Russell
Erickson,
Patty
Erickson
We understand, via a well to do acquaintance who plans to lead some opposition, that the Mangini ''farm" on Pleasant Hill Road, might begin development in the next year. That might entail condominiums or town houses such as sold so well near downtown PH years ago. He and other "NIMBYS" appear against anything other than over $1 Million single homes. The last 3 housing developments allowed in Pleasant Hill all involve single family homes at $1.1 million and up! Where will our children and grandchildren live? Where will city workers, teachers, police, business employees live in the future? Will we drive them all away from Pleasant Hill? Shall they have excessive commutes trying to stay where they grew up or work?
Our acquaintance states Pleasant Hill should follow the path of "Lamorinda" where monied powers and too many lawyers stand off the state mandate for more homes, which he states "has no legal teeth" for compliance. We lived in Moraga once and Lafayette and much prefer Pleasant Hill and its more equal outlook for all citizens.
The Mangini property could easily accommodate clustered townhomes (downtown PH demonstrated their worth and easy salability), or condominiums which likely will still be expensive, but much less so than single family homes. Pleasant Hill Road fronting it was recently redone and can handle the traffic with another stop light at the entry.
Alhambra Avenue is already a small freeway at commute hours, but most splits off at Taylor, though our NIMBYS will use traffic and maintaining home values as the usual excuse for limiting development.
SB9 and SB10, recently passed by the state legislature, allowing up to 4 units per single family lot and up to 10 apartments per lot, will likely influence the city's judgement, though these will doubtless face many court challenges by people dedicated to no change even in the face of increasing population world-wide (more than doubled in our lifetime).
California has 12% of USA population and 28% of its homeless, partially due to our weather, broad outlook on welfare, but also greatly to the fact that the average USA home is $374,000 and the average Bay Area home is over $1 million. Please think in terms of not adding to this with so many good people we have mentioned above!
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-32
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
Richard &
Patricia
Albright
We have received information and requests related to subject. While we understand the desire of the Mangini family to maximize the value of its (inherited) property and the (insatiable) desire of Pleasant Hill (and other government entities) to increase the property tax base and consequent revenues, we are opposed to the proposed development and, absent more cogent arguments, any development.
High density housing may improve the property’s value to its current owners and the City’s tax coffers, but it significantly and permanently impairs the value of surrounding single family housing, increases traffic congestion, would reverse the claimed improvements to pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Our opposition to the proposal(s) is not merely the result of ‘NIMBY’. We are philosophically opposed to government officials, whether elected or not, arbitrarily enacting laws, regulations, etc. that effect our lives and the quality of life that attracted us to this community. What this community needs is more open space, safe recreational fields, and restored wildlife and watershed spaces..
The City initiated the Pleasant Hill Road (“PH Rd”)project and trumpeted its promised effect on traffic, and bicycle and pedestrian safety. The Mangini Land Plan would appear to be counter productive to the claimed benefits of the PH Rd project, add to the burden on neighborhood schools and tax the shrunken traffic lanes.
Which brings us to the PH Rd project itself; viz.,
The sidewalk bump-out at Linda Lane remains an invitation to accidents, causing southbound vehicles which are attempting to turn on to Linda Lane to merge back into traffic;
The narrowed lanes increase the risk of accidents as large vehicles (buses, fire engines, 18-wheelers) tend to impinge on the adjoining lane; The reduced speed limit does appear to have materially reduced actual speeds. I have yet to see a vehicle pulled over;
Northbound sign reducing speed to 30 mph is idiotic, at best, since a 35 mph speed limit sign is seemingly yards after the 30 mph sign;
Making a left turn from Linda Lane remains an adventure given the limited visibility and speed of north-bound traffic combined with the narrowed traffic lanes. I remain convinced a traffic light at Linda Lane is needed without the increased traffic the Mangini Land Plan would bring, was and is more needed than the additional (confusing) traffic light on Gregory Lane and Eleanora Drive given that there is no alternative outlet for residences on Linda Lane, Linda Court, Stevens Circle and Erin Court;
The reduction in left-turn lanes at Gregory Lane should be reversed, traffic cones delineating the change were quickly mowed down and vehicles continue making left turns from the now straight only lane;
Prohibition of left turns from southbound PH Road into Walgreens while permitting Uturns to accommodate apartment dwellers was a problem before the PH Rd project and remains problematic and dangerous as drivers make left turns into and out of Walgreens and apartment dwellers make left turns out of their complex onto southbound PH Rd. Moreover, drivers who obey the signage and are then trying to make a left turn into Walgreens from eastbound Gregory Lane frequently find themselves partially or fully obstructing the #1 eastbound lane and in danger of being rear-ended.
Richard &
Patricia
Albright
California is in another drought. Why is Pleasant Hill's government even considering adding homes and the resultant increased demand for water while simultaneously asking current residents to greatly reduce water consumption? Jared Gragg Thank you for taking the time to discuss the future of the Oak Park Shopping Center.
This letter is to reiterate the following points from our conversation:
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-33
Online Public Comment
Author Comment
• We are the owners of the Oak Park Center.
• As the shopping center was built in the 1960’s, the next stage of the property’s life should be considered in planning for the neighborhood.
• We believe the property could become a great mixed use neighborhood amenity, as it makes up the heart of the Oak Park Boulevard GPAC Focus Area. • If zoning were amended to allow such development, Oak Park Property, LLC would pursue a mixed use redevelopment of the site, incorporating neighborhood commercial businesses as well as housing.
• In this scenario, Oak Park Property, LLC would attempt the acquisition of the vacant and underutilized neighboring parcels for incorporation into a unified development. • Mixed use development is feasible from a business perspective, as the property’s existing leases largely expire before 2029.
Please let us know if we may be of additional assistance.
Emailed Public Comments
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
jmagruder0 (at) gmail.com I was unable to attend the 6/23 meeting but noticed that the recommended density for redevelopment on the Mangini/Delu property had increased substantially compared to the
previous preferred alternative. The previous recommendation rezoned the southern section to multi-family low density and the northern section to single-family high, while retaining the section bordering Apollo Way as Single Family Low. This recommendation balanced the need for new housing with the need to protect the community and families who already live in the Apollo/Mercury community. If I'm not mistaken, the new recommendations would further increase the density on both the southern and northern portions substantially. This would substantially harm the families, community, and traffic in and around Apollo/Mercury. I urge the GPAC to return to the previous "preferred alternative" recommendations for this property.
golwern (at) gmail.com 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.
cathleen.kirk (at) sbcglobal.net So, we're in phase 5. What does preparing the plan mean? Is all of this building a done deal as of today? We can't handle any more traffic in this area. Where is the water coming from for these houses? Pleasant Hill road was just redesigned but this design won't accommodate 200 houses on Mangini
Farm. You'll need a stop light. I'm against all of this development but don't want to waste my time giving input if this is already a done deal. Please contact me and let me know.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-34
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
briannabeall (at) gmail.com I am not in favor of developing this land with so many houses on it. However, I understand that housing is needed in our area. One solution could be housing in the back part of Mangini area with a public park/green space along the land that butts up against Pleasant Hill Road.
aprilbush (at) comcast.net Please find a solution that keeps the Mangini Property part of the agriculturally history of Pleasant Hill AND develops needed housing. Be creative! How about a... community
garden and play area along Pleasant Hill Road with housing behind, and a green community with solar, and connecting the walking trails, and thinking about the space for future generations. Building a community not just housing. You have the power to save the last remaining evidence of the heritage of our town and build for future climate friendly needs! csgraham228 (at) yahoo.com HORRORS!! TWO HUNDRED UNITS IN THAT SPACE IS A WAY TO MAKE LIVING IN THIS AREA IMPOSSIBLE. ALL THE
STATE MANDATES INCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
CLIMATE CHANGE ARE REDICULOUS. MAY GOD PROTECT
US FROM MORE 0VERCROWDING, OVERTAXATION AND
BLIGHT IN OUR COMMUNITY.
telzeyhome (at) yahoo.com Worried about the overuse of ADU's in neighborhoods, don't like that idea AT ALL. I am worried about taking away
business property to build housing. I think we need to be very careful and thoughtful about where housing is inserted.
Preservation of our community is vital.
khelfter (at) yahoo.com I live at 44 Erin Court. I am commenting on the proposed use for Mangini and Winslow center areas. I am opposed to the plan to add 261 housing units
**Estimated 500 additional cars / drivers would be added to an already congested area along Pleasant Hill Road
**The city just spent money updating PH road with the new bike lanes. Extra traffic will negatively impact that progress by forcing cars to the green lane.
**Residents and guests would end up parking on our streets We would ask for 33% (?) of this land to be used for low density housing (single family homes) and the rest to be preserved. This land has a rich history of farming and
seasonal activities for our local families to enjoy. It has been a place for: agriculture, outdoor landscape painting, spring Easter events, summer fruit/veg stand, autumn hay
rides/pumpkin patch etc., Christmas tree lot and open space to observe wildlife and nature.
The property contains a canal that we believe should be restored
No High Density!
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-35
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
catherine.boccellari (at) gmail.com We are opposed to the proposed plan for the Mangini Land.
We would like to see the following instead:
-1/3 of the land used for low density housing/single family homes
-The remaining 2/3 preserved for the community and
residents of Pleasant Hill.
-Restore the canal to its natural condition.
There are so many other multi-unit developments in Walnut Creek area that are close to Bart that haven't even been filled yet- adding yet another one and contributing to more traffic and pollution, not to mention water consumption in droughtsensitive conditions, is not the right path for this plan. nancy.gerber63 (at) gmail.com I think it's a shame how little the city cares about developing soccer fields and ideally a soccer complex. While you can't turn around without running into baseball/softball fields, there are no high quality soccer fields in the entire city of Pleasant Hill. The Mangini space would have been perfect for a
complex, but no, we're putting more houses in an area with massive commuter traffic. With a soccer complex the local clubs could host tournaments that could bring in needed dollars from players and their families, as well as help our kids develop as athletes. Reconsider, PLEASE!
mdwsmw (at) comcast.net I support the general plan in relation to the Mangini development. We have seen too many LARGE single family
homes built recently in PH, and the Mangini development would provide housing for more people, on a corridor that would support the additional traffic and access to public transport. Prior developments of condominiums and
townhouses along Pleasant Hill Rd. seem to me to be
appropriate for the area, and the Mangini Farm can easily fit into this same pattern. Ingress and egress from that
development is straightforward, and utilities are right along that corridor. Please do not capitulate to the single family home cries, and keep to the plan you have developed. Thank you, Mike Weston
paul.boccellari (at) gmail.com I am opposed to the proposed mangini land plan to build 221 total units. The proposed high density development will create additional cars on an already congested area along pleasant hill road. Extra traffic will negatively impact the investment that the city just spent updating PH road with new bike lanes.
It is recommended to use the land for low density housing and the preserve a majority of the land for open space. chicostategrad (at) gmail.com Low density housing along with green space would preserve the character of Pleasant Hill. The sense of community is why I moved back from San Francisco to raise my kids in the shadow of the Mangini’s farm. My children enjoy the Winslow Center and we hope it is greatly expanded. I will leave the city if these plans are realized. Voting with my pocketbook may be all I have at this point
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-36
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
mdewit (at) sspa.com I am strongly opposed to the proposed plan for the ManginiWinslow properties because the housing density changes are in conflict with the General Plan and the values of PH.
Changing the current SF medium density to high-density
housing will negatively impact existing residential
neighborhoods and families.
The proposed increase in housing density is does not
comport with the General Plan, which says retaining the character and charm of residential neighborhoods is a top priority for Pleasant Hill.
The proposed plan is not compatible with adjacent
neighborhoods. The General Plan says that multifamily
developments are separated from single-family
neighborhoods, which surround the properties.
The proposed high density plan would greatly increase
impacts to Grayson Creek.
It is the City’s responsibility per the General Plan to protect and preserve our residential neighborhoods. The proposed changes for the two properties fly in the face of this top priority and should be dropped.
bpjeas6 (at) comcast.net The southern section of the Mangini-Delu site should be targeted for 4.8du/ac which is consistent with the eastern section. In addition, a portion of this area should be
designated as a park/open space.
The proposed plan of 21 du/ac is inconsistent with the
surrounding neighborhood, inconsistent with the current R10 zoning, and will lead to excessive congestion along Pleasant Hill Road.
As your presentation shows, you are significantly over the RHNA target for low and very low income housing (2154 vs 892) and under for above moderate housing (295 vs 657).
This change can easily be accommodated and will put you closer to RHNA targets.
jskroner (at) pacbell.net Opposed to the plan for the Winslow Center and Mangini farm. This should NOT be high density housing with 261 units.
This would be a crime to the existing residential area-adding too much traffice on our very small streets, erode the quiet nature of the residential area, would not preserve the
canal/wildlife status. Not opposed to similar housing that already exists but NOT condominiums or townhomes, or
apartments. Please be considerate of the already existing neigborhoods and plan something that would appear
seamless and low density to this corner window of Pleasant Hill.
spechtleslee (at) gmail.com I am opposed to the housing proposal for the Mangini property. There will be too much traffic coming through Taylor and Pleasant Hill Rd. I would like to see less houses and children’s park built. Thank you.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-37
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
shereen56 (at) yahoo.com In general, I would hope that most development could be concentrated near the CC Blvd. corridor.
Regarding the Mangini property: I understand that housing is inevitable, but could we please consider a so-called Agrihood? Let us preserve a small patch of the farm for a community garden for example. Please require that the
design of new housing reflect our town's charm. I wouldn't be opposed to tiny homes for low income people as part of it. kpmg (at) sbcglobal.net 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, semi-urban 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);
• 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.
pwmosher (at) att.net Think the proposal for the Mangini property has too many homes - will overly impact that intersection and property.
Also feel a Starbucks Drive Thru on the old Tahoe Joe's site is overkill - maybe a Sarbucks but NOT a Drive Thru
f.levy (at) comcast.net I am writing to voice my opposition to the city’s plans for Mangini’s. I have lived in P.H. for 56 years and little by little the open spaces where kids used to be able run, play and have fun have been paved over. The field that was at the end of Linda ln where we had 2 creeks meet into a pond and a giant oak tree with a rope swing gone, the field on the other side of Taylor Blvd where kids used to build forts gone, hangman’s hill where we use to go to ride our bike’s gone.
Instead of building more high density housing packing us in like sardines in a can why not use part of the land to teach kids at the local schools how to grow food,rent out other parts of the land to residents who want to grow their own food. vickiweiland (at) gmail.com I understand the City is considering how the land previously held by Mangini Farm on Pleasant Hill Road is going to be developed. Is this correct? If so, I would strongly encourage the City to engage the community with goals that could be to 1) preserve the historical nature of this property; 2) preserve as much open space as possible; 3) be as environmentally conscious as possible. It is NOT ok to keep developing land (like we've done with Molino's on Boyd and Pleasant Hill Road
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-38
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
and like we've done on Taylor and Mercury and now the
homes that are about to be built just down the street on Taylor) with $1.5m++ single family homes. Our City is turning into a cement jungle and the traffic and number of people living in the area continues to explode. And the "privilege" that we continue to attract with housing that only the top 1% can afford, waters down our ability to be inclusive and attract a diverse profile residents. Please respond. Thank you.
debbyclary (at) cs.com Re the Mangini property, I am against high density housing on our already depleted resources, i.e., WATER. We do NOT need more housing, period, in Pleasant Hill.
k.barense (at) comcast.net I’m very concerned about future development to the Mangini property. Traffic is already an issue and adding 221 units will make it unbearable. Please take into concern those of us living in this area.
shari.riffe (at) sbcglobal.net If the Mangini property is up for sale I think the agricommunity idea would be great for P Hill. With the property at the corner of Lucille and Taylor being developed the
congestion will be bad enough. Too bad it can't be a park. gelinasannette (at) gmail.com I was active in the General Plan 2020 process and still stand by my opinion that the Mangini property should stay zoned as it is. Although there will still be a lot of impact to the surrounding area in the way of traffic, schools, and other services, it is much less than the proposed 221 units.
Pleasant Hill road already has traffic issues. Although the city needs affordable housing, placing it closer to the 680 corridor makes more sense. Most will miss the Mangini Farm and
many would like to preserve the land but unfortunately I know that is probably not feasible. Leaving the zoning reduces the impact that will occur when this property is developed.
NormaJ49 (at) gmail.com As a 40+ year resident who lives just blocks from the Mangini Farm, as a local Realtor for 34 years,, I would love to see NO more density than the property is currently zoned for. This is not the area to put high density housing. It would change what we have all loved and enjoyed as long as each of us has lived here. To change it to high density would not appeal to any of the local residents. It would of course create traffic, drowded schools and an ambiance none of us look for in our beloved central Pleasant Hill location! Please keep the Pleasant in Pleasant Hill. I believe Louie Mangini would want it to remine as the area he loved so much! I know I would and my friends and neighbors would. Thank you for listentin.
Adding 120 single family homes is a lot iin itself! Thank you for considering our input.
suzannejo16 (at) gmail.com On Nextdoor someone brought up the idea of an Agrihood.
Sounds fabulous. I would vote for no more houses or density.
More green space please!
estherann11 (at) gmail.com Regarding development of the Mangini property. I fully support the idea of creating a Agrihood on the Mangini
property. It's time for Pleasant Hill planning commission to
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-39
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
embrace ideas that benefit residents and the environment.
Agriculture is a part of our history. Thank you.
amy_email_1 (at) yahoo.com I am opposed to the city approving increased housing units on the Mangini property located between Pleasant Hill Rd, Taylor Blvd, and Westover. Reduced housing would be even better to avoid traffic congestion, keep the area safe for bikes and pedestrians, and potentially avoid a hideous skyline of tall buildings.. I live 2 blocks away and am greatly concerned about traffic, crime and safety. Ideally, the property would be turned into agrihood.
Thank you.
kma751 (at) gmail.com We do not need 221 additional housing units on the Mangini Farm property. We are already dealing with the awful houses being built on the Molino property. The traffic in this area is already much, much worse tban it was even 5 years ago. I will not support any council member who thinks this is a good idea. I would support an “Agrihood”, but not mass housing on this property. You are ruining Pleasant Hill.
kostreet75 (at) gmail.com As a resident of the Mercury and Apollo Way neighborhood I believe it is imperative to the to maintain the R-10 zoning of the Mangini/Delu property to keep with the surrounding area and the character of our neighborhood. Please keep the R-10 zoning for this property for the 2040 General Plan.
helenjcrump (at) gmail.com Thank you for considering comments from residents of Pleasant Hill. The idea of agrihood is very appealing for the Mangini property. It seems to be the new and innovative way to incorporate the agricultural roots of this valley with the need for housing. Please consider an agrihood project when making decisions about the Mangini property.
kphillips101 (at) ymail.com I would like the city to accomplish the following:
1. Please save open space and align with California's 30x30 conservation plan - to permanently protect 30% of open space by year 2030.
2. Incorporate new development with green spaces - trees, community gardens, parks. Plant pollinator plants and
drought tolerant plants. Avoid water-hungry plants.
3. Include affordable housing per the state's requirement.
Thank you.
ronaldred2 (at) aol.com restrict growth! Too many people, too much traffic, noise is ungodly, and it just isn't anything like the town I grew up in.
This is not progress!
dansheridan (at) comcast.net The city should buy the Mancini farm and create some special farm, playground, multi-use community facility
bsuefine (at) outlook.com I love the idea of an "agrihood" that has been suggested, and see no reason why it couldn't work here in Pleasant Hill, a former farm community. I realize that growth is inevitable and feel that we need more affordable housing in town. Also not opposed to some high-density development here, such as the proposed building near the city center, as long as we don't end up looking like downtown Walnut Creek. However, Walnut
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-40
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
Creek and Lafayette high-rises are being built close to their BART stations. That would be a more appropriate place for PH to build high-rises, rather than on this traditionally agricultural property. I also acknowledge the Mancini's right to profit from their property. Perhaps a compromise could be reached?
karelinnea (at) yahoo.com I'm writing to ask that the Mangini/Delu property not be rezoned. As it already stands, we will suffer the impact of increased school attendance, traffic, and other services. golwern (at) gmail.com There are no documents or other information links to the focus areas that you want comments to on the Pleasant Hill 2040 website. You have to know to go to the General Plan advisory agenda to find them. Perhaps I am just not finding them. Please make links and documents easy to find for
people not following everything that is going on with the General Plan.
pgreid2 (at) gmail.com Leave the property as is. Too many cars and we have no water.
pgreid2 (at) gmail.com Leave the land as is. Too many cars & we have no water. jaykee8 (at) aol.com i think single family homes on the back perimeter of the mangini property whith a small park in front bordering
pleasant hill rd. thank you, dan b.
shereen56 (at) yahoo.com I would like to see a balance of housing and green space on the Mangini property. Ideally, 100-150 dwellings. The
exquisitely beautiful creek corridor should be preserved for all as green space. Other green spaces throughout could be
walkways, playground, a community garden or agriculture. I would like to find a way to pay for this green space — maybe a bond or a land grant. Would you know how I find out more about that? Thanks for listening 👂!
masarweh63 (at) gmail.com Pleasant hill is a beautiful town and it should stay that way. I am opposed to any housing or density housing on the Mangini properties. We don't want our view blocked.
julie39 (at) comcast.net My choices for the Mangini development are:
1. Save the land as is
2. Part Housing/ Part Agriculture
betswebb (at) sbcglobal.net Pleasant Hill is a great place to live; schools, restaurants, parks, housing. Additionally, we cherish what little rural open space we have in our land locked community. The 2040
general plan should preserve as much open area as possible. I understand the need for development income, but there is importance in balance between housing and parkland.
Look into the possibility of an ‘agrihood’
(https://cngf.org/agrihood/) designation as a potential for future development on the Mangini/Delu property. The 2040 general plan calls for more than 200 housing units there in an area already extremely burdened by heavy traffic.
Infrastructure expenditures (police, fire, schools, utilities,
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-41
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
etc.)would increase as well, and not be significantly offset by any garnered income.
2040 is a long way off, but what is planned for the future impacts us all, and our community. When open land is taken away it is rarely replaced. This is much more than just a plan on paper. It is your legacy. Balance.
dani.ferris (at) gnail.com Let’s preserve our limited land in pleasant hill. I’ve recently heard of one of the proposed plans to build on the Mangini property. My family choose to move to Pleasant Hill 15 years ago because we enjoyed the lifestyle of suburban living. If we wanted urban living we wouldn’t have moved here. That being said it is my hope the city does not develop these plots of land into multiple housing units. It is my hope this space can be preserved to some level, a community park and a small
number of single family homes that aren’t on top of each other.
Thank you,
Dan
catwraa (at) msn.com I was born and raised in Pleasant Hill, left for college and came back to buy my home 6 blocks from the house I grew up in that my parents still live in 55 years later. My family and I know what Pleasant Hill used to be like and the farms and ranches were a big part of that. We were so sad to see the Molino’s property turned into urban sprawl and now I am very, very against any developer building on the Mangini property should they choose to sell. I feel this land should be preserved either a community farm or park. Please don’t allow another development on this property. The traffic is already terrible down P Hill road, high density development would be
horrendous here; crime would increase and our homes would depreciate in value. Thanks for listening.
Catherine Beekmann, RN
rgelinas (at) dvc.edu The property on Pleasant Hill Rd commonly known as the Mangini Farm has been zoned R-10 for many decades. While a change in zoning to allow for higher density would benefit the current owners, it would be at the expense of hundreds of others who live in that part of Pleasant Hill. It is not appropriate to subject many hundreds of residents to
increased traffic and noise, to further impacted schools, and to potentially lowered home values so that one property owner can benefit.
As a resident of Pleasant Hill for more than 30 years, I urge you to NOT change the zoning for the Mangini Farm.
golwern (at) gmail.com Since the City is looking for suggestions on where to put RHNA housing, there is a parcel on Woodsworth and Contra Costa Blvd with a laundromat, cigarette store and is next to Big O Tires. This might be suitable for rezoning as there is a large parking lot in the back of the tire store. There is some
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-42
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
residential nearby Perhaps better for mixed use than other areas being looked at.
golwern (at) gmail.com There are large empty lots that front Geary Rd near the fire station that are zoned R 10. The corner of Bonnie and Geary (1 acre and more). Since these front a very busy street, these lots may be more suitable for higher zoning than single family. golwern (at) gmail.com Beatrice Rd site. That is not a good site for mixed use. It is a flood plain and a lot of the parcel is land locked. It is owned by Flood Control. It is surrounded by single family homes.
There is also a creek corridor that has perennial water. The creek area supports wildlife such as birds, otters, and other wildlife. These issues will all need to be considered in developing the area. Any development should include large protected riparian corridor with public access. .
steve (at) saguaroequine.com As much as we would love to see the Mangini farm remain, we understand this may not be practical. An "agrihood" would be a great compromise. At the very least, single family homes, with a neighborhood park, would be in keeping with the
surrounding neighborhoods and have the least impact on
traffic congestion. High density housing would surely cause serious problems in the area, degrade and devalue the
surrounding neighborhoods, and increase crime. It is notable that residents love this area for its quiet atmosphere and low crime rate, in contrast with the downtown area where housing density and crime are proportionately higher. Thank you for taking these ideas into consideration when planning future development.
kandrhogan (at) yahoo.com Thank you for the detailed information. I would greatly prefer that area C/D (Mangini area) plans for low density housing, maintaining the farms as is or be used as a park. I am not in favor of mid or high-density housing. The additional traffic, noise and crime inherent with high-density housing are
certainly all negative factors which would detrimentally affect my family's security and quality of life. This would also have a negative impact on my home's value.
Thank you.
imenegas (at) comcast.net We have lived on Malaga Way for over 30 years. When we bought our home, we knew that the Mangini-Delu Area was zoned for housing at 4 houses to the acre, just like the neighborhood we were buying into. We understood that
Malaga Way could be opened through that development. We recognize the urgent need for housing, but do not believe that land should now have twice the number of housing units as originally zoned. 221 units of housing will destroy the character of our neighborhood & will create terrible traffic & air pollution from all those cars. We have no objection to building 100 houses on the 25.90 acres, but apartments, condos or townhouses to create the density of 221 units would make our streets even more susceptible to car
accidents. Happily, we have many children in the
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-43
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
neighborhood who ride their bikes on Apollo. That would not be possible with the influx of some 500 cars passing through this quiet neighborhood. Please respect the zoning in place when we invested in our home.
scoutmom2wwm (at) gmail.com As much as you messed things up In the past, for fear of Lawsuits or just inviting Boutique hotel development to our city for the tax Money, you need to stop!
Tiny homes and communities are they only way we will meet the RHNA #.
No more HOA, tacky ugly Strip malls, no HOTELs and no
Mansions! You have damaged ALL character this city has no history left! Nothing left to do but partner with Rec and Park, and preserve the 1920’s school house! Your bad decisions have no class , after decades, the Pleasant Hill Historical Society folded. You couldn’t even give us a closet or shelf In the new library! Vallie Jo Whitfield is rolling over in her grave! Get it together- stop chasing money over charm. The crime is horrendous- get license plate readers!
Or don’t run for office again.
Thank you.
size1 (at) sbcglobal.net After living in Pleasant Hill 23 years, and Lafayette the prior 25 years, I am very familiar with the Mangini tract . I believe that the current zoning for single family residential homes should not be changed both to maintain the character of the
neighborhood and that of Pleasant Hill. The increased traffic on Alhambra from the Valley Ridge apartments on Alhambra, near me, is very substantial, and the increased vehicle traffic on Pleasant Hill Road from dense apartments would be a
significant downgrade to the area. Thee is no rapid transit nearby, so residents would all use cars. The population density increase near the Concord, Walnut Creek, and
Pleasant Hill ( actually in Walnut Creek)is acceptable because residents can walk to the nearby BART station if they wish.
There is no penalty to Pleasant Hill to maintain the current zoning.
snfstc19 (at) gmail.com I am concerned about high density housing on the corner of Pleasant Hill Rd and Taylor.
dmg0039 (at) comcast.net the plan must resist the temptation to over build our city. we must retain our small town appeal and not resort to highly dense developments.
willett.jason (at) gmail.com We are at 213 Apollo Way, next to the Mangini property.
Perhaps the most unique thing about Pleasant Hill - and one of aspects that attracted us most to this community - is the fact that the Mangini family farm exists at all. It is rare for a municipality, particularly one in a dense urban area, to be home to an agricultural landmark that continues to generate crops for the local community, and remain highly visible to residents and visitors. It is immeasurably valuable that Pleasant Hill can showcase a working farm so close to its downtown hub. Let's preserve this integral character and charm. In the aftermath of the global quarantine, there are massive quantities of existing commercial office space that
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-44
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
can be repurposed for high-density residential housing.
Explore those options, but don't pave over our agricultural origins. From the plowing tractors and the fruit stand to the pumpkin patch, hayrides, and sunflower fields, Mangini Farm is essential and necessary to our city.
petersymonds (at) kennedyjenks.com When will citizens who are unable to attend meetings be given an opportunity to comment on the draft documents?
golwern (at) gmail.com If looking at rezoning in residential areas, Please consider areas along large roadways such as Contra Costa Blvd, Tayor Blvd near Co Co Blvd. There are residential areas that front or back to those roads that might be better suited to higher density housing than along smaller corridors such as Oak Park Blvd.
cindyXcats (at) gmail.com Please NO MORE HOUSES. No more Car Max, Floor Decor. NO MORE PEOPLE. Leave the land green. Too many people, lines, overcrowded venues and restaurants. Not enough parking.
Too much traffic . Only housing should be tiny homes and limit that. PLEASE.
paulamichael (at) gmail.com Hi there! We live in the Linda Lane neighborhood, directly across from Mangini’s produce stand and farm. We are
incredibly concerned about the plan for new housing,
especially regarding the increase in traffic. Have you ever tried to turn left out of Linda Lane during rush hour? Have you ever used Pleasant Hill Road to connect to Lafayette during rush hour? Have you tried turning left from Pleasant Hill Road on to Gregory Lane, with only one left turning lane instead of two? It’s incredibly challenging with the amount of vehicle traffic today and to increase it would be debilitating for those of us living in the neighborhood, including our first responders. If you must use the Mangini space, please consider single
family homes only. High density housing is a much better fit for downtown areas, which are close to amenities and public transportation hubs. The suburbs are meant to be suburbs.
Thank you for listening and we’ll be sure to continue to speak up. Have a great day!
billfeil57 (at) outlook.com Please consider living conditions for all. Many of us cannot afford these large houses and we also don't want to afford cramped in small houses. Something in between that will incorporate more green ideas so the homes will have the efficiency needed to get us through these tough times.
I see Pleasant Hill losing its small town atmosphere with too many hotels, too many large home, and poorly designed
roadways. I am not sure where you are planning on letting homes being built, but do it smartly, please!
mike_flake (at) yahoo.com Preserve the character and quality of Pleasant Hill by eliminating high density housing goals. Do not eliminate single family housing in favor of any type of development or redevelopment. Increasing density also causes more traffic
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-45
Emailed Public Comments
Author Comment
and negative impacts on city services, and other items such as schools, energy, and water.
storeygianakos (at) gmail.com Regarding development of the Mangini property: Whatever is done, DO NOT PERMIT OPENING OF MALAGA WAY TO
THROUGH TRAFFIC. Please follow the precedent set by
planning for the Lippincott property. An attractive privacy barrier would be a valuable improvement. "Malaga Court" has a nice ring to it!
jocyetangmd (at) gmail.com I oppose development of Mangini's Farm & Winslow Center into 200+ units of high density housing. I’ve lived in the neighborhood across from Mangini's Farm for 19 years. We own the homes at both 39 Erin Ct. & 158 Linda Ln. Our
neighborhood of homeowners on Linda Ln., Linda Ct., Steven Cir. and Erin Ct. all know each other; we are organized, and are unified in vehemently opposing high density housing there.
That would have devastatingly negative effects on our
neighborhood. Our home values will go down and our
location would become less desirable. We don't want the crime that comes with it, like the shooting that had happened in the downtown Pleasant Hill high density housing after a drug deal gone bad, or the drug deals that routinely occur in the parking lots of condos in Lafayette, or more traffic, or visitors of that development parking on our streets. WE WILL OPPOSE IT!!! However, we'll happily support building single family homes on 1/4+ acre lots to match the surrounding area.
khelfter (at) yahoo.com Thank you to the council for the townhall meeting tonight. It was well organized and did a good job explaining the difficult position we are in. I hope we can find a creative way to maybe "spread the units" among as many sites as we can. Thank you for all your hard work.
GPAC Meeting #23, April 12, 2023
Public Comments
Name Comment
Bruce Irion Local knowledge is critical to a good plan
“Staff, GPAC, the City Council, and city residents fully considered and embraced the State’s housing target in
recommendging the current General Plan and Housing
Element. If the State was genuinely concerned with increasing the supply of housing, rather than blind adhearance to
regulations, they would recognize that the more they play in this and dillute the focus and dillute the priorities, the worse it will be for getting housing constructed.”
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-46
Public Comments
Name Comment
Max Davis Agrees with many of the State’s fair housing comments Low income housing is up to 80 percent of the AMI, which equates to $60,000 to $70,000 per year, so we are discussing housing for teachers, firefighters, and city employees. Low density areas are desireable and can provide housing
opportunities for young families in Pleasant Hill.
Affordable units are desperately needed due to the housing crisis
Removing constraints will enable construction of housing.
Jack Prosek I just reviewed the draft Response to the HCD Comments on the Sites Inventory and Capacity to Meet the Lower-Income RHNA that was prepared for the April 12th meeting of the 2040 General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC).
Found it very surprising that the Morello Terraces & Paso Nogal are being proposed for "Lower-Income" Sites. Just to refresh my memory, I drove by both of these locations this morning only to see exactly what I expected - that both sites have a tremendous grade change within their limits. It would be helpful to know more precisely just what the elevations are at the low & high points on each of these properties.
Extensive grading of these properties, as would be needed to accommodate the proposed density of dwelling units & the necessary parking spaces,
would have an enormous ENVIRONMENTAL impact,
would likely require very substantial retaining walls & may even require significant slope stabilization measures to minimize the potential for future landslides.
These measures would come at a very substantial COST
which would make it highly unlikely to be developed for "Affordable Housing" for "Lower-Income" families would ever pencil out - especially during the eight year planning cycle ! Should these constraints be noted in the data being provided for each Site ?
Also noted on page 5 of the Response that it is very confusing to see that the minimum densities have Realistic Capacities that are GREATER than those of the maximum densities for both of these Sites - are these figures reversed ??
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-47
Public Comments
Name Comment
Jack Prosek Morello Terraces:
- the closest bus stop is about one MILE away on Viking Drive just east of Morello. There is no bus service at all on Morello between Viking Drive & Center Ave in Martinez.
Paso Nogal Hillside:
- the additional traffic from this development would trigger the need to upgrade the very narrow, hilly & curvy roadway. - there are no bike lanes nor are the shoulders graded for same.
- there are no sidewalks on the east side of this roadway & the narrow existing road shoulders are very unsafe for
pedestrians.
- construction of a new sidewalk from this development to the nearest bus stop on Alhambra Ave would be extremely costly & might well require the City to acquire additional land along the route.
- even then, a new sidewalk down the hill to Alhambra Ave would NOT be ADA compliant unless the City also acquired one of the business properties at this intersection thereby making this improvement far more costly.
These conditions make the use of this property for Lower Income housing even less probable . . . . .
Catherine Boccellari I am writing to provide my input to the City Council and GPAC on the response the city will provide to HCD on Pleasant Hill’s Housing Element and General Plan.
On numerous occasions the GPAC has said “The city plans and developers build”. The statement is simple but all too true. The city can envision a plan but if developers do not think it will sell, they will not build it.
The state asked Pleasant Hill to develop a plan that would provide 1803 new housing units in the city. The city spent over two years envisioning how best to accommodate that growth, documented it in the General Plan, and explained the first eight years of execution in the Housing Element. The state HCD has now come back with questions and asked the city to clarify that plan.
Now is not the time to change the plan. The city and the GPAC spent over two years developing this plan and we, the city residents, have faithfully journeyed together with you in providing input and refining that vision. Now, as we near the end of the planning phase and prepare to begin its execution, it is not the time to change the plan. Rather it is time to better clarify and explain it. The plan is sound. Last minute changes will only sow confusion and distrust.
If HCD is asking questions, we need to clarify the vision and execution plan for them. We should not be changing the plan at the last minute.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-48
Public Comments
Name Comment
Bruce Irion I am writing the City Council and GPAC regarding the General Plan, the Housing Element, and HCD’s Housing Element
comments. I apologize for this is being provided so near to the GPAC meeting – I was waiting to see the staff report which only came out Monday afternoon.
The General Plan is the vision – it sets the 20 yr plan and the ultimate potential for what is expected to be achieved in that time. The Housing Element lays out eight years of execution, setting priorities and focus areas.
The state required Pleasant Hill to plan for 1803 units of housing. The city and its residents spent over two years envisioning how best to accommodate that growth,
documented it in the General Plan, and explained the first eight years of execution in the Housing Element. That plan not only met the 1803 goal, it set a target for providing 2124 units of housing and an aspiration goal for the construction of 2419 units of housing. The state HCD has now come back
with questions and asked the city clarify that plan.
I believe the City Council and residents of Pleasant Hill know the city far better than HCD. Further, having spent two years developing the General Plan and Housing Element, I believe it would be a mistake to make changes now at the last minute.
The General Plan sets a vision that far exceeds the state’s housing requirement. Based on local knowledge, the Housing Element set the priorities and focus areas that have the greatest near-term potential to quickly make progress in reaching the state goal. Making changes now would only
serve to cause loss of focus and lead to distrust of the public process.
That said, I would like to comment on staff’s
recommendations to GPAC:
• I commend staff for pointing out HCD’s error on ADU
permits. ADU interest and city permits far exceeded
the numbers in HCD’s letter. I agree with the staff
recommendation to include in the Housing Element
tracking toward the goal – any plan for execution
should track its progress against the long term goal. I see no benefit to reducing the premised number of
ADU’s in the Housing Element. The state has taken
great pains to incentivize the construction of ADU’s.
Lowering the goal in the Housing Element will only
serve to reduce the city’s focus and reduce the
number of ADU’s constructed.
• I oppose the staff recommendation to remove the
JCP site and a portion of the Gregory Lane/CCBlvd
site. Local knowledge trumps that of HCD. These
sites are underutilized and are prime candidates for
redevelopment. I can guarantee if these sites are
redeveloped, as they should be, people will happily
make their homes there. They are close to
transportation and close to shopping making them
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 C-49
Public Comments
Name Comment
ideal locations for housing. As for HCD’s comment
that housing is concentrated along transportation
corridors, look to San Ramon or Orinda whose plans
were both approved. The Orinda Housing Element
said “In Orinda, Highway 24 is designated a scenic
highway as it traverses through an area with
significant amounts of permanent open space which
already serves to mitigate impacts from the freeway.
In addition, residents have access to numerous parks,
trails, and open space. The City will continue to
expand access to these amenities by implementing
policies in the Open Space, Schools, and Utilities
Elements of the General Plan. In addition, individual
developments proposed in close proximity to
Highway 24 will also be required to provide for tree
coverage and vegetation to contribute to the scenic
nature of the corridor and the environment.”
• And as for inclusion of Paso Nogal and Morello
Terraces in the housing element, while I recognize the
dilemma the state’s 50% rule presents, neither of
these sites is as close to shopping or transportation
as the JCP site or CCBlvd site staff is recommending
to remove.
In summary, I believe Pleasant Hill’s Housing Element is as good a plan as either San Ramon or Orinda, both of whose plans have been approved. I believe staff, GPAC, and city residents fully considered and embraced the state’s housing target in recommending the current General Plan vision and the execution outlined in the Housing Element. Local
knowledge trumps that of HCD, and if the state’s genuine concern is increasing supply of housing rather than blind adherence to regulation, they would recognize that the more changes are made to the Pleasant Hill Housing element, the more dilute the focus becomes, the worse the plan execution, and the worse off the housing plight becomes.
Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element
The following pages include comment letters submitted in response to the Public Review Draft Housing Element.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023C-50
This page is intentionally left blank.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update)
4. Housing Element
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 D-1
Appendix D: Public Response to the Revised HCD Draft
The City held public hearings with the Planning Commission (May 3, 2023) and City Council (May 18, 2023) to consider the Revised HCD Draft. These meetings generated significant community interest and concern, primarily focused on the inclusion of the Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal sites within the Housing Element. This appendix summarizes the concerns raised by the more 400 emails/comment letters and more than 100 in-person comments made during the hearings. All comments have been sent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development along with the Adopted Housing Element.
The bullets below summarize comments in opposition to the proposed rezoning of the Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal sites.
▪ Morello and Paso Nogal are not high resource areas as defined by the community, relative to access to services, employment, and alternative modes of transportation; ▪ The roadways in the area are already unsafe and dangerous, adding more traffic to the area will exacerbate these conditions;
▪ Currently, traffic is bad, especially during peak travel periods; ▪ There is a severe lack of parking;
▪ Not opposed to low-income housing, but opposed to the rezonings of these sites; ▪ The site is not conducive for development and would require too much grading which degrades the surrounding environment;
▪ Development on these sites affects open space assets in the area; ▪ The proposed density (30-40 du/ac) is too high and allows too many units for such a small site;
▪ The site is not conducive for development based on soil stability and history of geological impacts;
▪ The selection of this site will have negative impacts to wildlife; ▪ Development should shift back to areas with surrounding employment (i.e., JC Penney and Contra Costa Boulevard areas);
▪ Access to these sites is limited and increases safety issues; ▪ High density housing is not compatible with the surrounding low-density neighborhood; ▪ Increasing density on vacant parcels near single-family homes will negatively impact property values in the neighborhood.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) Housing Element | Appendices
Adopted May 18, 2023 | Revised September 2023 D-2
While the vast majority of these comments were in opposition to the inclusion of the Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal sites, a handful of in-person comments and a few letters supported their inclusion or the need to provide affordable housing generally. These comments are summarized below.
▪ Affordable housing is needed to address the housing crisis. ▪ Affordable housing is needed throughout the city.
▪ Neighborhood opposition is a constraint to the development of affordable housing in Pleasant Hill. Please note, this comment was sent directly to HCD and a copy was provided to the City.
Following the Planning Commission hearing, the City re-evaluated vacant sites within city limits, however no other vacant sites were identified that meet HCD’s criteria for lower-income capacity to meet the RHNA due to small parcel size (less than 0.5 acres) or issues related to accessibility, and location in flood zone areas. The City Council considered all comments received and discussed options at the adoption hearing on May 18, 2023. Although the Council agreed that the Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal sites have challenges, without additional vacant parcels to consider, the City has no alternative options to fully address HCD comments, which require that less than 50 percent of the lower-income RHNA is provided through nonvacant (underutilized) sites. However, despite changes to income assumptions in the sites inventory of the Housing Element, the Council supported additional land use changes included in the General Plan Land Use Element that redesignate all General Plan focus areas to high density mixed use, including DVC overflow parking lot and nonvacant sites along major transportation corridors. These areas include a minimum density of at least 40 dwelling units per acre and the City will work to incentivize production of affordable housing on these sites through the Housing Element planning period. The City Council adopted both the Housing Element and General Plan, without changes to the Land Use Element or Housing Element.
10.2.b
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: 2. Revised Housing Element (Strikeout and Underline Format) (Housing Element Update) STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
July 31, 2023
Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Dear Ethan Bindernagel:
RE: Pleasant Hill’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Pleasant Hill’s (City) housing element adopted May 18, 2023 and received for review on June 1, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Kelvin Kwan, Kevin Burke, Susan and Larry Barlettani, Mathew Kennedy, MaryAnn DiNatale, East Bay for Everyone, Marshall Lewis, David Kellogg and Madeira Heights Townhouses Association and other affiliated groups pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
The adopted housing element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s March 22, 2023 letter; however, additional revisions are necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq), as follows:
1. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA): The element was revised to include maps for local and regional RCAA and included some high-level data regarding the City's RCAA census tracts. However, as found in HCD's prior review, the element must analyze these areas for trends, conditions, coincidence with other fair housing factors (e.g., race, highest resource, overpayment), effectiveness or absence of past strategies (e.g., lack of publicly assisted housing and lack of multifamily zoning), local data and knowledge and other relevant factors. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: 3. July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update) Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
include significant and meaningful programs to promote housing mobility (not limited to the regional housing need allocation (RHNA)).
Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones:
• Increasing Housing Choices and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity: The element was revised to include some actions with geographic targeting and metrics for programs in low-density and higher opportunity neighborhoods. However, the revised analysis demonstrated that the City is majority RCAA and a large portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA has been identified outside of these areas. These conditions and circumstances warrant significant and robust actions (not limited to the RHNA) to promote housing mobility and increasing housing choices and affordability in higher income, higher resourced and lower-density neighborhoods. The element should be revised with aggressively numeric targets and geographic targets that include RCAA, higher resourced and lower-density neighborhoods. Examples include creating more housing choices and affordability in single-family neighborhoods beyond complying with law (e.g., SB 9, ADUs), targeting affordable housing funding, homesharing programs, more than one junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) (per single family structure, enhancing capacity, affordability, and housing choices on religious institutional sites beyond the RHNA and other alternative land use strategies. Lastly, the element must be revised to include quantified metrics (beyond the RHNA) programs focused on housing mobility and increased housing opportunities and affordability. • Place-Based Strategies for Community Revitalization: The element was not revised to address this finding. As found in HCD’s prior review, the element must include place-based strategies for neighborhoods considered low and moderate resource and have coincidences of fair housing issues such as higher concentration of lower-income households and more disparate access to opportunities compared to other parts of the City.
2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal: The element now identifies two vacant sites in higher income and high-moderate resourced communities. While the location of these sites can help foster inclusive communities and create housing opportunities and affordability in higher-income and higher-resourced areas, HCD received public comments indicating that these sites may be unsuitable due
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: 3. July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update) Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
to sloping conditions, local ordinances prohibiting development and infrastructure constraints. The element should evaluate any potential constraints related to infrastructure (water and sewer capacity), environmental issues (sloping conditions) or any other site-specific conditions that would preclude development on these sites. The element could discuss any outreach with developers regarding the potential of developing on these sites. Based on a complete analysis, the element may need to add or revise programs to remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The prior review found that the element must describe redevelopment potential of nonvacant sites and clarify how the various factors utilized is indicative of redevelopment potential. The element was revised to adjusts the sites inventory to reduce the reliance of nonvacant sites and provide some additional information about the factors utilized to determine the degree of underutilization. However, as found in HCD’s prior review, the element must support these factors. For example, the element relies on the Choice in Aging and 85 Cleveland projects as past examples of redevelopment trends on underutilized sites. However, the analysis does not provide any details to describe how these projects relate to the identified criteria. To clearly support and relate project examples to the redevelopment criteria, the element could include a listing of local and regional projects that have redeveloped with similar criteria (improvement to land value, building age, etc.,).
Additionally, while the element does not currently rely upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households, if future revisions and modifications result in the City relying on nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent then the element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Program O (Municipal Code Updates – Supportive Housing): While the element was revised committing to allowing transitional and supportive housing by-right, this action must explicitly commit to revising the zoning code to comply with AB 2162 (Government Code section 65651) which includes supportive housing provisions related to approval timelines and parking requirements. For additional information, please see AB 2162 Fact Sheet.
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: 3. July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update) Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
• Program O (Municipal Code Updates – Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)):
While the element now commits to allowing ADUs consistent with state law and contacting HCD to identify ADU compliance issues, as found in HCD’s prior review, the element must include a specific commitment to revising the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law.
Programs: As noted above, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established.
Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element must be revised, as follows:
• Shortfall of Sites – Program F (Increase Allowable Densities): As found in HCD’s prior review, the element is showing a shortfall of sites and must include a program committing to adopting zoning changes and comply with housing element rezone requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2 (h) and (i). While the element was revised with a commitment to comply with some of these provisions, for sites to accommodate the lower-income RHNA, it must also commit to requiring a minimum density of 20 units per acre and rezoning sites by-right (without discretionary action) for multifamily developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. Additionally, as the City failed to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline, this program must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. This program should be revised with an updated timeline (e.g., completion by January 31, 2024) to reflect these statutory requirements.
3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities – Reasonable Accommodation (RA): The element was revised to now include a description of the City's RA process including the required findings to approve an RA request.
The analysis indicated that the City's process does not subject RA requests to discretionary findings related to compatibility with surrounding uses. However, the listing of required approval findings (pp. 4-112) indicated that the City must find that the request included measures to reduce impact on surrounding uses and the physical attributes of the property. However, granting a reasonable
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: 3. July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update) Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
accommodation based on findings related to impacts on surrounding uses is essentially a conditional use permit (CUP) finding. 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. The element should include a program to amend the reasonable accommodation ordinance and remove constraints, namely approval findings related impacts on surrounding uses.
Programs: In addition, the element must be revised, as follows:
• Program H (Development Standards): HCD’s prior review found that the City's development standards are a constraint to providing a variety of housing choices and facilitating maximum densities including but not limited to heights, parking, lot coverage, setbacks and minimum unit sizes.
The element was revised with a program committing to remove standards constrain the production of lower-income housing. However, the element should commit to removing or reducing standards that pose a constraint on housing regardless of income levels and not limited to accommodating the RHNA.
• Program O (Municipal Code Updates – Group Homes): The element was revised with a commitment to allowing group homes in all zones similar to other uses of the same form. However, as found in HCD’s prior review, the element must commit to allowing these uses in the same manner as similar residential uses (e.g., single family home).
The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and re-adopted (if necessary) to comply with the above requirements.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), as the City failed to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), Program F (Increase Allowable Densities) to rezone 967 units to accommodate the RHNA must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c),paragraph (1), subparagraph (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed.
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: 3. July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update) Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339), adds specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient and suitable capacity. Future submittals of the housing element may need to address these statutory requirements.
For additional information and timing requirements, please see HCD’s memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/ab2339- notice.pdf.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Sohab Mehmood, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
10.2.c
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: 3. July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update) From: Matthew Kennedy
To: Troy Fujimoto
Cc: Ethan Bindernagel
Subject: Re: Housing Element Update: Where is the Community Transparency? Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 12:22:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Hi Troy,
I appreciate you responding; I'm sure your inbox has been inundated as of late so again, thanks for the response.
First I wanted to really clarify my position on Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill. I have never advocated, in either public comment, or my written response to HCD, that we should not be including these two parcels. In fact if you read through my response to HCD, a lot of my corrections were to ensure Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal were not rejected. I've also spent a large amount of time explaining to our community the rigor of these new housing laws and why we shouldn't be against housing.
My, and for the large part my surrounding community's, displeasure with this process has centered around the complete lack of community awareness and tactics that followed; these were all things you could have controlled. These were a new, very aggressive set of laws that have a lot of local impact; naturally this should have triggered a new and aggressive set of community messaging techniques to ensure that when the tough decisions did come to face, it wouldn't be a blind-side announcement. However once word got around, we were then met with "You are holding the City at-risk....we already read your comments, so don't need to hear them again....". If the goal was to ignore and inflame the community then we can at least state that goal was met.
I really hope there will be some internal improvements based on what was learned during this project. This was not the time to sit back and go "well our internal protocol was met, so we don't need to worry about doing anything else..". This was a time for aggressive internal improvement paired with proactive project status relay to the community. I know for certain that if these projects were proposed in a lot adjacent to your place of residence, you wouldn't accept just one meeting as adequate community involvement. Above all else, I implore you to resist the urge to roll your eyes at input like mine...I know it's tempting to go "well they don't get how hard this project is..."..and you are right, we do not. But if the community was adequately involved from project inception, much of this friction could have been avoided. -Matt
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 8:39 AM Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]> wrote:
Matt,
I wanted to follow up on both of your emails.
10.2.d
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: 4. Public Comments Recieved Since Recipt of July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update) A couple of points to note, the City has had a preliminary discussion, via zoom, with HCD to gain additional clarity on the responses provided in their July 31, 2023 comment letter. This meeting helped the City to understand how best to respond to their comments, with the goal of receiving HCD certification of the Housing Element at the next submittal. One of the clarifications that we heard from HCD was that they were supportive of the inclusion of the Morello and Paso Nogal sites. HCD noted that they wanted additional information based on the public input received on the previous Housing Element submittal and clarification on some of the programs related to the sites.
The City intends to hold a public meeting before the City Council in mid-October to go over the clarifications provided by HCD. In addition, at this meeting, staff will also present proposed responses to HCD comments, based on preliminary feedback. The specific date and time will be announced on the City website and will be distributed through an email blast that will go to those that signed up on the pleasanthill2040.com website. We also added those to the email list that provided public input for the previous public hearings on the most recent Housing Element that was submitted to HCD. We intend to follow proper public comment provisions as required by HCD through the remaining Housing Element process. At this meeting, all members of the public will be encouraged to provide public input on the proposed responses to HCD.
Troy
From: Matthew Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 4:13 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>; Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Housing Element Update: Where is the Community Transparency? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Hi Troy & Ethan,
Following up on this email; I understand you both have a lot on your plate with these projects but at minimum we deserve a response. I have written a detailed proposal that satisfies all HCD action items while minimizing frustration from community stakeholders; I would think you would be interested in considering it.
I understand if you are going to not engage with us and defer to the passive public meeting structures, but at least notify me of that. I deeply care about Pleasant Hill, have lived here my entire life, and I do not want to see local government bias obstructing our path to HCD
10.2.d
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: 4. Public Comments Recieved Since Recipt of July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update) compliance. I know I don't need to explain the absolute storm that could be brewing if the Builder's Remedy is activated; but I am very concerned that this is where we are heading.
Again, I know this is no small undertaking, but if you are going to ignore us at least own it and respond.
Thanks,
Matt
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 1:08 PM Matthew Kennedy <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Troy & Ethan,
My name is Matt Kennedy; I'm writing to inquire about what our City's plan is to satisfy the HCD's action items to gain Housing Element compliance. I represent over 2500 eager community members who deserve to be proactively informed and included in this process.
According to the article listed in publication "Concord & Clayton Pioneer", Sue Noack is quoted as saying "at the beginning of September we will have a meeting to discuss what these action items are".
This meeting has not occurred, and there has been zero proactive engagement with our community, which was specifically called out by HCD as something that needs to occur during this iteration.
We want to assist you in determining an equitable solution to our housing allocation that doesn't put the entire infrastructure burden on one neighborhood. We also want to emphasize that maintaining the current unequitable distribution of affordable housing (and not utilizing a certain large property at all...) is absolutely setting us up for the Builders Remedy.
We care about our community and want to help, but if this type of avoidance strategy is going to continue then how is this approach any different than the May 18th "hearing" in which all input was ignored?
10.2.d
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: 4. Public Comments Recieved Since Recipt of July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update) Looking forward to this ongoing discussion.
-Matt
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.
10.2.d
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: 4. Public Comments Recieved Since Recipt of July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update) From: June Rogers
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Morello/Paso Nogal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:50:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Pleasant Hill City Council members:
To whom it may concern, I live on Fairway Place in Pleasant Hill, CA. My living room faces Morello/Paso Nogal, the traffics is horrendous as most people do not stop, just roll through the intersection, I live in fear there will be a crash with cars and people
flying into my living room.
I should not have to live in fear, I am 84 years old and should be able to live out my “Golden Years” in a safe place. I have lived in Pleasant Hill for over 60 years and plan to continue to live here until my demise.
I have faith in the Pleasant Hill Council to make the right decision to protect the people of Pleasant Hill.
Sincerely.
June E. Rogers
6 Fairway Place
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Telephone: 925/689-8726
Sent from my iPad
10.2.d
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: 4. Public Comments Recieved Since Recipt of July 31, 2023 HCD Comment Letter (Housing Element Update)
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 16, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. __ -23 ADOPTING A CITY POLICY
REGARDING THE RECEIPT AND DISTRIBUTION OF TICKETS
AND/OR PASSES IN THE FURTHERANCE OF THE CITY'S
REASONABLY DEFINED PUBLIC PURPOSES
SYNOPSIS
The purpose of this item is for the City Council to review and adopt a policy governing the City’s distribution, use, and reporting of tickets and passes, as those terms are defined by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). This policy will ensure the City is in compliance with FPPC Regulation 18944.1 and that the City handles all requests for tickets and passes fairly and objectively.
Background
FPPC Regulation 18944.1 creates an exception to the definition of gift for tickets or passes to entertainment, sports or other similar events that are donated to an agency and distributed to public officials for use for official public business as long as the agency complies with specified requirements.
Regulation 18944.1 requires an agency to:
1. Adopt a distribution policy setting minimum provisions required under Regulation 18944.1;
2. Post a copy of the policy on the City’s website and email a link to the FPPC for posting;
3. Ensure the ticket/pass is used for a stated governmental purpose;
4. Complete Form 802 for each distribution and retain Form 802 as a public record under the Political Reform Act; and
5. Post a copy of each Form 802 on the City’s website, and email a link to the FPPC for posting.
10.3 Packet Pg. 584
Analysis
Over the past several years, the FPPC has revised and amended Regulations 18942, 18944, 18944.1, 18946, and 18946.1 in an effort to provide clarification of the definitions and valuation of tickets and passes, and update the requirements for agency ticket distribution policies in an effort to limit misuse of resources and the potential for abuse of these policies.
The FPPC Regulations were amended to provide clarification on when a City Official is exempted from reporting certain tickets and passes on a Form 700 or as additional income, and to include certain revisions affecting the requirements of agency ticket distribution policies to:
1. Declare the City Manager has the authority to establish procedures for ticket distribution in accordance with the adopted policy.
2. Allow the City Manager to select him/herself to use certain tickets that are for the general use by agency officials.
3. Require the City to post its distribution policy and any amendments on the City’s website within 30 days of adoption or amendment and send a link to the website displaying the policy to the FPPC for additional posting.
4. Require the City to post all Form 802s to its website within 45 days after distribution and email the website link displaying Form 802s to the FPPC for additional posting.
5. Require the City to maintain Form 802 as a public record for inspection and copying under Government Code section 81001(a). (Form 802s are each to be kept for seven years by the City.)
6. Change the term of “face value” to “fair value,” as defined, in order to clarify and assist in valuing tickets or passes.
7. Allow the transfer of tickets by an official to one guest for attending the event, as well as to the official’s immediate family.
8. Prohibit any person receiving a ticket under the policy from reselling or receiving compensation for the value of the ticket.
9. Prohibit an outside source from earmarking any ticket from that outside source for a particular official.
10. Require the City to report on Form 802 tickets provided for officials to represent the City and perform a ceremonial role.
11. For tickets distributed to a department or other City unit, or to an organization outside the City, and not used by a member of the City Council, political appointee, department head or the City Manager, the report may name the department or organization with the
10.3 Packet Pg. 585
number of tickets received, in lieu of naming individual employees or individuals of the organization.
12. The provisions of the Policy apply only to benefits a City Official receives that are provided to all members of the public with the same class ticket.
13. Prohibit disproportionate use of tickets by members of the City Council, City Manager or department heads.
14. Require City Officials to submit a written report of findings and recommendations when a ticket is distributed for purposes of oversight or inspection of facilities.
The policy contains a list of public purposes for the distribution of such tickets or passes to both comply with the law and ensure the City’s needs are met.
Based on the foregoing, and on the matters recited in more detail in the Resolution itself, staff requests that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the proposed Policy and Procedure on the Distribution, Use and Reporting of Tickets and Passes Distributed by the City under FPPC Regulation 18944.1.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impacts are anticipated at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or to activities otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA (Section 21605) and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(3) and 15378. Adoption of this ticket policy meets those criteria and is not subject to environmental review under CEQA. Moreover, adoption of the policy merely constitutes an administrative activity of the City and is additionally exempt from CEQA on that basis. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(5).)
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff is requesting that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution approving a Policy and Procedure on the Distribution, Use and Reporting of Tickets and Passes Distributed by the City under FPPC Regulation 18944.1.
10.3 Packet Pg. 586
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Policy and Procedure on the Distribution, Use and Reporting of Tickets and Passes Distributed by the City under FPPC Regulation 18944.1
Prepared by: Anne Branham, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
10.3 Packet Pg. 587
RESOLUTION NO. __ -23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLEASANT HILL ADOPTING A CITY POLICY REGARDING
THE RECEIPT AND DISTRIBUTION OF TICKETS AND/OR
PASSES IN THE FURTHERANCE OF THE CITY'S REASONABLY
DEFINED PUBLIC PURPOSES
WHEREAS, every California city by and through its governing body and other public officials, is empowered to exercise all powers necessary or appropriate to a municipal corporation for the general welfare of its inhabitants, which are not prohibited by the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, from time to time, the City of Pleasant Hill receives "tickets or passes" from third party sources, both public and private; and
WHEREAS, under Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 18944.1 ("Section 18944.1") these tickets and/or passes are defined as an admission to a facility, event, show or performance for an entertainment, amusement, recreational, civic or similar purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City continues to find that the receipt of all such tickets and/or passes are public resources; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to distribute these public resources in a manner that furthers the City's governmental and public purposes as reasonably described herein, such as the promotion of local businesses, community resources, programs and facilities; and WHEREAS, the Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") continues to recognize the discretion of the legislative or governing body of an agency to determine whether the distribution of tickets and/or passes serves a legitimate public purpose of the City, provided that the determination is consistent with state law; and WHEREAS, according to Section 18944.1 these tickets and/or passes are not gifts to public officials if the City distributes these tickets and/or passes in accordance with a duly adopted written policy, when distributed under Section 18944.1, subdivision (b); and WHEREAS, the City accordingly desires to adopt a "Policy and Procedure on the Distribution, Use and Reporting of Tickets and Passes Distributed by the City under FPPC Regulation 18944.1.”
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, hereby adopts the following policy, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference:
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (City Gift Ticket Policy) “POLICY AND PROCEDURE ON THE DISTRIBUTION, USE AND REPORTING OF
TICKETS AND PASSES DISTRIBUTED BY THE CITY UNDER FPPC
REGULATION 18944.1”
SECTION 1. Purpose of Policy. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that all tickets and/or passes provided to the City shall be distributed in furtherance of governmental and/or public purposes as required under Section 18944.1.
SECTION 2. Limitation. This policy shall only apply to the City's distribution of tickets and/or passes to a public official, or at the request of a public official, for which no consideration of equal or greater value is provided by the public official. Consideration of equal or greater value shall be presumed if the tickets and/or passes are distributed pursuant to this policy. Notwithstanding, if the official treats a ticket or pass as income consistent with applicable state and federal income tax laws, the ticket or pass shall not be subject to this policy so long as the City reports the distribution of the ticket or pass to the official on the FPPC Form 802.
SECTION 3. Compliance with Policy. All distributions, uses of, and reporting of tickets and passes by the City shall be done in accordance with the duly adopted policy, which may be amended from time to time to ensure continued legal compliance.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect on the date of its adoption.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of October 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
TIMOTHY M. FLAHERTY, Mayor
ATTEST:
JUANITA DAVALOS, Acting City Clerk
10.3.a
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (City Gift Ticket Policy)
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
Subject:
Distribution, Use and Reporting of Tickets and Passes Distributed by the City under FPPC Regulation 18944.1
Effective Date: Prepared By: City Attorney’s Office
Approved By: City Council
1.0 PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Policy is to ensure that Tickets and passes provided to and distributed by the City are distributed in furtherance of a governmental and/or public purpose as required under Section 18944.1, Title 2, California Code of Regulations (“Regulation 18944.1”).
In addition, the purpose of this policy is to ensure that Tickets distributed by the City under this policy are disclosed on Form 802 and posted to the City’s website within 45 days of distribution, as required by Regulation 18944.1.
2.0 APPLICATION:
This Policy applies to Tickets and passes, which provide admission to a facility or event for an entertainment, amusement, recreational or similar purpose, and are:
a. gratuitously provided to the City by an outside source; b. acquired by the City by purchase;
c. acquired by the City as consideration pursuant to the terms of a contract for the use of a City venue; or
d. acquired and distributed by the City in any other manner.
This Policy applies only to the benefits that a City Official receives from the Ticket or pass that are otherwise provided to all members of the public with the same class of Ticket or pass; it does not apply when the City Official is given a Ticket or pass to specifically perform a ceremonial role, or to other special benefits offered to the City Official besides the Ticket or pass itself, such as additional food or beverage access, which should be reported separately as gifts.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Pleasant Hill - City Ticket Policy (City Gift Ticket Policy)
3.0 SCOPE:
This Policy applies to all City Officials (see definition below).
4.0 DEFINITIONS:
Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, words and terms used in this Policy shall have the same meaning as that ascribed to such words and terms in the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code section 81000 et seq., as the same may from time to time be amended) and the Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) Regulations (Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 18100 et seq., as the same may from time to time be amended.)
4.1 “City” or “City of Pleasant Hill” means the City of Pleasant Hill, California, any other affiliated agency created or activated by the Pleasant Hill City Council, and any commission, committee, board, or department thereof.
4.2 “City Official” means every member, officer, employee, or consultant of the City of Pleasant Hill, as defined in Government Code section 82048 and Regulation 18700.3. Such term shall include, without limitation, any Council member or other appointed official or employee or consultant required to file an annual Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700).
4.3 “FPPC” means the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
4.4 “Immediate Family” means a City Official’s spouse and dependent children.
4.5 “Policy” means this City Policy, adopted pursuant to Regulation 18944.1, which governs the distribution, use and reporting of certain Tickets and passes received by the City.
4.6 “Ticket” shall mean and refer to a “Ticket or pass” as those terms are defined in Regulation 18946 and referenced in Regulation 18944.1, both Regulations as amended from time to time, but which currently define “Ticket or “pass” as anything that provides admission or access to a facility, event, show or performance for an entertainment, amusement, recreational or similar purpose.
5.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS:
5.1 No Right to Tickets: The use of complimentary Tickets pursuant to this Policy is a privilege extended by the City and not the right of any person to which the privilege may from time to time be extended.
5.2 Limitation on Transfer of Tickets: Tickets distributed to a City Official pursuant to this Policy shall not be transferred to any other person, except to members of the City Official’s immediate family solely for their personal use or to no more than one guest solely for their attendance at the event.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Pleasant Hill - City Ticket Policy (City Gift Ticket Policy)
5.3 Prohibition Against Sale of or Receiving Reimbursement for Tickets: No person who receives a Ticket pursuant to this Policy shall resell or receive compensation for the value of such Ticket.
5.4 Implementation of Policy: The City Manager shall have the authority, in his or her sole discretion, to establish procedures for the distribution of Tickets in accordance with this Policy. All requests for Tickets which fall within the scope of this Policy shall be made in accordance with the procedures established by the City Manager.
5.5 Designation of Agency Head: The City Manager or his or her designee shall be the “Agency Head” for purposes of implementing the provisions of this Policy and completing and posting Form 802. In such case, where the City Manager desires to obtain a Ticket, the Council members authorize the City Manager to exercise the City’s sole discretion in determining whether the City Manager’s use or behest of Tickets is in accordance with the terms of this Policy.
5.6 No Earmarking of Tickets: No Ticket gratuitously provided to the City by an outside source and distributed to, or at the behest of, a City Official pursuant to this Policy may be earmarked by the original source for provision to a particular City Official. All Tickets provided to the City by an outside source must be distributed in accordance with this Policy.
5.7 Ceremonial Role: A ticket provided to a Public Official and one guest of the Official at which the Official performs a ceremonial role, as defined in Regulation 18942.3, on behalf of the City must be disclosed on Form 802 as set forth below.
5.7 Disproportionate Use of Tickets: A disproportionate use of Tickets by members of the City Council, political appointee, department heads, or the City Manager is prohibited.
5.8 Valuation of Tickets: The value of any Ticket shall be the fair value of the Ticket. The “fair value” is the face value of the Ticket, or the price at which the Ticket would otherwise be offered for sale to the general public by the operator or host. Where the Ticket does not reflect the actual cost for a Ticket in a luxury box or suite, the face value is determined by dividing the total cost of the box or suite by the number of Tickets available for that box or suite.
6.0 PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR DISTRIBUTION OF TICKETS:
Subject to the provisions of this Policy, the City shall only provide a Ticket and/or pass to a City Official, or at the behest of a City Official, under one of the following public and governmental purposes:
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Pleasant Hill - City Ticket Policy (City Gift Ticket Policy)
6.1 If distribution is to a City Official and the Official reimburses the City for the fair value of the Ticket(s).
6.2 If the distribution is to a City Official, the City Official treats the Ticket(s) as income consistent with applicable federal and state income tax laws.
6.3 If distribution is to a City Official or is at the behest of a City Official, and such distribution accomplishes a governmental and/or public purpose. The following is a list of governmental and/or public purposes the City may accomplish through the distribution of Tickets. The list is illustrative rather than exhaustive, and City Officials are encouraged to contact the City Attorney with questions.
a. Facilitating the performance of a ceremonial role or function by a City Official on behalf of the City at an event.
b. Facilitating the attendance of a City Official at an event where the job duties of the Official require his or her attendance.
c. Promotion of intergovernmental relations and/or cooperation and coordination of resources with other governmental agencies, including but not limited to, attendance at an event with or by elected or appointed public officials from other jurisdictions, their staff members and their guests.
d. Promotion of community programs and resources available to City residents, including nonprofit organizations and youth programs. e. Marketing promotions highlighting the achievements of local residents and businesses.
f. Promotion and marketing of private facilities available for City resident use, including charitable and nonprofit facilities.
g. Promotion of City-run, sponsored, or supported events, activities, or programs.
h. Promoting, supporting, and/or showing appreciation for programs or services rendered by charitable and non-profit organizations benefitting City residents.
i. Promotion of local or regional business activity, economic development, and tourism activities within the City that serve or may potentially serve City residents, including conventions and conferences.
j. Promotion of public facilities available for City resident use. k. Promotion of City growth and development, including outreach efforts, economic development, and job creation opportunities.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Pleasant Hill - City Ticket Policy (City Gift Ticket Policy)
l. Promotion of specific City community events provided by or sponsored by the City.
m. Promotion of any City owned sites or facilities.
n. Exchange programs with foreign officials and dignitaries. o. Promotion of City recognition, visibility, and/or profile on a local, state, national, or worldwide scale.
p. Promotion of open government and/or community relations by City Official appearances, participation, and/or availability at business or community events.
q. Sponsorship agreements involving private events where the City specifically seeks to enhance the City’s reputation both locally and regionally by serving as hosts or sponsors providing the necessary opportunities to meet and greet visitors, dignitaries, and residents. r. All written contracts where the City, as a form of consideration, has required that a certain number of Tickets be made available for City use.
s. Increasing public exposure to, and awareness of, the various recreational, cultural, and educational venues and facilities available to the public within the City.
t. Attracting and/or rewarding volunteer public service. u. Encouraging or rewarding significant academic, athletic, or public service achievements by residents or businesses of the City service area.
v. Charitable 501(c)(3) fundraisers for the purpose of networking with other community and civic leaders.
w. Employment retention programs.
x. Special outreach programs for veterans, teachers, emergency services, medical personnel, and other civil service occupations. y. Promoting, supporting, and/or showing appreciation for programs or services rendered by charitable and non-profit organizations benefiting City residents.
z. Recognizing or rewarding meritorious service by City employees. aa. Promoting enhanced City employee performance or morale. bb. Recognizing contributions made to the City by former Council members or City employees.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Pleasant Hill - City Ticket Policy (City Gift Ticket Policy)
6.4 When a public purpose involves the oversight or inspection of facilities by a City Official, the City Official is required to provide a written inspection report and/or recommendation after use of the Ticket or pass for such purpose.
6.5 Subject to the provisions of this Policy, Tickets obtained by the City pursuant to terms of a contract for use of public property because the City controls the event may be distributed to City Officials. Any distribution must accomplish a governmental and/or public purpose in accordance with Section 6.3, above.
6.6 Any City Official, any member of the City Official’s immediate family, or guest of the City Official may return any unused Ticket to the City for redistribution pursuant to this Policy.
7.0 DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS:
7.1 This Policy shall be posted on the City’s website in a prominent manner.
The City shall, within 30 days of adoption or amendment, send to the FPPC by email a website link that displays the Policy.
7.2 Tickets distributed by the City to any City Official which the Official treats as income pursuant to Section 6.2, above, or, which are distributed for one or more public purposes described in Section 6.3, above, must be recorded on Form 802 or on such alternative form(s) as may from time to time be designated by the FPPC. This form must be maintained as a public record and be subject to inspection and copying as required under Government Code section 81008(a). Within 45 days the City must post these forms on its website and email a website link to the FPPC that displays the form.
7.3 Tickets distributed by the City for which the City receives reimbursement from the City Official as provided under Section 6.1 above shall not be subject to the disclosure provisions of Section 7.2.
7.4 For Tickets distributed to a department or other unit of the City, and not used by a member of the City Council, political appointee, a department head, or the City Manager, the City may report the name of the department or other unit of the City and the number of Tickets provided to the department or other unit in lieu of posting the name of the individual employee(s) as otherwise required.
10.3.b
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Pleasant Hill - City Ticket Policy (City Gift Ticket Policy)