly lower than the County, at 86.4 percent.
Data on suspensions by race and ethnicity show disproportionately high percentages of African American/Black (128.6 students per 1,000), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (80.8 students per 1,000), and Hispanic/Latino students (51.3 students per 1,000) compared to white (31.4 students per 1,000) and Asian American (14.1 students per 1,000) students. Suspensions also disproportionately impact students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, with 70.3 students per 1,000 Suspensions compared to 20.9. and expulsions disproportionately affect children of color (particularly African 30 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6- 11-19
31 Mt Diablo Unified School District, Our Schools. https://mdusdca.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2/view_page?d=x&group_id=1397285363646&vdid=iie4a1krm82y6cy
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-40 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
American/black and American Indian/Alaska Native students), those with disabilities, and LGBTQ youth.32
As shown in Figure A-18, education outcomes vary slightly within Pleasant Hill. Education scores are slightly higher in the southern area of the city.
32 Students Suspended from School, by Race/Ethnicity. 2019-2019.Kidsdata.org
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-41
Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.
TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations to direct funding for housing and transportation equity. 33 The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.
Regional Trends
Economic outcomes vary across Contra Costa County, as shown in Figure A-20. Areas identified with more positive economic outcomes are located in cities such as San Ramon, Danville, Moraga, 33 MTC, 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-42 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Lafayette, and Walnut Creek. Conversely, cities on the outskirts of Contra Costa County, such as Richmond, San Pablo, Concord, and Antioch have large concentrations of less positive outcomes.
According to ACS data,34 64.9 percent of the population over 16 is in the labor force.35 Table A-10 shows employment status by disability estimates for ACS 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. The total number of individuals in the workforce increased from 2014 to 2019. Over time, the portion of employed individuals that have a disability increased marginally by 0.7 percent, while the portion of individuals that were unemployed and had a disability increased by 3.6 percent.
Formerly incarcerated people face disproportionately high barriers to employment. Nearly all of the top employers in the county ask applicants on their initial application whether they have been convicted of a felony. In a study done by the Safe Return Project, a Richmond-based research and action initiative aimed at improving community reintegration after incarceration, one in three respondents to a survey of formerly incarcerated residents in west Contra Costa County had worked since being released from prison. At the time of the survey, 78 percent of the respondents were unemployed, an unemployment rate that is nearly seven times that of the state of California. 36 Table A-10 Employment Status by Disability Status (Contra Costa County) Household Type
Employed
2010-2014
Unemployed
2010-2014
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015-2019
Total in Labor Force 489,476 (100%) 41,590 (100%) 521,656 (100%) 28,980 (100%) With a Disability 20,831(4.3%) 3,829 (9.2%) 25,970 (5%) 3,704 (12.8%) Without a Disability 468,645 (95.7%) 37,761(90.8%) 495,686 (95%) 25,276 (87.21%) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010-2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.
Local Trends
Economic outcomes vary geographically within Pleasant Hill, as shown by Figure A-21. The northwest area near Ridgeview Open Space and the neighborhoods east of the Sinclair Freeway receive more positive economic scores, while the remainder of the city receives less positive economic outcomes.
Two of the four census tracts receiving the less positive economic scores are also the census tracts that are predominantly a Hispanic-white mix (Figure A-3). The two census tracts receiving the more positive economic outcome score are predominantly Asian-white-Hispanic mix.
According to 2015 to 2019 ACS five-year estimates, 66 percent of the population over 16 was in the labor force in 2019, totaling to 19,115 individuals.37 Of the population aged 16 and over, 63.3 percent were employed, 2.6 percent were unemployed, and 34 percent were not in the labor force. Table A-11 shows employment status by disability status in Pleasant Hill in 2014 and 2019. The total number of individuals in the workforce increased from 2014 to 2019. Over time, the portion of employed 34 2019 5-year Estimates, DP03, Selected Economic Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP03&g=0500000US06013&tid=ACSDP1Y2019.DP03 35 The labor force includes all people aged 16 and older who are classified as either employed or unemployed. People waiting to start a new job must have actively looked for a job within the last 4 weeks in order to be classified as unemployed. Otherwise, they are classified as not in the labor force
36 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6- 11-19
37 2019 5-year Estimates, DP03, Selected Economic Characteristics. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP03&g=0500000US06013&tid=ACSDP1Y2019.DP03
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-43
individuals that have a disability increased marginally by 0.7 percent, while the portion of individuals that were unemployed and had a disability increased by two percent.
Table A-11 Employment Status by Disability Status (Pleasant Hill) Household Type
Employed
2010-2014
Unemployed
2010-2014
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015-2019
Total in Labor Force 15,851 (100%) 1,192 (100%) 17,129 (100%) 687 (100%) With a Disability 687 (4.3%) 107 (9.2%) 842 (5%) 77 (11.2%) Without a Disability 15,164 (95.7%) 1,085 (90.8%) 16,287 (95%) 610 (90.8%) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010-2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.
Access to employment opportunities has a significant impact on the type and size of housing a household can afford. HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index utilizes origin-destination employment statistics to examine the distance from a given neighborhood to all job locations in the San Francisco Bay Area and assess the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. Because the size of employment centers and the supply of labor differ across the San Francisco Bay Area, the distance from any single job location is positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location.38 Accessibility in Pleasant Hill varies by location, as shown in Figure A-23. Areas with closest proximity to jobs are in the western and eastern part of the city. Generally, the majority of the areas zoned Residential Business, Commercial, and Professional and Administrative Office are located on the northeast side. Areas with the furthest proximity are in the western side of the city. 38HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-44 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023A-45
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-46 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-47
Healthy Environment
Assessment of a healthy environment examines patterns in the environmental and health-related disparities found in different neighborhoods and among protected classes. These disparities can include air quality, water quality, safe neighborhood, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws—AB 1550 (2016), SB 535 (2012) and SB 1000 (2016)— emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental justice, according to HUD, means ensuring that the environment and human health are protected fairly for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, and considering how federally assisted projects may have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations.39 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Residents in census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores (shown as percentages) are more burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects.
Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Contra Costa County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure A-24 and Figure A-25 show that generally, the urbanized 39 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-48 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
outskirts of the county, particularly Richmond, San Pablo, Pittsburg, and Antioch experience the highest pollution burdens.
Environmental justice concerns are especially high in Richmond and neighboring areas of west County.
Richmond is surrounded by oil refineries, chemical plants, superfund sites, highways, rail yards, and ports which contribute to pollution. Residents of Richmond are also exposed to a wide array of industrial contaminants including benzene and mercury. Pollution likely contributes to higher risks of death from heart disease and stroke and greater rates of hospitalization due to asthma in Richmond.
North Richmond, an unincorporated part of the county, is located near the Chevron refinery and other hazards. The community is predominantly populated by low-income people of color and is one of the most affordable parts of the Bay Area but suffers from high poverty and a lack of services. North Richmond may suffer from disinvestment and depressed housing prices due to its reputation as a community that is exposed to greater environmental hazards. 40 Local Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Pleasant Hill identifies scores relatively high in the Toxic Releases from Facilities indicator, likely due to facilities located in nearby Martinez. According to the Toxic Release Inventory, developed by the EPA, these facilities include the Martinez Refining Company, Central Concrete Supply Company, Shell Chemical LP - Martinez Catalyst Plant, Eco Services Operations Corporation, and Air Products and Chemicals Incorporated.41 The Traffic Impacts indicator is high along Interstate 680. The eastern area in Pleasant Hill scores high in the Cleanup Sites indicator, likely due to the cleanup sites located in close proximity in Concord. Central Pleasant Hill scores in the 80- 90th percentile for groundwater threats due to the groundwater threats located on Contra Costa Boulevard. North Pleasant Hill is in the 73rd percentile for hazardous waste. There are multiple hazardous waste generators in central Pleasant Hill, located along Contra Costa Boulevard.
The area with the highest pollution burden in the city is located along Contra Costa Boulevard and extends into the eastern central area of the city. This area is comprised of 43.98 percent non-white individuals, one of the highest concentrations of people of color in the city. 40 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59623/Final-BOS-Approved-AI-6- 11-19
41 Toxic Release Inventory. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 2022: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023A-49
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-50 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
1.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs in Pleasant Hill, this section reviews data on housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.
Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered cost burdened, and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems. Housing problems are households that has
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-51
one or more of the following problems: lacks a complete kitchen facility, lacks complete plumbing facility, a household that is overcrowded, or a household that is cost burdened.
Regional Trends
Figure A-26 shows areas of Contra Costa County where homeowners experienced housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of their income on mortgage). As shown, overpayment is most prevalent in the Richmond and Danville, with high rates in Pittsburgh, Antioch, Brentwood, and San Ramon. Figure A-27 shows the housing cost burden amongst renters (spending over 30 percent of income on rent). There are more concentrations of renter households experiencing cost burden than homeowners. Renter cost burden is most common in the Camino Tassajara area, with additional concentrations in Richmond, Martinez, Concord, and Antioch.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-52 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Local Trends
Figure A-28 shows the rate of homeowner overpayment in Pleasant Hill. Homeowners in the northernmost area of the city experience the highest rates of cost burden. Renters experience significantly higher rates of housing cost burden compared to homeowners. Figure A-29 shows the concentrations of renters who experience housing cost burden. High rates of renters experiencing cost burden are concentrated in the southern area of the city, with high rates centrally as well.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023A-53
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-54 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Large families generally have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms, resulting in overcrowding.
Some households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding is reflective of various living situations: housing unit is inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs; the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families share a single housing unit.
Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes. As a result, some landlords or apartment managers may be more hesitant to rent to larger households, thus making access to
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-55
adequate housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with higher proportion of overcrowding.
Regional Trends
Figure A-30 shows the rates of overcrowding in Contra Costa County. Across the majority of the County, rates of overcrowding are lower than the Statewide average of 8.2 percent. However, in Richmond, Concord, and Pittsburg, individuals in overcrowded households are concentrated in percentages over 15 percent.
Black households experience the highest rate of severe housing cost burden in Contra Costa with approximately 28 percent of households having a burden. Hispanic households have the second highest rate of housing cost burden, followed by Native Americans and Whites. Asian or Pacific Islander households have the lowest rate of severe cost burden with slightly more than 15 percent of households being cost burdened. Since Black households experience the highest rate of severe cost burden but have a lower rate of overall housing problems as compared to Hispanic households, Hispanic households are disproportionately likely to experience overcrowding.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-56 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Local Trends
Figure A-31 shows the levels of overcrowding in Pleasant Hill. The entirety of Pleasant Hill has overcrowding rates below the state average.
Housing Problems
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they are in compliance with local building codes.
Many federal and State programs use the age of housing as a factor to determine a community’s housing rehabilitation needs. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include replacing plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Some older housing units may have health risks such as lead paint (especially in homes built before 1978) and asbestos.
Housing issues such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma. Residents who rent are at greater risk of exposure to deteriorating housing conditions due to the desire to keep their rents from rising or fear of losing their housing.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-57
According to the AI report, among all households, 43.90 percent of Contra Costa households experience any of four housing problems: 1) incomplete kitchen facilities; 2) incomplete plumbing facilities; 3) overcrowding – more than one person per room; and 4) household is cost burdened – monthly housing costs exceeding 30 percent of monthly income.
In the County, 57.58 percent of Hispanic households experience at least one of the four housing problems. A slightly lower share of Black households (56.36 percent) in Contra Costa experience at least one of the four housing problems. Asian Americans or Pacific Islanders experience approximately the same rates of housing problems as households as a whole, with 42.14 percent of Asian households experiencing a problem. Non-Hispanic Whites have a lower rate of housing problems than every racial/ethnic group in Contra Costa. These housing burdens are greatest in portions of Richmond, North Richmond, San Pablo, Hercules, Concord, Martinez, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley.
There are significant disparities between the rates of housing problems that larger families (households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems that families of five or fewer people experience. Both small and large families in Contra Costa experience lower rates of housing problems than families in the region overall. In the County, 59.04 percent of large families experience any one of the four defined housing problems, compared to 62.57 percent in the region. In contrast, 38.51 percent of smaller family households experience housing problems in the County while
38.67 percent of smaller family households in the region have problems. Non-family households in Contra Costa and the region experience housing problems at a higher rate than smaller family households, but at a lower rate than larger family households. Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg all have higher percentages of large, small and nonfamily households with problems than the Consortium and region.
Persons Experiencing Homelessness
State law (Section 65583(a)(7)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes the condition of an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
▪ Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and ▪ Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
▪ A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
▪ An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
▪ A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Regional Trends
The Contra Costa's Homeless Continuum of Care (CoC) conducts a Point in Time (PIT) count of families and individuals experiencing homelessness. This count provides a one-day snapshot of homelessness and is used to highlight the housing and homeless crisis in the county. The 2020 PIT count was conducted on January 22, 2020. According to the 2020 PIT, 2,277 individuals were experiencing homelessness in Contra Costa County. The top three reported reasons for losing housing were cost of living and rent (25 percent), eviction (17 percent) and substance abuse (14 percent).
Individuals who were homeless are not concentrated in particular parts of the County, rather, were present in the west, central and eastern areas of the County.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-58 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Almost a quarter of those counted in PIT identified as Hispanic/Latinx; 24 percent of Hispanic/Latinx were in shelters the night of the count. Trends in the proportion of the population who identify at Latinx have not shifted much since 2015. More than half the people identified in the count reported White/Caucasian race, followed by 29 percent who reported Black/African American race, and American Indian.
In community outreach during the PIT, every person interviewed said they would accept at least one type of short-term or long-term shelter and housing opportunity if provided. Most said they would accept almost all housing options if available, but the most common housing preferences indicated were own apartment/home (76 percent), followed by shared housing with their own bedroom (40 percent) and emergency shelter (34 percent).
Local Trends
According to the 2020 PIT, 90 individuals were experiencing homelessness in Pleasant Hill. This is an increase of 17 individuals since the 2015 PIT.
Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness.42
Regional Trends
Figure A-32 shows the census tracts within Contra Costa County that are vulnerable to displacement.
Vulnerability is defined as:
▪ Share of very low-income residents is above 20%, 2017; AND ▪ The tract meets two of the following criteria:
▪ Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
▪ Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
▪ Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
▪ They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures.
Displacement pressure is defined as:
▪ Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012-2017; OR ▪ Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017
42 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-59
Concentrations of communities vulnerable to displacement are located in Richmond, Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Concord, and Walnut Creek.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-60 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Local Trends
Figure A-33 shows the communities that are vulnerable to displacement in Pleasant Hill. Based on the criteria above, there are no census tracts considered vulnerable in Pleasant Hill.
1.8 Contributing Factors
Based upon the analysis conducted in this AFFH document, Table A-12 highlights the prominent fair housing issues and contributing factors that hinder access to safe, affordable, and vibrant housing for Pleasant Hill residents. Furthermore, the findings of this analysis were used to develop meaningful actions and metrics and milestones that promote inclusive communities, increase housing opportunities, and address racial/ethnic and economic disparities within the city. This section lists contributing factors that create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues that were identified in the AI. These contributing factors were developed using guidance from HUD as well as input from participating jurisdictions.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-61
Table A-12 Summary of Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions Identified Fair
Housing Issue
Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Encouraging
development of
new affordable
housing in Areas of
High Opportunity
▪ Dominance of single-family
housing, which is typically
more expensive than multifamily housing.
▪ Location and type of existing
affordable housing.
▪ Lack of affordable housing in
moderate-resource areas.
▪ Limited supply of affordable
housing in areas with access
to opportunity.
1. Redesignate and rezone parcels (beyond the RHNA) to
create additional capacity for more than 2,700 units in lowdensity RCAAs, with a goal of encouraging the development of 500 net new multifamily units in RCAAs in the planning period. See Program F.
1.2. Continue to provide a density bonus for development of affordable and senior housing. The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance provides a minimum 5% to 20% increase in
density with additional density bonuses up to a maximum increase of 35% in density if additional target units are provided, and up to three additional incentives, or
financially equivalent incentives, if the development
provides additional target units. See Program S.
2.3. Allow developers to satisfy affordable housing
requirements by providing units elsewhere in high resource areas of the city (as designated by TCAC) when inclusion of affordable units within the development is not feasible.
See Program T.
3.4. Require all housing projects of five or more units to include affordable housing. Developers may satisfy the
requirements of the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance by providing at least:
a. 5 percent of the base density for occupancy by verylow-income households, or 10 percent for low-income households, or 25 percent for qualifying senior
residents, or 20 percent second units (in single-family projects). See Program U.
4.5. Review the zoning code to identify opportunities to increase and encourage a greater mix of dwelling types
and sizes, specifically housing types that may
accommodate moderate-income households (e.g.,
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, courtyard
buildings), in lower-density residential areas and high resource areas, and amend the zoning code as needed.
See Program I.
6. Continue to facilitate the construction of ADUs and create incentives to encourage production, particularly for units accessible to lower-income households, seniors, and those with special housing needs. The City shall continue to
provide and update public information regarding ADUs on the City website, including a guide for homeowners
explaining the benefits and procedures for adding an ADU and links to resources and incentive programs. See
Program P.
5.7. Seek State and federal funds, and encourage the use of private financing mechanisms, to assist in the production of affordable housing. Funding mechanisms that should
continue to be explored include the HCD Multifamily
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-62 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Housing Program, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC), federally subsidized Section 221 (d)(4), Section 8 or Section 202 programs, Community Development Block
Grants, tax-exempt bond financing, federal HOME program funds, administrative fees collected by the County Housing Authority, and favorable financing made available through financial institutions, to assist low- and moderate-income households. The City shall partner with developers and
non-profit agencies to apply for State and Federal monies for direct support of low-income housing construction and rehabilitation, with preference for affordable projects in high opportunity areas. The City shall assess potential funding sources annually throughout the planning period and shall promote the benefits of this program to the
development community by posting information on its
website and creating a handout to be distributed with land development applications. See Program V.
6.8. Invite non-profit housing developers to work with the City in promoting and encouraging affordable housing. The City has worked with non-profit housing developers on past
projects and will continue cooperative efforts in the future with these or other interested nonprofit developers. See Program X.
9. Actively promote parcels that can accommodate
development of low-income and/or moderate-income
housing units to private or non-profit housing providers to support the production of units available to lower- and moderate-income households during the planning period.
See Program C
7.10. Annually monitor the development of housing units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households in
RCAAs and identify and implement changes in the zoning
code and/or incentive programs (financial or streamlining) for high-density or deed-restricted housing in those areas.
Implement incentive programs or zoning amendments
within one year of review. See Program FF.
Protecting existing
residents from
displacement
▪ Unaffordable rents and sales
prices in a range of sizes
▪ Displacement of residents due
to economic pressure such as
unaffordable rents,
concentration of poverty, and
availability of affordable
housing
▪ Location, type, and supply of
affordable housing
▪ Land use and zoning laws
▪ Displacement of residents due
to economic pressures
▪ Access to publicly supported
housing for persons with
disabilities; lack of affordable,
integrated housing for
8.11. Continue to investigate concepts and funding sources for a homeownership assistance program. The City will
continue to explore the possibility of providing assistance to people who cannot afford to buy a home with priority given to those who work in the city, but cannot afford the cost of housing, for example, teachers, police officers and those who work in City government. Other potential target groups are first-time homebuyers of lower- and moderateincome levels, and large families. See Program BB.
9.12. Seek funding to restart the Neighborhood Preservation program, which provides low interest loans for
rehabilitation of homes owned or occupied by low to
moderate income households. See Program LL.
10.13. Seek funding to establish and maintain an Emergency Repair Grant Program. See Program MM.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-63
individuals who need
supportive services
▪ Lack of public investments in
specific neighborhoods,
including services or amenities
11.14. Explore a variety of tools for preserving assisted units, including monitoring at-risk units, participating in
acquisition of below-market rental units by tenants or nonprofits, facilitating refinancing or purchase of developments from owners who file a notice indicating
that they intend to opt out of a subsidy agreement, and providing technical and relocation assistance to tenants.
See Program QQ.
12.15. Continue to require resale and rental controls on below market rate units provided through the inclusionary housing provisions or through public assistance. See
Program RR.
Fair housing
enforcement and
outreach
▪ Lack of resources for fair
housing agencies to conduct
more rigorous testing and
audits, outreach, training,
public education campaigns.
▪ Lack of public (local, State,
federal) fair housing
enforcement including funding
for staffing and training of
public interest law firms
13.16. Continue to follow the City guidelines for
implementing the reasonable accommodation ordinance
and periodically review the Zoning Ordinance to identify other provisions, including the definition of “family” that could pose constraints on the development of housing for persons with disabilities and reduce or eliminate
constraints through appropriate ordinance amendments.
See Program WW.
14.17. Promptly address complaints of discrimination in the sale, rent, and development of housing in Pleasant Hill. See Program VV.
15.18. Coordinate with ECHO and the Bay Area Legal Aid to provide fair housing and tenant/landlord services,
including fair housing counseling and education and
tenant/landlord counseling and mediation. See Program
VV.
16.19. Publicize Fair Housing Information, including
information about tenants’ rights, landlord requirements, recent litigation, and links to fair housing providers on the City's website, social media platforms, and through
physical promotional material (e.g., flyers, posters) by January 2026. See Program VV.
17.20. Provide training for property owners and managers to ensure that they are knowledgeable of the requirements of federal, state and local real estate, housing discrimination, tenant protection, housing inspection, and community
preservation laws; and promote training of tenants in the requirements of federal, state, and local laws so that they are aware of their rights and obligations. See Program VV.
18.21. Provide annual training for landlords on fair housing responsibilities, source of income discrimination and other discriminatory practices, and the benefits of marketing their housing units to Housing Choice Voucher program
participants to encourage landlords in high opportunity areas to register their units with Section 8 providers and expand housing mobility opportunities throughout the City.
See Program VV.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-64 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
19.22. Support regional agencies to annually conduct one workshop with targeted populations to allow for
meaningful discussions and dissemination of useful
information. Education and outreach activities to be
conducted as a multi-media campaign, including social
media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, as well as other meeting/discussion forums such as chat rooms
and webinars. Information gathered from these workshops will be further analyzed by staff and results will be used to influence changes to programs and policies as necessary, with any changes made within one year of the
identification of barriers to fair housing See Program VV. .Continuously encourage regional cooperation and
administration of vouchers through portability and shared waiting lists. See Program UU.
20.23. Work with the Regional Center of the East Bay to implement an outreach program informing residents of the housing and services available for persons with
developmental disabilities. The City shall make information available on the City website. See Program UU.
21.24. Develop accessibility programs by 2023 to focus on improving access to housing, public buildings and
facilities, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and businesses.
See Program UU.
22.25. Facilitate projects that provide units meeting federal, State and local requirements. Population groups in the City with special needs include the physically handicapped.
Currently, the City enforces State-mandated requirements for rental housing units (Title 24). The City will continue to encourage ownership housing that can be equipped with
handicapped facilities. The City has adopted a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance and will provide fast-track
processing and other incentives to facilitate the production of housing targeted to persons with disabilities. Program GG.
23.26. Encourage supportive housing for persons with
developmental disabilities. The City will work with
nonprofit developers of supportive housing for the
developmentally disabled to identify and develop adequate sites. The City will assist or partner with developers and non-profits to apply to the County for CDBG monies and
assist with tax exempt financing for land and/or building purchase and/or lease. See Program HH.
24.27. Continue to facilitate the provision of emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing. See
Programs O, HH, II, and JJ.
25.28. Encourage developers to provide amenities for single heads of households, the disabled, and senior citizens. See Program XX.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-65
1.9 Local Knowledge
Historical Patterns of Segregation
Patterns of racial segregation are the byproduct of local and federal policies, private housing discrimination, and community prejudice. To understand present challenges to fair housing, it is necessary to review the history of actions that have led regional patterns of segregation.
Regional Trends
The earliest forms of racial exclusion in the Bay Area were the Spanish, Mexican, and early U.S. settlers’ colonization Native Americans’ land.43 The Ohlone were and are the predominant Indigenous group of the Bay Area, including the Chochenyo and the Karkin in East Bay, the Ramaytush in San Francisco, the Yokuts in South Bay and Central Valley, and the Muwekma tribe throughout the region. Other Indigenous groups include the Graton Rancheria community (Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo), Kashaya, Patwin, and Mishewal Wappo in the North Bay, and the Bay Miwok in the East Bay.44 Indigenous communities were forced from their land, which was then sold or given away.45 In the 1850s, 119 California tribes signed treaties with the U.S. Special Commissioners which required them to formally surrender their land in exchange for 19 designated reservations, which lacked game, suitable agricultural lands, and water.46 From the start of colonization through the 1880s, the Ohlone population in the Bay Area dropped by almost 90 percent due to violence, displacement, and widespread disease brought by colonizers.
47 In more recent history, starting in the 1880s, a series of laws targeted Asian populations through federal restrictions on immigration (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) and by barring Asian immigrants from owning land (California Alien Land Law of 1913 and 1920).48 In 1942, Japanese Americans in the Bay Area were forced to sell or abandon their homes and were sent to internment camps.49 Local ordinances at the time also led to exclusion of Asian Americans, through unfair and racist enforcement of building regulations.
50 In the early 1920s, cities in the Bay Area began adopting zoning ordinances which led to the establishment of exclusive single-family home zones. By establishing specific areas of cities which did not allow more affordable housing types, cities began to be more segregated based on class and race/ethnicity. Exclusionary zoning created areas of concentrated poverty and concentrated wealth.
High-poverty areas typically have limited employment and educational opportunities, creating an environment difficult to achieve income and housing mobility. By preventing households from moving into areas of higher resource opportunity, exclusionary zoning perpetuated the cycle of poverty.51 43 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 44 Bay Area Equity Atlas, Indigenous Populations in the Bay Area, https://bayareaequityatlas.org/about/indigenous-populations-in-the-bay-area 45 Rising Housing Costs and Re-Segregation in Contra Costa County, Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cc_final.pdf 46 State of California Native American Heritage Commission, http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/california-indian-history/ 47 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 48 History of Racial Injustice, California Law Prohibits Asian Immigrants from Owning Land. https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/may/3 49 Japanese-American Internment During World War II. U.S. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japaneserelocation 50 The Anti-Chinese Cubic Air Ordinance, Am J Public Health, Joshua S. Yang, PhD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661442/ 51 The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/facts/understanding-exclusionary-zoning-impact-concentratedpoverty/?agreed=1&agreed=1
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-66 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Historic evidence shows that these zoning regulations did not unintentionally segregate communities; rather, they were racially motivated.52
Starting in the 1930s, Bay Area communities were impacted by redlining, which is the practice of discriminating against loan borrowers based on the racial or socioeconomic status of the neighborhood in which a property is located. Redlining, a government-sponsored system of denying mortgage loans and services to finance the purchase of homes in specific areas, served as a tool to limit homeownership opportunities, as federally insured and long-term mortgages were routinely denied to persons seen as “undesirable,” often non-white persons. Redlining directed both public and private capital to white households and away from Black/African American, non-white, immigrant, and Jewish households. As homeownership is one of the most significant means of intergenerational wealth building in the United States, these redlining practices had long-term effects in creating wealth inequalities.53
During World War II, Richmond’s Black population grew rapidly, as migrants from the South found employment in the city’s shipyards. After the war, the city’s Black population continued to grow, but explicit segregation in federal housing policies and exclusionary practices in nearby suburban developments left the city’s Black residents with limited housing options in increasingly disinvested neighborhoods.54
Between 2000 and 2015, Contra Costa County experienced a 55 percent increase in low-income households of color—substantially higher than the regional average. The geography of this growth varied among racial groups. For example, Richmond’s low-income Black population decreased while its low-income Hispanic population grew. Meanwhile, many parts of Antioch and Pittsburg saw large increases in low-income Asian, Black, and Hispanic households. Rents rose across the county between 2000 and 2015, with (inflation-adjusted) median rent paid increasing more than 30 percent in parts of Brentwood, Concord, Richmond, Pittsburg, and Hercules over the 15-year period. In the Bay Area, a 30 percent tract-level increase in median rent paid (in inflation-adjusted dollars) was associated with a 21 percent decrease in low-income households of color. There was no significant relationship between rent increases and losses of low-income white households, indicating that communities of color were particularly vulnerable to the impact of rapid rent increases.
Local Trends
The San Francisco Bay Area consisted of several independent tribal territories during the prehistoric and early historic periods. Native Peoples largely spoke dialects of five distinct languages: Costanoan (Ohlone), Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, Patwin, and Wappo. Pleasant Hill lies at the intersection of several of these groups at different periods in time, however it was largely within the ethnographic and historic boundaries of Bay Miwok speakers, who occupied the eastern portions of Contra Costa County, from Walnut Creek east to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including the northern slopes of Mount Diablo.
Several bands of Miwok are associated with the area, the closest being the Saclan, whose territory extended through the hills east of present-day Rossmoor, Lafayette, Moraga and Walnut Creek.
Prehistoric site types recorded in the general Pleasant Hill area consist of lithic scatters, quarries, 52 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 53 Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America. https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=16/37.725/-122.162&city=oaklandca&area=D19 54 Rising Housing Costs and Re-Segregation in Contra Costa County, Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cc_final.pdf
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-67
habitation sites (including burials), bedrock mortars or other milling feature sites, petroglyph sites, and isolated burial sites.55
The Eastern Miwok were first contacted by the Spanish exploring expeditions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley in the second part of the eighteenth century. The first Spanish expeditions through the region were led by Captain Pedro Fages and Father Juan Crespi in 1772. Juan Bautista de Anza also led an expedition in 1776. Expedition campsites have been mapped in the vicinity of Interstate 680, State Route 242, and Willow Pass Road. Spanish colonial policy from 1769-1821 was directed at the founding of presidios, missions, and secular towns, with the land held by the Crown. The depletion of the coastal populations resulted in Spanish missionaries shifting to conversion of the interior peoples. The Bay Miwok were the first of the Eastern Miwok to be missionized, and were generally not willing converts.
Mission baptismal records show that Native Americans went to Mission San Francisco de Assisi, founded in 1776, and Mission San Jose, founded in 1797. Their traditional lifeways apparently disappeared by 1810 due to disruption by Euro American diseases, a declining birth rate, and the impact of the mission system. For the most part, the former hunters-gatherers were transformed into agricultural laborers and worked with former neighboring groups such as the Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok. After secularization of the missions between 1834 and 1836, some Native Americans returned to traditional religious and subsistence practices while others labored on Mexican ranchos. Thus, multiethnic Indian communities grew up in and around the area.56 The Bolbone and Chupacane cultures inhabited the area before settlers arrived from Mexico in the late 1700s. In 1844, Irish immigrant William Welch became the only non-Mexican to obtain a land grant in the region. His Rancho Las Juntas contained more than 13,000 acres, including present-day Pleasant Hill. Early residents primarily cultivated grains such as wheat, hay, and barley, which were shipped to market via Pacheco Creek.
The Southern Pacific Rail line was built in the area in 1891 (now the site of the Iron Horse Trail) and the Caldecott Tunnel, a highway running from Oakland and Orinda, was in built 1937. The first residential subdivisions in Pleasant Hill were built in the 1920s and 1930s south of Gregory Lane and west of Contra Costa Boulevard following prohibition, as the many local vineyards were removed and the formerly agricultural land was subdivided for housing. The city grew significantly with new single-family subdivisions north of Gregory Lane between 1946 and 1954. When Pleasant Hill incorporated in 1961, about half of the existing buildings in the city were in place.
Historically, several developments in Pleasant Hill included racially restrictive covenants, including the Gregory Gardens subdivision that was built in 1950. The covenant restricted any person other than of the Caucasian race to use or occupy any building on any lot, except for domestic servants.57 The opening of Interstate 680 in 1964 helped spur additional construction. Multifamily projects built in the 1970s along Chilpancingo Parkway (named for Pleasant Hill's sister city in Mexico) began to change the city from being exclusively a community of single-family detached houses. Subsequent transportation improvements (including BART, Interstate 680 widening, and Taylor Boulevard) promoted additional higher-intensity multifamily and nonresidential development in and around Pleasant Hill. The most significant recent developments in the city are the new downtown and multifamily housing for seniors directly to the south.
55 Oak Park Properties Specific Plan EIR, https://pleasanthill.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&clip_id=1689&meta_id=130001 56 Oak Park Properties Specific Plan EIR , https://pleasanthill.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&clip_id=1689&meta_id=130001 57 Gregory Gardens Covenant. 1950. https://s3.amazonaws.com/c5c2a7c6-9204-4cf3-8372-04b89bd5cf22/668c4b0c-b148-4bb1-bf9cc6935c69e274.pdf
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-68 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Pleasant Hill historically has been a suburban residential community serving major employment centers to the west and south, and the pattern of residents commuting outside the city to work is expected to continue. However, explosive regional growth in the last decade has transformed Pleasant Hill, as evidenced by recent higher-density residential and commercial development, especially downtown. Regardless, the City is still 75 to 90 percent comprised of single-family zoning, and is majority white.58,59 The majority of commercial uses within the city are located along Contra Costa Boulevard and I-680. This area, adjacent to the City of Concord is considered lower resource and does not contain residential, parks, or other neighborhood resources. I-680 runs along the eastern boundary of the city, generally separating the city from the adjacent City of Concord and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The western side of the city consists of lower density residential along the hillsides.
1.10 Stakeholder and Community Input
Fair Housing Survey
The City prepared and distributed a seven-question fair housing survey inquiring about housing needs and barriers, access to resources, and experiences with discrimination. On June 20, 2022, the survey was sent directly the following groups:
Organization Name Type
Las Trampas Maureen House Adult Residential / Special Needs Las Trampas Shiela House Adult Residential / Special Needs Stonehedge (Alegria Community Living) Adult Residential / Special Needs Abode Services Affordable Housing
Bay Area Community Land Trust Affordable Housing
BRIDGE Housing Affordable Housing
Community Housing Development Corporation Affordable Housing EAH Housing Affordable Housing
East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation Affordable Housing East Bay Housing Organizations Affordable Housing
Eden Housing Affordable Housing
Front Porch Affordable Housing
Habitat for Humanity East Bay / Silicon Valley Affordable Housing Hope Solutions Affordable Housing
Housing Consortium of the East Bay Affordable Housing
Human Good Organizations Affordable Housing
Mercy Housing Affordable Housing
MidPen Housing Affordable Housing
Monument Impact Affordable Housing
Northern California Land Trust Affordable Housing
Resources for Community Development Affordable Housing
58 Other & Belonging Institute. Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 5. 2020. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racialsegregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-5 59 Other & Belonging Institute. Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 1. 2018. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racialsegregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-1
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-69
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates Affordable Housing Spanish Speaking Unity Council (dba Unity Council) Affordable Housing Winter Family Shelter, Inc. Affordable Housing
Youth Homes Affordable Housing
Buddha Gate Monastery Congregation
Chabad of Contra Costa Congregation
Contra Costa Jewish Community Center Congregation
Grace Chinese Alliance Church Congregation
Indonesian Christian Community Church Congregation
Islamic Center of Contra Costa Congregation
Oakland Diocesan Task Force for Racial Justice Congregation Japanese Christian Church of Walnut Creek Congregation\Japanese Speaking Hamonah Presbyterian Church Congregation\Korean Speaking Mission Pointe Church Congregation\Korean Speaking
Igreja Adoradores Gerados Em Cristo (AGC Brazillian
Church) Congregation\Portuguese Speaking
Iglesia Adventista Hispano Americana de Pleasant Hill Congregation\Spanish Speaking Ministerio Hispano de la Iglesia Bíblica de la Gracia en Pleasant Hill Congregation\Spanish Speaking
DVC-Chinese Students Association Diablo Valley College Club DVC-Hong Kong Student Association Diablo Valley College Club DVC-Japanese Student Association Diablo Valley College Club DVC-Kabayan Kaibigan Diablo Valley College Club
DVC-Muslim Student Association Diablo Valley College Club Puente Project Education Program
Empowered Aging Elder Interest Group
Causa Justa Local Interest Group\Spanish Speaking
La Clinica de la Raza Local Interest Group\Spanish Speaking United Latino Voices of Contra Costa County (ULV) Local Interest Group\Spanish Speaking Maharlika Cultural Troupe, Inc. Local Interest Group\Tagalog Speaking Showing Up for Racial Justice Other AFFH Affinity Group Aegis Living Pleasant Hill Senior Facility
Carlton Senior Living Downtown Pleasant Hill Senior Facility Carlton Senior Living Pleasant Hill - Martinez Senior Facility Carlton Senior Living Poets Corner Senior Facility
Choice in Aging Senior Facility
Hookston Senior Homes Senior Facility
Pleasant Hill Gardens II Senior Facility
Pleasant Hill Oasis Senior facility
Better Living Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Boyd Senior Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Dysico Care Home, RCFE Senior Facility (Small)
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-70 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Elisabeth Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Heavenly Care Elderly Home Senior Facility (Small)
Ramona Care Home Senior Facility (Small)
Redwood Home Senior Facility (Small)
In addition to the initial email request, the project team sent reminder emails to each group in July 2022. The survey was closed after 54 days on August 22, 2022.
Survey responses included the following major themes:
▪ Desire for publicly funded/supported, permanently supportive housing as opposed to public subsidy of private rental units for vulnerable households; ▪ High cost of rental housing even for households with public subsidies or housing choice vouchers;
▪ Affordable housing is needed in proximity to public transit, schools, groceries, and services; and ▪ Housing discrimination and cost were reported as barriers to housing access.
Responses to the Fair Housing Survey informed the Fair Housing Analysis, distribution of sites in the available sites inventory, and program actions and objectives within the policy document.
Other Relevant Factors
Other relevant factors that have not been previously discussed relating to fair housing include the availability and access to housing choice vouchers in Pleasant Hill and the presence of older affordable housing units that may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing. As referenced in the Housing Needs Assessment, five publicly assisted rental housing developments provide a total of 295 affordable units to lower- and moderate-income households. None of these units are at risk of converting to market-rate housing during the 2023 to 2031 planning period. Additionally, English proficiency and land use and zoning patterns may impede fair housing efforts.
The City of Pleasant Hill cooperates with the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa, to provide Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) to city residents and will continue to seek opportunities to increase rental assistance and reduce overpayment.
HUD estimates show that approximately 280 households receive HCVs in Pleasant Hill (AFFH Data Viewer). Figure A-32 shows HCV as a percent of renter-occupied units by census tract. Most HCV recipients are in the moderate-resource areas on the eastern edge of the city. Census tract 324001, a moderate-resource tract east of interstate 680 had the largest concentration of HCV recipients (6 percent) in the city.
Lending Practices
According to the AI, the applications for Blacks and Hispanics are uniformly denied at higher rates than other racial groups. White and Asian residents had the lowest rate of denials in the Oakland-Hayward, Berkeley, CA Region, which includes Pleasant Hill.
Limited English Proficiency
Language barriers can lead to linguistic and cultural isolation. According to the AI, Pleasant Hill has a large community of Persian and Korean speakers with limited English proficiency. In 2021, approximately 24 percent of the population over the age of five speak a language other than English, and 26 percent of the population speak English less than very well. The most common languages
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-71
spoken besides English are Asian and Pacific Islander languages, spoken by eight percent of the population.
Land Use and Zoning Laws
According to the AI, Pleasant Hill has placed most multifamily residence zones near the city’s boundaries.60 The multifamily zones in the southern portion of the city are located in predominately white areas. However, most if not all high-density multifamily residence zones are located in areas showing 51 to 54 percent low-income households, and 36 to 45 percent non-white population, the highest in Pleasant Hill. Medium and low-density multifamily zones remain small and scattered in areas showing less concentration of non-white and low-income households and populations.
Subsidized Housing
As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, five publicly assisted rental housing developments, which provide a total of 295 affordable units to lower- and moderate-income households. None of these units are at risk of converting to market-rate housing during the 2023 to 2031 planning period.
The City of Pleasant Hill cooperates with the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa, to provide Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) to city residents and will continue to seek opportunities to increase rental assistance and reduce overpayment.
HUD estimates show that approximately 280 households receive HCVs in Pleasant Hill (AFFH Data Viewer). Figure B-32 shows HCV as a percent of renter-occupied units by census tract. Most HCV recipients are in the moderate-resource areas on the eastern edge of the city. Census tract 324001, a moderate-resource tract east of interstate 680 had the largest concentration of HCV recipients (6 percent) in the city.
60 City of Pleasant Hill. City of Pleasant Hill Zoning Map, 2011. https://www.ci.pleasanthill.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/276.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-72 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
1.11 Sites Inventory Analysis
The housing element must demonstrate that there are adequate sites zoned to accommodate the number of new housing units needed at each income level as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In the context of AFFH, the process of site identification involves an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA, and whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.
The Sites Inventory, inclusive of pending and approved projects, identifies parcels to facilitate the development of 845 units affordable to lower-income (low and very low), 231 moderate-income, and 398 above moderate-income households within 9 census tracts, which vary with regards to the fair housing factors considered.
Access to Opportunity
HCD/TCAC opportunity maps identify areas throughout the state that support positive economic (low poverty, high employment, high median household income), educational (reading and math proficiency, high school graduation rates, low student poverty rates), and environmental outcomes (low exposure to pollution) for residents. The HCD/TCAC opportunity areas maps rank census tracts from Highest
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-73
Resource to Low Resource based on these characteristics. A census tract with a designation of High Resource indicates that the census tract has strong educational and economic opportunities for current and future residents.
Sites with capacity to accommodate 274 low- and very low-income units lie within tracts classified by TCAC as “High Resource.” Sites with capacity to accommodate an additional 571 low- and very lowincome units lie within “Moderate Resource” tracts. Moderate and High Resource census tracts have capacity to accommodate approximately all lower-income units in the City’s inventory.
No sites with capacity are located in low resource census tracts. Figure A-33 shows that sites identified for lower-income housing are spatially distributed throughout Pleasant Hill and are not concentrated in lower-resource areas.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-74 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-75
The Sites Inventory identifies additional capacity in Moderate Resource census tracts which can accommodate 203 above moderate-income units. Further, 28 moderate-income and 297 above moderate-income units of capacity have been identified in High- and Highest Resource census tracts. It is important to note that Senate Bill (SB) 9, signed into law on September 16, 2021, allows property owners within single-family residential zones to build two units and/or to subdivide a lot into two parcels, adding a total of four units. The passage of this law in combination with the relaxed regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on all single- and multi-family properties will allow infill development throughout the city including in high- and highest-resource census tracts. Program P contains provisions to encourage the construction of ADUs and Program Q would establish a process for SB 9 applications.
Table A-13 shows the number of units allocated to census tracts of each TCAC resource level. The distribution of sites across income categories listed in the Sites Inventory does not exacerbate fair housing conditions with regard to access to opportunity.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-76 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
Table A-13 Units by TCAC Opportunity Areas
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
Lower-Income
Units (% of Total
Lower Income)
Moderate-Income
Units (% of Total
Moderate Income)
Above Moderate-Income
Units (% of Total Above
Moderate Income)
Total Units
(% of Total
Units)
Low Resource - - - -
Moderate Resource 571 (67.5) -203 (87.8) 102 (25.6) 876 (59.4) High Resource 274 (32.4) 28 (12.1) 290 (72.8 290(19.6)
Highest Resource - - 7 (1.7) 7 (0.4)
Total Units 845 (100.0) 231 (100.0) 398 (100.0) 1,474 (100.0) Integration and Segregation: Income
In all Pleasant Hill census tracts, low- and moderate-income households make up between 7 and 63 percent of all households in each tract. All census tracts except one (tract 327000) in Pleasant Hill have a median household income which is greater than the 2020 statewide median household income of $87,100. Furthermore, census tract 327000 has the highest proportion (63 percent) of low- and moderate-income households in the city. The Sites Inventory does not identify any capacity in this census tract.
Sites identified in the inventory are suitable for the development of all 845 lower-income housing units in census tracts where the median household income is greater than the statewide median. The development of new housing units affordable to lower and moderate-income households in these census tracts may increase housing choices for lower income residents in higher income neighborhoods as well as reduce potential displacement in lower income neighborhoods.
Table A-14 shows the number of units allocated to each census tract with respect to the median income and percentage of low- and moderate-income households in that census tract. The distribution of sites across income categories listed in the Sites Inventory does not exacerbate fair housing conditions with regard to income segregation, and it does not cause an undue concentration of sites dedicated to the development of lower-income housing.
Table A-14 Number of Units by Income Characteristics of Census Tract Census
Tract
Median
Income
Percent Low- or
Moderate-Income
Households
LowerIncome
Units
ModerateIncome
Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units
Total
Units
321102 > $125,000 < 25% -196 - 15 196
321200 > $87,100 25 - 50% 350 - - 350
322000 > $125,000 < 25% 102 - 27 129
323000 > $87,100 < 25% 53 - 123 176
324001 > $87,100 25 - 50% 86 - 78 164
324002 > $87,100 25 - 50% 33 203 236
325000 > $87,100 25 - 50% - - 163 163
326000 > $125,000 < 25% 25 28 1 54
347000 > $125,000 < 25% - - 7 7
Integration and Segregation: Race and Ethnicity
All census tracts in Pleasant Hill are predominantly white by a sizable (10 to 15%) or predominant (> 50%) gap. No census tracts in the city are classified by HUD as R/ECAPs, and seven tracts (321102, 324002, 323000, 322000, 326000, 347000, and 338102) are considered racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA). The Sites Inventory identifies sites to accommodate 384 units for low- and very low10.2.b Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) A. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-77
income households, and 203 units for moderate-income households, and 157 units for above moderate-income households in tracts that meet the definition of a RCAA. This means 45 percent of the lower-income units 88 percent of the moderate-income units, and 39 percent of the above moderate-income units in the City’s inventory are accommodated in tracts which HCD considers to be a RCAA. Sites with capacity to accommodate an additional 461 lower-income units (55 percent of the lower-income units in the City’s inventory), 28 moderate-income units (12 percent of the moderateincome units) and 241 above moderate-income units (61 percent of the above moderate-income units) in non-RCAA tracts. New development of units across the affordability spectrum in these areas may allow for the opportunity to increase housing mobility and reduce segregation in these neighborhoods.
Table A-15 shows the number of units allocated to each census tract with respect to the percentage of non-white population, predominant population, and R/ECAP or R/CAA status in that census tract. The distribution of sites listed in the Sites Inventory across income categories does not exacerbate fair housing conditions with regard to racial or ethnic segregation. Furthermore, the inventory attempts to alleviate the racial/income segregation of the city’s neighborhoods by increasing the availability of housing affordable to lower-income households in areas of concentrated affluence. The Sites Inventory does not cause an undue concentration of sites appropriate for the development of lower-income housing in predominantly low-income or racially segregated neighborhoods.
Table A-15 Number of Units by Demographics of Census Tract Census
Tract
Percent
Nonwhite
R/ECAP R/ECAA Predominant
Population
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Total
Units
321102 20 - 40% No Yes White
(Predominant) -196 - 15 196
321200 40 - 60% No No White
(Sizeable) 350 - - 350
322000 20 - 40% No Yes White
(Predominant) 102 - 27 129
323000 20 - 40% No Yes White
(Predominant) 53 - 123 176
324001 20 - 40% No No White
(Sizeable) 86 - 78 164
324002 40 - 60% No Yes White
(Sizeable) 33 203 236
325000 20 - 40% No No White
(Predominant) - - 163 163
326000 20 - 40% No Yes White
(Predominant) 25 28 1 54
327000 20 - 40% No No White
(Sizeable) 175 - - 175
347000 20 - 40% No Yes White
(Predominant) - - 7 7
Disproportionate Housing Needs
While no census tracts in Pleasant Hill have a rate of overcrowding higher than the state average of approximately 8 percent, renter households are cost burdened at high rates in several census tracts.
The Sites Inventory has identified sites with capacity to accommodate 25 units suitable for lowerincome households in census tracts in which 60 to 80% of renter households are cost burdened.
Capacity for an additional 335 units of housing suitable for lower income households is identified in
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A-78 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023
census tracts in which 40 to 60% of renter households are cost burdened. Lastly the Sites Inventory has identified sites with capacity to accommodate 485 units suitable for lower-income households in census tracts in which 20 to 40% of renter households are cost burdened. The development of new high-quality, housing units affordable to low- and very low-income households on these sites may increase housing choice and decrease the proportion of renter households that are cost burdened.
There is some concentration of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) recipients and subsidized housing projects in Pleasant Hill. The proportion of HCV recipients in a given census tract in the city ranges from 0 to 6.7 percent. Sites with capacity for 119 lower income units are located in census tracts where HCV recipients represent greater than 5 percent of renter-occupied housing units. Conversely, sites with capacity for 350 lower income units are located in census tracts where HCV recipients represent less than 5 percent of renter-occupied housing units. The development of lower-income housing units on the sites identified do not create an unusually high concentration of lower-income units near existing projects or in neighborhoods with high concentrations of housing choice voucher recipients.
No census tracts in the city are classified as “vulnerable” to displacement by the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project. Table A-16 shows the number of units allocated to each census tract with respect to the percentage of renter households experiencing cost burden, the percent of households which are overcrowded, and the displacement vulnerability of households in that census tract.
The distribution of sites across income categories listed in the Sites Inventory does not exacerbate fair housing conditions with regard to disproportionate housing needs. Furthermore, it may improve conditions related to overcrowding and cost burden through the provision of new residential units affordable to lower-income households.
Table A-16 Number of Units by Housing Need Factors of Census Tract Census
Tract
Percent
Rent
Burdened
Percent
Overcrowded
Displacement
Sensitivity
Lower
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income Units
Total
Units
321102 40 - 60% < 8.2% Other -196 - 15 196
321200 20 - 40% < 8.2% Other 350 - - 350
322000 20 - 40% < 8.2% Other 102 - 27 129
323000 40 - 60% < 8.2% Other 53 - 123 176
324001 40 - 60% < 8.2% Other 86 - 78 164
324002 20 - 40% < 8.2% Other 33 203 236
325000 60 - 80% < 8.2% Other - - 163 163
326000 60 - 80% < 8.2% Other 25 28 1 54
327000 60 - 80% < 8.2% Other 175 - - 175
347000 40 - 60% < 8.2% Other - - 7 7
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 A-79
Fair Housing Summary of Sites Inventory by Census Tract Table A-17 Number of Units by Fair Housing Factors of Census Tracts Census
Tract Unit Capacity AFFH Indicators
Existing
Households Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
Units
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
%
Nonwhite R/CAAMedian
Income
% Low or
Moderate
Income
%
Overcrowded
% Rent
Burdened
321102 2,794
-196 - 15 196 High Resource 20 -40% Yes >125000 < 25% < 8.2% 40 - 60% 321200 2,295 350 - - 350 Moderate
Resource
40 -
60% No >87100 25 - 50% < 8.2% 20 - 40%
322000 2,489 102 - 27 129
Moderate
Resource
20 -
40% Yes >125000 < 25% < 8.2% 20 - 40%
323000 1,631 53 - 123 176 High Resource 20 -
40% Yes >87100 < 25% < 8.2% 40 - 60%
324001 2,554 86 - 78 164
Moderate
Resource
20 -
40% No >87100 25 - 50% < 8.2% 40 - 60%
324002 2,510 33 203 236
Moderate
Resource
40 -
60% Yes >87100 25 - 50% < 8.2% 20 - 40%
325000 2,121
- - 163 163 High Resource 20 -40% No >87100 25 - 50% < 8.2% 60 - 80% 326000 1,345 25 28 1 54High Resource 20 -
40% Yes >125000 < 25% < 8.2% 60 - 80%
347000 2,293 - - 7 7
Highest
Resource
20 -
40% Yes >125000 < 25% < 8.2% 40 - 60%
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Adopted | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing A-80 Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 This page is intentionally left blank.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-1
Appendix B: Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 1. Maintain a housing supply sufficient to meet the housing needs of all Pleasant Hill residents.
Housing Policy 1A. Monitor residential and job producing development in the city in order to maintain an adequate housing supply for city residents.
Housing Policy 1B. Maintain a sufficient supply of residential land with appropriate zoning to meet locally generated housing needs.
Housing Policy 1C. Provide active leadership in implementing the policies and programs contained in the Housing Element.
Housing Policy 1D. Encourage and facilitate inter-jurisdictional development of affordable housing.
Housing Program 1.1. Report annually
to the City Council and Planning
Commission regarding the amount and
type of housing activity. As required by
State law, City staff provides a yearly
report on the progress made toward
achieving the City’s housing goals.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission
N/A Annually Annual reports are provided to the
City Council and Planning
Commission.
Required program.
Annual reports to the
City Council and
Planning
Commission will
continue.
Housing Program 1.2. Work with the
Regional Transportation Planning
Committees (TRANSPAC/
TRANSPLAN) and the other
transportation sub-regions to limit
potential traffic congestion created
through new development.
City staff is required by the Congestion
Management Authority to notify
TRANSPAC when new housing
development proposals generate 100
or more peak hour trips per day.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
TRANSPAC
N/A Ongoing The City has worked with the
Regional Transportation Planning
Committees (TRANSPAC) and
actively participates with the
regional transportation agency
(CCTA), both of which are tasked
to limit traffic congestion
throughout the City and larger
region.
Keep program.
Continue to work with
and participate with
TRANSPAC and
CCTA to address
traffic congestion
related to new
development.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-2
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.3. Continue to
provide zoning categories that allow a
range of housing densities sufficient to
meet the City’s share of Regional
Housing Needs, as required by ABAG,
and encourage a mix of land uses and
residential densities when compatible
with the neighborhood and
environmental impacts are mitigated.
The City will monitor residential
development and progress in
implementing the Housing Element
annually and report the findings to the
City Council and the Department of
Housing and Community Development.
Current data indicate that the City has
enough residentially zoned land to
meet housing needs during the 2015-
2023 period. The City will comply with
the “no net loss” provisions of
Government Code Sec. 65863 and
ensure that adequate sites for housing
are maintained throughout the planning
period.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing Review proposed changes to
zoning districts to ensure a range
of densities to accommodate
single and multi-family residential
development.
Continue to monitor and report on
residential development on an
annual basis to the City Council
and Department of Housing and
Community Development through
the annual housing update.
Keep program and
modify to include
sites inventory, sites
form, and no-net loss
of housing inventory.
Maintain and respond
to future housing
needs by rezoning
appropriate sites
throughout the City
as needed and
continue to monitor
residential
development in the
City and report back
to the City Council
and Department of
Housing and
Community
Development
annually.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-3
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.4. Continue to
utilize Planned Unit Development
zoning.
PUD (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.30)
allows for flexible development of large
and/or contiguous parcels that may
include housing along with other uses.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing The City has approved new
Planned Unit Development zoning
districts and various projects
within the Planned Unit
Development zoning designation.
This includes a PUD to allow
development of a single-family
development and other
commercial and residential
projects throughout the City.
Keep program and
add a similar
program for utilizing
mixed use.
Continue to utilize
planning unit
development zoning
when appropriate.
Housing Program 1.5. Continue to
allow residential development on land
designated for office uses. Encourage
affordable housing in every proposed
residential development, and for every
non-residential proposal, consider a
mix of uses that includes housing.
City staff will inform developers of
Pleasant Hill’s inclusionary ordinance,
objectives for affordable housing and
the need of affordable housing in
projects of five or more units. The City
will provide incentives such as density
bonus, modified development
standards, and financial subsidies to
encourage and facilitate the production
of affordable units, including extremelylow-income when feasible.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
2 Low
28 Moderate
2015-2023 The existing zoning ordinance
allows residential uses in the PAO
(office) zoning district through a
use permit process. The City
approved a change in land use
from PAO-Office to a small lot
single family residential project.
Modify program to
address mixed use as
the City is moving
towards mixed use
zoning designations.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-4
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.6. Continue to work
with the County and neighboring cities
to increase the opportunity to jointly
develop affordable housing.
The City worked with the County on the
BRIDGE Grayson Creek project (2001-
2003) and the agreement for Mixed Use
development of the former Oak Park
Elementary School site (1700 Oak Park
Boulevard - 1999). The City also worked
with all Contra Costa communities on
the “Shaping our Future” (Smart
Growth) study, completed in 2003.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
Contact
County and
surrounding
cities on a
semi- annual
basis to
explore
opportunities
for affordable
housing.
2015-2023 The City continues to work with
Contra Costa County where
possible.
In 2016, the City and County
provided grant funds to the Mercy
Garden Park Apartment
Community (GPAC) to fund critical
capital upgrades and enable it to
qualify for additional federal
funding.
The property has 28 units
affordable to extremely low to lowincome households. In 2018, the City collaborated with the County
to amend agreements with
Satellite Affordable Housing
Associates (SAHA) for the
Hookston Senior Apartments, a
property with 99 units affordable
to very low- and low-income
seniors.
The amended agreement
extended the affordability term for
22 years, from 2053 to 2075.
In 2019, the City worked with the
County to amend an Intercreditor
Agreement for the BRIDGE
Grayson Creek project to preserve
an annual welfare tax exemption.
Without the amendment, BRIDGE
would have been unable to cover
its operating expenses for this 70-
unit complex affordable to very
low- to moderate- income
households.
In 2021, the City approved PUD
Concept Plan and Specific Plan to
allow 81 senior affordable housing
units.
Keep program.
Continue to
collaborate with the
County regarding
affordable housing.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-5
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.7. Extremely-lowincome (ELI) households are a subset of very-low-income households who
earn 30 percent or less of the median
income. Many ELI households face a
severe cost burden related to housing
(more than 50 percent of income going
toward housing costs), and they are the
income group most likely to experience
a housing crisis when faced with rent
increases, foreclosure, or other adverse
events.
The City shall pay 100 percent of the
application processing fees from the
City’s affordable housing fund for
developments in which 5 percent of
units are affordable to ELI households.
To be eligible for this subsidy, the units
shall be restricted by affordability
covenant. The waiving or reduction of
mitigation fees may also be considered
when an alternative funding source is
identified for these fees. The City shall
promote the benefits of this program to
the development community by posting
information on its website and creating
a handout to be distributed with land
development applications.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
59 ELI units 2015-2023 The City completed an analysis of local ELI housing needs and
determined that 50% of the very
low-income need is at the
extremely low-income level. The
City provided a refundable loan to
Rehabilitation Services of
Northern California (RSNC), now
Choice in Aging (CiA), in 2016 to
support its predevelopment
activities related to a proposed 81-
unit affordable senior housing
project that will include ELI units.
Required program,
keep program.
Complete the posting
of information/
creation of a handout
promoting permitting
assistance for
affordable housing
proposals.
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-6
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 1.8. To ensure that
the provisions of Measure B that were
adopted into the Zoning Ordinance do
not pose an unreasonable constraint to
achieving the City’s housing objectives,
the City will monitor development and
report in its Annual Progress Reports
required pursuant to Government Code
Section 65400, and if it is determined
that these provisions are preventing the
rezoning of parcels needed to
accommodate a portion of the City’s
needs for lower-income housing, an
amendment to those provisions will be
initiated.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
N/A Each year as
part of the
annual
monitoring
reports
The City continues to monitor the
impact of the former Measure B
provisions on achieving the City’s
housing objectives. The City has
modified various provisions that
resulted from the former Measure
B provisions, that better allowed
rezoning of parcels for residential
uses.
Remove program.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-7
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 2. Promote diversity in tenure, type, size, location and price to permit a choice of housing for persons of all economic levels.
Housing Policy 2A. Allow a variety of housing types to be built on residential sites.
Housing Policy 2B. Remove constraints to production and availability of housing when consistent with other General Plan policies.
Housing Policy 2C. Facilitate priority “fast track” processing by shortening the review process where appropriate for affordable, below market rate and special needs housing projects.
Housing Policy 2D. Encourage mixed-use development at underutilized sites, where appropriate.
Housing Program 2.1. Continue to use
the City-wide Design Guidelines to
facilitate small-lot development, small
single-family units and single-family
attached units through consideration of
decreased setbacks, zero-lot lines, lot
clustering through the Planned
Development process, and/or shared
parking provisions in appropriate
locations.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
24 Very Low
34 Moderate
40 AboveModerate
Units
2015-2023 The city allows this type of small
lot development through the
Planned Unit Development
process.
Small developments have taken
advantage of the flexible
development standard allowances
to cluster the development.
The City also completed an update
to its City-Wide Design guidelines
that include guidelines for small
and cluster development
proposals, especially in the hillside
areas, with the goal to preserve
existing natural areas and provide
for the maximum amount of open
space.
Keep, but modify to
discuss “small lot
infill projects” and
remove references to
single family
designations. Revise
to discuss objective
design standards.
Housing Program 2.2. Allow
manufactured housing in residential
districts in accordance with applicable
State and federal laws and require such
units to meet local standards for
elements such as siding, roofing, and
type of foundation, to the extent
allowed by State and federal law.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
6 Very Low
Units
2015-2023 The City allows manufactured
housing provided that it meets
certain design standards related
to architecture including siding,
roofing, etc.
Keep program.
Modify program to
discuss compliance
with the City’s Design
Guidelines and
Objective Design and
Development
Standards (ODDS).
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-8
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 2.3. Amend the
Zoning Ordinance to provide standards
for including housing in locations that
allow mixed-use development in
appropriate locations, and work with
developers to facilitate housing
production.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
Zoning
Ordinance
Amendment
Within one year
of 5th Cycle
Housing
Element
Adoption, 2015
The City continues to maintain a
Mixed-Use land use designation in
the General Plan.
Keep program.
Modify and expand
based on proposed
zoning changes.
Housing Program 2.4. Continue to
provide appropriate flexible parking
requirements that allow shared use in
locations being considered for higherdensity housing development.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing Shared use and reduced parking
can be granted through a use
permit pursuant to Section 18.55
of the Zoning Ordinance.
The City has reviewed and
approved various parking
reductions in locations throughout
the City.
Modify program to
include an incentive
for projects with an
affordable housing
component.
Continue to
implement ordinance
amendments that
allow parking
reductions for multifamily residential
within transit and
priority development
areas and consider
parking reductions
elsewhere as
warranted.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-9
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 2.5. Planning staff
shall evaluate existing development
review regulations and procedures to
further streamline and give priority to
projects that provide affordable
housing. Building and Engineering staff
shall study ways to mitigate the cost of
construction, for example by revising
engineering standards and working
with the local Fire District to allow for
narrower street widths, rolled curbs and
parking bays, and considering allowing
use of less expensive building
materials, such as plastic for storm
drainage pipes, provided applicable
code requirements are satisfied.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing Projects that include affordable
housing are processed in an
efficient manner.
The City would give priority for
projects that exceed the minimum
affordable housing requirement.
The City works with developers to
look for ways to reduce the cost of
construction, including not
requiring sidewalks and allowing
narrower streets.
The City has considered and
approved alternative materials
that may be more cost effective
than traditional methods and
materials.
Keep program.
Continue to be
flexible with City
requirements
affecting the cost of
construction
materials.
Review and modify, if
appropriate,
engineering
standards to reduce
public infrastructure
costs for affordable
housing projects.
Housing Program 2.6. Continue to
encourage single-room occupancy
(SRO) housing in the MRVL, MRL, MRM
and MRH districts consistent with Sec.
18.20.085 of the Zoning Ordinance.
This type of housing can help to
address the needs of very-low- and
extremely-low-income households such
as college students and service sector
employees.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
20 SRO units 2015-2023 The City achieved compliance with this program by adopting an
ordinance amendment that
allowed and established
development provisions for singleroom occupancy projects.
Keep program,
however update
based on next steps
as the City has
already achieved
compliance with the
initial goals of this
program.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-10
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 3. Increase housing opportunities for people of limited incomes.
Housing Policy 3A. Facilitate construction of affordable housing by favoring new projects that include units for lower-income segments of the community.
Housing Policy 3B. Look for opportunities to promote the development of housing affordable and available to those who work in Pleasant Hill.
Housing Policy 3C. Participate in programs assisting production of affordable units in order to provide housing for low- and moderate-income households.
Housing Policy 3D. Provide direct assistance to individuals and households needing affordable housing.
Housing Program 3.1. Continue to
provide a density bonus for
development of affordable and senior
housing. The City’s Density Bonus
Ordinance, provides a minimum 5% to
20% increase in density with additional
density bonuses up to a maximum
increase of 35% in density if additional
target units are provided, and up to
three additional incentives, or
financially equivalent incentives, if the
development provides additional target
units.
Planning
Commission
and City Council
10 Very Low
30 Low
(Senior)
2015-2023 The City adopted a density bonus
ordinance that complies with the
State requirements (See Section
18.20.150 of the Zoning
Ordinance).
Modify program for
compliance with
current state law.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-11
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.2. Allow developers
to satisfy affordable housing
requirements by providing units
elsewhere in the city when inclusion of
affordable units within the
development is not feasible.
Planning
Commission
and City Council
N/A Ongoing The City allows an in-lieu fee to be
paid instead of providing the
actual affordable housing units
within the project. This money can
be used to provide units elsewhere
in the City. The money collected
through the in-lieu fee has been
placed in a dedicated interestbearing account (not co-mingled), and can only be used to fund
affordable housing per the City
Municipal Code. The December
2021 fund balance was
approximately $568,000, of which
$400,000 is encumbered for a
pending affordable housing
project pending at 250 Cleaveland
Road.
Modify program to
specify in-lieu fees.
Continue to
implement the
inclusionary housing
ordinance, including
allowing in-lieu fees
as appropriate.
Continue to review
the in-lieu fees every
odd year to
determine whether
the fees are
appropriate.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-12
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.3. Require all
housing projects of five or more units
to include affordable housing.
Developers may satisfy the
requirements of the City’s Affordable
Housing Ordinance by providing at
least:
5 percent of the base density for
occupancy by very low-income
households, or
10 percent for low-income households,
or
25 percent for qualifying senior
residents, or
20 percent second units (in singlefamily projects).
In order to ensure that this policy does
not pose an undue constraint to
housing production, the City will
continue to evaluate impacts to market
rate housing related to current market
conditions, project applications,
estimated affordable housing
requirements, fee collection and actual
construction of affordable housing
units. If the ordinance presents an
obstacle to development of the City’s
fair share of regional housing needs,
the City will revise the ordinance
accordingly.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
5 units per
year, 13 VL
25 L
Feasibility
analysis in
2014 and 2015-
2023
The City continuously approves
residential projects that provided
affordable housing consistent with
the adopted inclusionary
ordinance.
Keep program.
Continue to
implement the
inclusionary housing
ordinance.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-13
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.4. Continue to
publicize the opportunity to construct
secondary units.
The City’s secondary unit ordinance
(adopted 1989) was amended in 2003
to comply with State law making the
process ministerial. Secondary units
help to address the needs of very-lowand extremely-low- income households.
The City will continue to inform the
public about this process with
advertising such as articles in the City’s
newsletter, which is mailed to all
homeowners on a bi-monthly basis. A
secondary unit brochure and other
outreach materials could be made
available to residents and/or posted on
the City’s website.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
16 Secondary
Units
2015-2023 The City updated its ordinance to
be consistent with recent State
law and allows accessory dwelling
units in all single-family residential
zoning districts.
The City has provided information
to its citizens through various
media methods including handouts and newsletters.
The City continues to process
ADU applications throughout the
City.
Modify program for
compliance with
current state law.
Add incentives for
ADWU production,
particularly
affordable rental
ADUs, and those in
high resource areas.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-14
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.5. Seek State and
federal funds, and encourage the use of
private financing mechanisms, to
assist in the production of affordable
housing. Funding mechanisms that
should continue to be explored include
the HCD Multifamily Housing Program,
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC), federally subsidized Section
221 (d)(4), Section 8 or Section 202
programs, Community Development
Block Grants, tax-exempt bond
financing, federal HOME program
funds, administrative fees collected by
the County Housing Authority, and
favorable financing made available
through financial institutions, to assist
low- and moderate-income households.
The City shall apply for State and
Federal monies for direct support of
low-income housing construction and
rehabilitation, and shall continue to
assess potential funding sources, such
as, but not limited to, the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), and
HOME. The City shall also seek State
and Federal funding specifically
targeted for the development of
housing affordable to extremely-lowincome households. The City shall promote the benefits of this program to
the development community by posting
information on its website and creating
a handout to be distributed with land
development applications.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
$100,000 per
year, 10 L and
10 M per year
Apply for
available
funding
annually
As noted previously, the City
provided funding to two affordable
housing projects in 2016 (GPAC
and CiA) and 2017 (GPAC). The
City funds to GPAC will leverage
federal Rental Assistance
Demonstration and Project-Based
Voucher funds. The City funds to
CiA are supporting
predevelopment of a project that
is envisioned to eventually be
substantially supported by lowincome housing tax credits.
In 2018, the City amended an
agreement with SAHA to extend
the term of an existing loan.
The amendment was made in
conjunction with new financing
SAHA obtained from CalHFA and
LIHTC to rehabilitate the Hookston
Senior Apartments.
The City recently obtained a SB2
HCD Grant to support the SAHA
senior affordable housing project.
In addition, the City recently made
a submittal to HCD for TOD funds
in support of the SAHA senior
affordable housing project
Keep program.
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
Continue to work with
County staff
regarding the
development of
affordable housing
where feasible.
Housing Program 3.6. Use Successor
Agency funds to fund housing
programs throughout the city. Included
in the estimated expenditures for each
year is an annual amount ($235,000)
for debt previously incurred for
Successor
Agency
$285,000 per
year; $2.28
million total
between 2015
and 2023
2015-2023 The Pleasant Hill Redevelopment
Successor Agency spends
$235,000 per year funding
Grayson Creek Apartments which
are 100% affordable. The City has
committed $2.5 million in Housing
Delete program.
The City will Continue
to fund Grayson
Creek; and continue
to assist non-profit
organizations that
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-15
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
development of the Grayson Creek
Apartments affordable housing project.
This amount will recur annually until
the debt is paid in full (2031).
Successor funds to SAHA to
assist with an 82-unit affordable
housing development and
$285,000 to Habitat for Humanity
to develop 4 affordable units. The
City has also entered into
agreements to sell two former
redevelopment agency properties
to Habitat to Humanity to develop
affordable housing units.
provide affordable
housing in Pleasant
Hill using proceeds
from previously
approved loans as
they are paid off and
any other new grant
funding sources that
may become
available.
Housing Program 3.7 Invite non-profit
housing developers to work with the
City in promoting and encouraging
affordable housing. The City has
worked with non-profit housing
developers on past projects and will
continue cooperative efforts in the
future with these or other interested
nonprofit developers.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing The City is currently working with
SAHA on development of a new
82-unit project.
The City is also listed former
Redevelopment Agency properties
for sale in 2018, inviting proposals
from developers to develop
affordable housing on two sites.
The City has agreed to sell one of
these properties at 250 Cleaveland
to Habitat for Humanity and
provide a forgivable loan to
encourage affordable housing at
this location.
Keep program.
Continue to work with
affordable non- profit
housing developers
to provide affordable
housing in Pleasant
Hill.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-16
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.8. Provide
developers with the opportunity to
utilize tax-exempt revenue bonds.
Table H1126 lists three senior
developments where the City provided
tax exempt financing: Ellinwood and
Chateau I and III.
The City will continue to offer support
to developers through tax exempt
financing where affordable housing will
be produced.
Table H11 lists three senior
developments where the City provided
tax exempt financing: Ellinwood and
Chateau I and III. Through the
remainder of the Housing Element
Planning Period, the City will continue
to offer support to developers through
tax exempt financing where affordable
housing will be produced.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
50 L 2015-2023 During this reporting period, the
City did not use/issue any taxexempt revenue bonds.
Keep program
The City will continue
to offer support to
developers through
tax-exempt financing
when affordable
housing will be
produced and where
feasible.
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
26 This references Table H11 on the 5th cycle Housing Element. The corresponding existing table for the current revision of the document is Table 4-17.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-17
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.9. Use monies in
the Housing Trust Fund to assist in the
development of affordable housing.
Revenue for the trust fund comes from
“in- lieu” fees provided from the
inclusionary unit ordinance. The
potential uses of these funds include:
land acquisition for below market rate
housing, buy-downs on mortgages for
purchasers of below market rate units,
capital improvements to below market
rate housing, etc.
Planning
Commission
and City Council
Annual
outreach to
developers
and other
nonprofit
housing
agencies
Ongoing The City collects inclusionary
housing in lieu fees in an
affordable housing fund, which it
considers a Housing Trust Fund.
In October 2019, the City
committed $400,000 in Housing
Trust Fund monies to Habitat for
Humanity to develop 6 to 7
affordable units at 250 Cleaveland
Road.
Keep program. Refer
to in-lieu fees as
opposed to the
Housing Trust Fund
by name.
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
Continue to research
ways to assist
development of
affordable housing
with the use of
housing in-lieu funds.
Housing Program 3.10. Continue to
participate in the Contra Costa County
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
for first-time homebuyers.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
10 M 2015-2023 The City provides information
about the County’s Mortgage
Credit Certificate Program on the
City website.
Keep program. The
program responds to
a constraint.
Continue to refer
prospective buyers to
the MCC program as
long as funding
remains available.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-18
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 3.11. Continue to
investigate concepts and funding
sources for a homeownership
assistance program.
The City will continue to explore the
possibility of providing assistance to
people who cannot afford to buy a
home with priority given to those who
work in the city, but cannot afford the
cost of housing, for example, teachers,
police officers and those who work in
City government. Other potential target
groups are first-time homebuyers of
lower- and moderate-income levels,
and large families.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Investigate and
apply for
available
funding
annually
No action was taken during this
reporting period.
Keep program. The
program responds to
a constraint.
Continue to search
for funding sources
to assist low-income
families purchase
homes.
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
Housing Program 3.12. Maintain
appropriate standards for use by the
Architectural Review Commission in
the processing of affordable housing
developments.
The Architectural Review Commission
reviews all new residential proposals. It
typically reviews development plans for
landscaping, design of buildings, and
provisions for accessibility for the
disabled.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
N/A Ongoing Design Guidelines have been
adopted and were recently
updated and the City started the
process to have residential
objective design standards that
would apply to all residential
projects throughout the City.
Delete program.
The City is
transitioning to
Objective Design and
Development
Standards (ODDS).
Housing Program 3.13. Continue to
provide fast-track permit processing for
affordable housing developments.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
N/A Ongoing Policies have been established to
expedite affordable housing
projects through the City’s various
processes.
Modify program.
The City has reduced
possible issues with
permitting new
developments
through the transition
to Objective Design
and Development
Standards (ODDS).
Continue expediting
affordable housing
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-19
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
projects when
submitted to the City.
Housing Program 3.14. Lot
Consolidation for Affordable Housing.
The City will play an active role in
facilitating lot consolidation for the
parcels listed in Table H2227,
particularly for parcels on Site 1(Jewell
Lane) and Site 4 (Cleaveland and
Beatrice). For example, the City will
work with non-profit developers and
owners of smaller sites to identify and
consolidate parcels to facilitate the
development of housing affordable to
lower-income households. The lot
consolidation procedure will also be
posted on the City website and
discussed with developers during the
preliminary review process. Lot
consolidation requests will be
processed as expeditiously as possible
in compliance with all applicable state
and local laws and regulations.
Incentives offered for lot consolidation
could include higher densities on
consolidated parcels, flexibility in
development standards, expedited
processing and/or reduced fees related
to consolidation. The City will provide
marketing materials for residential
opportunity sites and technical
assistance to interested developers,
including technical assistance to
acquire necessary funding. The City will
encourage and facilitate development
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
N/A Ongoing To comply with this program, the
City adopted a voluntary parcel
merger ordinance. The City
encourages lot consolidation on
smaller and under-utilized lots
where appropriate. The City has a
density bonus ordinance in place
to provide incentives for
development of affordable
housing. The City also currently
has a mechanism for providing
flexible development standards
through its Planned Unit
Development regulations and
through various adopted Specific
Plans.
Keep program.
Update program
based on new sites
and lot
consolidations
needed.
Consider additional
incentives to
encourage lot
consolidation.
Monitor development
on City
underdeveloped
parcels and report to
the City Council and
the Department of
Housing and
Community
Development.
Provide marketing
materials for
residential
opportunity sites and
provide technical
assistance to
interested
developers, including
technical assistance
to acquire necessary
funding.
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
27 Table H22
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023B-20
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6th
Cycle Action
on underdeveloped sites on Site 1
(Jewell Lane) by providing assistance
with entitlement processing, and
provide marketing materials for
residential opportunity sites, and
offering to pay the fees from the
affordable housing fund for affordable
housing projects, and providing
financial support when available. The
City will monitor and evaluate
development of underdeveloped
parcels and report on the success of
strategies to encourage residential
development in its Annual Progress
Reports required pursuant to
Government Code Section 65400. If
identified strategies are not successful
in generating development interest, the
City will evaluate additional methods
for encouraging and facilitating
development.
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-21
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 4. Improve housing conditions for people with special needs.
Housing Policy 4A. Provide incentives for and encourage development of senior housing, and housing for the developmentally, mentally and physically disabled, at sites where proximity to services and other features make it desirable.
Housing Policy 4B. Support efforts to provide temporary shelter for homeless persons.
Housing Program 4.1. Continue to
provide a density bonus for senior
housing. Incentives must be created to
encourage developers to build senior
housing. The current density bonus
ordinance provides a density bonus of
up to 20 percent if any development
includes at least 35 units.
Planning
Commission,
City Council
Ongoing Ongoing The City’s adopted density bonus
ordinance notes that a density
bonus is granted for any senior
housing project.
The City also updated the Density
Bonus ordinance consistent with
recent Federal and State law
changes.
Keep program.
Responds to a
constraint.
Modify program to
incentivize senior
housing.
Housing Program 4.2. Facilitate
projects that provide units meeting
federal, State and local requirements.
Population groups in the City with
special needs include the physically
handicapped. Currently, the City
enforces State-mandated requirements
for rental housing units (Title 24). The
City will continue to encourage
ownership housing that can be
equipped with handicapped facilities.
The City has adopted a Reasonable
Accommodation Ordinance and will
provide fast-track processing and other
incentives to facilitate the production
of housing targeted to persons with
disabilities.
Public Works &
Community
Development
department,
Planning
Commission
Ongoing Ongoing The City has approved and
continues to facilitate projects
that meet federal, state and local
requirements specifically related
to reasonable accommodation
requests to allow for housing for
persons with disabilities.
Keep program.
Responds to a
constraint.
Modify program to
incentivize special
needs housing.
Continue to attempt
to assist those
projects that provide
units that meet
federal, State and
local requirements.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-22
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 4.3. Encourage
supportive housing for persons with
developmental disabilities.
The City will work with nonprofit
developers of supportive housing for
the developmentally disabled to
identify and develop adequate sites.
The City will apply to the County for
CDBG monies and assist with tax
exempt financing for land and/or
building purchase and/or lease.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission
Consult with
nonprofits and
apply for
funding
annually
Consult with
nonprofits and
apply for
funding
annually
The zoning ordinance allows
facilities for the mentally disabled.
The city approved a PUD
Concept/Specific Plan for a
redeveloped CIA facility that
provides assistance for those with
disabilities.
Keep program.
Responds to a
constraint.
Housing Program 4.4. Continue to
facilitate the provision of emergency
shelters, transitional and supportive
housing. SB 2 of 2007 requires all
jurisdictions with an unmet need to
identify at least one zone where
emergency shelters may be stablished
by-right, subject to specific
development standards. The Zoning
Ordinance allows emergency shelters
by-right in the Light Industrial zone. In
2013 the City’s zoning regulations for
transitional and supportive housing
were amended pursuant to SB 2. The
City will continue to monitor changes in
state law regarding emergency
shelters, transitional and supportive
housing and amend the Municipal Code
in 2015 to ensure that City regulations
are consistent with current
requirements.
Planning
Commission,
City Council
Code
amendment in
2015 &
Ongoing
Code
amendment in
2015 &
Ongoing
The City adopted an ordinance
amendment for emergency
homeless shelters in compliance
with this program of the Housing
Element and in compliance with
Section 65583 of the Government
Code (SB 2).
Delete program as
the City allows
transitional and
supportive housing
by right in all
residential districts.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-23
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 4.5. Monitor
statistics from police, county agencies
or private organizations regarding
homeless shelter needs. A Point-inTime survey of the homeless in Contra Costa County conducted in January
2017 found 25 unsheltered homeless
persons in Pleasant Hill.
The City will continue to coordinate
with the County and other agencies to
address homeless needs on a regional
basis.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
Ongoing Ongoing The results of the point in time
survey from 2020, showed results
that there were 90 unsheltered
homeless in the City at the time of
the count.
Keep program.
Responds to a
constraint.
The City will continue
to correspond with
local homeless
agencies.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-24
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 5. Protect and rehabilitate the existing housing stock.
Housing Policy 5A. Maintain and enhance the quality of Pleasant Hill’s neighborhoods so they will retain their value as they mature.
Housing Policy 5B. Preserve Pleasant Hill’s existing housing stock in habitable condition.
Housing Policy 5C. Ensure that new residential development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.
Housing Policy 5D. Encourage single-family remodeling, and require additions to reflect the mass and scale of adjacent homes.
Housing Policy 5E. Provide public services and improvements that keep neighborhoods safe and livable.
Housing Program 5.1. Retain existing
residential zoning and discourage nonresidential uses in residential zones.
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing The City has not approved any
rezoning of property from
residential to non-residential.
Most non-residential uses are not
allowed in residential zonings
districts.
Those allowed are residential
serving and requires substantial
analysis (through a conditional
use permit) before the use is
granted.
Delete program.
The State of
California prohibits
the reduction of
housing units through
SB 166 (2019), The
No Net Loss Law.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-25
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 5.2. Continue the
Neighborhood Preservation program to
provide low interest loans for
rehabilitation of homes owned or
occupied by low to moderate income
households.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
City Council
2 units per
year, 5 L, 10 M
2015-2023 The City is no longer enlisting new
participants in the Low Income
Home Rehabilitation Loan
Program.
Modify program with
verbiage “seek
funding to…”
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
Continue to use the
Neighborhood
Preservation program
as deemed feasible
considering funding
constraints.
Housing Program 5.3. Establish and
maintain an Emergency Repair Grant
Program
Successor
Agency
5 units per
year
2015-2023 The City is no longer enlisting new
participants in the Emergency
Repair Grant Program.
Modify program to
“seek funding to…”
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
The Rehabilitation
Loan program will be
revised to focus on
emergency repair
grants.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-26
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 5.4. Periodically
evaluate the need for residential
rehabilitation.
The City maintains information about
the neighborhood surveys it has
conducted to determine housing
condition and the need for
rehabilitation. The City will continue to
monitor housing conditions as part of
code enforcement and building
inspection activities. When housing
units in need of repair are identified,
staff will advise property owners of
rehabilitation assistance that may be
available.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing City Staff has not surveyed older
neighborhoods during this
reporting period.
Keep program.
Responds to an
identified need.
Continue to survey
older neighborhoods
as necessary.
Housing Program 5.5. Monitor the
city’s residential districts for housing
suitable for rehabilitation or code
enforcement.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing City staff works in conjunction
with code enforcement when
necessary to assist homeowners
comply with housing code
violations.
Modify program
based on objectives
for compliance
regarding assistance
to homeowners.
Housing Program 5.6. Preserve
neighborhood appearance through the
enforcement of City ordinances.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing The City Code Enforcement Officer
regularly enforces the City
Community Beautification
Ordinance to ensure that the City
maintains an attractive
appearance.
Delete program. This
program is not
required.
.
Housing Program 5.7. Review the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to
determine priorities to maintain the
community’s older residential
neighborhoods.
This review will verify that those areas
needing improvement are scheduled
for funding to address the identified
need at a specific time in the future.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Bi-annually,
2015-2023
On a bi-annual basis, the City
completes a Capital Improvement
Program that includes
infrastructure improvement
projects in all areas of the City.
Because older portions of the City
have older infrastructure, they are
normally targeted for areas of
improvement, including roads,
sidewalks, etc.
Keep program.
Continue reviewing
the CIP on a biannual basis.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-27
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 6. Preserve the City’s affordable housing stock whenever and wherever feasible.
Housing Policy 6A. Discourage the conversion of older residential units to other uses.
Housing Policy 6B. Ensure that units produced for low- and moderate-income households are made available to those households and maintained as affordable units.
Housing Policy 6C. Prohibit conversion of multifamily rental units to market rate condominiums if such conversions would reduce the number of rental apartments to less than 20 percent of the city’s housing stock or if the rental apartment vacancy rate in the City is below 5 percent.
Housing Program 6.1. Prohibit the
conversion of assisted housing units to
market rate for as long as possible and
no less than 55 years after initial
occupancy.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing No conversions of assisted
housing units to market rate
during this reporting period.
Keep program.
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
Housing Program 6.2. Identify assisted
dwelling units at risk of conversion to
market rate and work with property
owners to preserve the units for lowincome families.
56 units 2015-2023 The City maintains a list of
affordable units and periodically
rechecks it. A new affordability
covenant was executed for the
Ellinwood Apartments, replacing a
prior covenant that had expired in
2015.
The new covenant requires 19 lowincome rental units for 55 years.
A prior condition requiring the
property to be restricted to seniors
was lifted in order to expand
affordable housing opportunities
for households of all ages.
Required program.
Keep and expand
program with
objectives.
Continue to monitor
the affordable units
and assist with
keeping them
affordable when and
where feasible.
Due to the dissolution
of redevelopment by
action of the State of
California, the City
will no longer have an
affordable housing
fund financed by
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-28
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
redevelopment to
assist in the funding
of this program.
Housing Program 6.3. Ensure that
occupants of below market rate
ownership units meet specified income
requirements at time of purchase.
This program will augment the City’s
requirement to preserve affordable
units for 55 years by ensuring that only
qualified occupants are the
beneficiaries of below market-rate
ownership units.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission
N/A Ongoing The City qualifies all purchasers of
affordable units and conducts
annual monitoring to ensure
properties with affordability
covenants are occupied by
qualified households.
Delete program. This
program is not
required.
Housing Program 6.4. Require resale
and rental controls on below market
rate units provided through the
inclusionary housing provisions or
through public assistance.
The City’s inclusionary ordinance is a
requirement that has been imposed on
all residential development since 1996.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing The City has resale and rental
controls on all assisted units.
The City also updated duration for
rental units to 55 years, consistent
with ownership unit provisions.
Keep program.
Modify verbiage to
“continue to…”
Housing Program 6.5. Explore a variety
of tools for preserving assisted units,
including monitoring at-risk units,
participating in acquisition of belowmarket rental units by tenants or nonprofits, facilitating refinancing or purchase of developments from
owners who file a notice indicating that
they intend to opt out of a subsidy
agreement, and providing technical and
relocation assistance to tenants.
Public Works &
Community
Development
department
56 L 2015-2023 As mentioned previously, the
Ellinwood Apartments had an
affordability covenant that expired
in 2015.
A new covenant was executed in
2018 making 19 units affordable
to low-income households for 55
years.
City staff continues to explore
ways for preserving assisted units.
Merge program with
Program 6.4.
Housing Program 6.6. Enforce existing
condominium conversion ordinance.
Prohibit further conversions unless the
threshold percentage of apartments is
below 20 percent and if the apartment
vacancy rate is below 5 percent.
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing No condominium conversion
requests were received during the
most recent planning period.
Keep program.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-29
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 6.7. Regularly
evaluate the proportion of rental
apartments in the city to ensure
appropriate implementation of the
condominium conversion ordinance.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing Rental units account for
approximately 31% of the City’s
dwelling units.
Merge with Program
6.6 Housing Program 6.8. Require all
assisted housing units to submit
reports on a timely basis
demonstrating compliance with the
recorded affordability agreements.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing All assisted affordable housing
complexes and single-family units
submit annual reports
demonstrating compliance.
Keep program.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-30
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 7. Ensure equal housing opportunities for all.
Housing Policy 7A. Ensure that individuals and families seeking housing in Pleasant Hill are not discriminated against on the basis of age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, family structure, national origin, ethnicity, religion, lawful occupation, or other similar factors.
Housing Program 7.1. Continue to refer
all reports of housing discrimination to
the local fair housing-related non-profit
that is funded by the County CDBG
program.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing The City falls under the County’s
CDBG “umbrella.” As such,
residents with discrimination
complaints are referred to those
housing counseling services.
Keep program.
Continue to refer
residents to
appropriate agencies.
Housing Program 7.2. Continue to
follow the City guidelines for
implementing the reasonable
accommodation ordinance and
periodically review the Zoning
Ordinance to identify other provisions,
including the definition of “family” that
could pose constraints on the
development of housing for persons
with disabilities and reduce or eliminate
constraints through appropriate
ordinance amendments.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Code
amendment in
2015 &
Ongoing
The guidelines for reasonable
accommodation requests are in
use when the City received
reasonable accommodation
requests.
Keep program.
Modify based on next
steps as necessary.
Continue to use the
guidelines when
reviewing reasonable
accommodation
requests. Periodically
review the
reasonable
accommodation
ordinance to make
additional
amendments as
appropriate.
Housing Program 7.3. Promptly
address complaints of discrimination in
the sale, rent, and development of
housing in Pleasant Hill.
The City’s procedure is to refer these
types of complaints to the County
funded non-profit fair-housing agency,
such as SHELTER Inc., or Pacific
Community Services.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing All complaints of housing
discrimination are promptly
addressed.
Keep program.
Modify verbiage to
“continue to…”
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-31
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
The City will distribute literature
annually in City offices and on the City
website.
Housing Program 7.4. Encourage
developers to provide amenities for
single heads of households, the
disabled, and senior citizens.
For example, an amenity that would
encourage housing opportunities for
single heads of households would be
the provision of childcare centers. An
amenity in a new residential community
for the disabled might be walkways to
accommodate wheelchair access. And
a housing development could promote
social interaction among residents of
all ages with the addition of a
clubhouse or other recreational facility.
Architectural
Review
Commission,
Planning
Commission
N/A Ongoing Encourage and recommend multifamily projects to provide recreational facilities, when senior
centers are proposed, appropriate
amenities are encouraged.
Keep program. Move
to Special Needs
section.
Continue to review
appropriate projects
and require amenities
to serve the project.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-32
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 8. Require energy conserving practices in the maintenance of existing dwellings and in new residential development, additions and remodeling.
Housing Policy 8A. Encourage energy conservation practices for new and existing residential dwellings.
Housing Policy 8B. Encourage the use of green building and sustainable practices for new and renovation projects throughout the City.
Housing Program 8.1. Enforce the
State’s Energy Conservation Standards
for new residential construction and
additions to existing structures.
Building
Division
N/A Ongoing Projects are required to comply
with Title 24 standards, which
include the State of California
“Green Building Requirements”
through the building permit
process. The City recently
adopted the latest State Building
Code provisions that include the
latest energy conservation
standards.
Required program.
Keep program.
Modify program to
commit the City to
triannual updates of
California State
Building Code and
CalGREEN.
Housing Program 8.2. Encourage
innovative designs to maximize passive
energy efficiency.
Architectural
Review
Commission,
Planning
Commission
N/A Ongoing The City-Wide design guidelines
include recommendations to
incorporate design that encourage
energy efficiency and other green
methods that result in energy and
cost savings.
Keep program.
Continue to
encourage new
development to
incorporate energy
efficiency techniques
into projects.
Housing Program 8.3. Provide
information to the public, and support
efforts by public utilities, to encourage
home conservation practices.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing The City has worked cooperatively
with utilities (PG&E, CCWD,
EBMUD) to promote energy
conservation and provide
education to the public.
Keep program.
Expand program.
Continue to work with
utilities to support
efforts to conserve
energy. Provide
information to the
public about home
conservation
practices through the
internet, city
newsletter and other
forms of media.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-33
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Program 8.4. Encourage use
of sustainable and innovative building
practices and materials. Provide public
information concerning accepted and
available sustainable building practices
in partnership with groups promoting
those practices. Amend the City’s
Building Code as needed to be
consistent with further revisions to the
State of California Green Building
Standards Code.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department,
Architectural
Review
Commission,
Planning
Commission,
City Council
N/A Ongoing The City continues to encourage
incorporating sustainable and
innovative building practices and
materials through the design
review process.
In addition, the City Building Code
requires compliance with the State
of California Green Building
Standards Code.
The City adopted provisions that
requires incorporating electric
vehicle chargers for certain
development projects.
Keep program.
Continue to
encourage
sustainable building
practices through the
design review
process.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 B-34
Program
Responsible
Agency
Quantified
Objective Timeframe Current Status
Recommended 6
th
Cycle Action
Housing Goal 9. Facilitate public participation in the formulation and review of the City’s housing and development policies.
Housing Policy 9A. Implement procedures to provide the public with enhanced notification.
Housing Program 9.1. Provide
enhanced public notification for
Neighborhood, Area-Wide and CityWide Projects.
Continue to implement enhanced
public notification for projects based
on the impact of the project; either on a
neighborhood, area-wide or City-wide
level.
Public Works &
Community
Development
Department
N/A Ongoing The City provides enhanced
noticing for neighborhood, areawide and city-wide projects.
Keep program.
Expand with
Affirmatively Further
Fair Housing (AFFH)
objectives to reach
the whole
community.
Continue to provide
enhanced noticing for
projects when
deemed appropriate.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-1
Appendix C: Public Comments
The following appendix contains verbatim public comments received during community engagement events that addressed housing issues in the community.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................C-1 GPAC Meeting #13: May 11, 2021 ...........................................................................................C-2 GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021..........................................................................................C-2 July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop..............................................................................C-6 October 27, 2021 Housing Element Townhall.......................................................................C-17 Public Comment......................................................................................................................C-17 GPAC Meeting #23: April 12, 2023.........................................................................................C-45 Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element....................................................C-50
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-2
GPAC Meeting #13: May 11, 2021
GPAC Meeting #13: May 11, 2021
Author Comment
Lynda
Deschanbault
Public
Comment
• GP should reflect climate action plan
• equity needs to be considered
• jobs/transportation access are important
• liked using box store areas for housing
• impacts need to be mitigated
Alan Bade
Public
Comment
• History: Chilpanchango Park was given to city to protect the old Valley Oak trees – to build over this park would go against other goals of GP • Serves an underserved areas
• In an area underserved with parks
• Maybe look in Pacheco?
• Consider old gas station off Hookston
Wendy Gollop
Public
Comment
• Perhaps consider areas north of DVC? Martinez area?
• Seems like a lot of high density concentrated in areas in southern areas of the city
• Salvation Army a good site?
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
Frank Hall
Public
Comment
• Owns 555-559 Contra Costa Blvd
• 4800 sqft space empty
• Wants review of retail commercial designation – hope will allow additional potential uses
GPAC
Discussion
Regarding the RHNA, what about projects underway?
Response: We can only count toward RHNA if permit pulled after June 2022 (6 months before projection period starts on January 2023), including • 85 Cleaveland – 180 units
• Choice in Aging – 89 units (by DVC Overflow Parking Lot) • 401 Taylor Project – would be good above mod units
• 490 Golf Club
Jack Prosek
Public
Comment
• There will be a loss of jobs on JFK and JC Penny sites • Low densities proposed in Mangini – area could support higher densities • Winslow Center – will they sell the site?
• Appreciate efforts to put in increased density in the city GPAC
Discussion
Site A: DVC Overflow Parking Lot
• Could be student housing with smaller units (e.g., studios) • DVC has considered developing housing in the past
• The site backs up to 4 story developments
• Potential for increasing density on this site – but hold off increasing unless needed to meet the RHNA
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-3
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
GPAC
Discussion
Site B: Chilpancingo Site
• Remove from consideratoin
GPAC
Discussion
Site C: Winslow Center/PH-Taylor Intersection
• Would Rec and Park be willing to sell the site for development? • A creek goes through this site – would want to preserve that and may impact amount of available buildable land
• Density could be decreased here.
GPAC
Discussion
Site D: Mangini-Delu
• 3.2 du/ac a little low – the potential to bump up to 5-6 du/ac? • There is community interest in green spaces in this area/on this site • It’s the last vestige of PH’s ag heritage
• Would be great to incorporate park/urban ag(?) part of the site GPAC
Discussion
Site E: JFK University Site
• Building is close to trail and other city amenities
• Maybe a good spot for Mixed Use, first floor retail – would allow to retain some potential for sales tax generation
• Higher density on this site can help offset lower densities elsewhere in the city • Consider 70-100 du/ac MU on this site
GPAC
Discussion
Site F. ACE Hardware
• Extend the site boundary north to include TAP plastics GPAC
Discussion
Site G. Gregory Gardens Shopping Center
• Would be a good Mixed Use area
GPAC
Discussion
Site H. Salvation Army
• Remove from Consideration
GPAC
Discussion
Site I. Pleasant Hill/Gregory intersection
• Concerned about 2 new buildings – Walgreens and Zio Fraedo’s very new • More potential on south side of Gregory or east of Zio Fraedo’s • Would like Mixed Use in this area
• Walgreens could be the anchor
• Consider 40-70 du/ac MU designation for this site
GPAC
Discussion
Site J: Gregory Lane/Contra Costa Boulevard Intersection • Extend the focus area boundary north to Caspers
• Potential site for brewery or brew pub
• Consider 40-70 du/ac Mixed Use
GPAC
Discussion
Site K: Jewel Neighborhood
• Currently there’s an informal housing development proposal in the works • Rezoning would be good for that development project
• Expand the focus area to Include the L-shaped building to the east GPAC
Discussion
L. Beatrice Area
• Part of site is taken by Habitat for Humanity build; remove from site area • Flooding issues on the site
• Not impossible to build, but would cost a lot of money • Most people would go elsewhere before building here
• Remove from consideration – reconsider if having trouble meeting RHNA targets
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-4
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
GPAC
Discussion
Site M: Monument Triangle Area
• Challenging to displace a mobile home park; remove this parcel from consideration within the focus area
GPAC
Discussion
Site N: Former JCPenney Furniture Store Site
• Consider to 40-70 du/ac Mixed Use in this area.
GPAC
Discussion
New suggested areas:
Dunn Edwards –
• On Contra Costa Blvd, basically Target to Pacheco
• Mixed Use should allow for office, retail
• GP needs to make sure city can retain commercial capacity • Taylor/Morello Ave
• Good area for Mixed Use
• All along Taylor, some of these commercial areas would be good for Mixed Use – consider a Mixed Use General Plan Land Use Designation along the corridor.
Danielle Drier
Emailed
Comment
I am making a comment on the proposed Land Use plan that was shared On July 14th, 2021.
I am a local Pleasant Hill resident with 4 young children we’re a very active family in the community- always biking,hiking and using the park space available to us. I was highly alarmed when the discussion of the Mangini Land came up as an option to build living units on it. It only seems natural for the City of Pleasant Hill to want to preserve the very last vestige of Pleasant Hill’s rural roots.
As an active member of our community raising a family here is Pleasant Hill it would be my hope that we can offer our future beings knowledge of land, history and community. Restoring part of the land to its natural being and creating a space for our community-parks, trails, biking area etc. for the health of our people, families and community would be my vote!
LESS HOUSES. More people outside.
Jack Prosek Overall, it was a long but productive GPAC meeting last night.
However, some of the comments on the eight density figure used left a lot to be desired. There was some indication that the numbers represented only one point on a range of values rather than a fixed number, but we do not know what those figures are.
The consultants were vague about the number of stories & building heights that each density range might involve, but the public needs to be provided with a much better sense of this . . . . . for each density, will the buildings need to be 3 to 5, 5 to 7, 7 to 10, or more than ten stories for both Mixed Use & pure residential developments ??? And you need to include any elevated parking levels that may be required in order to meet the overall demands.
My thoughts on the specific sites follow:
A – DVC North Parking Lot
DVC still needs to INCREASE the number of parking stalls for their commuter students. I would see this site as being developed with three story walk-up housing units over a podium of a three-level parking garage – possibly one level underground. ADA accessible units can all be provided on the first residential level. It also should be noted that the residents on the west side of the canal were already concerned about the height of the CiA project to the north . . . . .
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-5
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
C – Winslow Center & D – Mangini/Delu
Given the right terms, the RPD should be interested in a land swap – perhaps a parcel along the creek towards the southern end of this property that could be developed into a park serving this new part of our community. This was strongly suggested (but totally ignored) during their Master Plan process ! The Winslow Center building itself is dilapidated & has been living on borrowed time ever since they needed to bring in a Structural Engineer TEN YEARS ago. It was good to see that “D” was revised to include the entire site; you also must recognize the slopes of the east & north parts of this site. I always envisioned a more dense development of this site than what is being proposed.
E – JFK University
Chad’s comments about the loss of jobs here was inappropriate – just because JFKU is leaving does not make this site less attractive to other office tenants. At the very least, serious consideration should be given to a multi-use development as the AC suggested. And do remember the numerous objections that were made for the FOUR story hotel project to the north – portions of that building were reduced to 2 & 3 stories in order to gain approval !!
I – PH Road / Gregory Lane
For the RHNA study, you might want to consider excluding the Walgreens site; the larger area discussed seems appropriate for the 2040 GP.
L – Beatrice Area
Development of a significant portion of this area would likely require the construction of a large retention pond for stormwater control – far too heavy a burden for even Moderate Housing. (The Library could have been constructed here elevated over a parking garage that could be allowed to flood during critical times since it is not essential that a Library be open every day; however, the opponents to this concept carried the day. The City or County Staff also gave the LTF a very bleak picture of the cost to purchase the three existing homes).
N – JC Penney
Here, as at “E”, adding a multi-use component makes a great deal of sense.
O – CCB North (added)
Adding the retail areas along CCB north of Chilpancingo (including Dunn-Edwards & Target) to the GP 2040 for a future MU development makes good sense.
P – Hillcrest Shopping Center (added)
Same as “O” but do note that a portion of the site is occupied by the very active Hope Center Church.
All of the Multi-use developments will need to consider the potential need for parking on elevated level(s) to accommodate the more intense site development.
Many areas along CCB are unlikely to be very conducive to underground parking solutions due to the naturally high groundwater elevations. Note that a MINIMUM of three residential floors are needed to be cost effective for the proposed developments.
Please provide a listing for all the vacant lots including the proposed density & type of development.
Just my thoughts in the hours following . . . . .
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-6
GPAC Meeting #14: June 23, 2021
Author Comment
Jack Prosek Your Memorandum for the June 23rd meeting of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) included a great deal of valuable information about potential sites for additional housing within the City of Pleasant Hill. After making a brief review, I have one major issue & found a few minor clarifications that are needed.
First, the major issue is that I could not follow the information shown in going from the details for the individual sites to Table 17 under the Site Summary. The only number that is directly supported is the TOTAL of 1,898 new units on the twelve (of 14) listed Sites. Nothing in this Memorandum appears to support the distribution of these units into the various Income Categories shown nor the numbers shown for the Vacant Sites & the Assumed ADUs . . . . . please connect the dots !!! A Chart showing the number of each type of units from each of the 12 sites would be helpful.
Minor items noted include:
- which are the “two additional sites” referred to on the third page (numbering of the pages would be helpful for references) ?
- Figure 4 shows the Winslow Center site (not Chilpancingo Park). - for Table 6 – there are one or more existing housing units on the Mangini-Delu property that would be displaced which would reduce the net increase. - the site boundaries shown in Figure 5 are significantly different than shown in the aerial view ... why is the land area shown on the East side not included ? - the development of site “E” (JFK University) as shown would result in a significant loss in the number of JOBS available in the local area; smaller numbers of jobs would also be lost on sites “C” (Winslow Center) and “N” (JC Penney). This conflicts with the objective to locate housing near jobs . . . . . - sites such as the Flood Control District property “L" Beatrice Area may be cheap to acquire, but will be very expensive to develop due to the potential flooding here & elsewhere.
One final note for today: with all these new housing units, will there also be a need to increase the areas available for new retail spaces ... especially at sites C, D, E and/or N ????
I would hope that you will clarify all of these items prior to the meeting on Wednesday !
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Darcy Please consider historic homes and work to preserve them.
Karen Consider parking, we may not need so many parking spots in the future.
Walgreens is brand new and won't work.
Jack Requested via email and in person types of data and would like that request filled.
Please provide density range for each density.
Clarify what the density levels look like. This would be helpful for the public.
JFK University and JC Penney site. We don't want to lose jobs.
Alex Contra Costa Boulevard has congestion. Be mindful when placing units here.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-7
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
ADUs present an opportunity to reach housing goals. How can we get the word out?
Mixed use: be mindful of our character when choosing where to allow Mixed Use.
Max If businesses are profitable, they may not want to sell. Let's make sure those owners are willing to sell. Can we use a confidence number within the methodology?
RE: congestion: We can reduce parking by locating units near transportation routes.
Alan Older commercial centers have cheaper rents and are valuable for small businesses compared to new developments that have higher rents.
Concerned about congestion and parking. It will be a complex issue.
Thank you for removing Chilpancingo.
Beatrice has environmental constraints.
Winslow, Mangini, and Beatrice have our last remaining open creeks. We need to plan for creek corridors with public access and restored riparian areas. They will enhance the property value and will be a benefit to residents. Please identify creeks on maps and diagrams.
Open Space/Parkland standard: consider this when planning units.
Wendy Surveys show that people want smaller low density areas.
Schools, how can we deal with added capacity? Where would new schools be built? Childcare: is there enough available?
Open space standard: We need to consider this as part of the process. We need a livable community.
Transportation: consider bus routes. Buses don't run on the weekend. Sometimes run only every 80 minutes.
Existing solar should be considered. New development should not shade existing solar panels.
List the creeks on the map. The city has flooding issues in some areas.
Jack What opportunities does the City have for the areas within the Sphere of Influence, outside the city boundary.
Darcy Housing should be inclusive for all.
Consider tiny homes and other housing formats. Build for the people and the community. We don't need more hotels.
Alan ADU's are really helpful but they may or may not increase our low density numbers.
Martin Gibb
Emailed
Comment
The Housing Element (HE) as a subpart of the General Plan (GP) does not consider the desired future characteristics of PH which are yet to be articulated in a GP draft. The general trend appears to be changing PH toward a higher density, semiurban area. The HE needs to be aligned toward future needs and avoid creating dense residential “islands” where cars are the only viable way to access the daily needs (job, groceries, shopping).
Toward this end I:
· support continued challenge to RHNA targets based on viability; · propose grouping and prioritizing mixed use designations consistent with the long-term vision of the GP. i.e. development of area close to Contra Costa Blvd corridor first;
· propose outlying areas are designated at lower densities (e.g. west PH areas C, D and I);
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-8
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
· propose that an overarching story be included that supports the HE and will help explain its direction, rather than present a seemingly hodgepodge grab-bag of sites of unknown availability or interest.
My specific area of concern is the west PH areas C, D and I in July 14, 2021 presentation
a. Propose lowering overall density to be more consistent with areas characteristics;
b. Need to Articulate long-term vision for complete area since these three areas are in close proximity and interrelated (housing and shopping). c. These three would be significant traffic adds to area with limited public transit.
C. Winslow Center/Pleasant Hill-Taylor property - Multi Fam -LD – 40 units proposed
and
D. Mangini-Delu Area – mix of designations – 221 units proposed a. In the last HE (April 2015), this site was shown supporting 60 AMI housing units. A change to 221 (and 40 multi family, low density on Winslow) is a significant increase.
b. This would be a significant change to the characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood, generally Single Fam R10, R7 and R6 type. c. Consider no more than 110 units for this area (incl. Winslow) 4/ac consistent with existing zoning.
d. Consider setting aside some of this area as open space/ parkland because higher densities will need this amenity.
e. Continue with community use area for Winslow – adjacent parkland? I. Pleasant Hill-Gregory lane Intersection - Mixed use High density – 309 units proposed
a. Consider how to retain current community shopping area features (vegetable store, drug store, bike shop, café restaurants, etc.) in consideration of total area needs.
b. Significant traffic adds to area with limited public transit c. Consider lower density or height restrictions to keep more in character with area and limit traffic impact
Additional site specific comments based on July 14, 2021 presentation:
A. DVC Overflow Parking Lot – Mixed Use VHD - 350
a. Appears to be a site with potential to create housing on underutilized land.
B. Chilpancingo Park - removed
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-9
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
C. Winslow Center/Pleasant Hill-Taylor property - Multi Fam -LD – 40 a. See above
D. Mangini-Delu Area – (mix of designations – East = Single fam HD) a. See above
E. JFK University
F. ACE Hardware (+adjacent) – Mixed use HD - 120
a. Agree this is an opportunity area with underutilized land area (large parking lots)
b. Propose there be an overarching plan for community shopping needs (groceries, sundries, etc.) in conjunction with areas G, I and J below G. Gregory Gardens Shopping Center (Grocery Outlet) – Mixed User HD – 175 a. Consider how to meet current and future community shopping area features grocery, dining, etc. in consideration of total area needs.
H. Salvation Army - removed
I. Pleasant Hill-Gregory lane Intersection - Mixed use High density – 309 a. See above
J. Gregory-Contra Costa Intersection – Mixed use - HD 115 a. Consider expanding all the way to Woodsworth Lane – the other buildings are not of better stock
b. Extension of “downtown” – walkability and connection to shopping center on east side of Contra Costa Blvd.
K. Jewel lane Area – Mixed use HD - 71
a. Appears to be a site with potential to continue in character of area – Apts and retail
b. Consider adding adjacent triangular area (shopping center/ biz park?) L. Beatrice Area – Mixed User HD
a. Agree the area is an opportunity to develop housing – disagree with the mixed use concept for this area – no existing retail in area
b. Propose changing to housing only option.
M. Monument Triangle – Mixed User HD - 220
a. Agree that this is a potential site
N. Former JCPenney Furniture store Site - Mixed User HD – 281
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-10
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
a. Agree that this is a potential site
Chris Klein My family happily resides at 8 Erin Ct and we are writing you to express our deepest disappointment after hearing about this recent Mangini and Winslow Center proposed high density housing development.
I, alongside everyone in this neighborhood, am 100% against this proposal. I do not support it and will fight it alongside everyone in this area.
It is absolutely ridiculous to even consider adding that many units to that area.
How are we going to support the cars, parking and traffic bottleneck? Among other many issues this would cause.
We just did a beautiful job redoing this corridor. I attended city council meetings and fully supported the planning committee. Great job on that.
Please do not disappoint us long standing citizens of this community and ruin it with a greedy proposal that will crush the charm of Pleasant Hill that we call home.
I will move my family right out of here.
Block this proposal and think about single family or low density housing or just preserve this beautiful land!
Debby Badsky I have lived in PH. for over 30 years. I don’t want PH like WC. PH has a much needed home town feeling- I worked in SF and and
loved to come home and feel like I lived in a homey community. I don’t want 261 units in the Mangini area. more traffic more problems
with the sewer lines- Not to mention redoing the sewer lines on PH RD. twice in a couple of years. I never really found out why you
had to redo the sewers. The bikes lanes, the congestion of more people in 261 units, and cars in the morning will be a nightmare.
Please stop zoning for condo- high density areas in PH.
Thank You,
Debby Badsky
I’ve paid property tax for a PH home for 35 years- trying to make PH a community I want to live in- PH you get enough
money from downtown. Stop trying to make it a WC apartments complex Mark de Wit Opposition to proposed land use changes to high density for the Mangini-Delu and Winslow Center properties
My family and I are strongly opposed to the proposed changes for the ManginiDelu and Winslow Center properties as described in the virtual community workshop because the proposed housing density changes are in gross conflict with the General Plan and the values of Pleasant Hill. The proposed plan for the properties changing the current single-family medium density (63 dwelling units) to high-density housing (221 dwelling units) will severely negatively impact existing residential neighborhoods and families.
The proposed increase in housing density is does not comport with the General Plan, which states retaining the character and charm of residential neighborhoods is a top priority for Pleasant Hill residents. The proposed plan with rezoning from SF Medium Density to a combination of SF High Density and Multi-Family Low and Medium Density will change the area and negatively impact the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. (It is quite disturbing how the presentation glossed over the proposed changes, neglected to identify the current and proposed zoning
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-11
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
changes, and did not make clear the overall change from 63 dwelling units to 221 high density units). The proposed changes for these properties do not protect and maintain the character of Pleasant Hill’s residential neighborhood and quality of life. To the contrary, the proposed changes will degrade the residential neighborhoods with looming multi-story story structures and increases of congestion and traffic, hazards to bicycles and pedestrians, and noise impacts.
The proposed plan is not compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. The General Plan says that multifamily developments generally are separated from singlefamily neighborhoods. The properties are surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposed plan would be in conflict with Community Development Policy to encourage aesthetic enhancement of residential areas, while retaining the charm and character of individual neighborhoods.
The proposed high density plan would greatly increase impacts to Grayson Creek beyond those of a single-family medium density development. The General Plan emphasizes preserving and reclaiming streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to function as open space and requires reclamation of degraded streams. High density housing on both sides of Grayson Creek will dimmish its potential as riparian habitat and surely increase the quantity of pollutants entering waters of the creek.
Rezoning to high density housing is not justified on any transit basis. The properties are not near public mass transit as BART is 3 miles away, too far to walk. The local CCC Transit bus route runs so infrequently (every 80 minutes), that proximity to a high-quality bus corridor cannot be claimed.
Pleasant Hill has long prided itself on being a wonderful community to live in and raise families in safe single-family residential neighborhoods that have charm and character. It is the City’s responsibility per the General Plan to protect and preserve our residential neighborhoods. The proposed housing high density changes for the two properties fly in the face of this top priority and should be dropped.
Jack Prosek Today's email did absolutely NOTHING to actually ANSWER the questions that I raised . . . . .
Rather, the only real new information is the inclusion of 13 du's on the Salvation Site "H". The Staff Recommendation for the June 23rd GPAC meeting was that this site should be removed from inventory - maybe I missed it, but I did not hear anything during the public meetings about keeping this site - much less increasing its density from 6 units.
Also, I believe that I acknowledged up front that there is no hard & fast way to determine the possible number of stories & the likely building heights for each density being proposed, especially since the size of the units is also unknown. But ranges for these numbers can be reasonably estimated; I recognize that many of the general public will be unable to evaluate your proposals without having some idea of these parameters.
You must have had some methodology to go from the densities at each site to the total number of units for each income category. With the proper incentives I can even see the potential for Moderate or Above Moderate Income units on the upper floors of taller buildings (likely over ten stories) that are along the freeway given the views that they would have - sites E & N in particular especially if they have separate entrances !! And how did you get MINUS 8.45 Acres for MF-MD ? Still looking for the City's List of Vacant Properties as well . . . . .
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-12
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Bruce Irion Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Housing Element of the PH 2040 General Plan. The RHNA goals for the General Plan represent an audacious goal, one that will take ingenuity, creativity, and a different mindset to solve - As Albert Einstein said, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
My comments and questions fall into several categories:
Agreement on overriding objectives,
Comments on 2040 trends impacting housing, and
Specifics on the 2040 Housing Element presented in the July 14, 2021 meeting.
Agreement on overriding objectives:
While RHNA mandates that all California cities, towns and counties must plan for the housing needs of residents regardless of income, it sets the backdrop that this will be done in a way that protects the environment; encourages efficient development patterns; achieves greenhouse gas reduction targets; and improves intra-regional jobs-to-housing relationship. In a nutshell, the RHNA mandate seeks to optimize the quality of life for the maximum number of people by encouraging sustainable development.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) used the RHNA methodology to set housing targets for each city in CCCounty. It did so on the projected growth in population which presumes a growth in jobs.
QUESTION #1 – ABAG used RHNA to set income specific city housing targets. But how did RHNA address the recognized need to improve intra-regional jobs-tohousing relationship? More specifically, did RHNA do an assessment of the current housing need in Pleasant Hill based on local jobs or address the jobs imbalance in the Bay Area that has allowed job growth in SF and the Silicon Valley to impacting housing and transportation infrastructure around the Bay Area? Comment #1 – RHNA says it recognized the need to “improve intra-regional jobsto-housing relationship” yet it seems to focus exclusively on housing and setting targets for the distribution of income specific housing. The housing/housing distribution crisis can equally be described as a jobs/jobs distribution crisis. Yet there is no focus or assessment of jobs. If, as Einstein said, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it", then this need to change! During the July 14 th teleconference, one of the PH officials asked how to manage Sacramento. The Bay Area housing crisis was created because there was no regional jobs planning, and a regional housing plan alone will NOT solve that problem!!!
Further comment – Pleasant Hill is a great place to live! People live in Pleasant Hill by choice – they do not resign themselves to live here. And that is because Pleasant Hill is an actively managed and planned community for all residents. It values parks and open space, maintains its infrastructure, provides activities for all ages from children through seniors, all while being fiscally responsible. In short, I think Pleasant Hill does a great job of sustainable development and optimizing the quality of life for the maximum number of people, something I can’t say for all communities in the Bay Area. If there is credible data to show that Pleasant Hill is not fairly treating residents who live and work here, please show it to me. But I do not see why Pleasant Hill should be tasked with solving problems that were created elsewhere. (FYI – I see where Pleasant Hill has sent an appeal to ABAG on the RHNA target for Pleasant Hill. I have sent an email supporting the city’s appeal.)
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-13
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Comments on 2040 trends impacting housing:
While I recognize the agenda of the July 14, 2021 meeting was the Housing Element of the 2040 General Plan, I believe it would have been helpful to have summarized this against the backdrop of trends which are and will impact the Housing Element. Specifically, here are a few trends that I believe have significant impact on housing:
Growth in e-commerce and a commensurate reduction in brick and mortar stores Trend toward tele-commuting for jobs
Trend toward on-line learning
Automation is/will reduce the number of lower income service industry jobs Let’s look at each of these trends and the potential impact it would have on housing needs for the 2040 General Plan.
Growth in e-commerce and a commensurate reduction in brick and mortar stores As this trend continues, there will be less need for retail stores freeing up space for more housing.
Comment #2 – I saw some conversion of business to housing in the proposed 2040 General Plan but I think considerably more is possible. Further, while I saw some leverage of the idea in the 2040 General Plan, I think there is room for considerably more conversion of retail space to mixed use. This would allow for retail owners and employees to live above retail space which, in line with RHNA goals, would reduce commuting and minimize carbon footprint Trend toward tele-commuting for jobs
As this trend continues, more people working in SF and the Silicon Valley will be working from home. This trend helps to mitigate the deficiency of the failure of RHNA to address the jobs imbalance in the Bay Area.
Comment #3 – The RHNA income specific housing target disproportionately emphasized lower income housing. As telecommuting allows higher income workers to choose where they elect to live, more will move to suburbs and Pleasant Hill reducing the apparent “over-abundance” of higher end housing.
Trend toward on-line learning
As this trend continues, there will be less need for classrooms, especially at colleges. This means DVC will need fewer classrooms.
Question 2 – Has this been discussed with DVC, and since the trend is true for the state as a whole, has the issue been addressed with the state who set the RHNA mandate? More pointedly, as the demand for classrooms declines, to what degree is the state prepared to use this windfall to build on-campus housing and thus reduce the housing impact colleges have on their surrounding communities? Automation is and will continue to reduce the number of lower income service industry jobs
As this trend continues, there will be fewer low income jobs and less need for low income housing.
Comment #4 – As previously commented, the RHNA income specific housing target disproportionately emphasized low income housing. The need for low income housing will decline as the number of low income jobs declines.
Additionally, this further supports my belief that the 2040 General Plan MUST start
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-14
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
with an assessment of current and future jobs in the Pleasant Hill vicinity so that equal weight is given to jobs as to housing.
Specifics on the 2040 Housing Element presented in the July 14, 2021 meeting.
I will provide comments on specifics in the 2040 Housing Element presentation by the letter corresponding to the specific site in the plan.
COMMENTS:
A – DVC Overflow Parking lot
As stated above, given the trend for on-line learning, I believe there will be an opportunity to repurpose sites on-campus for student housing.
B – Chilpancingo Park
While I applaud conserving open space, given the magnitude of the housing goal set by RHNA, it seems early in the process to categorically eliminate the whole of this site
C & D – Winslow Center & Mangini Delu Area
The Winslow, Eastern, Northern and Southern areas are respectively targeted for
13.9, 4.8, 8.3, & 21.0 du/ac. With closer access to the greater capacity of Taylor Blvd (vs PH Road), it would seem the higher density housing would be better suited for the Winslow or Northern site as opposed to the Southern Site.
With such a large area, the General Plan should provide for a park or other open area.
E – JFK University
No comment
F – ACE Hardware
No comment on this site
Given previous comment about trend toward e-commerce and ability to leverage additional retail to residential or mixed use sites, what other sites can be considered? Thoughts around the Orchard Hardware site?
G – Gregory Gardens
No comment
H – Salvation Army
Given the magnitude of the housing goal set by RHNA, it is not clear why this site would be eliminated.
I & J – Gregory/PH & Gregory/Contra Costa Intersections Both are targeted to average 49 du/ac. With closer proximity to freeways, the Gregory Lane/Contra Costa Blvd intersection would seem to warrant higher density what Gregory Lane/PH Road intersection would seem to warrant lower density development.
K – Jewel Lane
No comment
L – Beatrice Area
GPAC recommendation is to “Review and use if needed to meet RHNA”. – QUESTION 3 – What does this mean??? Where does this site sit in the prioritization for use and at what density?
M – Monument Triangle
As with many other areas, this area is targeted to average 49 du/ac. This site would seem the most appropriate to consider for even higher density should that be required.
N – Former JCPenney
Again, as with many other areas, this area is targeted to average 49 du/ac. This site would seem the most appropriate to consider for even higher density should that be required
Jack Prosek Second Effort - The morning light brought out some additional comments as follows:
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-15
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
I. Sites F, G, I, J, K, L & M - these smaller MU sites should be limited to a maximum of six stories & about 80' in height.
II. Think that I heard a comment about developing around the existing Winslow Center building - that structure has been living on borrowed time for TEN YEARS now & definitely will need to be demolished within the next few years. The RPD will be much better off trading that prime land for a new park elsewhere - my choice would be on the Mangini/Delu property along the creek.
We should continue to fight to maintain our suburban environment - the well planned, small town atmosphere that has been included in the City Council's stated GOALS for a number of two year cycles now - not the urban one that the politicians in Sacramento want us to have !!!
Jack Prosek Overall, it was a good meeting tonight on the Housing Element despite the small number of residents who spoke . . . . .
but it was extremely disappointing to find that the consultants did NOT respond either before or during the meeting to my requests for additional information that were made before, during and/or immediately following the June 23rd meeting. 1- A listing of the vacant properties, their assigned densities & the potential number of units.
2- Descriptions of what the various densities (now six) would likely represent in terms of the numbers (ranges okay) of stories & building heights. 3- A spreadsheet showing the transition from the various parcels A thru N to the counts in Table 2 of the June 23rd Staff Report.
In my opinion, many of the interested citizens would need some or all of these documents in order to provide meaningful comments on the plans being presented ! Thanks Ken for your support on the typical density build-outs !! In addition, I have the these thoughts on the various sites following the presentation:
A. Another reminder that DVC needs to ADD parking for their current number of commuter students while many residents - especially those living nearby - would object to having dormitory TOWERS there.
C & D. Consider allowing multi-use developments on these two sites. Also, I think that these are the best locations for Moderate & Above Moderate Income level - hence larger - units, so that should be reflected in the building sizes. Also need to allow landscape area for the creek riparian area.
E & N. Noted that these were changed to allow multi-use - as previously suggested to retain jobs close to the new housing.
G. There was some discussion during the June 23rd meeting about expanding this area to include the houses immediately west of the shopping center - which I support.
We also note that the densities for sites F, G, I, J, K, L & M were all increased from 30 units per acre to a range of 40-70 units per acre - not sure what the justification is for this especially since these all are the smaller MU sites ?? This might be too much to expect !
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-16
July 14, 2021 Housing Element Workshop Public Comments
Author Comment
Of course, ample PARKING will be a big issue as each of these sites are developed so there is not a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods !!! Looking forward to receiving the requested documents sooner rather than later (needed NOW - not after August 11th) !!!
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-17
October 27, 2021 Housing Element Townhall
October 27, 2021 Housing Element Townhall Public Comments Author Comment
David Blau
Public
Comment
Mangini site: to dense, no transit, no jobs. Traffic issue is likely most critical. Public safety, environmental, school and water issues.
Reconsider to keep R-10 (with the inclusion of expected ADUs).
Bruce
Public
Comment
Mangini: The proposed density will change the neighborhood. Also, single family homes are in demand, and this focus area is the only area left to develop single family homes in Pleasant Hill. Please do not change the zoning.
Max
Public
Comment
Re: Mangini: Why is everyone saying 500 new cars? Can a developer choose no parking? Please would ride transportation, rather than all bring 2 cars. Suggest allowing developments to come in below parking requirements; let the developer decide.
Jonathan
Public
Comment
I echo the Mangini comments. Please reconsider the density increase here.
Bobby
Public
Comment
HCD does this to try to fix the issues with housing, but with those large numbers, can we have to approve that many units in the planning period? Consider Diversity Equity and Inclusion. Stop putting up barriers to housing.
Eric
Public
Comment
ADUs: No parking required within 0.5 miles of transit. They may be a solution to addressing the RHNA.
Joyce
Public
Comment
How can the public be involved? When will the zoning changes happen? How can the public be involved in the zoning amendments?
There is a site on Cleaveland to explore further.
Dave
Public
Comment
Consider active transportation. A built-out bike network is needed if we are to meet our RHNA goals.
Shereen
Public
Comment
Concerned with Mangini site. What if a developer wants to do something different than the proposed zoning changes?
David Blau
Public
Comment
Concerned that the State's goal of spreading out density throughout the community is not right for Pleasant Hill.
Denise
Gudzikowski
I listened with interest to tonight's session with the consultant on the Housing Element update, and look forward to the General Plan update workshops on the Housing Element. One idea that did not come up in the discussion of possible ways to get to the current draft 1803 number. And that is - ADUs. Perhaps it is possible to come up with a city wide number of potential ADU additions (5%? 2.5%?) that might be built over the next 8 year RHNA period? Given there is data on the number of ADUs permitted in the past few years, there is data to support and a reasonable assumption could potentially be made there. That could be several hundred units, easily. As was mentioned, we are going to have to get creative and realistic on this next 8 year plan. I look forward to public input on under-utilized properties (Winslow Center, many church parking lots, DVC parking lots, etc etc) thanks, Denise Online Public Comment
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-18
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Sharron
Breedlove
I reside at Steven Circle/Linda Lane across from the Mangini property for the past forty years. After viewing the housing video, what I can determine from all lettered general plan proposals for the next 8 years to satisfy the state's various housing quota, we are 382 units short of low density housing by 8 years' end & at a surplus of high density housing beyond the state's requirements.
The Mangini land tract was initially zoned years ago for low density housing & was the only remaining open space on PH to build so many single family homes in one place.
Now the city has rezoned it for mixed density. The Molino's property that was recently built with only low density housing, it does makes a resident wonder why one project requires mixed density & another builds only million dollar single family homes.
As a resident, I do ask the question what's the differences between the two properties that warrants the rezoning changes?
When the city has already designated so many other possible sites for high density housing why consider this Mangini/Delu site for mixed density? However, working with the current status of mixed density of the Mangini/Delu properties here is what I propose, a couple alternative solutions to deal with this massive land tract previously known as the Mangini/Delu farms. Hopefully, a fresh view on how to divide it up may be considered.
Two alternate rezoning plans to consider with the Mangini/Delu property:
First alternate Mangini/Delu plan proposal:
If you have to build high density units on the Mangini property consider totally rezoning it by rearranging the areas. (High density) to the center area as a long strip for apartments/condos rather than placing them along PH road & then surround them with single family homes on all sides. In other words, have single family homes along the back side of the property like in the original drawing but add them also along side PH Rd then place a strip of apartment/condos no taller than two stories in the center portion ( middle area section long strip) place them all the way up to Taylor Blvd.
Restricting the height to only 2 story apartments/condos which would be more eye appealing & it would be no worse than looking at a two story home. Plan to have three roads exiting the entire Mangini property (the current intersection at Linda Lane, close the road at the Winslow center, then create a new road out to Taylor Blvd right turn only & then create another exit on Mercury ( optional may be needed for emergency fire exit). If you place apartments/condos as in the city's original drawing with 2-3 stories ( high density) along PH Rd the city may devalue the current properties facing across the street(on PH Rd). If those current homeowners move away with significant loss of property value it may domino into the surrounding streets which could be catastrophic.
By placing the high density in the center of Mangini property the future( low density ) single family homeowners will buy knowing their (high density) neighbors, it will make for a more cohesive neighborhood.
In the current drawing, the city gives the current homeowners across the street on PH Rd a long strip of high density apartments/condos with the potential of 2-3 stories height ( based on the video's chart original drawing ) that may reduce their property values. This is something to consider when the developer presents their plans to the city council, planning commission, etc.
The city could encourage the developer to "enclose" or surround the high density with low density housing because the city could rezone and specify in "new" drawings redrafted by the city by my proposal(s) to streamline and hide the high density units within the entire complex. The "current" drawing lacks imagination & doesn't takes into account the surrounding neighborhoods' character, integrity & maturity. My proposal integrates the high density smoothly within the new neighborhood without making the units unsightly and noticeable.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-19
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
A high rise apartment/condo complex placed all along PH RD may contribute significantly to the current PH Rd homeowners' property value reduction. The city should consider concerns about property values maintained as it benefits from taxes paid to city coffers.
Second alternate Mangini/Delu plan proposal:
Rezone Delu Winslow center property to "high density" housing from its current low density status. Placing a high density complex (reasonable height of 2 stories max) there makes sense & would not devalue the church property value across the street as most churches are not generally on the real estate market. Also plan to close off the Winslow center street exit/entrance onto PH Rd & create a new exit further up the road onto Taylor Blvd as a right turn only exit which would eliminate traffic off of PH Rd. The new road right turn exit onto Taylor Blvd from the high density units (no traffic light needed) will allow traffic to flow easier easing onto Taylor Blvd freeing up PH RD commuter traffic which was supposedly the purpose of the recent repaving project. If this Delu property corner is done with high density & Mangini property is entirely kept as single family homes (low density) this could satisfy the state's requirements by concentrating each property with only one type of building structure. This would require one intersection at Linda Lane probably needing a traffic light, a new exit right hand turn lane onto Taylor Blvd between the two existing stop lights-no traffic light needed, closing existing entrance/exit at Winslow center, adding exit on Mercury( optional) but probably needed for emergencies with that much housing density.
Either proposal satisfies state's housing density requirements. Hopefully, the city will consider the current residents input as possible alternatives or adjustments to the general plan.
With the recent repavement, new LED lights, low water landscaping & new traffic lights added on PH Rd, I would hope that the Mangini/Delu project would not jeopardize all the forward strides toward reducing our carbon footprint & dealing with climate change. The city has many sites stated in the video proposed to the state that could be used for high or mixed density. I would like to see each location become a possible project since the city missed that opportunity with the Molino's property so now the it's playing catchup to hit goal.
There also should be some designated open space for kids to play & adults to walk about under trees within this complex. In the UK, in a neighborhood there is a center garden square park area where only residents can enjoy...it's something to consider instead of wall to wall homes. If the city mandates it, the developers will have to build something similar as well as mandating how many trees, what kind need to be planted & what the landscape should look like. Again this may address climate change & reduce our carbon footprint.
Generally, for every one resident's email or input it represents ten unspoken opinions.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
Be safe.
John
Cumbers
I placed a call to you during the December 16, 2020 GPAC meeting asking the committee to include the Grayson Woods Golf Course Open Space parcel into the General Plan alongside the other open space land parcels in our community.
Thank you on behalf of the 5 neighborhoods bordering this land for formally including this open space parcel in the City of Pleasant Hill’s General Plan.
We are grateful that you honored your commitment to exchange the increased housing density for the open space in perpetuity designation. Thank you for protecting this
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-20
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
open space land for us and for future generations. We genuinely appreciate your efforts and dedication.
Karen
Panico
Hi Rick and Troy,
I’m still getting up to speed on all things related to Pleasant Hill Planning. In the meantime here are my comments (I’ve piggybacked on others) for the Housing Element.
I believe we have a great community and want to continue our success.
Please let me know if you have questions or need more input. ______
Comments on Housing Element for General Plan update
Challenge the imposed RHNA targets of 1800 units.
Articulate the drivers for the imposed RHNA targets (1800 units) PH is not adding jobs so why should our community bear the burden of already scarce resources.
Articulate the consequences if we do not meet the targets? Is ‘no’ a viable option? The proposed Housing Element (HE) Workshop ‘opportunities’ do not represent Pleasant Hill’s (PH) community for many reasons:
Pleasant Hill does not have an updated articulated General Plan (GP) to which this proposal can be tested. We’re addressing a sub-element (housing) before broader trends.
The proposed opportunities change some quiet suburban neighborhoods to a semiurban environments.
Limited natural resources including water are a real concern. Adding more units directly threatens our environment and resources.
I have similar comments to those submitted by another resident as follows:
· support continued challenge to RHNA targets based on viability; · propose grouping and prioritizing mixed use designations consistent with the longterm vision of the GP. i.e. development of area close to Contra Costa Blvd corridor · propose outlying areas are designated at lower densities (e.g. west PH areas C, D and I);
· propose that an overarching story be included that supports the HE and will help explain its direction, rather than present a seemingly hodgepodge grab-bag of sites of unknown availability or interest.
Specific area of concern, west PH areas C, D and I
a. Propose lowering overall density proposed to be more consistent with area
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-21
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
b. Need to Articulate long-term vision for complete area since these three areas are in close proximity and interrelated (housing and shopping). c. These three would be significant traffic adds to area with limited public transit.
C. AND D. Winslow Center (40 units) /Pleasant Hill-Taylor Mangini (221 units) properties
a. In the last HE (April 2015), this site was shown supporting 60 AMI housing units. A change to 221 (and 40 multi family, low density on Winslow) is a significant increase. b. This would be a significant change to the characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood, generally Single Fam R10, R7 and R6 type. c. Consider no more than 110 units for this area (incl. Winslow) 4/ac consistent with existing zoning.
d. Consider setting aside some of this area as open space/ parkland because higher densities will need this amenity.
e. Continue with community use area for Winslow – adjacent parkland? I. Pleasant Hill-Gregory lane Intersection - Mixed use High density – 309 units proposed
a. Consider how to retain current community shopping area features (vegetable store, drug store, bike shop, café restaurants, etc.) in consideration of total area needs. b. Significant traffic adds to area with limited public transit c. Consider lower density or height restrictions to keep more in character with area and limit traffic impact
++++++++++++++++++++
A. DVC Overflow Parking Lot – Mixed Use VHD - 350
a. Appears to be a good site with potential to create housing on underutilized land.
B. Chilpancingo Park - removed
C.
a. See above
D.
a. See above
E. JFK University
F. ACE Hardware (+adjacent) – Mixed use HD - 120
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-22
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
a. Agree this is an opportunity area with underutilized land area (large parking lots) b. Propose there be an overarching plan for community shopping needs (groceries, sundries, etc.) in conjunction with areas G, I and J below G. Gregory Gardens Shopping Center (Grocery Outlet) – Mixed User HD – 175 a. Consider how to meet current and future community shopping area features grocery, dining, etc. in consideration of total area needs.
H. Salvation Army - removed
I.
a. See above
J. Gregory-Contra Costa Intersection – Mixed use - HD 115 a. Consider expanding all the way to Woodsworth Lane – the other buildings are not of better stock
b. Extension of “downtown” – walkability and connection to shopping center on east side of Contra Costa Blvd.
K. Jewel lane Area – Mixed use HD - 71
a. Appears to be a site with mixed-use potential
b. Consider adding adjacent triangular area (shopping center/ biz park?) L. Beatrice Area – Mixed User HD
a. Agree the area is an opportunity to develop housing – disagree with the mixed use concept for this area – no existing retail in area
b. Propose changing to housing only option.
M. Monument Triangle – Mixed User HD - 220
a. Agree that this is a potential site
N. Former JCPenney Furniture store Site - Mixed User HD – 281 a. Agree that this is a potential site
Alan Bade I'd like to share my comments on the preferred alternatives presented. I hope we can support open space, riparian corridors, and creek restoration as we develop our new GP. Certainly there is ample support in the community for this as evidenced by comments during the planning and scoping sessions. I believe these are compatible, even complimentary, with other planning goals.
Focus area 1 (DVC);
I fully support the idea of opening a multi-use trail along Grayson creek all the way from Pacheco to the Viking Bridge. Part of this is supposed to be opened as part of DVC Plaza's approval. I'm hopeful that this actually happens. This would be an excellent bike and pedestrian trail that can also be used for north/south non-motorized commuting, helping alleviate traffic issues.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-23
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
This concept is also being articulated in the bike and pedestrian path plan update that will come to the GPAC later this summer.
Encouraging businesses to see the creek as an asset and opening up towards the creek I also support. Many communities have found their creeks to be economically and aesthetically beneficial to restaurants and other businesses. With a multi-use trail nearby and grand oaks in Chilpancingo Park, a restored creek could be very attractive and stimulate economic growth in the area. This concept is true for other areas as well.
Focus area 2 (Mangini);
This area also has a creek that needs to be carefully looked at if this area is developed.
It is important to allow enough setback from the creek to achieve several goals. First, the creek needs to be publicly accessible with walking trails. Second, the Contra Costa Flood Control Agency has a goal of using more environmentally friendly flood control solutions than it has used in the past. Constrictive channels are not consistent with these goals. It is important to adopt policies that are not in conflict with the better flood control practices being advocated by CCFCA for the future.
The map for this area only had two colors in the legend, so it was hard to know where the multi-family low and single family-high densities were proposed. Was the gray Multi-family and the orange yellow the single family- high? This should have been clearer in the legend.
Focus area 3 (Downtown);
I agree with leaving as is, with the idea that mixed use here allows for housing/commercial combinations.
Focus area 4 (Hookston);
Light industrial is important to retain as it allows for diversity possibilities in employment. Expanding the definition could spur new economic development.
Focus Area 5 (Contra Costa Blvd);
I share the concerns of some about the East Vivien neighborhood being changed to mixed-use. These homes are probably more affordable than other housing stock in the city. Will we encourage these units to be bought up and removed from our housing stock with a mixed-use designation? Care should be taken to protect the residential character further east from Contra Costa Blvd frontage.
Focus areas 6 and 7 (Gregory and Taylor);
I agree with the discussion on traffic safety being a priority.
Focus area 8 (Oak Park);
I very much disagree with changing a row of single-family homes along the southern side of Oak Park Blvd to mixed use, especially west of the EBMUD trail. I believe this would be counter to the goal of easing traffic, parking, and congestion along Oak Park Blvd. These are narrow lots, so consolidating an aggregate of them would NOT be amenable to creating parking in association with whatever business went in. This would lead to more street parking, exacerbating the existing problem. This area is already seeing a lot of development with the new Oak Park subdivision, a new library, etc. Also, these homes are once again lower priced in general and rezoning them to mixed use may lead to conversion of good, more affordable housing stock. They also back up to other similar homes, even if they are in Walnut Creek.
Focus area 9 (Pleasant Hill Plaza); makes sense to incorporate into Downtown, as it's immediately adjacent.
Additional identified area; I agree with the stated goal of preserving the mobile home park, as it is also an affordable housing option in the city.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Dr. Quy Tran,
Chair, on
behalf of the
The Pleasant Hill Commission on Aging recognizes the challenges of securing adequate and affordable housing for all communities. We appreciate the careful deliberation of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) as the City attempts to move forward. As part of our advisory role, we wish to present some information that
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-24
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Pleasant Hill
Commission
on Aging
may assist the GPAC in this purposeful process and to ensure that the needs of the fast-growing senior population are taken into account.
1. As we have previously advised the Pleasant Hill City Council, the population of older adults will exceed the population of children by 2035. In Pleasant Hill, that will mean that over 40% of all residents will be over the age of 55 and 10% of all residents will be over the age of 75. Moreover, about 2/3rd of seniors will have at least 1 medical limitation and about 1/4th could be considered disabled by In-Home Support Services standards. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) projects that about 30% of adults are or will be living alone, which exceeds the 20% of residents who live in an idealized nuclear family. Yet the AARP also notes that the US housing stock to house these single older adults for studio accommodations are <1% and 1 bedroom accommodations are <12%. In contrast, 2 bedroom homes are 27%, 3 bedroom homes are 40%, and 4 bedroom homes are 17%. As a mainly suburban community, this distribution is likely very similar in Pleasant Hill.
2. Given the above, we are supportive of the GPAC’s concept of Flexible Density Options that potentially allow for a wide variety of intermingled housing choices and mixed-income housing that may not fit in the traditional single family residential planning rubric. In the 2018 AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey, 76% of respondents aged 50 and over expressed a preference to stay in both their current community and residence. This number jumps to 86% in respondents aged 65 and older. The vast majority of older adults wish to age in place and remain integrated within their current community. In order to make this possible, we support the GPAC’s suggestion to include a wide mix of housing options that seniors may find attractive like Missing Middle housing options, Accessory Dwelling Units, multigenerational and intergenerational housing, shared housing, cohousing, and tiny homes (in addition to traditional senior housing options of assisted living, residential care, and skilled nursing facilities).
3. We have also presented data to the Pleasant Hill City Council that the majority of single older adults in Contra Costa County are housing cost-burdened. 54% of single older adults who rent and 65% of single older adults with a mortgage spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Over half of these older adults depend solely on Social Security for their income while about a quarter live below the 200% Federal Poverty Line. This presents a gap as the median Social Security income is about $1800 per month while the Elder Economic Security Index notes that living and housing costs in Contra Costa County total about $2300 per month. Given that, we strongly support GPAC’s efforts to make Very Low and Low Income housing stock a priority. In addition, we are proponents of affordable housing policies and practices that may potentially take into account rent stabilization, sustainable low income funding sources, and more flexible planning and permitting processes. We are hopeful that many of these decisions and practices will support the needs of Pleasant Hill’s senior population.
4. Finally, we support the promotion of an age-friendly community that includes agefriendly housing, services, and businesses. Age-friendly communities constitute a wide variety of concepts. In general, we feel that the 8 domains of the World Health Organization and AARP Age-Friendly Cities Framework may be helpful for the GPAC in ensuring inclusivity and equity for the senior population. The 8 domains include:
• Health Care and Health Promotion which may include local community activities and services that support wellness and greater access to health, mental health and home health care;
• Transportation which may include increased public transit, reduced-cost ride services, walkability, mobility, and accessibility;
• Housing and other Building Design which may include building standards for affordable, adaptive and accessible housing, increased age-friendly planning practices and multi-generational options;
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-25
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
• Social participation and Services which may include local meal delivery, adult day programs, and caregiving support;
• Social Inclusion which may include activities and initiatives that meaningfully engage seniors to keep them connected within the community;
• Outdoor Spaces which may include accessible, equitable and inclusive green spaces that are safe and secure for the older population;
• Civic Participation and Engagement which may include intergenerational initiatives and opportunities for meaningful volunteering and paid work that benefit older people; and
• Communication and Information which may include effective systems and technology that is accessible and available to residents of all ages.
We are appreciative of the time and effort that the GPAC commits to this process. We are optimistic that as the General Plan moves forward, we will continue to have a welcoming community for all Pleasant Hill residents, including our older population.
We remain available if the GPAC wishes to access any expertise within the Pleasant Hill Commission on Aging.
Friends of
the Pleasant
Hill Creeks
Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks (FPHC) is a nonprofit organization of Pleasant Hill residents who care about our creeks. Since 2017, FPHC volunteers have participated in creek cleanups, wildlife surveys, water quality monitoring, habitat restoration, and educational activities in our community. FPHC appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the General Plan Housing Element.
General Comments
1. At the Pleasant Hill General Plan Planning and Design Workshops, the community expressed strong support for restoration of creeks, riparian corridors, and open space areas, all of which improve our urban environment for both people and wildlife.
2. Five of the 14 potential housing sites reviewed in the Preliminary Housing Sites Memorandum (June 23, 2021) and Workshop (July 14, 2021) are adjacent to or crossed by creeks. We offer specific comments on these sites below. Where creeks are adjacent to or cross a development site, we support designation of a Creek Protection Zone, a riparian corridor/buffer zone that extends 50 feet from the top of each bank, with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. This is consistent with Pleasant Hill’s Draft Environment Element (ENV3) as well as Contra Costa County’s policies for new development along natural watercourses (General Plan, Conservation Element, Section 8.12).
3. Access to natural open space, parks, and walking/biking trails is important for residents at all income levels and should be a priority when evaluating and planning potential housing sites. This priority is consistent with General Plan Guiding Principles, which call for protection of the environment and open space resources as part of the sustainable development of our City.
Specific Comments to Preliminary Housing Sites Adjacent to or Crossed by Creeks Site B: Chilpancingo Park
• We support GPAC and staff recommendations to remove this site from inventory due to its current use as a community park, with multiple heritage oaks and deeded restrictions, in an underserved area.
Site C: Winslow Center
• The site description and map should indicate that Grayson Creek flows through this site. The creek channel is in a natural state and includes mature native oaks and other riparian species. Native and migratory bird species, including raptors, have been observed at the site.
• We recommend designation of the riparian corridor extending at least 50 feet from each creek bank as a Creek Protection Zone with adjacent open space and public access trails serving as a benefit for future residents and the Pleasant Hill community.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-26
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
This site also has potential for creek restoration as part of a future mixed-use / housing development.
Site D: Mangini-Delu Area
• The site description and map should indicate that Grayson Creek flows through this site. The creek channel is in a natural state and, as an extension of the creek that flows through the Winslow Center, is likely to include mature native oaks and other riparian species. Native and migratory bird species, including raptors, are likely to be present at the site.
• We recommend designation of the riparian corridor extending at least 50 feet from each creek bank as a Creek Protection Zone with adjacent open space and public access trails serving as a benefit for future residents and the Pleasant Hill community.
This site also has potential for creek restoration as part of a future mixed-use / housing development.
• Please note that the creek corridors on Sites C and D are connected and should have equivalent levels of protection.
Site E: JFK University
• The site description and map should indicate that this site is adjacent to Ellinwood Creek, a section of historic Walnut Creek. The creek channel is in a natural state and includes mature native oaks and other riparian species. The southwest corner of this site currently has an open space area (with benches) adjacent to the creek. • We recommend that the existing creekside open space area be retained and improved as part of a future mixed-use / housing development to serve as a benefit for residents and the Pleasant Hill community. This site also has potential for creek restoration as part of a future mixed-use / housing development.
Site L: Beatrice Area
• We support the GPAC recommendation to hold this site outside of inventory due to hydrology/flooding issues and sensitivity of habitat. Grayson Creek flows through this site.
The creek channel is in a natural state and includes mature native oaks and other riparian species. This site is part of an ongoing avian biodiversity survey that has documented more than 80 species of native and migratory birds, including multiple raptor species.
• We recommend this site for consideration as protected open space. This site has outstanding potential for restoring riparian habitat and enhancing public access via connectivity to the existing East Bay MUD trail and school/park/library sites.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Betsy Webb Thank you very much for the very informative Housing Element meeting last night. It was professional yet relaxed; open and engaging. I learned a great deal. I wonder if parking lots, school yards and parks could be looked at as housing possibilities. Just small slices of properties that would help to increase housing. As example, Christ the King church on Gregory rarely fills its parking lot, even in the best of times. When College Park was built, the DVC football field was shared. School yards are important, but many could be whittled down a bit. The cash strapped school district might welcome, and benefit, from additional money. Small sections of city parks might be utilized as well, although I can only imagine the uproar that would create. Finally, my parents bought our house in 1948. The Mangini family has been close neighbors for decades. This year has been a very hard for them with the passing of Louie and Marian. It would be difficult to see a wall of tall condos in place of a cornfield or walnut orchard. But time does move along. I understand the city is between that proverbial rock and a hard place. I trust you and other members will do the best for our community. Thanks for reading. And thanks again to you and other staff for a clear presentation last night.
Andrew
Pierce
Councilmember Carlson, I would like to commend you and Mayor Noack for the recent Housing Element Townhall meeting held on 10/27. I learned an immense amount about the upcoming RHNA cycle and what it could mean to the PH landscape.
Members of the public asked thoughtful questions and those were answered concisely
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-27
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
by you, Sue, and staff. I'm hopeful that the virtual meeting will be linked to the city website and the pleasanthill2040 site for residents to view, and that the FAQ page on both sites might be updated to include questions and answers from the meeting specific to the housing element and this sixth RHNA cycle. I think it would behoove all PH residents to have a better understanding of the potential development sites, density, zoning, and why PH and neighboring cities are suddenly faced with a mandatory housing construction increase. I commend the city's transparency, the available resources/ materials for the public's consumption/education, and the council's position on RHNA in the Bay Area (and housing numbers specific to PH). I'm confident that continued transparency and communication with the public will only lead to more thoughtful conversation, understanding, engagement, and involvement.
Thank you again.
Jeremy
Magruder
I noticed that the Mangini property was listed as a focus area in the General Plan feedback report, and that discussion of focus areas was included on last night's GPAC meeting. I had a childcare obligation so I was unfortunately unable to attend but I would like to stay as up to date as possible on any news regarding plans for that property. My house is immediately adjacent to the Mangini farm, and naturally any redevelopment or rezoning choices could have massive implications for my neighborhood and for my family's financial well-being. How can I ensure that I am updated about evelopment and planning choices being considered regarding that property? Also, what is the best venue for me to provide feedback on those choices? If rezoning to high density housing or commercial development is being considered, it would clearly be devastating to the families who own homes in the neighborhood.
Wendy
Gollop
Regarding the Winslow site. If it is decided to be used for RHNA, I think that this site is better for mixed use instead of all residential. It is located at the intersection of two major streets. Any commercial development could be situated to have minimal impact on residential development. In the present plan it is designated all residential.
Jack Prosek Reminder that DVC needs to ADD parking for their current number of commuter students while many residents – especially those living nearby would ogject to having dormitory TOWERS there.
C&D Consider allowing multi-use development on these two sites. Also, I think that these are the best locations for Moderate and Above Moderate income level – hence larger – units, so that should be reflected in the building sizes. Also need to allow landscape area for the creek riparian area.
E&N – Noted that these were changed to allow multi-use – as previous suggested to retain jobs close to the new housing.
G – There was some discussion during the June 23rd meeting about expanding this earea to include the houses immediately west of the shopping center, which I support.
We also note that the densities for sites F, G, I, J, K, L, & M were increase from 30 units per acre to a crange for 40-70 units per acre – not sure what the justification is for this epeically since thes are the smaller MU sites?? This might be too much to expect! Of course, ample PARKING will be a big issue as each of these sites are developed so that there is not a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods!! Nancy
Anderson
I am pleased to hear you are in the process of appealing the RHNA numbers. I attended one of the meetings pre-COVID and heard the city council members/GPAC members place the blame on the state. They then engaged in this exercise in futility by cramming housing into every possible nook and cranny in PH. I think it explains why so many residents are so frustrated with our City Council and their lack of vision. The plan does not reflect the values and wishes of our community. It simply is a check mark to meet the RHNA numbers, and please ABAG.
The correct action is to challenge the requirement. I recently listened to a Podcast about the poor governance in San Francisco. The city has allowed unconstrained growth in business and jobs without accounting for housing. We in the Bay Area are
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-28
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
living with those poor decisions, and now we are asked to solve the problem. However, businesses and residents are leaving the area in considerable numbers. What will that do to the needs in the area? I encourage our city council to be more thoughtful and progressive in their plan. We are a suburb. We moved here to enjoy the benefits of suburban life.
I am particularly concerned about the Winslow Center and Mangini property. To see that you are considering 261 units between those two properties is astounding! The increase in population and vehicles will be unsustainable in this neighborhood. We have yet to see what traffic will be like when COVID has run its course and commutes have resumed full force. The intersection at Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory/Grayson was modified pre-pandemic. I am curious what that intersection will be like when things return to normal -- then add population and cars from Mangini/Winslow -- it will definitely feel like a San Francisco traffic jam!
What about the environmental impact? This area is rich with wildlife. The creeks and native oaks are home to so many birds, animals, reptiles. At a time when we need to be focused on saving, nurturing, and regenerating our natural world, this should not even be under consideration. I urge you to, at the very least, maintain the current zoning of R-10 for the Mangini property.
Lastly, transparency was mentioned at the Housing Element Workshop of July 14, 2021. I did not see any reference to conversations that have occurred with the Mangini Family. Has anyone on the city council, and/or GPAC members been having conversations with them? If so, why was this not disclosed? If so, please direct us to documentation of the context and content of these conversations.
Please do right by the residents of Pleasant Hill.
David Blau I"d like to introduce myself to you. My wife, Jennifer, and I have lived happily in Victoria Crossings since this development was constructed in the late 1970s. We have always loved being located next to a true working farm that has produced an amazing variety of crops year after year. It's one of the main reasons that we moved here from Walnut Creek in 1980.
I served for many years as the Senior VP for EDAW, an internationally renown land planning, environmental, and design firm headquartered in San Francisco. I built and directed the environmental practice for 38 years and retired about eight years ago. I have a career's worth of experience in land planning, site master planning, and EIR/ EIS preparation. I personally have directed the preparation of over 200 EIRs and EISs and understand all the in's and out's of these documents. I have been an expert witness in lawsuits over ill-conceived project proposals.
I have followed the multi-year General Planning process that the City has undertaken and appreciate the pressure that you are under to comply with the State mandate for adding housing. I am also aware of the many communities that are fighting to reduce their mandate as being unreasonable based on limited vacant land supply. (I believe Beverly Hills has a mandate of adding three housing units!) I see that you are currently in Phase 5 of the GP process, "Plan Preparation", and hope that the CEQA process is being done concurrently or at least has begun. Your City website states that the EIR will be released along with the Draft GP next spring. We are anxious to see its content and more specifically, how you address and theme the alternatives in the DEIR. Your 2003 EIR on the GP concluded that Alternative C, the ""Reduced Density/ Open Space Alternative" was the "Environmentally Superior Alternative", which we applaud.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-29
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
I realize that times have changed, but many of us that live in the surrounding area are seriously concerned with the ultimate density and character of housing that would be built on the Mangini property. When and if the owners decide to sell, we want to make sure that the master plan for the site and its associated EIR fully explore the range of alternatives between housing and agricultural/ open space preservation. In fact, we suggest that this theme be the basis for the "reasonable range of alternatives" as defined in CEQA. I number of communities are preserving a component of their developments for a working farm. We, however, do not want to see this as "tokenism" to appease the community but a real, honest and viable component.
The Mangini heirs will make plenty of money regardless of the ultimate number of housing units built on this site, so protecting the creek corridor, providing open space, and including a working agricultural component should be paramount. We do not want to see a crowded, unsightly development like the Molino Ravioli property just down the road where the homes are oversized, the lots are undersized, there are no setbacks from the street, and the architectural design is very poor. One of the ugliest housing developments I have ever seen.
The EIR for the Mangini property will have to address a number of serious environmental impact issues and offer suitable and effective mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant. Top of the list will be the significant increase in traffic due to added congestion, increased wait times at intersections, safety crossing issues, turning lanes, etc. Other issues include air quality, climate change, noise, aesthetics, stream corridor protection, soils and erosion, vegetation, etc.
Keeping the density at a moderate level will help to keep the balance that we are all looking for on this property. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on my comments.
David Blau I wanted to thank you for your response and for forwarding my comments to your planning consultant, Rick Rust, at mintierharnish for his consideration. I also wanted to comment that many locals were on vacation during mid-July and missed the opportunity to express their serious concerns about the future use of the Mangini property. Please do not use the low attendance at this event as any indication of the level of interest. In future public meetings, I assure you that there will be much greater attendance and participation by neighbors on all sides of the property and from HOAs.
To be clear, many of us feel very strongly that the current zoning of R-10 should not be changed to allow for increased densities on this 29-acre property. Constructing 100 or so housing units on this site is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Victoria Crossings, for example, has 106 single family homes on 40 acres. The density allowed under the R-10 designation would offer full protection and enhancement of the creek corridor as well as the historic significance of some of the Mangini buildings. We do not want to see anywhere near 261 housing units with multistory structures crowded onto this site as quantified in two of Rick's slides, "Potential Sites C & D".
You owe it to the community to illustrate clearly what different densities might look and feel like. Density is an abstract term to most people. They cannot visualize densities. They need to see examples from other communities of what 4 units/ acre, 6 units/acre, 10 units/ acre, etc., would look like with photo images. Please make sure that your planning consultant illustrates these at all subsequent public meetings.
Finally, as an example of the neighborhood's passion, about five years ago, a fellow from Antioch proposed to construct an 18-hole disc golf course in Paso Nogal Park.
He said that "the use was compatible with other passive park uses" plus he claimed that "nobody uses the Park anyways". The neighborhoods surrounding the Park were
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-30
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
incensed and mobilized to defend the Park from a use that forces out all other park users. We successfully argued that the disc golf course was inappropriate for the Park and had about 250 people attend the Recreation & Parks District public meeting to decide its fate. We received a unanimous decision to decline the proposal from the District Board after illustrating the environmental damage caused by these courses in other communities. In other words, do not underestimate the power of the people (i.e., voters) in this community.
David Blau The PPT slide in the Housing Workshop in mid-July showed a potential for 261 housing units on 29 acres on the Mangini/ Winslow properties. Simple math says that would be an average density of 9 units per acre. If you intend to see a good amount of single family residential homes constructed on this site, the density for the multi-family housing component would have to be considerably higher, I’m guessing maybe as high as 12-15 units per acre and a high number of floors.
This would be totally out of character with the surrounding suburban residential neighborhood. Maybe suitable for the transit-oriented village at the BART Pleasant Hill Station or even for the Cleaveland Road project closer to the town center, but entirely inappropriate for the Mangini/ Winslow property.
Please do not push for a change in zoning for this property. The R-10 designation is entirely appropriate for this site, which would allow for approximately 100 homes.
The community is very upset and is organizing around the banner, “Neighbors for Mangini/ Winslow 100”.
David Blau Troy, thank you for having your planning consultant prepare such an informative set of built housing density examples both within Pleasant Hill and beyond. It is very difficult for the average person to comprehend density and the photos really help visualize what is possible.
We appreciate more than ever how difficult a spot the City is in. Very little vacant land left. All projects will be complex. But I hope the City now understands more about us as well. We are not against housing development. We just want to see it done properly and with a character that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.
The question asked by Dr.Joyce Tang was very direct: "If a developer builds 100 single family homes on that site, how many ADUs could the City get credit for?" The response was, "Well, it depends on the past 3 yrs results'. Not an answer that we understood. Would the number likely be: 10 20, 50? How and who determines the number that the City would be credited with?
I also found it curious that there was no mention of CEQA in the meeting. Even under the last slide on "Next Steps", there was no mention of certifying an EIR before the GP and Housing Element are adopted. I realize there are many State bills floating around to streamline and even pre-empt CEQA, particularly if a project provides affordable housing, is an urban infill project, or is in a transit-rich area. It's difficult to even follow the huge number of proposed bills and what is actually law and what is not.
So, here's my three questions for Brena Weatherby of RINCON, your environmental consultant:
1. What portion of the City's Housing Element needs to address affordable housing to qualify the City as exempt from CEQA?
2. Isn't a full EIR still required to support the General Plan?
3. If the Mangini/ Delu/ Winslow development has a component of affordable housing, does that qualify as exempt under CEQA?
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-31
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Could you please forward these three 'burning" questions to your env. consultant and have her respond with some clear answers? That would be very helpful. And thank Mayor Noack and Council member Carlson for their time and attention.
David and
Veronica
Roche
I was unable to send our comments on the website.
This is ridiculous. You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole How will squeezing more people into PH make it a better city?; more traffic, less parking, more demands on infrastructure (schools/police).
The city needs to fight harder against these mandates put on to us by larger cities and counties that have made mistakes with their own planning.
Having lived in Stockton I have seen the disastrous impact that forced higher density housing (apartments, duplexes, triplexes etc) into single family housing neighborhoods has been. The once nice neighborhoods became "tired", dirty and crime ridden very quickly and bringing down the values of the pre-existing single family homes. The proposed project at 401 Taylor for multi family is a terrible idea and would do a great disservice to the city and the neighborhoods that would be directly impacted. More ADU's would allow for a more organic solution as it would allow for citizens make their own decisions w/ their own property.
The people mandating this do not and will not live in Pleasant Hill and be forced to live with consequences.