Pleasant Hill City Council
October 20, 2025

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Chapter 18.125 [18.180]

ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
Sections:

18.125.010 Applicability. [18.180.010]

18.125.020 Initiation of amendments. [18.180.020]

18.125.030 Application. [18.180.020]

18.125.040 Report – Notice and public hearing. [18.180.030]

18.125.050 Planning commission action. [18.180.040]

18.125.060 City council action. [18.180.040]

18.125.070 Limitations on residential rezoning. [n/a]

18.125.080 Revisions of proposed amendments. [n/a]

18.125.090 Resubmittal of application. [18.180.060]

18.125.010 Applicability. [18.180.010]
The zoning designations may be changed by amending the zoning map, and the zoning regulations may be changed by amending this title. (Ord. 710 § 35-34.1, 1996; 1991 code § 35-34.1)

18.125.020 Initiation of amendments. [18.180.020]
A. Zoning map. An amendment to the zoning map may be initiated by motion of the city council or planning commission, action of the zoning administrator, or by request of all owners of property for which the change is sought.

B. Zoning regulations. An amendment to the zoning regulations may be initiated by motion of the city council or the planning commission, action of the zoning administrator, or by request of any resident, property owner or business owner in the city. (Ord. 710 § 35-34.2, 1996; 1991 code § 35-34.2)

18.125.030 Application. [18.180.020]
A. Zoning map. A property owner may initiate a zoning map amendment by filing an application in the form approved by the zoning administrator.

B. Zoning regulation. A property owner, resident or business owner shall initiate an amendment to the zoning regulations by submitting an application in the form approved by the zoning administrator. (Ord. 710 § 35-34.4, 1996; 1991 code § 35-34.4)

18.125.040 Report – Notice and public hearing. [18.180.030] A. Report. The zoning administrator shall set a date, time and place for a public hearing and prepare a report to the planning commission on the proposed zoning map or zoning regulation amendment. The report shall describe the area or subject to be considered for change and, if warranted, propose alternative amendments.

B. Notice and public hearing. Notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendment shall be given in accord with PHMC Chapter 18.80. The planning commission may schedule a combined public hearing on multiple applications for zoning map or text amendments. (Ord. 710 § 35-34.6, 1996; 1991 code § 35-34.6)

18.125.050 Planning commission action. [18.180.040]
A. Public hearing. At the public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the report from the zoning administrator and shall hear evidence for and against the proposed amendment. The planning commission may continue the public hearing to a definite date and time without additional notice.

B. Recommendation to city council. Following the public hearing, the commission shall make specific findings as to whether the proposed zoning regulation or zoning map amendment is consistent with the policies of the general plan, the purposes of this title, and the limitations on residential rezoning prescribed in PHMC § 18.125.070, and shall recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial of the proposal as submitted or in modified form.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1771 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.125 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

C. Result of planning commission denial. A planning commission recommendation of denial of an application for a zoning map or zoning regulation amendment submitted by request terminates the proceedings, unless appealed.

However, when an application is combined with a general plan amendment, the planning commission recommendation of a denial shall be automatically referred to the city council for final action, and does not require an appeal. All other planning commission actions on proposed zoning map or zoning regulation amendments are automatically referred to the city council. (Ord. 949 § 24, 2021; Ord. 710 § 35-34.8, 1996; 1991 code § 35-34.8)

18.125.060 City council action. [18.180.040]
A. Hearing date and notice. The zoning administrator shall set a public hearing before the city council within 60 calendar days after the date of the planning commission recommendation. Notice of the hearing shall be provided as set forth in PHMC Chapter 18.80.

B. Public hearing. At the public hearing, the council shall hear evidence for and against the proposed amendment.

The council may continue the public hearing to a definite date and time without additional notice.

C. Council decision. After the public hearing, the council shall approve, modify, or reject the commission recommendation; provided, that a modification not previously considered by the commission shall be referred to the commission for a report before adoption of an ordinance amending the zoning regulations or map. Failure of the planning commission to report within 40 calendar days after referral, or such longer period as may be designated by the council, shall be deemed approval of the proposed modification. Before adopting an ordinance, the council shall make findings that the proposed regulation or map amendment is consistent with the policies of the general plan. (Ord. 710 § 35-34.10, 1996; 1991 code § 35-34.10)

18.125.070 Limitations on residential rezoning.1 [n/a]
The city of Pleasant Hill shall not rezone any area or property zoned for residential use to increase density or change land use unless the following conditions are met:

A. Development of the area or property to be rezoned shall not have growth-inducing impacts on existing residential neighborhoods;
B. Development of the area or property to be rezoned shall not have a significant traffic impact on existing residential neighborhoods; and
C. Development of the area or property to be rezoned shall not have a significant noise impact on existing residential neighborhoods. (Ord. 938 § 10, 2020; Ord. 710 § 35-34.12, 1996; 1991 code § 35-34.12)

18.125.080 Revisions of proposed amendments. [n/a]
A. Revisions. Before approving an amendment, the commission or the council may consider revisions which were not in the original proposal, such as: (1) revising the boundaries of an area proposed for a zoning map amendment; (2) considering revised zoning map designations; or (3) considering revised zoning regulation amendments.

B. Supplemental notice. Notice shall be given before a hearing on a revised amendment, unless the commission or council finds that the revised amendment will not have impacts greater than those that would result from the amendment in its original form. (Ord. 710 § 35-34.14, 1996; 1991 code § 35-34.14)

18.125.090 Resubmittal of application. [18.180.060]
Following denial of an application or request for an amendment to the zoning regulations or the zoning map, no new application or request for the same, or substantially the same, amendment shall be accepted within one year of the date of denial, unless the denial was made without prejudice. (Ord. 710 § 35-34.16, 1996; 1991 code § 35-34.16) 1 Editor’s note: This provision was adopted by an initiative measure passed by the voters of the City of Pleasant Hill on June 3, 1986, and was reaffirmed by the city council by the adoption of Ordinance 710, adopted on October 21, 1996.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1772 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.130 APPEALS AND CALLS FOR REVIEW

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Chapter 18.130 [18.185]

APPEALS AND CALLS FOR REVIEW
Sections:

18.130.010 Right to appeal – Call for review – Time limits. [18.185.020]

18.130.020 Initiation of appeal or call for review. [18.185.020]

18.130.030 Procedures for appeals and calls for review. [18.185.040]

18.130.040 Effective date. [18.185.050]

18.130.010 Right to appeal – Call for review – Time limits. [18.185.020] A. Appeal. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the planning commission. A decision of the zoning administrator regarding a temporary sign permit or conformance to master sign program may be appealed to the architectural review commission. A decision of the planning commission or architectural review commission may be appealed to the city council. Any interested person may appeal a decision.

B. Call for review. Any decision of the zoning administrator may be called up for review by a planning commissioner, architectural review commissioner, or city council member. Any decision of the planning commission or architectural review commission may be called up for review by a member of the city council.

C. Time limits. An appeal or call for review must be submitted in writing to the zoning administrator within 10 calendar days of the mailed notice of decision. (Ord. 710 § 35-35.1, 1996; 1991 code § 35-35.1)

18.130.020 Initiation of appeal or call for review. [18.185.020] A. Appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the zoning administrator on a form provided and shall state specific reasons for the appeal.

B. Call for review. A call for review shall be filed with the zoning administrator and shall state the reasons for such review.

C. Effect on decisions. A decision that is appealed or called up for review does not become effective until the appeal or review is resolved. (Ord. 710 § 35-35.2, 1996; 1991 code § 35-35.2)

18.130.030 Procedures for appeals and calls for review. [18.185.040] A. Hearing date. An appeal or call for review shall be scheduled for a hearing before the appellate body within 45 calendar days of the city’s receipt of the appeal or call, unless both applicant and appellant consent to a later date.

B. Notice and public hearing. An appeal or review hearing shall be a public hearing if the decision being appealed or reviewed requires a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in the manner required for the initial decision.

C. Plans and materials. At an appeal or review hearing the appellate body shall consider only the same application, plans, and related project materials that were the subject of the original decision.

D. Hearing. At the hearing, the appellate body shall review the record of the decision and hear testimony of the appellant, the applicant, and any other interested party.

E. Decision and notice. After the hearing, the appellate body shall affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision.

When a decision is modified or reversed, the appellate body shall state the specific reasons for modification or reversal.

A decision on appeal or review shall be rendered within 30 calendar days of the close of the hearing. The zoning administrator shall mail notice of a planning commission decision or architectural review commission decision. The city clerk shall mail notice of a city council decision. Such notice shall be mailed within five working days after the date of the decision to the applicant, the appellant, and any other party requesting such notice.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1773 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.130 APPEALS AND CALLS FOR REVIEW

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

F. Failure to act. Failure to act within the time limits prescribed in subsections A and E of this section shall be deemed affirmation of the original decision. (Ord. 846 § 12, 2010; Ord. 710 § 35-35.4, 1996; 1991 code § 35-35.4)

18.130.040 Effective date. [18.185.050]
A decision by the city council regarding an appeal or review becomes final on the date of the decision. A decision by the planning commission or architectural review commission regarding an appeal or review becomes final 10 calendar days after the date the notice of decision is mailed, unless appealed to the city council. (Ord. 710 § 35-35.6, 1996; 1991 code § 35-35.6)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1774 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.145 MEASUREMENTS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Chapter 18.135 [18.195]

ENFORCEMENT
Sections:

18.135.010 Public nuisance. [18.195.020]

18.135.020 Permits, licenses, certificates, and approvals. [18.195.030]

18.135.030 Enforcement responsibilities. [18.195.040]

18.135.040 Revocation or modification of discretionary permits. [18.195.050]

18.135.050 Hearing for other violations. [18.195.060]

18.135.060 Prosecution of violations – Penalties. [18.195.070]

18.135.070 Recording notice of violation. [18.195.080]

18.135.010 Public nuisance. [18.195.020]
A violation of any provision of this title is a public nuisance and may be abated pursuant to the provisions of PHMC Chapter 7.05 or any other remedy available by law. (Ord. 710 § 35-36.1, 1996; 1991 code § 35-36.1)

18.135.020 Permits, licenses, certificates, and approvals. [18.195.030] A permit, license, certificate, or approval granted in conflict with a provision of this title is void. (Ord. 710 § 35-

36.2, 1996; 1991 code § 35-36.2)

18.135.030 Enforcement responsibilities. [18.195.040]
The zoning administrator is responsible for enforcing the terms of discretionary permits and their conditions under this title. The chief building official is responsible for enforcing this title pertaining to the erection, construction, reconstruction, moving, conversion, alteration, or addition to any building or structure. All other officers of the city are responsible for enforcing provisions related to their areas of responsibility. (Ord. 710 § 35-36.3, 1996; 1991 code § 35-36.3)

18.135.040 Revocation or modification of discretionary permits. [18.195.050] A. Duties of zoning administrator. If the zoning administrator determines there are grounds for revocation or modification of a zoning permit, home occupation permit, use permit, variance, development plan approval, architectural review permit, or other discretionary approval authorized by this title, the zoning administrator shall schedule a revocation hearing before whichever person or body took final action on the permit.

B. Notice and public hearing. Notice shall be given in the same manner required for a public hearing to consider approval. If no notice is required for the permit, then none is required for the revocation or modification hearing, except that notice shall be mailed to the permittee at least 10 calendar days before the hearing. The contents of the notice shall be as prescribed by PHMC Chapter 18.80.

C. Hearing. The person or body conducting the hearing shall hear testimony of city staff, the permittee, and any other interested person. A public hearing may be continued to a specific date and time without additional public notice.

D. Required findings. The person or body conducting the hearing may revoke or modify the permit upon making one or more of the following findings:

1. The permit was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading information or misrepresentation;

2. The use or the user is in violation of a condition of approval of the permit, or other laws or regulations, including but not limited to the municipal code; or

3. The use is being conducted contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare.

E. Decision and notice. Within 10 calendar days of the conclusion of the hearing, the person or body that conducted the hearing shall render a decision and shall mail notice of the decision to the permittee and to any other person who has filed a written request for such notice.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1775 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.145 MEASUREMENTS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

F. Effective date – Appeals. A decision to revoke a discretionary permit becomes final 10 calendar days after the notice of the decision is mailed, unless appealed.

G. Other remedies. The city’s right to revoke a discretionary permit is in addition to any other remedy allowed by law. (Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011; Ord. 727 § 8, 1998; Ord. 710 § 35-36.4, 1996; 1991 code § 35-36.4)

18.135.050 Hearing for other violations. [18.195.060]
If the zoning administrator has reason to believe a violation of this title exists, the zoning administrator may direct the violator or property owner or both to appear before the zoning administrator to show cause why the city should not proceed with enforcement action. Notice of the possible violation and the time and place of the hearing shall be mailed to the property owner and any other interested person at least 10 calendar days before the hearing. The contents of the notice shall be as set forth in PHMC Chapter 18.80.

At the hearing, the zoning administrator shall consider the testimony of the city staff, the property owner and any other interested person. The zoning administrator may make a finding as to whether or not a violation of this title exists, and may recommend to the staff and to the property owner one or more courses of action. The zoning administrator may, in his or her discretion, refer the matter directly to the planning commission. (Ord. 710 § 35-

36.6, 1996; 1991 code § 35-36.6)

18.135.060 Prosecution of violations – Penalties. [18.195.070] A person who violates a provision of this title, including the failure to secure a zoning permit or comply with a condition of approval, is subject to the criminal penalties set forth in PHMC Chapter 1.30. Payment of a fine or penalty does not relieve a person from the responsibility of correcting the violation. (Amended during 2005 recodification; Ord. 710 § 35-36.8, 1996; 1991 code § 35-36.8)

18.135.070 Recording notice of violation. [18.195.080]
A. If property in the city exists in violation of this title, and the owner fails or refuses to correct the violation, the city may record a notice of violation against the affected property.

B. Before recording such a notice, the city shall do all of the following:

1. The zoning administrator shall send written notice to the current owner that a violation exists and request that the owner correct the violation within a specific, reasonable period of time. The zoning administrator may, in his or her discretion, send more than one notice and conduct an informal show cause hearing to discuss the violation with the owner.

2. If the owner fails or refuses to correct the violation within the time specified, the zoning administrator shall mail to the current owner by regular first class and by certified mail a notice of intention to record a notice of violation, describing the real property in detail, naming the owners, describing the violation in detail (including relevant municipal code sections), and stating that an opportunity will be given to the owner to present evidence. The notice shall specify a time, date and place for a planning commission hearing at which the owner may present evidence to the planning commission why the notice should not be recorded. The hearing shall take place no sooner than 30 calendar days and no later than 60 calendar days from the date of mailing.

3. The planning commission shall hear the matter on the date scheduled. If, after the owner and the city staff have presented evidence, the commission determines that there is no violation, the zoning administrator shall mail a clearance letter to the current owner. If the owner fails to appear, or the commission determines that there is a violation, the commission may, by resolution, direct the zoning administrator to record the notice of violation with the county recorder.

4. The notice of violation, when recorded, shall be deemed to be constructive notice of the violation to all successors in interest in the property, under California Civil Code sections 1213 and 1215.

5. If the owner corrects the violation after the notice has been recorded, and has notified the city in writing and consented to an inspection to confirm the correction, the zoning administrator shall record a release or cancellation of the notice of violation. (Ord. 710 § 35-36.10, 1996; 1991 code § 35-36.10) Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1776 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Title 18 PLANNING AND LAND USE

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Title 18

PLANNING AND LAND USE
Chapters:

Part 6. General Terms [Part 6]

18.140 Definitions [18.215]

18.145 Measurements [18.55.040]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1777 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Chapter 18.140 [18.215]

DEFINITIONS
Sections:

18.140.010 Definitions. [18.215]

18.140.010 Definitions. [18.215]
Acre, gross. A measure of total land area of any lot including future streets, parks, and other land dedications.

Acre, net. The gross area of a site excluding:

1. Land to be dedicated for required easements for vehicles and rights-of-way, either public or private;

2. Land determined to be hazardous and unbuildable;

3. Land to be dedicated for schools and parks or other facilities dedicated for public use.

Active frontages. Building frontages with occupied spaces that encourage engagement between the building tenants and the public realm. Active frontages allow visual or physical access to the active uses within the building from streets, sidewalks, and paseos.

Affordable housing cost. The cost to rent or purchase a house as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (Gov’t Code § 65915(d)(1).)
Affordable unit, for rent. Affordable rent (including a reasonable utility allowance) shall not exceed the following:

1. For very low-income households, the product of 30% times 50% of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit;

2. For low-income households whose gross incomes exceed the maximum income for very low-income households, the product of 30% times 60% of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit;

3. For moderate-income households, the product of 30% times 110% of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit. (Health and Saf. Code § 50053.) Affordable unit, for sale. Affordable housing cost may not exceed the following:

1. For very low-income households, the product of 30% times 50% of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit;

2. For low-income households whose gross incomes exceed the maximum income for very low-income households and do not exceed 70% of the area median income adjusted for family size, the product of 30% times 70% of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit;

3. For moderate-income households, not less than 28% of the gross income of the household, not exceeding the product of 35% times 110% of area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit. (Health and Saf.

Code § 50052.5(b).)
Affordable units. Living units that are required to be rented at affordable rents or available at affordable housing costs to specified households.

Animal, large domestic. An animal other than a rooster, a nondomestic animal or a small domestic animal as defined herein, and which is typically kept in a coop, corral, stable, or pen, including but not limited to equine (e.g., horses, donkeys, and llamas), bovine, porcine, and ratite (e.g., ostrich, emu and rhea) species, other hoofed animals (e.g., goats or sheep) and any variety of fowl other than hens, which are considered small domestic animals for purposes of this section.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1778 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Animal, nondomestic. A wild animal not customarily confined or cultivated by man for domestic or commercial purposes but kept as a pet or for display.

Animal, small domestic. A small animal of the type generally accepted as a pet, including dog, cat, rabbit, songbird, fish, and the like, but not including chicken, rooster, duck, goose, pea fowl, goat, sheep, pig, hog or the like.

Antenna. Any system of wires, poles, rods, panels, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency electromagnetic waves when such system is external and attached to the exterior of a structure or a pole.

Area median income. The area median income for Contra Costa County as published at Title 25, California Code of Regulations, section 6932.

Average percent of slope. The ratio between vertical and horizontal distances expressed in percent; the mathematical expression of which is based upon the formula described below:

S = (I x L x 100)/A
S = Average slope of ground in percent
I = Contoured interval in feet
L = Combined length in feet of all contours on parcel
A = Area of lot in square feet
Balcony. A platform that projects from the wall of a building, typically above the first level, and is surrounded by a rail, balustrade or parapet.

Base density. The lowest number of dwelling units on a particular parcel of land which is in conformance with the general plan and zoning.

Basement. The portion of a building that is completely below grade. If portion of a building story is above grade, it will not be considered a basement. A basement is not considered a Story when calculating “number of stories” for development regulation purposes.

Blockface. The properties abutting on one side of a street and lying between the two nearest intersecting or intercepting streets, or nearest intersecting or intercepting street, unsubdivided land, watercourse, or city boundary.

BLOCKFACE
Boarder. A person who rents a room within a living unit from a landlord.

Boardinghouse. A building where sleeping rooms are rented to three or more individuals where meals may or may not be provided. Boardinghouse includes the term rooming house.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1779 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Breezeway. A roofed, open-sided passageway connecting two structures, such as a house and a garage.

Building. Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls for the housing or enclosure of persons, animals, chattel, or property of any kind.

Building height. The vertical distance from the finished grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard roof, or from average grade to the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof.

Caretaker’s quarters. A dwelling unit on the site of a commercial, industrial, public, or semipublic use, occupied by a guard or caretaker.

Child care facility. A child day care facility other than a family day care home, including but not limited to infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school age child care centers. (Gov’t Code §§ 65915(i)(4), 65017.5(a)(1).)
Collection buildings. Buildings with a gross floor area of 225 square feet or less used for the deposit and storage of recyclables.

Commercial cannabis use. Commercial cannabis use means and includes the commercial cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transportation, wholesale or retail delivery, wholesale or retail sale of cannabis and cannabis products, or any combination of such activities, whether or not carried out for profit, and any other activity that requires a license, or may require a license in the future, pursuant to the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, California Business and Professions Code, Division 10, section 26000 et seq. Without limiting the foregoing, the term “commercial cannabis use” also includes a medical marijuana dispensary, a patient collective or patient cooperative operating under the Compassionate Use Act (Health & Safety Code § 11362.5) and/or the Medical Marijuana Program Act (Health & Safety Code § 11362.7 et seq.), as each may be amended; a nonprofit licensee under Business and Professions Code section 26070.5; and a cannabis cooperative association under Business and Professions Code section 26220 et seq.

Conditioned/habitable space for accessory structures. Areas of a structure that include living areas or areas including, but not limited to, heating, air conditioning, power, and plumbing. This area does not include areas such as garages, storage areas, patio covers and other landscape structures.

Condominium project. A housing development of two or more units, the interior space of which are individually owned, with the balance of the property owned by the owners of the individual units. See also Civil Code section 1351(f). (Gov’t Code § 65915(b)(4).)
Construction cost index. The Engineering News Record San Francisco Building Cost Index. If the index ceases to exist, the city manager shall submit another cost index which is in his or her judgment is the nearly equivalent to the original index as possible.

Consumer price index. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area or, if the index is discontinued, a successor index selected by the city manager.

Container or storage unit. A container or storage unit includes, but is not limited to, any of the following if 15 cubic yards or larger: a debris or trash box, a cargo or storage container, a construction or transport trailer (when detached from the truck trailer). A container or storage unit is not permanently attached to the ground.

A container or storage unit does not include an accessory structure as defined in this chapter, or a trash container storage unit placed by the disposal company licensed by the city, when that container is used for regular, weekly garbage pick-up.

Coverage, lot or site. The percentage of a site covered by a building, accessory structure, roof, soffit, trellis, and eave or overhang extending more than two and one-half feet from a wall, and by a deck or above ground pool more than 36 inches in height.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1780 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

LOT COVERAGE
Cultural resource. Improvements, buildings, structures, signs, features, sites, landscapes, trees or other objects of scientific, aesthetic, educational, cultural, architectural or historical significance to the citizens of the city, the Diablo Valley, the Northern California region or the nation which may be eligible for designation or designated and determined to be appropriate for historic preservation by the architectural review commission, or by the city council on appeal, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

Daylight plane. An inclined plane, beginning at a stated height above grade at a side or rear property line, and extending into the site at a stated upward angle to the horizontal, which may limit the height or horizontal extent of structures at any specific point on the site where the daylight plane is more restrictive than the height limit or the minimum yard applicable at such point on the site.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1781 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

DAYLIGHT PLANE
(The diagram is illustrative)
Deck. A platform, either freestanding or attached to a building, that is supported by pillars or posts (see also Balcony).

Density bonus. A density increase of at least 20%, unless a lesser percentage is elected by the applicant, over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density. (See PHMC § 18.20.150). See 2003 General Plan Glossary. (Gov’t Code §§ 65915(g)(1) and (d)(1), 65917.5(a)(2).)
Density bonus housing agreement. A recorded agreement between a developer and the city as described in PHMC § 18.20.150 to ensure that the requirements of that subsection are satisfied. The agreement, among other things, shall establish the number of target units, their size, location, terms and conditions of affordability, and production schedule. (See PHMC § 18.20.150.)
Density bonus units. Those residential units granted pursuant to the provisions of this title which exceed the otherwise allowable maximum residential density for the development site.

Detached, building or structure. A building or structure shall be considered detached from any other building or structure; provided, that the distance is a minimum of three feet from any wall or projection, measured at the closest point.

Development standard. Any site or construction condition that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution or regulation.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1782 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Driveway. A paved area on a lot necessary to provide direct access for vehicles between a street and either:

1. An area on a residential lot containing four or fewer parking spaces;

2. An aisle between spaces in a parking lot;

3. A loading berth; or

4. A refuse storage area.

Exterior architectural feature. The architectural element embodying style, design, general arrangement and components of all of the outer surfaces of an improvement including, but not limited to, the kind, color and texture of the building materials and the type and style of all windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement.

Family. One or more persons occupying premises and living as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding or lodging house, hotel, club, or similar dwelling for group use. A family shall not include a fraternal, religious, social, or business group. A family shall be deemed to include domestic employees.

Fence. A barrier made of wire, wood, metal, masonry, or other material used as a screen or enclosure for a yard, equipment or open space. It includes a wall, gate, or structure used as a fence. A retaining wall, freestanding (monument) sign, or landscape structure is not considered a fence except for that portion which is used as a fence.

Floor area, gross. The total area of all floors in a building as measured to the outside surface of exterior walls or to the centerline of common walls. It excludes any crawl space, area used exclusively for vehicle parking or loading, breezeway, attic without floor, and any open porch, deck, balcony or terrace.

Floor area, net. The total area of all floors in a building as measured to the outside surface of exterior walls or to the centerline of common walls. It excludes any crawl space, area used exclusively for vehicle parking or loading, breezeway, attic without floor, and an open porch, deck, balcony or terrace. It also excludes any corridors, hallways, stairways, elevator shafts at each floor level, service and mechanical equipment rooms, and basement or attic areas having a height of more than seven feet, and, in industrial areas, storage sheds with less than 150 square feet of space, bunkers, electrical substations, smoking shelters, instrument shelters and similar enclosures.

Floor area ratio (FAR). The gross floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by the lot area or site area.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1783 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

FLOOR AREA RATIO
(The diagram is illustrative)
For-sale project. A residential project, or portion thereof, which is intended to be sold to an owner-occupant upon completion.

Frontage, building. The frontage of a building is the maximum horizontal dimension of that side of a building abutting on or generally parallel to the front lot line or, in the case of a corner building, the combined maximum horizontal dimensions of the sides of the building abutting or generally parallel to the front lot line and the corner side line.

Frontage (building). The building facade facing a street or public open space.

Frontage (site). The width of the site along a street or public open space.

Frontage, street. The street frontage is the length of the front lot line or, in the case of a corner lot, the front lot line plus the corner side lot line.

Frontage (street). The property line or part of the site facing a street or public open space.

General plan. The city of Pleasant Hill general plan, as amended.

Grade, average. The average level on the surface defined as the shortest distance between finished grade at the highest and lowest sides of a structure.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1784 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Grade, existing. The level of the ground or pavement at a stated location as it exists prior to disturbance in preparation for a project regulated by this chapter.

Grade, finished. The lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line or, when the property line is more than five feet from the building, between the building and a line five feet from the building.

Grade, street. The top of the curb, or the top of the edge of the pavement or traveled way where no curb exists.

Height. The vertical dimension measured from finished grade, unless otherwise specified.

Historic district. Any area containing a concentration of improvements which have a special character, historical interest or aesthetic value, which possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, or which represent one or more architectural periods or styles typical of the history of the city, and that has been designated an historic district.

Housing development. Construction projects consisting of five or more residential units, including single-family and multifamily units, for sale or for rent. For the purposes of PHMC § 18.20.150, housing development also includes a subdivision, planned unit development, or condominium project consisting of five or more residential units or unimproved residential lots, the substantial rehabilitation and conversion of an existing commercial building to residential use, and the substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, where the rehabilitation or conversion would create a net increase of at least five residential units. (Gov’t Code § 65915(j) and (g)(1).) Illumination, direct. Illumination by means of light that travels directly from its source to the viewer’s eye.

Illumination, indirect. Illumination by means only of light cast upon an opaque surface from a concealed source.

Incentive or concession. Such regulatory incentives or concessions as listed in PHMC § 18.20.150.B.11. (Gov’t Code § 65915(1).)
Inclusionary unit. A dwelling unit reserved for occupancy by a low- or very low-income household (as defined by Health and Saf. Code §§ 50079.5 and 50105) with a new residential development.

Kitchen. Any room or part of a room which is designed, built, used, or intended to be used for food preparation and dishwashing; but not including a bar, butler’s pantry or similar room adjacent to or connected with a kitchen.

Landscape. To plant and maintain some combination of trees, ground cover, shrubs, vines, flowers or lawn.

Required landscaping may include natural features such as existing or imported rock and structural features including fountains, pools, art work, screens, walls, fences or benches. A landscaped area may also include a walkway or concrete plaza if it is an integral part of the elements of landscaping described above. Plants on rooftops, porches, or in boxes attached to buildings are not considered landscaping.

Landscaping, interior. A landscaped area or areas within the shortest circumferential line defining the perimeter or exterior boundary of the parking or loading area, or similar paved area, excluding driveways or walkways providing access to the facility (as applied to parking and loading facilities or to similar paved areas).

Landscaping, perimeter. A landscaped area adjoining and outside the shortest circumferential line defining the exterior boundary of a parking or loading area, or similar paved area, excluding driveways or walkways providing access to the facility (as applied to parking and loading facilities or to similar paved areas).

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1785 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

LANDSCAPING: INTERIOR/EXTERIOR
Limited inclusionary unit. An additional dwelling unit constructed on a single-family residential lot, which meets the standards for accessory dwelling units.

Living unit. One or more rooms designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with cooking, sleeping and bathroom facilities.

Lot. A site or parcel of land.

Lot area. The horizontal area within the property lines excluding public-access corridors, vehicular easements, and areas to be included in future street rights-of-way as established by easement, dedication, or ordinance.

Lot depth. The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line, or to the most distant point on any other lot line where there is no rear lot line.

Lot line types.

Front lot line. A lot line that adjoins the front yard of a lot. The front lot line of a corner lot is the shortest street line. If the street lines are the same length, any one may be considered the front lot line. (Reference: PHMC §

18.20.040.B.)
Interior lot line. A lot line not abutting a street.

Rear lot line. A lot line, not a front lot line, that is parallel or approximately parallel to the front lot line. Where no lot line is within 45 degrees of being parallel to the front lot line, a line 10 feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum possible distance from the front lot line shall be deemed the rear lot line for the purpose of measuring rear yard depth.

Side lot line. A lot line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line.

Street lot line. A lot line abutting a street.

Lot types.

Corner lot. A lot bounded by two or more adjacent street lines that have an angle of intersection of not more than 135 degrees on a street or private driveway serving two or more additional properties or dwelling units (not counting accessory dwelling units). The front yard of a corner lot shall adjoin the shortest street property line; provided, that where street property lines are substantially the same length, the zoning administrator shall determine the location of the front yard based on existing or proposed access to the principal building on the lot. (Reference: PHMC §

18.20.040.C.)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1786 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Double-frontage lot. An interior lot having frontage on more than one street. Each frontage from which access is permitted shall be deemed a front lot line.

Interior lot. A lot other than a corner lot.

Key lot. A key lot is an interior lot whose front yard abuts the rear yard of a corner lot.

Lot width. The average horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth from the required front yard setback and from the required rear yard setback or from the rearmost point of the lot depth in cases where there is no rear lot line. (See lot depth, lot width diagram.)

LOT DEPTH AND WIDTH
(The diagram is illustrative)
Low-income household. A household whose income does not exceed the low-income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50079.5.

Lower income household. A lower income household as defined in Civil Code sections 51.3 and 51.12. (Gov’t Code §§ 65915(b)(1) and (c)(1) and Health and Saf. Code § 50079.5.) Market rate units. New living units in residential projects which are not affordable units under PHMC § 18.20.150.

Maximum allowable residential density. The maximum number of residential units permitted by the city’s zoning ordinance on the date the application is deemed complete. (Gov’t Code § 65915(o)(2).) Medical marijuana dispensary. As used herein the term medical marijuana dispensary or dispensary means any facility or location where medical marijuana is made available to and/or distributed by or to two or more persons in the following categories: a primary caregiver, a qualified patient, or a person with an identification card, in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 et seq. A medical marijuana dispensary shall not include the following uses, as long as the location of such uses are otherwise regulated by this code or applicable law: a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1787 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024. residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, as long as any such use complies strictly with applicable law including, but not limited to, Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 et seq. and the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, including but not limited to the city’s zoning ordinance.

Mixed-use. Development projects where a variety of uses such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated project.

Mobile recycling unit. An automobile, truck, trailer, or van, licensed by the State Department of Motor Vehicles, which is used for the collection of recyclable materials, including the bins, boxes or containers transported by trucks, vans or trailers and used for the collection of recyclable materials.

Moderate-income household. A household with an annual income between the lower income eligibility limit (usually 80% of the area median family income) and 120% of area median income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. (Gov’t Code § 65915(c)(2), Health and Saf.

Code § 50093.)
Natural feature. Any tree, plant life, water feature, or rock outcropping.

Nonconforming sign, legal. A sign, outdoor advertising structure, or display of any character that was lawfully erected or displayed, but that does not conform with currently applicable requirements prescribed for the district in which it is located.

Nonconforming structure, legal. A structure that was lawfully erected but which does not conform with the currently applicable requirements and standards for yard spaces, height of structures, or distances between structures prescribed in the regulations for the district in which the structure is located.

Nonconforming use, legal. A use of a structure of land that was lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with currently applicable use regulations for the district in which it is located.

Nonrestricted unit. All units within a housing development excluding the target units.

Off-street loading facilities. A site or portion of a site devoted to the loading or unloading of motor vehicles or trailers, including loading berths, aisles, access drives, and landscaped areas.

Open space types.

Private open space. An open area outside of a building adjoining and directly accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests.

Shared open space. An open area within a residential development reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the development and their guests.

Yard. An open space on the same site as a structure, unoccupied and unobstructed by structures from the ground upward except as otherwise provided in this chapter, including a front yard, side yard, corner side yard, or rear yard.

Ordinary maintenance and repair. Any work, for which a building permit is not required by law, where the purpose and effect of such work is to correct any deterioration of or damage to a structure or any part thereof and to restore the same to its condition prior to the occurrence of such deterioration or damage.

Outdoor storage. Storage outside of a building of material not intended for immediate sale or exhibition.

Penthouse equipment. Any structure located on the roof of a building which encloses mechanical equipment.

Permitted. Allowed without a requirement for approval of a conditional use permit or temporary use permit.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1788 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Planned development. A development (other than a community apartment project, a condominium project, or a stock cooperative) having either or both of the following features:

1. The common area is owned either by an association or in common by the owners of the separate interests who possess appurtenant rights to the beneficial use and enjoyment of the common area.

2. A power exists in the association to enforce an obligation of an owner of a separate interest with respect to the beneficial use and enjoyment of the common area by means of an assessment which may become a lien upon the separate interests in accordance with Civil Code section 1367 or 1367.1. (Gov’t Code § 65915(b)(4); Civil Code § 1351(k).)
Porch. A covered platform at an entrance to a dwelling, or an open or enclosed gallery or room, which is not heated or cooled and is attached to the outside of a building.

Preexisting. In existence prior to the effective date of this chapter.

Primary street. A main thoroughfare, including “arterial” through routes and mixed-use, multifunctional streets (at least in part along their length), providing access to properties as well as other amenities.

Processing facility. A building or enclosed space used for the collection and processing of recyclable material, and/or used motor oil, by such means as flattening, mechanical sorting, compacting, baling, shredding, grinding, crushing and cleaning.

1. A light-processing facility occupies less than 45,000 square feet and includes equipment for baling, briquetting, crushing, compacting, grinding, shredding and sorting of source-separated recyclable materials, except ferrous metals other than food and beverage containers, and repairing of reusable materials.

2. A heavy-processing facility is any processing facility other than a light-processing facility.

Project. Any proposal for new or changed use, or for new construction, alteration, or enlargement of any structure, that is subject to the provisions of this chapter.

Project site. The specific location on which a development, structure, or building is proposed.

Published standards. The standards for specific income levels for Contra Costa County, as published under Title 25, California Code of Regulations, section 6932.

Qualifying resident. Senior citizens or other persons eligible to reside in a senior citizen housing development. (Civil Code §§ 51.3 and 51.12.)
Recyclable material. Reusable material including, but not limited to, metals, glass, plastic and paper which are intended for reuse, remanufacture, or reconstitution for the purpose of using the altered form. Recyclable material does not include refuse or hazardous materials, but may include used motor oil.

Recycling facility. A center for the collection and/or processing of recyclable materials.

Rehabilitation. The act or process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural and cultural values.

Rental projects. A residential project, or portion of it, which is intended to be rented to tenants upon completion.

Resale control. A resale restriction placed on inclusionary units by which the price of such units and income of the purchaser will be restricted in order to assure affordability and occupancy by lower and very low-income households.

Residential project. Any planned district, subdivision map, conditional use permit or other discretionary city land use approval which authorizes five or more living units or residential lots, or living units and residential lots which Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1789 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024. total five or more in combination. In order to prevent evasion of the provisions of this chapter, contemporaneous construction of five or more living units on a lot, or on contiguous lots for which there is evidence of common ownership or control, even though not covered by the same city land use approval, shall also be considered a residential project. Construction shall be considered contemporaneous for all units which do not have completed final inspections for occupancy and which have outstanding, at any one time, any one or more of the following:
planned district, subdivision map, conditional use permit or other discretionary city land use approvals, or building permits, or applications for such an approval or permits.

Residential structure types.

Accessory dwelling unit. An attached or detached dwelling unit that is located on a single lot with another, primary dwelling unit and provides complete facilities for independent living for one or more persons. These facilities include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation.

Attached single-family dwelling. A dwelling unit on an individual lot that has at least one common wall with one or more other dwelling units on separate lots.

Dwelling. A building designed exclusively for residential occupancy, including single-family, duplex, and multifamily, but not including a hotel, motel, or boardinghouse.

Dwelling unit. One or more habitable rooms designed for occupancy by only one family for living and sleeping purposes, and having a kitchen.

Multifamily dwelling. A building used and designed as a residence for two or more families living independently of each other with individual entrances, bathrooms, kitchens and living areas.

Single-family dwelling. A building designed exclusively for occupancy by one family.

Reverse vending machine. An automated mechanical device that accepts at least one or more types of empty beverage containers including aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles, and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip. A reverse vending machine may sort and process containers mechanically; provided, that the entire process is enclosed within the machine.

1. A single-feed revenue vending machine is designed to accept individual containers one at a time.

2. A bulk reverse vending machine is designed to accept more than one container at a time and to compute the refund or credit due on the basis of weight.

Room, habitable. A room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Housing Code for its intended use (e.g., sleeping, living, cooking, or dining), excluding such enclosed places as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, garages, and similar spaces.

Senior citizen housing development. A housing development as defined in California Civil Code section

51.3(b)(4). (Gov’t Code § 65915(b)(3).)
Setback line. A line within a lot parallel to a corresponding lot line, which is the boundary of any specified front, side, corner side or rear yard, or a line otherwise established to govern the location of buildings, structures or uses.

Where no minimum front, side, corner side or rear yards are specified, the setback line shall be coterminous with the corresponding lot line.

Shopping center. A unified group of retail businesses and service uses on a single site with common parking facilities. A shopping center may include pads for future buildings.

Sign. Any identification, description, illustration, or device, illuminated or nonilluminated, which is visible to the general public and directs attention to a product, service, place, activity, person, institution, business or solicitation, Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1790 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024. including any permanently installed or situated merchandise; or any emblem, painting, flag, banner, pennant, or placard designed to advertise, identify, or convey information.

Sign types.

Animated sign. Any sign which uses mechanical or electrical movement or change of lighting, either natural or artificial, to depict action or to create a special effect or scene.

Banner. Any sign of lightweight fabric or similar material that is mounted to a pole or a building at one or more edges.

Business identification sign. A sign that serves to identify only the name and address of the premises, business, building or portion of building upon which it is located and includes no other advertising such as product lists, phone numbers and hours of operation. Such a sign may include a logo or business symbol.

Commercial sign. A sign that is intended to attract attention to a commercial or industrial business, occupancy, product, good, service or other commercial or industrial activity for a commercial or industrial purpose.

Directional or informational sign. Any sign erected for the sole purpose of indicating the route to, direction of or location of a given goal, or which provides regulatory or service information of a nonadvertising character.

Directional and informational signs include but are not limited to: signs that denote the route to any city, community facility, historic place, or hospital; signs directing and regulating traffic; signs directing visitors to tourist-oriented businesses; notices of any utility or transmission company necessary for the direction or safety of the public; and signs, notices or symbols as to the time and place of civic meetings.

Directory sign. A pedestrian-oriented sign which identifies or lists the names and locations of tenants at a multitenant site.

Electronic readerboard. A changeable, moving message sign consisting of a matrix of lamps, light emitting diodes (LEDs), or similar devices which are computer-controlled.

Flag. Any fabric, banner, or bunting containing distinctive colors, patterns, or design, used as a symbol.

Flashing sign. An illuminated sign which exhibits changing light or color effect by blinking or any other such means so as to provide a nonconstant illumination.

Freestanding sign. A sign which is self-supporting in a fixed location and not attached to a building. It includes a sign connected or attached to a sign structure, fence, pole, wall, tree or other vegetation and which is not an integral part of a building.

Grand opening sign. A sign used by newly established businesses to inform the public of their location and services.

Incidental sign. A small sign less than one square foot pertaining to goods, products, services or facilities that are available on the premises where the sign occurs and intended primarily for the convenience of the public.

Logo. A trademark or company name symbol.

Master sign program. A coordinated sign plan which includes details of all signs (not including exempt or temporary signs) which are or will be placed on a site, including master identification, individual business and directory signs.

Multiple-story office sign. A wall sign used to identify an office building with three or more above-ground levels.

Neon or other gas tube illumination. Illumination affected by a light source consisting of a neon or other gas tube which is bent to form letters, symbols or other shapes.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1791 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Noncommercial sign. A sign that does not name, advertise or call attention to a commercial or industrial business, commodity, product, good, service or other commercial or industrial activity for a commercial or industrial purpose.

Off-premises sign. An outdoor advertising sign advertising a business, product or service not offered on the premises where the sign is located.

Open house sign. A temporary portable sign providing direction to residential real property during the period it is on public display for purposes of sale or lease.

Panel sign. A wall sign with a background panel integrated into the sign. The background panel is typically treated with paint, tile, metal, wood, mosaic, decorative stone or similar materials to complement the sign design.

Portable sign. A sign not permanently attached to the ground or other permanent structure, or a sign designed to be transported, including, but not limited to, signs with wheels, A-frames, H-frames, menu and sandwich board signs, balloons used as signs, and umbrellas used for advertising.

Projecting sign. A sign which is either suspended from an overhang, canopy, or awning, or is suspended from a mounting attached directly to the building wall, and hangs perpendicular to the building wall (also known as a blade sign or shingle sign).

Real estate sign. Any temporary sign pertaining to the sale, exchange, lease or rental of buildings or real property.

Roof sign. A sign installed on a roof or projecting above the eave of a building or mounted on an arcade or parapet.

Subdivision directional sign. A sign providing direction to a land development project within the county pursuant to this chapter.

Temporary sign. A sign with commercial or noncommercial text which is intended to be displayed for a limited time. Temporary signs shall include banners or light, rigid material which is not affixed in a permanent manner to the ground or to any structure. Awning signs shall not be considered temporary signs.

Theater/cinema sign. A sign, such as a marquee, designed for a theater or cinema, with changeable letters, brighter lights, or other attention-getting features.

Time/temperature sign. An electronic or mechanical device which shows time and/or temperature, but contains no business identification or advertising. The surface area of the time/temperature display shall be included in the total aggregate sign area of the business.

Wall sign. A sign attached directly to an exterior wall of a building or dependent upon a building for support with the exposed face of the sign located in a place substantially parallel to such exterior building wall to which the sign is attached or supported by. An overhang, attached framework, or other substantial architectural appurtenance may be considered an extension of the building wall.

Window sign. A sign attached to, suspended or placed within five feet behind, placed or painted upon, the window or glass door of a building which is intended for viewing from the exterior of such building.

Site. A lot, or group of contiguous lots not divided by a street, other right-of-way, or city limit, and under single ownership or unified control.

Specific plan. A plan for a defined area that is consistent with the general plan and with the provisions of the California Government Code authorizing specific plans.

Stepback. A step-like recession in the profile of a multistory building. A stepback requires the building to take a step back from the street for every increase in height of the structure. Stepbacks can also be a design technique to reduce the visual impact of tall buildings.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1792 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Story. The portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor next above. The topmost story is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling of the roof above.

Story, half. A half-story is when the finished floor level directly above a useable or unused underfloor space is six feet or less above finished grade, as defined herein for 50% or less than the total building perimeter. If the at-grade story is more than 12 feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such space shall be considered a story. When not starting at the surrounding finished grade, any story six feet or less is a half-story.

Structure. Anything constructed or erected that requires a location on the ground, including a building, a deck, or a swimming pool, but not including a fence or a wall used as a fence, if the height does not exceed eight feet, or access drives or walks.

Structure, accessory. An accessory structure is a structure placed on a site, other than the principal, permanent residential structure. An accessory structure must be located on a site with an existing or proposed primary structure.

Temporary containers or storage units regulated by PHMC § 18.20.140, fences or walls eight feet or less in height, decks attached to the principal permanent residential structure, freestanding decks 18 inches or less in height above ground, in-ground pools, and permanent basketball hoops shall not be considered accessory structures.

Swimming pools and hot tubs. Water-filled enclosures having a depth of 18 inches or more used for swimming or recreation.

Target unit. A dwelling unit within a housing development which will be reserved for sale or rent to, and is made available at an affordable rent or affordable ownership cost to, very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, or is a unit in a senior citizen housing development.

Very low-income household. A household whose income does not exceed the very low-income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 50105. (Gov’t Code §§ 65915(b)(2) and (c)(1).

Yard types.

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

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

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

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

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1793 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.140 DEFINITIONS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

YARD TYPES
(Ord. 967 § 10, 2024; Ord. 966 § 6, 2023; Ord. 964 § 23, 2023; Ord. 949 §§ 25 – 29, 2021; Ord. 934 § 12, 2019; Ord. 931 § 6, 2019; Ord. 928 § 2, 2019; Ord. 915 § 13, 2017; Ord. 906 § 15, 2016; Ord. 903 § 3, 2016; Ord. 890 § 34, 2015; Ord. 870 § 1, 2012; Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh.

A), 2011; Ord. 854 § 4, 2011; Ord. 819 § 6, 2007; Ord. 804 § 2, 2005; Ord. 800 § 3, 2005; Ord. 791 § 2, 2004; Ord. 768 § 3, 2003; Ord. 757 § 5, 2001; Ord. 745 § 8, 2000; Ord. 710 § 35-40, 1996; 1991 code § 35-40)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1794 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.145 MEASUREMENTS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

Chapter 18.145 [18.55]

MEASUREMENTS
Sections:

18.145.010 Purpose. . [18.55.040]

18.145.020 Fractions. [18.55.040]

18.145.030 Measuring distances. [18.55.040]

18.145.040 Measuring distances on maps. [18.55.040]

18.145.050 Measuring height. [18.55.040]

18.145.060 Measuring a radius. [18.55.040]

18.145.010 Purpose. [18.55.040]
This chapter explains how various measurements referenced in this zoning ordinance are to be calculated. (Ord. 710 § 35-42.1, 1996; 1991 code § 35-42.1)

18.145.020 Fractions. [18.55.040]
When calculations result in fractions the results will be rounded as follows:

A. Minimum requirements. When a regulation is expressed in terms of a minimum requirement, any fractional result will be rounded up to the next consecutive whole number. For example, if a minimum requirement of one tree for every 30 feet is applied to a 50-foot strip, the resulting fraction of 1.37 is rounded up to two required trees.

B. Maximum limits. When a regulation is expressed in terms of maximum limits, any fractional result will be rounded down to the next lower whole number. For example, if a maximum limit of one dwelling unit for every 2,500 square feet in the MRL district is applied to a 12,000 square foot site, the resulting fraction of 4.8 is rounded down to four allowed dwelling units. (Ord. 710 § 35-42.2, 1996; 1991 code § 35-42.2)

18.145.030 Measuring distances. [18.55.040]
A. Distances are measured horizontally. When determining distances for setbacks and structure dimensions, all distances are measured along a horizontal plane from the appropriate line, edge of building, structure, storage area, parking area, or other object. These distances are not measured by following the topography of the land. See Figure M-1.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1795 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.145 MEASUREMENTS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

HORIZONTAL MEASUREMENT
Figure M-1
B. Measurements are shortest distance. When measuring a required distance, such as the minimum distance between a structure and a lot line, the measurement is made at the closest or shortest distance between the two objects. See Figure M-2. Exceptions are stated in subsections C, D and E of this section.

CLOSEST DISTANCE
Figure M-2
C. Measurement of vehicle stacking or travel areas. Measurement of a minimum travel distance for vehicles, such as garage entrance setbacks and stacking lane distances, are measured down the center of the vehicle travel area. For example, curving driveways and travel lanes are measured along the arc of the driveway or traffic lane. See Figure M-3.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1796 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.145 MEASUREMENTS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

MEASURING VEHICLE STACKING AREAS
Figure M-3
D. Measurements involving a structure. Measurements involving a structure are made to the closest wall of the structure. Chimneys, eaves, and bay windows (except in a side yard) up to 12 feet in length are not included in the measurement. Other features, such as covered porches and entrances, are included in the measurement. See PHMC §

18.50.020, Building projections into yards and courts, and the base zoning district regulations in Part 2.

E. Underground structures. Structures or portions of structures that are entirely underground are not included in measuring required distances. See Figure M-4.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1797 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.145 MEASUREMENTS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES
Figure M-4
(Ord. 710 § 35-42.4, 1996; 1991 code § 35-42.4)

18.145.040 Measuring distances on maps. [18.55.040]
Zone boundaries that are shown crossing lots are usually based on a topographic feature or a set measurement from a property line or topographic feature, such as the top of slope, middle of stream, 25 feet from top of bank, or 340 feet from property line. When zone boundaries are shown crossing properties with no clear indication of the basis for the line, exact distances are to be determined by scaling the distances from the zoning map, using the center of the zoning line on the map. (Ord. 710 § 35-42.6, 1996; 1991 code § 35-42.6)

18.145.050 Measuring height. [18.55.040]
A. Measuring building height. Height of buildings is measured as provided in the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the city. The height of buildings is the vertical distance above the base point described in subsection A.1 or A.2 of this section. The base point used is the method that yields the greater height of building. For a flat roof, the measurement is made to the top of the parapet, or if there is no parapet, to the highest point of the roof (see Schedules 18.20.030 and 18.25.030 for allowed number of stories).

The measurement is made to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof that has a roof pitch of 12 in 12 or less. For pitched or hipped roofs with a pitch steeper than 12 in 12, the measurement is to the highest point. For other roof shapes such as domed, vaulted, or pyramidal shapes, the measurement is to the highest point. See Figure M-5. The height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1798 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.145 MEASUREMENTS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

MEASURING HEIGHT – ROOF TYPES
Figure M-5

1. Base point 1. Base point 1 is the elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a fivefoot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than five feet above lowest grade. See Figure M-6.

MEASURING HEIGHT
Figure M-6

2. Base point 2. Base point 2 is the elevation that is five feet higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground surface described in subsection A.1 of this section is more than five feet above lowest grade.

B. Measuring height of other structures. The height of other structures such as fences is the vertical distance from the ground level immediately under the structure to the top of a structure. Special measurement provisions are also provided below.

1. Measuring height of wall or fences on slopes. Walls or fences located on sloping ground are measured from the ground level on the higher side of the wall or fence for the purpose of determining compliance with maximum allowable height requirements.

2. Measuring height of retaining walls and fences. Retaining walls, and fences on top of retaining walls, are measured as a combined height of a retaining wall, fence, wall or screen from the ground level on the higher side of the combined wall, fence or screen for the purpose of determining compliance with maximum allowable height requirements.

3. Measuring height of decks. Deck height is determined by measuring from the ground to the top of the floor of the deck.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1799 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill Municipal Code
Chapter 18.145 MEASUREMENTS

The Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 967, passed January 8, 2024.

4. Measuring height of accessory structures. The height of accessory structures such as sheds, detached garages, pergolas and trellises is the vertical distance from the ground level immediately under the structure to the highest point at the top of a structure. (Ord. 856 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011; Ord. 710 § 35-42.8, 1996; 1991 code § 35-

42.8)

18.145.060 Measuring a radius. [18.55.040]
The measured specified distance from a particular project shall be the required distance in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from all points along the lot line of the subject project. (Ord. 710 § 35-

42.12, 1996; 1991 code § 35-42.12)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1800 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1801 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1802 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1803 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1804 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 1 APN Proposed Zoning District
125091049 Single-Family Residential (R-7)
125283002 Single-Family Residential (R-7)
125283003 Single-Family Residential (R-7)
125283013 Single-Family Residential (R-7)
125292001 Single-Family Residential (R-7)
125292002 Single-Family Residential (R-7)
125292003 Single-Family Residential (R-7)
127013020 Open Space (OS)
127013024 Open Space (OS)
127025022 Open Space (OS)
127025023 Open Space (OS)
127025024 Open Space (OS)
127040014 Mixed-Use (MX)
127040016 Open Space (OS)
127040019 Mixed-Use (MX)
127040020 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050029 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050030 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050031 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050033 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050040 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050053 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050054 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050057 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050058 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050059 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050060 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050064 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050065 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050067 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050068 Mixed-Use (MX)
127050070 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061010 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061012 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061013 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061014 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061015 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061022 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061023 Mixed-Use (MX)
127061026 Mixed-Use (MX)
127062001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127062002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127062003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127062004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127062005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127062006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127062007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127062008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127062009 Mixed-Use (MX)
Parcels Proposed to be Rezoned
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1805 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 2 127063001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127063002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127063003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127063004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127063005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127063006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127071001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127071002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127071003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127071004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127071005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127071007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127071008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072010 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072011 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072012 Mixed-Use (MX)
127072013 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073010 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073011 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073012 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073013 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073014 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073015 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073017 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073018 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073020 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073021 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073023 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073024 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073025 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073027 Mixed-Use (MX)
127073028 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081010 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081011 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081012 Mixed-Use (MX)
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1806 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 3 127081013 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081014 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081015 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081016 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081017 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081018 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081019 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081020 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081021 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081022 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081043 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081046 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081047 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081048 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081049 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081050 Mixed-Use (MX)
127081051 Mixed-Use (MX)
127082001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083010 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083011 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083012 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083013 Mixed-Use (MX)
127083014 Mixed-Use (MX)
127084001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091010 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091011 Mixed-Use (MX)
127091012 Mixed-Use (MX)
127092002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127092003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127092005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127092006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093006 Mixed-Use (MX)
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1807 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 4 127093007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093010 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093011 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093012 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093013 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093014 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093015 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093016 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093017 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093018 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093019 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093020 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093021 Mixed-Use (MX)
127093022 Mixed-Use (MX)
127094001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127094002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127094003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127094004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127094005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127094006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127094007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127094008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127094009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095010 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095011 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095012 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095013 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095014 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095015 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095016 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095017 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095018 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095019 Mixed-Use (MX)
127095020 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101010 Mixed-Use (MX)
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1808 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 5 127101011 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101012 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101013 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101014 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101015 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101016 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101017 Mixed-Use (MX)
127101018 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102001 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102007 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102008 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102009 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102010 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102011 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102012 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102013 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102014 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102015 Mixed-Use (MX)
127102017 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103002 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103003 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103004 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103005 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103006 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103012 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103013 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103014 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103015 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103016 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103017 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103018 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103019 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103020 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103021 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103022 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103023 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103024 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103025 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103030 Mixed-Use (MX)
127103032 Mixed-Use (MX)
127180052 Open Space (OS)
127180054 Open Space (OS)
127180056 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
127190002 Open Space (OS)
127190003 Open Space (OS)
127190004 Open Space (OS)
127210018 Open Space (OS)
127210019 Open Space (OS)
127210020 Open Space (OS)
127210022 Very High Density Mixed-Use (MX-VHD)
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1809 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 6 127210027 Very High Density Mixed-Use (MX-VHD)
127210036 Very High Density Mixed-Use (MX-VHD)
127210037 Very High Density Mixed-Use (MX-VHD)
127210038 Open Space (OS)
147050043 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
147050044 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
148010027 Mixed-Use (MX)
148010029 High Density Multi-Family Residential (MFH)
148010030 Mixed-Use (MX)
148020009 Open Space (OS)
149010081 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
149040014 Open Space (OS)
149100031 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149100032 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149100042 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149100043 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149100062 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149100064 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149100072 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149110070 High Density Multi-Family Residential (MFH)
149110074 High Density Multi-Family Residential (MFH)
149110084 High Density Multi-Family Residential (MFH)
149130002 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130003 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130004 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130005 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130006 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130008 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130009 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130010 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130011 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130012 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130013 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130016 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130017 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130018 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130019 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130020 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130021 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130022 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130023 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130024 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130025 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130026 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130028 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130029 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130030 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130031 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149130032 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149230009 Parks and Recreation (REC)
149260020 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
149260021 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
149260022 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
149260023 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
149260058 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1810 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 7 149260059 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 149260060 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 149260061 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 149260062 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 149260063 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 149260064 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 149270006 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
149270008 Professional and Administrative Office (PAO)
149270037 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
149270038 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
149270039 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
149284007 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
149360001 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360002 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360003 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360004 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360005 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360006 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360007 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360008 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360009 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360010 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360011 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360012 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360013 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360014 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360015 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360016 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360017 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360018 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360019 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360020 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360021 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360022 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360023 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360024 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360025 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360026 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149360027 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 150101012 Mixed-Use (MX)
150102012 Mixed-Use (MX)
150102013 Mixed-Use (MX)
150102014 Mixed-Use (MX)
150103008 Mixed-Use (MX)
150103013 Mixed-Use (MX)
150103016 Mixed-Use (MX)
150121002 Mixed-Use (MX)
150123027 Mixed-Use (MX)
150125011 Mixed-Use (MX)
150131048 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150131049 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150131050 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150131051 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150131052 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150131053 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1811 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 8 150131054 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150131055 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150132040 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150132041 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150132042 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150132043 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150132044 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150132045 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150132046 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150141006 Parks and Recreation (REC)
150141007 Parks and Recreation (REC)
150161004 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150161017 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150161018 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150161024 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150161025 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150161026 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150161027 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150161028 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150161029 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150162002 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150162035 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150162036 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150162037 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150162038 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150163015 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150163016 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150164016 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150170001 Parks and Recreation (REC)
150170006 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150170013 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150170063 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150170064 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
150170066 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152060021 Mangini Delu Residential (RMD)
152060023 Mangini Delu Residential (RMD)
152060024 Mangini Delu Residential (RMD)
152060025 Mangini Delu Residential (RMD)
152060026 Mangini Delu Residential (RMD)
152070001 Open Space (OS)
152070013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152070015 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152070053 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152131019 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152131020 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152131021 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152131022 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152132049 High Density Mixed-Use (MX-HD)
152140007 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152140009 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152140010 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152140011 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152140017 Parks and Recreation (REC)
152140035 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152140036 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1812 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 9 152140037 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152140038 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152140039 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152140040 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152140041 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152140042 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152181008 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152181046 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152182011 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152182013 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
152280001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280002 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280003 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280004 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280005 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280006 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280007 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280008 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280009 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280010 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280014 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280015 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280016 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280017 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280018 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280019 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280020 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280021 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280022 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280023 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280024 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280025 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280026 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280027 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280028 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152280029 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 152291001 Parks and Recreation (REC)
152291002 Parks and Recreation (REC)
153030104 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153050064 Parks and Recreation (REC)
153084001 Open Space (OS)
153084002 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 153095001 Open Space (OS)
153105010 Open Space (OS)
153106001 Open Space (OS)
153175001 Mixed-Use (MX)
153175002 Mixed-Use (MX)
153175003 Mixed-Use (MX)
153175004 Mixed-Use (MX)
153175005 Mixed-Use (MX)
153175006 Mixed-Use (MX)
153175007 Mixed-Use (MX)
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1813 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 10 153175008 Mixed-Use (MX)
153175009 Mixed-Use (MX)
153175010 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223001 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223002 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223003 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223004 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223005 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223006 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223007 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223008 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223009 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223010 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223011 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223012 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223016 Mixed-Use (MX)
153223019 Mixed-Use (MX)
153230003 High Density Mixed-Use (MX-HD)
153250007 High Density Mixed-Use (MX-HD)
153281001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281002 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281003 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281004 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281005 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281006 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281007 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281008 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281009 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281010 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153281013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282002 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282003 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282004 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282005 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282006 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282007 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282008 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282009 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282010 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282014 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282015 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282016 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282017 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282018 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282019 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282020 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282021 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282022 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282023 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1814 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 11 153282024 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282025 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282026 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282027 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282028 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282029 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282030 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282031 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282032 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282033 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282034 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282035 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282036 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282037 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282038 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282039 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282040 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282042 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282043 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153282044 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153283001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291002 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291003 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291004 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291005 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291006 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291007 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291008 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291009 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291010 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291014 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291015 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291016 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291017 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291018 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291019 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291020 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291021 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291022 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291023 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291024 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291025 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291026 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291027 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291028 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291029 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291030 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291031 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291032 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291033 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291034 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1815 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 12 153291035 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291036 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291037 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291038 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291039 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291040 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291041 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291042 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291043 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291044 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291045 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291046 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291047 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291048 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291049 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291050 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291051 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291052 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291053 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291054 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291055 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291056 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291057 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291058 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291059 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291060 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291061 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291062 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291063 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291064 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291065 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153291066 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153300005 Parks and Recreation (REC)
153300009 Mixed-Use (MX)
153300012 Mixed-Use (MX)
153300013 Mixed-Use (MX)
153300014 Mixed-Use (MX)
153332006 Parks and Recreation (REC)
153340001 Parks and Recreation (REC)
153350001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350002 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350003 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350004 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350005 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350006 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350007 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350008 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350009 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350010 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350014 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350015 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350016 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1816 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 13 153350017 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350018 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350019 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350020 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350021 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350022 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350023 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350024 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350025 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350026 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350027 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153350028 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351002 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351003 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351004 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351005 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351006 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351007 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351008 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351009 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351010 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351014 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351015 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351016 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351017 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351018 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351019 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351020 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351021 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351022 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351023 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351024 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153351025 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352002 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352003 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352004 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352005 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352006 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352007 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352008 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352009 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352010 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352014 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352015 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352016 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352017 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352018 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1817 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 14 153352019 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352020 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352021 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352022 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352023 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352024 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153352025 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361020 Open Space (OS)
153361021 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361022 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361023 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361024 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361025 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361026 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361027 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361028 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361029 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361030 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361031 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361032 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361033 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361034 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361035 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361036 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361037 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361038 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153361039 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362002 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362003 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362004 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362005 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362006 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362007 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362008 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362009 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362010 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362014 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362015 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362016 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362017 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362018 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362019 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362020 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362021 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362022 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362023 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362024 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362025 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362072 Parks and Recreation (REC)
153362073 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362074 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1818 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 15 153362075 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362076 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362077 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362078 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362079 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362080 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362081 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362082 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362083 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362084 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362085 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362086 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362087 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362088 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362089 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362090 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362091 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362092 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362093 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362094 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362095 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362096 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362097 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362098 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362099 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362100 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362101 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362102 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362103 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362104 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362105 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362106 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362107 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362108 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362109 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362110 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362111 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362112 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362113 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362114 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362115 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362116 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362117 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 153362118 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154140027 Single-Family Residential (R-10)
154140031 Single-Family Residential (R-10)
154220017 Parks and Recreation (REC)
154220019 Parks and Recreation (REC)
154220027 Parks and Recreation (REC)
154485001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485002 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485003 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485004 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485005 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485006 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1819 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 16 154485007 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485008 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485009 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485010 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485014 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485015 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485016 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485017 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485018 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485019 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485020 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485021 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485022 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485023 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485024 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485025 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485026 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485027 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485028 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485029 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485030 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485031 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485032 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485033 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485034 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485035 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485036 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485037 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485038 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485039 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485040 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485041 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485042 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485043 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485044 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485045 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485046 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485047 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485048 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485049 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485050 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485051 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485052 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485053 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485054 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485055 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485056 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485057 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485058 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485059 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485060 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485061 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1820 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 17 154485062 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485063 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485064 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485065 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485066 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485067 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154485068 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486001 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486002 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486003 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486004 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486005 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486006 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486007 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486008 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486009 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486010 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486014 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486015 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486016 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486017 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486018 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486019 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486020 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486021 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486022 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486023 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486024 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486025 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486026 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486027 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486028 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486029 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486030 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486031 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486032 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486033 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486034 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486035 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486036 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486037 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486038 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486039 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486040 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486041 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486042 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486043 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486044 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486045 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486046 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486047 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486048 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1821 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 18 154486049 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486050 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486051 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486052 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486053 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154486054 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 154582001 Open Space (OS)
154802027 Parks and Recreation (REC)
154810017 Parks and Recreation (REC)
154821013 Parks and Recreation (REC)
154822006 Parks and Recreation (REC)
164071001 Single-Family Residential (R-15)
164100003 Single-Family Residential (R-15)
164100008 Single-Family Residential (R-15)
164100041 Single-Family Residential (R-15)
164241001 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 164242002 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164242003 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164242004 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164242005 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164242006 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164243001 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164243002 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164243003 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164243004 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164243005 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164243006 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164244001 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164244002 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
164363005 Parks and Recreation (REC)
164421013 Parks and Recreation (REC)
166070012 Parks and Recreation (REC)
166081010 High Density Mixed-Use (MX-HD)
166111002 Parks and Recreation (REC)
166142003 Parks and Recreation (REC)
166291002 Single-Family Residential (R-10)
166291013 Single-Family Residential (R-10)
166291014 Single-Family Residential (R-10)
170020003 Parks and Recreation (REC)
170040011 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 170040012 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 170040013 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 170040042 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 170040045 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 170040057 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 170040059 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 170040060 Very Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFVL) 170061004 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170061005 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170061008 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170061009 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170061010 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170061022 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170061024 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170061026 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1822 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 19 170061027 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170061028 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170071001 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170071002 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170071003 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170071004 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170071005 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170071006 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170071007 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170071008 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170071009 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170074001 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170081001 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170082010 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170082011 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170082012 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170082021 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170082022 Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
170300002 Open Space (OS)
170370001 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370002 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370003 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370004 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370005 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370006 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370007 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370008 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370009 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370010 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370011 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370012 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370013 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370014 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370015 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370016 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370017 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370018 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370019 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370020 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370021 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370022 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370023 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370024 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370025 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370026 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370027 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370028 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370029 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370030 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370031 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370032 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370033 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370034 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370035 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370036 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1823 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 20 170370037 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL) 170370038 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370039 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370040 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170370041 Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL)
170241xxx Open Space (OS)
170131xxx Open Space (OS)
149052xxx Open Space (OS)
149040xxx Open Space (OS)
152131xxx Open Space (OS)
152122xxx Open Space (OS)
152112xxx Open Space (OS)
150141xxx Parks and Recreation (REC)
153332xxx Open Space (OS)
154271CCC Open Space (OS)
154262CCC Open Space (OS)
153040CCC Open Space (OS)
153270XXX Open Space (OS)
153030XXX Open Space (OS)
125050XXX Open Space (OS)
153270XXX Open Space (OS)
15207CXXX Open Space (OS)
714801004 Mixed-Use (MX)
714801009 Mixed-Use (MX)
714801015 Mixed-Use (MX)
714801029 Mixed-Use (MX)
149320003 Open Space (OS)
149100002 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149100050 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) 149110030 High Density Multi-Family Residential (MFH)
2024 Proposed Rezoning
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1824 of 2323 - MondayOctober 202025 1 Planning Commission
staff report June 25, 2024
Subject: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PROPOSED

ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CITY
OF PLEASANT HILL GENERAL PLAN 2040, INCLUDING THE
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT

CITY-WIDE
Project Planner : Haley Croffoot, 925-671-5297, [email protected] I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
The Planning Commission is being asked to review and provide preliminary feedback on proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (PHMC Title 18) on topics related to:
• Enactment and Applicability – Proposed Part 1 (existing Chapters 18.05, & 18.10)
• Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts – Proposed Part 3 (existing Chapters 18.50, 18.52, 18.55, 18.60, 18.65, 18.67, 18.70, & 18.145) • Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures – Proposed Part 4 (existing Chapters 18.70, 18.85, 18.90, 18.95, 18.100, 18.105, 18.110, 18.111,

18.112, 18.115, 18.120, & 18.130)
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are part of a comprehensive zoning ordinance update necessary to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to update current ordinance provisions as necessary. This is the first of three Study Sessions that will cover amendments to every section of the Zoning Ordinance.

B. Background
General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decisionmaking and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1825 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 2 Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023- 2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20) and introduced new mixed-use district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.

II. GENERAL INFORMATION
Public Notice
A notice of this public hearing was provided on the City Hall electronic sign, A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library, posted at the Senior Center, and notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website and the City’s pleasanthill2040.com website, and emailed directly to individuals who subscribed for General Plan/Housing Element related updates.

III. ANALYSIS
The proposed modifications are not all content based modifications. Modifications include providing increased clarity and readability of the ordinance (including language choice and streamlining text where appropriate) and rearranging sections of the ordinance to avoid repetitive statements or to be relocated into more logical locations of the ordinance. Staff has provided an overview of the more substantive modifications for Commission review and feedback in the sections below.

A. Proposed Ordinance Outline
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include a restructuring and reorganization of the existing ordinance into six new Parts. Additionally, all Chapters are listed alphabetically within each Part to improve usability. A revised outline of the Ordinance is included as Attachment A. All Parts will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council.

B. Enactment and Applicability (Proposed Part 1)
Part 1 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include chapters related to Purpose and Organization (Chapter 18.05), and Applicability and Interpretation (Chapter

18.10), of the Ordinance. These new chapters directly align with the existing Chapters 18.05 and 18.10. The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature simply clarify and refine the City’s existing provisions. The proposed amendments also include a revised “Organization of the Zoning Ordinance” (Chapter 18.05.030) section that reflects proposed Ordinance outline. Finally, Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1826 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 3 Part 1 also includes a new table that consolidates all zoning districts with related densities and FAR standards, consistent with the General Plan.

C. Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Proposed Part 3) Part 3 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes general provisions that apply to all zoning districts as follows:
• General Site and Development Standards
• Adult Businesses
• Cannabis
• Creek Setbacks
• Fences, Walls, and Screening
• Off-Street Parking and Loading
• Performance Standards
• Signs
• Tree Preservation
• Water-Efficient Landscaping
• Wireless Telecommunications
General Modifications: This section of the Ordinance has been expanded to include separate Chapters for frequently referenced provisions such as Tree Preservation, or provisions that were currently imbedded under “Additional Site Development Regulations”, (existing Chapter 18.50) such as Creek Setbacks, and Cannabis. Some of the more substantive changes include clarifying how the City measures structure and building heights (from “existing grade” instead of “ground surface”), updating the City’s traffic safety visibility area (proposed Section

18.45.070) to rectify existing discrepancies between the City’s written provisions and associated diagrams, and re-organizing the City’s temporary sign provisions.

Additionally, information regarding screening of mechanical units was added to the existing fences and walls section (proposed Chapter 18.65) to create a new “Fences, Walls, and Screening” Chapter. Finally, the existing Solar Energy System provisions (existing Section 18.50.160) has been eliminated from the code since the same provisions are already regulated by the Building Code and implemented by the Building Division.

Noise: In accordance with Program P of the General Plan, Staff is evaluating the City’s current noise level provisions. Any proposed revisions to the existing noise standards will be brought back to the Commission at a later date.

Off-Street Parking Provisions: Additional modifications are proposed to the OffStreet Parking and Loading Standards including clarifying when the required offstreet parking and loading facilities should be provided for alterations and expansions to existing structures (proposed Section 18.70.010.B). Additionally, in compliance with State law, a provision has been added that exempts qualifying projects from providing the required number of parking spaces when located with one-half mile of public transit (as defined by state law), unless the City finds that Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1827 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 4 not imposing the required parking would have substantially negative impacts (proposed Section 18.70.030.B).

The parking requirement for Day Cares and Personal Improvement Services is proposed to reference the Use Permit (which is required for these uses in all zones) as the mechanism for determining the required parking to avoid confusion for potential applicants. Currently, the parking requirement for these uses is not commonly applied to these uses during the review process. Finally, Staff is looking into reducing parking standards for multi-family residential developments in compliance with Program L of the Housing Element and will bring this item back to the Commission for consideration at a later date.

Bicycle parking requirements have also been increased in accordance with Program N of the General Plan. Commercial uses are now required to provide a minimum bicycle parking equivalent to five percent of the automobile parking spaces (current requirement is two percent). Additionally, multi-family developments will now be required to provide a minimum bicycle parking equivalent of one bike stall for every five automobile parking stalls (the current ratio is 1:10).

Sign Provisions: Proposed modifications to the Sign Chapter (proposed Chapter

18.80) include consolidating, and reorganizing sections and subsections for improved usability and adding clarity to the temporary sign regulations.

Additional parameters for calculating sign area for freestanding signs were also incorporated (proposed Section 18.80.070).A) for clarity.

Tree Preservation: Finally, proposed modification to the City’s Tree Preservation Chapter (proposed Chapter 18.90) includes adding palm trees, in addition to Eucalyptus, as exempt from preservation (proposed Section 18.90.030.B.2) and restricting the Heritage Tree Program to only include native or indigenous tree species.

D. Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures (Proposed Part 4) Part 4 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines the processing procedures for all permits and entitlements that are required by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
• Adult Use Development Permit
• Architectural Reivew Permit
• Development Plan Permit
• Minor Exception
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Sign Permit
• Temporary Sign Permit
• Master Sign Program
• Use Permit
• Temporary Use Permit
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1828 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 5 • Variance
• Zoning Permit
Each Chapter generally includes the purpose of the entitlement of each permit, the review authority, filing and processing procedures, required findings, and lapse of approval and revocation regulations. Where applicable, associated conditions of approval are also outlined. The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature and are proposed to add clarity and refinement to the City’s existing regulations. The changes also introduce consistency in the information provided for each permit or entitlement.

Some of the more substantial changes include adding clarification for what types of projects trigger Architectural Review Permits, specifically single-unit projects (proposed Section 18.110.010.B) and clarifying what findings are required.

Similarly, the applicability of a Development Plan was also clarified as the existing language was unclear if a Development Plan was applicable to residential projects (proposed Section 18.115.010). Additionally, more clarification was added to the similarities and differences in Use Permits and Minor Use Permits (proposed Chapter 18.145).

In compliance with Program WW of the Housing Element, Staff has amended the Reasonable Accommodation provisions to eliminate any requirements or findings related to the project’s impacts on, or compatibility with, surrounding uses since these are considered constraints to providing reasonable accommodations for special needs housing (proposed Sections 18.125.040 and 18.125.060).

Finally, Staff notes that some permits or entitlements may be approved by the Zoning Administrator, such as Minor Exceptions (proposed Section

18.120.050.B). In these situations, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision, and therefore the final action on a project, would be considered by the Planning Commission. Additionally in other situations such as a Sign Permit, a Zoning Administrator decision is appealed to the Architectural Review Commission, who would make the final action (Section 18.135.030.D). Staff is seeking feedback on whether the final action should instead be with City Council.

IV. CONCLUSION
The Commission should review the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parts 1, 3 and 4, and provide input and feedback to staff. Once input is received on all parts of the Zoning Ordinance, staff will return to the Commission and present a Preliminary Draft of the Ordinance through a public hearing to request a formal recommendation to the City Council.

V. RECOMMENDATION
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1829 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 6 Conduct the study session and provide feedback to staff on the proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance on topics related to: Enactment and Applicability (Part 1); Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Part 3); and Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures (Part 4).

VI. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Proposed Zoning Ordinance Outline
Attachment B Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Redlined Draft) Attachment C Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Clean Draft) Attachment D Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Draft)
Attachment E Part 4 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Draft)
Attachment F Part 4 - Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures (Clean Draft) Attachment G Public Notice
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1830 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 1 Planning Commission
staff report August 27, 2024
Subject: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PROPOSED

ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CITY
OF PLEASANT HILL GENERAL PLAN 2040, INCLUDING THE
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT

CITY-WIDE
Project Planner : Haley Croffoot, 925-671-5297, [email protected] I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
The Planning Commission is being asked to review and provide preliminary feedback on proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (PHMC Title 18) on topics related to:
• Zone District Regulations and Development Standards – Proposed Part 2 (existing Chapters 18.20, 18.22, 18.25, 18.30, 18.35, 18.40, & 18.45) • Zoning Ordinance Administration – Proposed Part 5 (existing Chapters

18.65, 18.75, 18.80, 18.120, 18.125, 18.130, 18.135)
• Definitions and Land Use Classifications – Proposed Part 6 (existing Chapters 18.15 and 18.140)
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are part of a comprehensive zoning ordinance update necessary to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to update current ordinance provisions as necessary. This is the second of three Study Sessions that will cover amendments to every section of the Zoning Ordinance.

B. Background
General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decisionmaking and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1831 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 2 Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023- 2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20) and introduced new mixed-use district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.

Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update Study Sessions: On June 25, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted the first of three Study Sessions on the comprehensive zoning ordinance update and provided feedback on topics related to:
• Enactment and Applicability – Proposed Part 1 (existing Chapters 18.05, & 18.10)
• Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts – Proposed Part 3 (existing Chapters 18.50, 18.52, 18.55, 18.60, 18.65, 18.67, 18.70, & 18.145) • Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures – Proposed Part 4 (existing Chapters 18.70, 18.85, 18.90, 18.95, 18.100, 18.105, 18.110, 18.111,

18.112, 18.115, 18.120, & 18.130)
Staff will be addressing all comments on all Parts at the third Study Session, anticipated for mid-October 2024.

Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Update: On August 13, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-24 recommending that the City Council approved proposed miscellaneous zoning ordinance amendments that were determined to be necessary to comply with State law and to clarify and streamline existing processes. These specific amendments being processed prior to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update to ensure the City’s Zoning Ordinance remains in compliance with required regulations. If adopted, these changes will be incorporated into the comprehensive zoning ordinance update.

II. GENERAL INFORMATION
Public Notice
A notice of this public hearing was provided on the City Hall electronic sign, A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library, posted at the Senior Center, and notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website and the City’s pleasanthill2040.com website, and emailed directly to individuals who subscribed for General Plan/Housing Element related updates.

III. ANALYSIS
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1832 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 3 The proposed modifications are not all content-based modifications. Modifications include providing increased clarity and readability of the ordinance (including language choice and streamlining text where appropriate) and rearranging sections of the ordinance to avoid repetitive statements or to be relocated into more logical locations of the ordinance. Staff has provided an overview of the more substantive modifications for Commission review and feedback in the sections below.

A. Proposed Ordinance Outline
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include a restructuring and reorganization of the existing ordinance into six new Parts. Additionally, all Chapters are listed alphabetically within each Part to improve usability. A revised outline of the Ordinance is included as Attachment A. All Parts will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and ultimately considered by the City Council.

B. Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Proposed Part 2) Part 2 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include all zoning district regulations and development standards for the following districts:
• Residential
• Mixed-Use
• Commercial, Office, and Industrial
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Precise Plan Districts (PPD) • Hillside Planned Unit Development (HPUD)
• Overlay Districts
General Modifications: All zoning district regulations and development standard language has been updated and organized for clarity. Specifically, the land use table for each zone has been updated to clarify that permitted uses require approval of a zoning permit. Additionally, the new land uses (employee housing, mobile/manufactured housing, single family attached, and Places of Assembly), have been incorporated into the land use tables.

Residential Zoning Districts: Amendments are proposed to the residential zoning districts chapter to ensure these provisions comply with the recent General Plan update. Specifically, the summary of residential zoning districts has been updated with the new corresponding General Plan densities. As a result, the minimum lot area of the R-6 zone has increased from 6,000 square feet to 6,313 square feet to comply with the new General Plan density range of the Single-Family High Density designation. Additionally, the new Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District (R-MD) has been incorporated into the ordinance. The R-MD zoning district generally mirrors the provisions of the R-6 zoning designation.

A more substantial change to the residential land use regulations (Table 18.15-1) is the introduction of multi-family development within single-family zones. Twounit (duplex) developments are already permitted under the two-unit provisions of Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). Staff is proposing to allow multi-family developments of up Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1833 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 4 to four units maximum within the single-family zone with approval of a conditional use permit. This amendment is in response to the following Housing Element Implementation Programs:
• HEIP I: Variety of Housing Types in Low Density Areas - The City shall encourage alternative housing types such as duplexes, small-lot developments, small unit sizes, and single-family attached units in low density higher resource single-family zones
• HEIP R: Missing Middle Housing - The City shall review and amend the General Plan and zoning code and applicable development standards to encourage and promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, specifically missing middle-density housing types (e.g., triplexes, courtyard buildings, townhomes, live/work) to create a diversity of housing types and densities and increase the availability of affordable housing to reduce displacement risk for residents overpaying for housing.

Staff is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission on this proposed amendment.

Additionally, large residential care facilities are also proposed to be permitted in single-family zones with approval of a conditional use permit. Finally, employee housing, a newly proposed use classification, is also proposed to be a permitted use in all residential zones. All changes are being proposed to comply with the General Plan and Housing Element Implementation Program O (Municipal Code Updates), which requires the City to amend the code and define and permit such uses as proposed.

Staff is proposing minor changes to the development standards for residential uses, including increasing the maximum building height from 50 feet to 75 feet for the Multi-Family Very High Density zone, and increasing the maximum lot coverage standard from 40-percent to 50-percent for the multi-family very low and multi-family low density zones. Additionally, the scenic route setback has been reduced from 50 feet to 25 feet for all residential zones. These changes are being proposed to facilitate development that is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan and Housing Element. Staff is also proposing to add clarity to several “additional development standard” such as stepback provisions and open space requirements to improve usability.

Minor changes are also proposed to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions, Accessory Structure standards, and Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Projects (SB 9) for clarity. No substantial changes to content are proposed to these provisions.

Mixed-Use Districts: Since this section was recently adopted at the beginning of this year, only minimal changes are proposed. Staff is proposing to increase the proposed building heights for the mixed-use zones to ensure the envisioned densities can be achieved.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1834 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 5 Commercial, Office, and Industrial Zoning Districts: The amendments proposed to the Commercial, Office, and Industrial zones are primarily to provide clarity.

Specifically, the additional development standards were modified to clarify when certain standards are required in commercial districts adjacent to residential zones/uses. Minimal substantive changes to content are being proposed.

C. Zoning Ordinance Administration (Proposed Part 5)
Part 5 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance establishes the general administrative authority and procedures for decision making of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes Chapters related to:
• General Provisions
• Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map • Appeals and Calls for Review
• Development Agreement
• Enforcement
• Nonconforming Provisions
• Notice Requirements
General Modifications: General modifications have been made to Part 5 to streamline and add clarification to the existing processes and procedures, as well as ensure compliance with State provisions.

General Provisions: Staff is proposing to add clarity to the review and approval authority provisions for projects with multiple discretionary permit applications, as well as the environmental review process and procedures, including updating relevant time frames in compliance with State Law and Housing Element Implementation Program DDD (Permit Streamlining Act), which states “The City shall adopt a policy to ensure compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code § 65920 et seq.) and timing requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000 et seq.)”.

Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map: The existing ordinance does not outline a process for a General Plan Amendment; therefore, Staff is proposing to include a new section outlining the application process, which is similar to Zoning Ordinance amendments. Other changes to this section are proposed to add clarity and ensure transparency in the City’s processes.

Appeals and Calls for Review: Staff is proposing to amend the current appeals process so that the decision of an appellate body on an appeal is final and cannot be appealed a second time. For example, if a decision by the Zoning Administrator is appealed to the Planning Commission, the decision of the Planning Commission will be final, and no further appeal to the City Council will be possible. Staff is proposing this change to streamline the appeals process.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1835 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 6 D. Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Proposed Part 6) Part 6 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes definitions of all Land Use Classifications and Definitions of terms used throughout the ordinance. These Chapters are currently located in separate Parts of the ordinance and are proposed to be combined into a single Part with this update to improve usability.

Land Use Classifications: Staff is proposing to introduce several new land use classifications, as well as combine other similar land use classifications where appropriate. New land use classifications for “emergency medical care facility”, “School, college and university”, “School, technical, trade and vocational”, “Caretaker’s quarters”, “Employee housing”, “Employee housing, agricultural”, “low barrier navigation center” (defined as “housing or shelter in which a resident who is homeless or at risk of homelessness may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing”), and “mobile or manufactured housing” are being proposed to address gaps in the ordinance and/or comply with State law terms and requirements. Additionally, many of these new land use classifications are outlined in Housing Element Implementation Program O (Municipal Code Updates), which requires the City to amend the code and define and permit such uses.

Additionally, “religious assembly” uses have been reclassified as “place of assembly” per State regulations and expanded to include civic auditoriums, theaters, banquet halls, community and civic centers, meeting halls and clubs, thus eliminating the current definition for “clubs and lodges”. Similarly, “large care facilities” have been eliminated from the residential use classifications section and combined with the existing care facility definitions under “Public and Semi-Public Land Use Classifications” for clarity. The definition for “Family day care homes” has been simplified per State law regulations. Finally, the definition of “multi-family residential” uses has been expanded to include separate definitions for duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and developments with five or more units. These new sub-categories are also reflected in the land use classification tables and provide additional clarity for staff and applicants when processing multi-family development applications.

Definitions: Several new definitions are being proposed, and several others are proposed to be modified to provide clarity, address gaps in the code, and comply with State law. New proposed definitions include the definition of “alteration”, which is necessary when applying legal non-conforming provisions, and “attached building or structure”, which provides additional clarity to the existing definition of a detached structure. Additional definitions are being proposed regarding electric vehicle charging stations in compliance with State Law. Finally, new definitions related to flag lots, irregular shaped lots, and determining lot lines for each scenario have been clarified in the ordinance to provide clarity for both staff and property owners.

Additional definitions are proposed to be modified include adding clarity to the different “affordable housing costs” income levels, clarifying the definition of Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1836 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 7 “basement”, as well as updating all density bonus related definitions to comply with State law.

Finally, several other definitions have been determined to be out of date or not applicable and are proposed to be removed. These include “boardinghouse”, “conditioned/habitable space for accessory structures”, and “frontage, building”.

IV. CONCLUSION
The Commission should review the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parts 2, 5 and 6, and provide input and feedback to staff. Once input is received on all parts of the Zoning Ordinance, staff will return to the Commission and present a Preliminary Draft of the Ordinance through a public hearing to request a formal recommendation to the City Council.

V. RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the study session and provide feedback to staff on the proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance on topics related to: Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Part 2); Zoning Ordinance Administration (Part 5); and Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Part 6).

VI. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Proposed Zoning Ordinance Outline
Attachment B Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Strikeout-Underline)
Attachment C Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Clean) Attachment D Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Strikeout-Underline) Attachment E Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Clean) Attachment F Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (StrikeoutUnderline) Attachment G Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Clean) Attachment H Public Notice
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1837 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 1 Planning Commission
staff report October 8, 2024
Subject: COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -

PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY
WITH CITY OF PLEASANT HILL GENERAL PLAN 2040,
INCLUDING THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT, CITY-WIDE

CITY-WIDE
Project Planner : Haley Croffoot, 925-671-5297, [email protected] I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
The Planning Commission is asked to review and provide preliminary feedback on a comprehensive update to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (PHMC Title 18), which includes all Parts as follows:
• Part 1 – Enactment and Applicability
• Part 2 – Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards • Part 3 – Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts • Part 4 – Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures • Part 5 – Zoning Ordinance Administration
• Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications
The proposed comprehensive update is necessary to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to address compliance with State law, and clarify and streamline existing processes. This is the third of three Study Sessions with the Planning Commission. Comments from the first two Study Sessions have been incorporated into each part as applicable.

B. Background
General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decisionmaking and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1838 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 2 Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023- 2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20) and introduced new mixed-use district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.

Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update Study Sessions: On June 25, 2024, and August 27, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted the first and second of three Study Sessions on the comprehensive zoning ordinance update and provided feedback on all Parts. A total of 21 written public comments were received (Attachment O), and a total of three members of the public spoke between the two meetings. This is the third Study Session to review modifications to each Part in response to comments received at the two prior Study Sessions. Staff Reports from each Study Session have been attached for reference (Attachment M and N).

Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Update: On September 9, 2024, the City Council introduced an ordinance amending various portions of the Zoning Ordinance that were determined to be necessary to comply with State law and to clarify and streamline existing processes. The processing of these specific amendments prior to completion of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update ensures that the City’s Zoning Ordinance remains in compliance with required regulations. The ordinance will return to the City Council for a second reading on October 7, 2024. If adopted, these changes will be incorporated into the comprehensive zoning ordinance update.

II. GENERAL INFORMATION
Public Notice
A notice of this public hearing was provided on the City Hall electronic sign, A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library, posted at the Senior Center, and notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website and the City’s pleasanthill2040.com website, and emailed directly to individuals who subscribed for General Plan/Housing Element related updates.

III. ANALYSIS
Staff has provided an overview of the substantive modifications for Commission review and feedback in the sections below. However, not all the proposed modifications are content-based modifications. Modifications also include providing increased clarity and readability of the ordinance (including language choice and streamlining text where Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1839 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 3 appropriate) and rearranging sections of the ordinance to avoid repetitive statements or relocating them into more logical locations of the ordinance.

A. Enactment and Applicability (Proposed Part 1)
Part 1 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include chapters related to Purpose and Organization (Chapter 18.05), and Applicability and Interpretation (Chapter

18.10), of the Ordinance. The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature simply to clarify and refine the City’s existing provisions.

At the June 25, 2024, Study Session, the Planning Commission expressed general support for the organization and content of Part 1. The Commission requested that Staff add clarification to the table establishing the base zoning districts and corresponding General Plan land use designations where there are no associated densities and/or floor-area-ratios (FAR) established in the 2040 General Plan.

Staff has added clarification to the table for the applicable zoning districts.

B. Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards (Proposed Part 2) Part 2 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include all zoning district regulations and development standards for the following districts:
• Residential
• Mixed-Use
• Commercial, Office, and Industrial
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Precise Plan Districts (PPD) • Hillside Planned Unit Development (HPUD)
• Overlay Districts
In response to comments received by the public and Planning Commission at the August 27, 2024, Study Session, Staff has made the following modifications:

Mangini Delu Residential Zone:
• The term “single-family” has been eliminated from the title of the Mangini Delu Residential Zoning District since the zone allows for a mix of residential development types.
• The Mangini Delu Residential Zoning District has been broken up into two separate districts, Mangini Delu Residential-East (RMD-East) and Mangini Delu Residential-West (RMD-West). RMD-East designation is intended for lower intensity development adjacent to the existing singlefamily residential neighborhood while RMD-West allows for higher intensity development, still within the 4.6 to 13 dwelling unit per acre density range established by the General Plan. The development standards for each zone have also been updated to reflect the intended development intensity.
• Similarly, the summary description of new Mangini Delu Residential Zoning Districts has been updated to reflect the two new zones.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1840 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 4 Additionally, the previous reference to “apartment complexes” has been removed and the summary now includes language referencing the required Master Plan.

Density Bonus: The exiting Density Bonus section of the ordinance has been revised and simplified. The proposed language establishes a general framework for Density Bonus projects and refers to the applicable California Government Code section for details and specific requirements. Staff is proposing to restructure the section in this manner to ensure continued compliance with the frequent updates to Density Bonus provisions at the state level.

The City Attorney is currently reviewing the revised Density Bonus section, and further modifications related to California State Law may be required. Any required changes will be incorporated prior to the subsequent City Council Study Session.

Park and Recreation Zoning District: A new “Park and Recreation” zoning district is being introduced, which will apply to all Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District (PHRPD)-owned facilities. Many of these properties are currently zoned Single-Family Residential. The new Park and Recreation Zoning District focuses on the preservation and support of these facilities. The proposed development standards still mirror those within the Single-Family Residential District to ensure development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The allowed land uses have been limited to only those related to parks and recreation facilities.

Finally, City review of development and activity within this zoning district has been divided into three separate tiers of review as follows:

1. Exempt Activities: Tree removals (including protected trees), and routine maintenance and repair of parks and facilities that do not include an expansion of floor area.

2. Activities Requiring a Zoning Permit: All activities which otherwise comply with the permitted land uses and development standards. This includes new facilities and parks, or alterations to existing facilities that include an expansion of floor area. The Zoning Permit would be reviewed at the Staff Level, would not require any Public Hearings, and could not be appealed.

However, these activities would still be required to obtain Building and Grading Permits, as applicable.

3. Activities requiring Other Entitlements: Any activity or development that does not comply with the proposed development standards would be required to obtain a Development Plan, Architectural Review, and/or Use Permit (including any other permits). These entitlements would be subject to the standard discretionary review process. Additionally, any map related activities such as subdivisions or lot line adjustments would be subject to the Subdivision Map Act and City processes and procedures.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1841 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 5 Currently, PHRPD development is processed and reviewed in the same manner as any private development proposal. The proposed amendment would streamline the process for certain PHRPD projects by not requiring a second public review process with the City. The PHRPD has an elected Board of Directors, and has its own public review process; thus, public input on those projects would remain if this amendment were adopted. However, the proposed amendment would still allow City review of certain projects, primarily if the proposal were to exceed established development standards.

C. Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Proposed Part 3) Part 3 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes general provisions that apply to all zoning districts as follows:
• General Site and Development Standards
• Adult Businesses
• Cannabis
• Creek Setbacks
• Fences, Walls, and Screening
• Off-Street Parking and Loading
• Performance Standards
• Signs
• Tree Preservation
• Water-Efficient Landscaping
• Wireless Telecommunications
At the June 25, 2024, Study Session, the Planning Commission expressed general support for the structure and content of Part 3 and asked for a few clarifications to specific sections to which Staff made revisions as follows:

Traffic Safety Visibility Area (Figure 18.45-7): The Traffic Safety Visibility Area diagram has been updated for clarity and to correct misinformation on the existing diagram.

Structure Projections and Encroachments into Setbacks (Section 18.45.080): Staff has removed reference to “courts” throughout this section to avoid redundancy and confusion.

Corner Lot and Key Lot Fence and Wall Standards (Figure 18.65-1): The Corner Lot and Key Lot Fence and Wall Standards diagram has been updated for clarity and to correct unclear information on the existing diagram.

Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards: Program L of the Housing Element encourages the City to consider parking reductions to encourage residential development. Since the June 25, 2024, Study Session, Staff has researched parking standards for neighboring and comparable jurisdictions (see table below) as well as Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data to determine if a Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1842 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 6 reduction from the current parking provisions for multi-family residential development is warranted.

Parking Requirements for Multi-Family Uses
Pleasant Hill
(Existing)
ITE
General
Urban/Suburb
an (not close
to transit)
Martinez Concord Walnut
Creek Lafayette Foster City Hercules
Studio 1.5 spaces

1.35 per
unit
1 1 1.25 1 1

1.5 1 bedroom 1.5 spaces 1.5 1.5 1 1.5
2 bedrooms
2 spaces
2 2 1.2 2
3 bedrooms 2 2.25 1.5 2
4+
bedrooms
2 + 0.5
per add.
bdrm

2.25 1.5 2
Guest
Parking 1 per 2 units 1 per 4 units
1 per 3
units None 1 per 2 units
1 per
4 units
1 per 2
units
Based on research from neighboring and comparable jurisdictions and ITE data, Staff is currently proposing to modify or condense the following parking requirements for multi-family uses:

Proposed Parking Requirement for Multi-Family Uses in Pleasant Hill Current Proposed
Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 1.25 spaces per unit
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit Unchanged
2+ bedrooms 2 spaces per unit Unchanged
Guest Parking 1 per 2 units 1 per 4 units
The proposed parking requirements represent a reduction from the current standards for Studio and Guest Parking, with 1 Bedroom and 2+ Bedrooms unchanged. With the reductions, these changes would meet the intent of Housing Element Program L, while still mirroring requirements in comparable jurisdictions and meeting or exceeding ITE data.

D. Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures (Proposed Part 4) Part 4 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines the processing procedures for all permits and entitlements that are required by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
• Adult Use Development Permit
• Architectural Review Permit
• Development Plan Permit
• Minor Exception
• Reasonable Accommodation
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1843 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 7 • Sign Permit
• Temporary Sign Permit
• Master Sign Program
• Use Permit
• Temporary Use Permit
• Variance
• Zoning Permit
At the June 25, 2024, Study Session, the Planning Commission expressed general support for the structure and content of Part 4 and had no comments. Therefore, no significant changes have been made to Part 4 since the last Study Session.

E. Zoning Ordinance Administration (Proposed Part 5)
Part 5 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance establishes the general administrative authority and procedures for decision making of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes Chapters related to:
• General Provisions
• Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map • Appeals and Calls for Review
• Development Agreement
• Enforcement
• Nonconforming Provisions
• Notice Requirements
In response to comments received from the public and Planning Commission at the August 27, 2024, Study Session, Staff has further clarified the “Right to Appeal, Call for Review, Time Limits” section (18.175.020) noting that a project is limited to one appeal. No limitations are proposed for the number of calls for review. For example, a decision of the Zoning Administrator that is appealed to the Planning Commission may not be appealed to the City Council, however the City Council may choose to call it up for review.

F. Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Proposed Part 6) Part 6 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes definitions of all Land Use Classifications and Definitions of terms used throughout the ordinance. These Chapters are currently located in separate Parts of the ordinance and are proposed to be combined into a single Part with this update to improve usability.

In response to comments received by the public and Planning Commission at the August 27, 2024, Study Session, Staff has provided a diagram illustrating the front property line location for flag lots. New definitions for “active open space” and “passive open space” to provide clarity for open space requirements for new development.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1844 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 8 IV. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
The Commission should review the proposed Preliminary Draft of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update and provide input and feedback to staff. The City Council will also review the Preliminary Draft of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance at an upcoming study session.

V. RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the study session and provide feedback to staff on the proposed amendments to all Parts of the City’s Zoning Ordinance as follows: Part 1 – Enactment and Applicability; Part 2 – Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards; Part 3 – Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts; Part 4 – Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures; Part 5 – Zoning Ordinance Administration; and Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications.

VI. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Redlined Preliminary Draft) Attachment B Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Clean Preliminary Draft) Attachment C Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
Attachment D Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Clean Preliminary Draft)
Attachment E Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
Attachment F Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Clean Preliminary Draft)
Attachment G Part 4 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
Attachment H Part 4 - Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures (Clean Preliminary Draft)
Attachment I Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
Attachment J Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Clean Preliminary Draft) Attachment K Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
Attachment L Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Clean Preliminary Draft)
Attachment M June 25, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments)
Attachment N August 27, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments)
Attachment O Public Comments (all received to date)
Attachment P Public Notice
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1845 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: November 04, 2024
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CITY’S ZONING ORDINANCE
(PHMC TITLE 18). THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO

THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE

GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS OF THE RECENTLY ADOPTED
2040 GENERAL PLAN AND 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT, AS WELL

AS TO ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND CLARIFY
AND STREAMLINE EXISTING PROCESSES.

SYNOPSIS
The City Council is requested to provide preliminary feedback on a comprehensive update to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (PHMC Title 18), which includes all Parts as follows:
• Part 1 – Enactment and Applicability
• Part 2 – Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards • Part 3 – Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts • Part 4 – Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures • Part 5 – Zoning Ordinance Administration
• Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications
The proposed comprehensive update is necessary to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to address compliance with State law, and clarify and streamline existing processes. The proposed comprehensive update includes comments from the Planning Commission and the public from three previous Planning Commission Study Sessions on June 25, 2024, August 27, 2024, and October 8, 2024.

DISCUSSION
Background
General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decision-making and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan included Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1846 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023-2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20) and introduced new mixed-use district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.

Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Update: On October 7, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 970 amending various portions of the Zoning Ordinance that were determined to be necessary to comply with State law and to clarify and streamline existing processes. The processing of these specific amendments prior to completion of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update ensures that the City’s Zoning Ordinance remains in compliance with required regulations. The ordinance will go into effect on November 6, 2024, at which point the approved changes will be incorporated into the comprehensive zoning ordinance update.

Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update Study Sessions: The Planning Commission has conducted three Study Sessions on the comprehensive zoning ordinance update (June 25, 2024, August 27, 2024, and October 7, 2024). Comments from all three study session have been incorporated in the Preliminary Draft Ordinance. Staff Reports from each Study Session have been attached for reference (Attachments N, O, and P).

Public Comment Received To Date: A total of 27 written public comments have been received to date (Attachment Q), and a total of six members of the public spoke between the three Study Sessions.

Analysis
Staff has provided an overview of the substantive modifications for Council review and feedback in the sections below. Modifications also include providing increased clarity and readability of the ordinance (including language choice and streamlining text where appropriate) and rearranging sections of the ordinance to avoid repetitive statements or relocating them into more logical locations of the ordinance. Staff has also provided (Attachment A), a list of proposed ordinance modifications that are not limited by State Law and allows City Council greater flexibility for additional modifications.

1. Enactment and Applicability (Proposed Part 1)
Part 1 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes chapters related to Purpose and Organization (Chapter 18.05), and Applicability and Interpretation (Chapter 18.10), of Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1847 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 the Ordinance. Part 1 includes a revised “Organization of the Zoning Ordinance” (Chapter 18.05.030) section that reflects a proposed Ordinance outline.

The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature to clarify and refine the City’s existing provisions.

2. Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards (Proposed Part 2) Part 2 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include all zoning district regulations and development standards for the following districts:
• Residential
• Mixed-Use
• Commercial, Office, and Industrial
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Precise Plan Districts (PPD) • Hillside Planned Unit Development (HPUD)
• Overlay Districts
• Parks and Recreation Zoning District
• Open Space Zoning District
General Modifications: All zoning district regulations and development standard language has been updated and organized for clarity. Specifically, the land use table for each zone has been updated to clarify that permitted uses require approval of a zoning permit. Additionally, the new land uses (employee housing, mobile/manufactured housing, single-family attached, and Places of Assembly), have been incorporated into the land use tables.

Residential Zoning Districts: Amendments are proposed to the residential zoning districts chapter to ensure these provisions comply with the recent General Plan update.

Specifically, the summary of residential zoning districts has been updated with the new corresponding General Plan densities. As a result, the minimum lot area of the R-6 zone has increased from 6,000 square feet to 6,313 square feet to comply with the new General Plan density range of the Single-Family High Density land use designation.

A more substantial change to the residential land use regulations (Table 18.15-1) is the introduction of multi-family development within single-family zones. Two-unit (duplex) developments are already permitted under the two-unit provisions of Senate Bill 9 (SB 9).

Staff is proposing to allow three-unit and four-unit multi-family developments within the single-family zone, with approval of a conditional use permit (two-unit developments are already permitted, subject to SB 9 provisions). This amendment is in response to the following Housing Element Implementation Programs:
• HEIP I: Variety of Housing Types in Low Density Areas - The City shall encourage alternative housing types such as duplexes, small-lot developments, small unit sizes, and single-family attached units in low density higher resource single-family zones
• HEIP R: Missing Middle Housing - The City shall review and amend the General Plan and zoning code and applicable development standards to encourage and Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1848 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, specifically missing middle-density housing types (e.g., triplexes, courtyard buildings, townhomes, live/work) to create a diversity of housing types and densities and increase the availability of affordable housing to reduce displacement risk for residents overpaying for housing.

Large residential care facilities are proposed to be permitted in single-family zones upon approval of a conditional use permit, and to comply with state law, emergency shelters are also proposed to be permitted by right in the Mixed-Use Vey High Density zone.

Finally, employee housing, a new proposed use classification, is also proposed to be a permitted use in all residential zones, in compliance with state law.

All changes are being proposed to comply with the General Plan and Housing Element Implementation Program O (Municipal Code Updates), which requires the City to amend the code and define and permit such uses, as proposed.

Residential Development Standards: Staff is proposing minor changes to the development standards for residential uses, including increasing the maximum building height from 50 feet to 75 feet for the Multi-Family Very High Density zone, and increasing the maximum lot coverage standard from 40 percent to 50 percent for the multi-family very low and multi-family low density zones. These changes are to better accommodate projects that have this level of density. Staff is also proposing to add clarity to several “additional development standards” such as stepback provisions and open space requirements to improve usability.

These changes are being proposed to facilitate development that is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan and Housing Element.

Mangini Delu Residential Zones: Two new residential zoning districts are proposed to implement the Mangini Delu Residential General Plan land use designation - Mangini Delu Residential-East (RMD-East) and Mangini Delu Residential-West (RMD-West).

RMD-East designation is intended for lower intensity development adjacent to the existing single-family residential neighborhood and allows multi-family development with a maximum of four units and a density range of 4.6 to 13 dwelling units an acre per the General Plan. RMD-West allows for higher intensity development, still within the 4.6 to 13 dwelling unit per acre density range established by the General Plan. The development standards for each zone have also been updated to reflect the intended development intensity. However, as referenced in the summary of each district, a master plan must be established prior to any development within the RMD-East and/or RMDWest zones.

Scenic Route Setback: Additionally, the scenic route setback has been modified from 50 feet to 25 feet for all residential zones, in large part as a 50-foot setback significantly limits use of private yard usability. Thus, a 25-foot setback still provides scenic setback protections while providing private property owner greater flexibility in use of private property.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1849 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Density Bonus: The exiting Density Bonus section of the ordinance has been revised and simplified. The proposed language establishes a general framework for Density Bonus projects and refers to the applicable California Government Code section for details and specific requirements. Staff is proposing to restructure the section in this manner to ensure continued compliance with the frequent updates to Density Bonus provisions at the state level.

Mixed-Use Districts: Since this section was recently adopted at the beginning of this year, only minimal changes are proposed. Staff is proposing to increase the proposed building heights for the mixed-use zones to ensure the envisioned densities can be achieved.

Commercial, Office, and Industrial Zoning Districts: The amendments proposed to the Commercial, Office, and Industrial zones are primarily to provide clarity. Specifically, the additional development standards were modified to clarify when certain standards are required in commercial districts adjacent to residential zones/uses. Minimal substantive changes to content are being proposed.

Park and Recreation Zoning District: A new “Park and Recreation” zoning district (REC) is being introduced, which will apply to all Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District (PHRPD)-owned properties. Many of these properties are currently zoned Single-Family Residential. The new Park and Recreation Zoning District focuses on the preservation and support of these facilities. The proposed development standards still mirror those within the Single-Family Residential District to ensure development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The allowable land uses within this proposed zoning district have been limited to only those related to parks and recreation facilities.

City review of development and activity within this zoning district has been divided into three separate tiers of review as follows:

1. Exempt Activities: Tree removals (including protected trees), and routine maintenance and repair of parks and facilities that do not include an expansion of floor area.

2. Activities Requiring a Zoning Permit: All projects and activities which otherwise comply with the permitted land uses and development standards. This includes new facilities and parks, or alterations to existing facilities that include an expansion of floor area. The Zoning Permit would be reviewed administratively at Staff level, would not require any Public Hearings, and could not be appealed. However, these projects and activities would be subject to building and/or grading permit processes, as applicable.

3. Activities requiring Other Entitlements: Any activity or development that does not comply with the proposed development standards would be required to obtain a Development Plan, Architectural Review, and/or Use Permit (including any other permits). These entitlements would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process. Additionally, any map-related activities, such as subdivisions or lot Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1850 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 line adjustments, would be subject to the Subdivision Map Act and City processes and procedures.

Currently, PHRPD development is processed and reviewed in the same manner as any private development proposal. The proposed amendment would streamline the process for certain PHRPD projects by not requiring a second public review process with the City. The PHRPD has an elected Board of Directors, and has its own public review process; thus, the opportunity for the public to provide input on those projects would remain if this amendment were adopted. However, the proposed amendment would still allow for City review of certain projects, primarily if the proposal were to exceed established development standards.

Open Space Zoning District: A new Open Space zoning district (OS) is also being introduced to implement the Open Space land use designation in the General Plan. The new Open Space zone is intended to protect natural resources and maintain the landscape’s natural character. Land use and development is limited to habitat conservation, watershed protection, and cultural and historic resource protection.

3. Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Proposed Part 3) Part 3 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes general provisions that apply to all zoning districts as follows:
• General Site and Development Standards
• Adult Businesses
• Cannabis
• Creek Setbacks
• Fences, Walls, and Screening
• Off-Street Parking and Loading
• Performance Standards
• Signs
• Tree Preservation
• Water-Efficient Landscaping
• Wireless Telecommunications
General Modifications: This section of the Ordinance has been expanded to include separate Chapters for frequently referenced provisions such as Tree Preservation, or provisions that were currently imbedded under “Additional Site Development Regulations”, (existing Chapter 18.50) such as Creek Setbacks, and Cannabis. Some of the more substantive changes include clarifying how the City measures structure and building heights (from “existing grade” instead of “ground surface”), updating the City’s traffic safety visibility area (proposed Section 18.45.070) to rectify existing discrepancies between the City’s written provisions and associated diagrams, and re-organizing the City’s temporary sign provisions.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1851 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards: Program L of the Housing Element encourages the City to consider parking reductions to encourage residential development.

Staff researched parking standards for neighboring and comparable jurisdictions (see table below) as well as Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data to determine if a reduction from the City’s current parking provisions for multi-family residential development is warranted. See below:

Existing Parking Requirements for Multi-Family Uses
Pleasant Hill
(Existing)
ITE
General
Urban/Suburb
an (not close
to transit)
Martinez Concord Walnut
Creek Lafayette Foster City Hercules
Studio 1.5 spaces

1.35 per
unit
1 1 1.25 1 1

1.5 1 bedroom 1.5 spaces 1.5 1.5 1 1.5
2 bedrooms
2 spaces
2 2 1.2 2
3 bedrooms 2 2.25 1.5 2
4+
bedrooms
2 + 0.5
per add.
bdrm

2.25 1.5 2
Guest
Parking 1 per 2 units 1 per 4 units
1 per 3
units None 1 per 2 units
1 per
4 units
1 per 2
units
Based on research from neighboring and comparable jurisdictions and ITE data, Staff is currently proposing to modify or condense the following parking requirements for multifamily uses:

Proposed Parking Requirement for Multi-Family Uses in Pleasant Hill Current Proposed
Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 1.25 spaces per unit
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit Unchanged
2+ bedrooms 2 spaces per unit Unchanged
Guest Parking 1 per 2 units 1 per 4 units
The proposed parking requirements represent a reduction from the current standards for Studio and Guest Parking, with 1 Bedroom and 2+ Bedrooms unchanged.

With the reductions, these changes would meet the intent of Housing Element Program L, while still mirroring requirements in comparable jurisdictions and meeting or exceeding ITE data.

Sign Provisions: Proposed modifications to the Sign Chapter (proposed Chapter 18.80) include consolidating and reorganizing sections and subsections for improved usability and adding clarity to the temporary sign regulations. Additional parameters for Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1852 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 calculating sign area for freestanding signs were also incorporated (proposed Section

18.80.070).A) for clarity.

Tree Preservation: Lastly, proposed modification to the City’s Tree Preservation Chapter (proposed Chapter 18.90) include restricting the Heritage Tree Program to only include native or indigenous tree species, such as any native Oak tree, Red Alder, Bigleaf Maple, California Bay or Laurel, California Black Walnut, or California Sycamore.

4. Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures (Proposed Part 4) Part 4 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines the processing procedures for all permits and entitlements that are required by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
• Adult Use Development Permit
• Architectural Review Permit
• Development Plan Permit
• Minor Exception
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Sign Permit
• Temporary Sign Permit
• Master Sign Program
• Use Permit
• Temporary Use Permit
• Variance
• Zoning Permit
Each Chapter includes the purpose of the entitlement of each permit, the review authority, filing and processing procedures, required findings, and lapse of approval and revocation regulations. Where applicable, associated conditions of approval are also outlined. The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature and are proposed to add clarity and refinement to the City’s existing regulations. The changes also introduce consistency in the information provided for each permit or entitlement.

Some of the more substantial changes include adding clarification for what types of single-family projects trigger Architectural Review Permits (proposed Section

18.110.010.B) and clarifying the required findings. Additionally, more clarification was added to the similarities and differences in Use Permits and Minor Use Permits (proposed Chapter 18.145).

5. Zoning Ordinance Administration (Proposed Part 5)
Part 5 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance establishes the general administrative authority and procedures for decision making of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes Chapters related to:

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1853 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • General Provisions
• Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map • Appeals and Calls for Review
• Development Agreement
• Enforcement
• Nonconforming Provisions
• Notice Requirements
General Provisions: Staff is proposing to add clarity to the review and approval authority provisions for projects with multiple discretionary permit applications, as well as the environmental review process and procedures, including relevant time frames in compliance with State Law (Permit Streamlining Act) and Housing Element Implementation Program DDD, which states “The City shall adopt a policy to ensure compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code § 65920 et seq.) and timing requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000 et seq.)”.

Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map: The existing ordinance does not outline a process for a General Plan Amendment; therefore, Staff is proposing to include a new section outlining the application process, which is similar to Zoning Ordinance amendments. Other changes to this section are proposed to add clarity and ensure transparency in the City’s processes.

Appeals and Calls for Review: Staff is proposing to amend and streamline the current appeals process so that the decision of an appellate body on an appeal is final and cannot be appealed a second time. For example, if a decision by the Zoning Administrator were appealed to the Planning Commission, the decision of the Planning Commission would be final, and no further appeal to the City Council would be possible. It is important to note that Staff proposes no limitations on City Council calls for review, thus preserving the ability of any City Council member to call up an action by a Planning Decision Body for City Council review.

6. Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Proposed Part 6) Part 6 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes definitions of all Land Use Classifications and Definitions of terms used throughout the ordinance. These Chapters are currently located in separate Parts of the ordinance and are proposed to be combined into a single Part with this update to improve usability.

Land Use Classifications: Staff is proposing to introduce several new land use classifications, as well as combine other similar land use classifications where appropriate. New land use classifications for “emergency medical care facility”, “School, college and university”, “School, technical, trade and vocational”, “Caretaker’s quarters”, “Employee housing”, “Employee housing, agricultural”, “low barrier navigation center” (defined as “housing or shelter in which a resident who is homeless or at risk of homelessness may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing”), and Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1854 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 “mobile or manufactured housing” are being proposed to address gaps in the ordinance and/or comply with State law terms and requirements. Additionally, many of these new land use classifications are outlined in Housing Element Implementation Program O (Municipal Code Updates), which requires the City to amend the code and define and permit such uses.

Additionally, “Religious assembly” uses have been reclassified as “Place of assembly” per State regulations and expanded to include civic auditoriums, theaters, banquet halls, community and civic centers, meeting halls and clubs, thus eliminating the current definition for “Clubs and lodges”. Similarly, “Large care facilities” have been eliminated from the residential use classifications section and combined with the existing care facility definitions under “Public and Semi-Public Land Use Classifications” for clarity.

The definition for “Family day care homes” has been simplified per State law regulations.

Lastly, the definition of “Multi-family residential” uses has been expanded to include separate definitions for duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and developments with five or more units. These new sub-categories are also reflected in the land use classification tables and provide additional clarity for staff and applicants when processing multifamily development applications.

Definitions: Several new definitions are proposed, and several others are proposed to be modified to provide clarity, address gaps in the code, and comply with State law. New proposed definitions include the definition of “alteration”, which is necessary when applying legal non-conforming provisions, and “attached building or structure”, which provides additional clarity to the existing definition of a detached structure. Additional definitions are proposed regarding electric vehicle charging stations in compliance with State Law. Lastly, new definitions related to flag lots, irregular shaped lots, and determining lot lines for each scenario have been amended in the ordinance to provide clarity for both staff and property owners.

Additional definitions are proposed for modification, including adding clarity to the different “affordable housing costs” income levels, clarifying the definition of “basement”, as well as updating all density-bonus-related definitions to comply with State law.

Lastly, several other definitions have been determined to be out of date or not applicable and are proposed for removal. These include “boardinghouse”, “conditioned/habitable space for accessory structures”, and “frontage, building”.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board and at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center. In addition, a notice was published in the Contra Costa Times Newspaper on October 17, 2024, and published on the City’s City Hall Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1855 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 electronic sign, A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library and notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website, and the City’s pleasanthill2040.com website.

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

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
No formal action is required. Staff recommends that the City Council review the Preliminary Draft of the comprehensive zoning ordinance update and provide feedback to Staff to be incorporated into the Public Review Draft Ordinance.

NEXT STEPS
Staff will incorporate comments received from the City Council and the public into a Public Review Draft Ordinance. The Public Review Draft will be presented to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation, and ultimately City Council for adoption at a later date.

ATTACHMENTS
A List of Proposed Ordinance Modifications not Limited by State Law B Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Redlined Preliminary Draft) C Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Clean Preliminary Draft) D Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
E Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Clean Preliminary Draft) F Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft) G Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Clean Preliminary Draft) H Part 4 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft) I Part 4 - Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures (Clean Preliminary Draft) J Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Redlined Preliminary Draft) K Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Clean Preliminary Draft) L Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Redlined Preliminary Draft) M Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Clean Preliminary Draft) N June 25, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) O August 27, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) P October 8, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) Q Public Comments (all received to date)
R Public Notice
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1856 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 21, 2025
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
TITLE: STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CITY’S ZONING
ORDINANCE (PHMC TITLE 18) AND PROPOSED UPDATED
ZONING MAP. THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO

THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT

THE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS OF THE RECENTLY
ADOPTED 2040 GENERAL PLAN AND 2023-2031 HOUSING

ELEMENT, AS WELL AS TO ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH

STATE LAW, AND CLARIFY AND STREAMLINE EXISTING
PROCESSES. THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP INCLUDES THE

REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO COMPLY WITH THE
UNDERLYING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION.

SYNOPSIS
The City Council is requested to provide preliminary feedback on a comprehensive update to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (PHMC Title 18), which includes all Parts as follows:
• Part 1 – Enactment and Applicability
• Part 2 – Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards • Part 3 – Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts • Part 4 – Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures • Part 5 – Zoning Ordinance Administration
• Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications
The proposed comprehensive update is necessary to implement the goals, policies, and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to address compliance with State law, and clarify and streamline existing processes. The proposed comprehensive update includes comments from the Planning Commission and the public from three previous Planning Commission Study Sessions on June 25, 2024, August 27, 2024, and October 8, 2024, and from the City Council Study Session on November 4, 2024.

The City Council is also requested to provide feedback on the updated Zoning Map, which includes the rezoning of certain properties to comply with the underlying General Plan designation.

DISCUSSION
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1857 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Background
General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decision-making and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023-2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20) and introduced new mixed-use district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.

Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Update: On October 7, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 970 amending various portions of the Zoning Ordinance that were determined to be necessary to comply with State law and to clarify and streamline existing processes. The processing of these specific amendments prior to completion of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update ensures that the City’s Zoning Ordinance remains in compliance with required regulations. The ordinance went into effect on November 6, 2024, and has been incorporated into the comprehensive zoning ordinance update.

Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update Study Sessions: The Planning Commission has conducted three Study Sessions on the comprehensive zoning ordinance update (June 25, 2024, August 27, 2024, and October 7, 2024). Additionally, the City Council held a Study Session on November 4, 2024. Comments from all four study sessions have been incorporated in the Preliminary Draft Ordinance. Staff Reports from each Study Session have been attached for reference (Attachments Z, AA, BB & CC).

Public Comment Received To Date: A total of 38 written public comments have been received to date (Attachment EE), and a total of 11 members of the public spoke across the four Study Sessions.

Analysis
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Update
Included below is a summary of the most recent modifications to the preliminary draft of the proposed zoning ordinance update in response to the City Council’s feedback. Additionally, for clarity Staff has provided four versions of each Part as follows:

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1858 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025

1. Redlined Preliminary Draft: includes all proposed track changes (Attachments A,

E, I, M, Q, U)

2. Redlined Preliminary Draft –Required Changes: includes green highlights indicating proposed changes that reflect requirements of State Law, the City’s General Plan, and Housing Element (Attachments B, F, J, N, R, V)

3. Redlined Preliminary Draft – Best Practices: includes yellow highlights representing proposed changes that reflect best practices and are subject to the discretion of the City Council (Attachments C, G, K, O, S, W)

4. Clean Preliminary Draft: a clean version incorporating all proposed changes (Attachments D, H, L, P, T, X)

1. Enactment and Applicability (Proposed Part 1)
Part 1 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes chapters related to Purpose and Organization (Chapter 18.05), and Applicability and Interpretation (Chapter 18.10), of the Ordinance. Part 1 includes a revised “Organization of the Zoning Ordinance” (Chapter

18.05.030) section that reflects a proposed Ordinance outline.

The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature to clarify and refine the City’s existing provisions. There have been no changes to Part 1 since the previous City Council Study Session.

2. Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards (Proposed Part 2) Part 2 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include all zoning district regulations and development standards for the following districts:
• Residential
• Mixed-Use
• Commercial, Office, and Industrial
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Precise Plan Districts (PPD) • Hillside Planned Unit Development (HPUD)
• Overlay Districts
• Parks and Recreation Zoning District
• Open Space Zoning District
Residential Zoning Districts: In response to several public comments received, the City Council requested that Staff explore reduced front setbacks for single-family zones (currently 20 feet) because the front property line for many properties in Pleasant Hill is located several feet behind the paved portion of the street on what appears as front yards of homes. Staff has not proposed any further changes, as currently, property owners can apply for a minor exception to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 16 feet, subject to certain findings (e.g., no practical alternative exists (existing PHMC Section

18.111.040)). If the City Council desires additional flexibility without requiring that homeowners seek approval of an exception, Staff requests that direction from the Council, including when reduced front setbacks may be appropriate, and by how much.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1859 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Mangini Delu Residential Zones: The City Council had the following comments related to the Mangini Delu property at the previous Study Session:

1. Consider a single zone (instead of two zones) for the entire Mangini Delu site.

2. Include language referencing a “comprehensive master plan” requirement into the description of the new Mangini Delu zone.

In response, Staff has eliminated the two separate zones in favor of a single “Mangini Delu Residential Zoning District (RMD)” encompassing the entire site. Additionally, new language was added to the purpose of the zone, as follows: “Allowed uses and development standards in the RMD zoning district shall be established in a comprehensive, sitewide master plan to be approved prior to any development onsite, unless otherwise provided in this Chapter.”
Mixed-Use Districts: In response to comments received by the City Council at the Study Session, Staff has removed the provision requiring buildings that incorporate over 10,000 square feet of office space provide eating facilities for employees.

Park and Recreation Zoning District: The City Council had the following comments or questions related to the proposed Park and Recreation Zoning District at the previous Study Session:

1. Include language referencing the Recreation and Park District’s role and review process.

2. Add clarification for the process and height requirements for accessory structures (e.g., field lights).

3. How is noise addressed on parks adjacent to residential uses?

4. Clarify parking requirements for Rec & Park facilities.

In response, Staff has added language to the purpose and intent section of the Chapter (Proposed 18.42.010.B) outlining the structure and role of the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District (Rec & Park) to clarify that the Rec & Park has its own review process and procedures. Activities that are determined to be exempt from the section would still be subject to the District’s applicable process and procedures.

In response to comments from the District, the “Exempt Activities” section was amended to clarify that all maintenance and repairs to both landscaping and buildings are exempt activities. Additionally, tree removals are also exempt. The Land Use Regulations Table (Table 18.45-1) was amended to clarify that the maximum building and accessory structure height for the zone is 35 feet. Additionally, clarifying language was added to the “Required Permits and Entitlements” section noting that a zoning permit is required for any new accessory structure (e.g., field lights and play equipment).

Potential noise generated by District facilities would continue to be subject to the City’s noise standards contained in Part 3, Section 18.75.020. Finally, the off-street parking and loading standards applicable to Park and Recreation Facility uses were updated to defer to Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1860 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 the Zoning Administrator (Part 3, Section 18.70.030) allowing the City to review parking requirements on a case-by-case basis. For new facilities, or significant modifications to existing facilities, the Zoning Administrator could require a parking assessment to determine the appropriate parking requirements.

Open Space Zoning District: In response to comments received by the City Council at the Study Session, Staff has eliminated the proposed development standards for the Open Space Zoning District (previously proposed development standards mirrored single-family residential development). Instead, development standards will be established by the Zoning Administrator on a case-by-case basis to ensure the purpose and intent of the Open Space zone are met.

3. Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Proposed Part 3) Part 3 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes general provisions that apply to all zoning districts as follows:
• General Site and Development Standards
• Adult Businesses
• Cannabis
• Creek Setbacks
• Fences, Walls, and Screening
• Off-Street Parking and Loading
• Performance Standards
• Signs
• Tree Preservation
• Water-Efficient Landscaping
• Wireless Telecommunications
Besides updating the parking requirements for Park and Recreation Facilities as mentioned above (Section 18.70.030), there have been no changes to Part 3 since the previous City Council Study Session. For a summary of all proposed changes to Part 3, please refer to Attachments I-L.

4. Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures (Proposed Part 4) Part 4 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines the processing procedures for all permits and entitlements that are required by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
• Adult Use Development Permit
• Architectural Review Permit
• Development Plan Permit
• Minor Exception
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Sign Permit
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1861 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • Temporary Sign Permit
• Master Sign Program
• Use Permit
• Temporary Use Permit
• Variance
• Zoning Permit
There have been no changes to Part 4 since the previous City Council Study Session. For a summary of all proposed changes to Part 4, please refer to Attachments M-P.

5. Zoning Ordinance Administration (Proposed Part 5)
Part 5 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance establishes the general administrative authority and procedures for decision making of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes Chapters related to:
• General Provisions
• Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map • Appeals and Calls for Review
• Development Agreement
• Enforcement
• Nonconforming Provisions
• Notice Requirements
At the previous City Council Study Session, the Council requested that the proposed appeal language be modified so that all projects remain appealable to the City Council (thus eliminating the previously proposed limit on the number of appeals).

In response, Staff has amended the proposed language in Section 18.175.020.B (Right to Appeal, Call for Review, Time Limits) to allow any decision of the Planning Commission or Architectural Review Commission to be appealed to the City Council, regardless of the number of previous appeals.

6. Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Proposed Part 6) Part 6 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes definitions of all Land Use Classifications and Definitions of terms used throughout the ordinance. These Chapters are currently located in separate Parts of the ordinance; Staff proposes combining them into a single Part with this update to improve usability.

There have been no changes to Part 6 since the previous City Council Study Session. For a summary of all proposed changes to Part 6, please refer to Attachments U-X.

For a substantive summary of all proposed modifications, please see the City Council Staff Report from November 4, 2024 (Attachment CC).

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1862 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Update to the Zoning Map
The City is also proposing to
rezone several parcels
throughout the City. The
primary reason for the
rezoning is to have properties
consistent with the recently
approved 2040 General Plan.

The proposed rezonings will
also facilitate
implementation of the
proposed comprehensive
zoning ordinance update. For
the purposes of this Staff
Report, the proposed zoning
map has been broken up into
four quadrants (Quadrant A –
northwest portion, Quadrant
B – northeast portion,
Quadrant C – southeast
portion, Quadrant D –
southwest portion) to guide
discussion.

Below is a summary of areas
of the City proposed for
rezoning. The comprehensive
proposed rezoning map is
included as Attachment Y:

Key:

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1863 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 A. Quadrant A (Northwest portion of the City)
• Several park/open space areas, all currently owned by the Rec & Park District, will be rezoned to the new Parks and Recreation zone. This includes the open space surrounded by the Elderwood Drive and Skyview Drive neighborhoods, Paso Nogal Park, and Shannon Hills Park.
• The Ridgeview Drive neighborhood is proposed to be rezoned from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (MFL) to Very Low Density Multi-family Residential (MFVL) to comply with the Multi-Family Very Low Density (MFVLD) General Plan Designation.
• The property at the end of Janin Place will be rezoned from Single-Family R-20 to R-10 to comply with the Single-Family Medium Density General Plan Designation. • The Mangini Delu property will be rezoned from Single-Family R-10 to the new Mangini Delu Residential District (RMD).
• The multi-family development at Devon Avenue and Oak Brook Place will be rezoned from MFL to MFVL to comply with the MFVLD General Plan designation.
• Several properties along Donegal Way and Donegal Court will be rezoned from Single-Family R-10A to MFL to comply with the MFL General Plan Designation.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1864 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 B. Quadrant B (Northeast portion of the City)
• Several park/open space areas, all currently owned by the Rec & Park District, will be rezoned to the new Parks and Recreation zone. This includes the open space surrounded by the Camelback Road multifamily development (north of Chilpancingo Parkway), Chilpancingo Park, Las Juntas Park, Frank Salfingere Park, and Pleasant Hill Park.
• The Camelback Road and Scottsdale Road multifamily development (north of Chilpancingo Parkway) will be rezoned from MRL to MFVL to comply with the MFVLD General Plan designation.
• Diablo Valley Plaza (on the northeast corner of Golf Club Road and Old Quarry Road) is proposed to be rezoned from Retail Business (RB) to Mixed-Use (MX) to comply with the Mixed-Use General Plan designation
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1865 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • The existing Single-Family R-7 neighborhood between Contra Costa Boulevard (west), Marta Drive (east), Anelda Drive (south) and Beth Drive (north), will be rezoned from R-7 to Mixed-Use to comply with the MX General Plan designation. • Several properties along Contra Costa Boulevard between Vivian Drive and Harriet Drive, currently zoned RB, R-7, or Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), will be rezoned to Mixed-Use to comply with the MX General Plan designation. • The John F. Kennedy University property (east of Ellinwood Way) will be rezoned from PAO to Mixed-Use Very High Density Residential (MX-VHD) to comply with the MXVHD General Plan designation.

C. Quadrant C (Southeast portion of the City)
• Several park/open space areas, all currently owned by the Rec & Park District, will be rezoned to the new Parks and Recreation zone. This includes Pleasant Hill Park and Pleasant Oaks Park.
• Several properties on the north and south sides of Gregory Lane will be rezoned from R-7 to Neighborhood Mixed Use (MX-NB) to comply with the Mixed-Use Neighborhood General Plan designation.
• The existing PUD 410 along Cleaveland Road, north of Astrid Drive will be rezoned to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) to comply with the MFM General Plan designation. PUD 410 is a “shell” PUD and contains no specific Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1866 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 land use or development standards. Therefore, any future development is already subject to the MFM land use and development standards.
• Several parcels along the south side of Oak Park Boulevard between Patterson Boulevard (west) and the east side of Pleasant Valley Drive (east), and the north side of Oak Park Boulevard near the Patterson Boulevard intersection are proposed to be rezoned from R-10, MRL, PAO, NB, or RB to MX-NB to reflect the new Mixed Use Neighborhood General Plan designation.
• Several properties on either side of Douglas Lane, south of Oak Park Boulevard, and on the north side of Oak Park Boulevard west of Hook Avenue will be rezoned from MFL to MFVL to comply with the MFVLD General Plan designation.

D. Quadrant D (Southwest portion of the City)
• Several park/open space areas, all currently owned by the Rec & Park District, will be rezoned to the new Parks and Recreation zone. This includes Rogers Smith Park, Dinosaur Hill Park, and the School House property.
• Two parcels near the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory Lane are proposed to be rezoned from NB to MX-HD to comply with the MX-HD General Plan designation. The surrounding parcels also located within the MX-HD General Plan designation were previously rezoned to MX-HD, as they were identified in the City’s Housing Element.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1867 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • The existing development on the south side of Barnett Terrace, currently zoned MFM will be rezoned to MFL to comply with the MFLD General Plan designation.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board and at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center. In addition, a notice was published in the Contra Costa Times Newspaper on March 31, 2025, and published on the City Hall electronic sign as well as A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library. Notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website, and the City’s pleasanthill2040.com website. Finally, the agenda and staff report were posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
No formal action is required. Staff recommends that the City Council review the Preliminary Draft of the comprehensive zoning ordinance update and proposed updates to the Zoning Map and provide feedback to Staff for inclusion in the Public Review Draft Ordinance and updated Zoning Map.

ATTACHMENTS (blue color provided for visual organization of Parts only) A Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Redlined Preliminary Draft) B Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Required Changes) C Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Best Practices) D Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Clean Preliminary Draft) E Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Redlined Preliminary Draft) F Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Required Changes)
G Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Best Practices)
H Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Clean Preliminary Draft) I Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft) J Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Required Changes)
K Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Best Practices)
L Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Clean Preliminary Draft) M Part 4 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft) N Part 4 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Required Changes)
O Part 4 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Best Practices)
P Part 4 - Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures (Clean Preliminary Draft) Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1868 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Q Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Redlined Preliminary Draft) R Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Required Changes) S Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Best Practices) T Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Clean Preliminary Draft) U Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Redlined Preliminary Draft) V Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Required Changes)
W Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Redlined Preliminary Draft – Best Practices)
X Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Clean Preliminary Draft) Y Proposed Zoning Map
Z June 25, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) AA August 27, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) BB October 8, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) CC November 4, 2024 City Council Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) DD Public Comments (all received to date)
EE Public Notice
FF Public Comments received 3.31.2025-4.16.2025
Prepared by: Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1869 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Planning Commission
Staff Report September 9, 2025

COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT TO PLEASANT HILL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18 (PLANNING AND LAND USE) AND AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO INCLUDE THE REZONING OF 1,080 PARCELS THROUGHOUT THE CITY FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN 2040, INCLUDING THE 2023-2031

HOUSING ELEMENT, CITY-WIDE
Public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council on the Pleasant Hill Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment (PHMC Title 18), which will include all Parts of the updated and replaced ordinance, and an amendment to the Zoning Map to include the rezoning of 1,080 properties throughout the City of Pleasant Hill. The proposed comprehensive update and replacement of the Zoning Ordinance and proposed updated Zoning Map are necessary and required to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to address compliance with various State law provisions, and clarify and streamline existing processes.

CEQA: The Project is consistent with the certified 2040 General Plan Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022070095), no further CEQA review is required. In addition to, and in the alternative, the amendment is exempt per: CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), Section 15061(b)(3); and partly pursuant to Government Code Section 21080.085(a).

Project Planner: Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner, (925)671-5297, [email protected] I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
A public hearing for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the City Council on the Pleasant Hill Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment (PHMC Title 18), which will include all Parts of the updated and replaced ordinance, including re-termed Parts of the zoning ordinance, as follows:
• Part 1 – Enactment and Applicability;
• Part 2 – Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards; • Part 3 – Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts; • Part 4 – Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures; • Part 5 – Zoning Ordinance Administration; and
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1870 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 2 • Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications.

The proposed zoning ordinance amendment will also include rezoning of 1,080 properties throughout the City of Pleasant Hill. The proposed comprehensive update and replacement of the Zoning Ordinance & proposed updated Zoning Map are necessary and required to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to address compliance with various State law provisions, and clarify and streamline existing processes.

B. Background
Previous 2003 General Plan: The previous 2003 General Plan included mixed-use designations at Chilpancingo Parkway and Old Quarry Road (now the CarMax and Floor and Décor development), along the east side of Contra Costa Boulevard south of Ellinwood Drive, downtown Pleasant Hill and the existing Two Worlds development, and along Oak Park Boulevard where the Library is now built. The 2040 General Plan builds off the previous General Plan, and introduces three additional mixed-use designations (Mixed-Use Neighborhood, Mixed-Use High Density, and Mixed-Use Very High Density), in addition to the Mixed Use designation, and extended those further along key corridors throughout the City. 2040 General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decision-making and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan included several implementation programs, which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
2023-2031 Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023- 2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20), and introduced new mixeduse district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.

Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Update: On October 7, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 970 amending various portions of the Zoning Ordinance that were determined to be necessary to comply with State law and to clarify and streamline existing processes. The processing of these specific amendments prior to completion of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance amendment ensures that the City’s Zoning Ordinance remains in compliance with required regulations. The ordinance went into effect on November 6, 2024, and has been incorporated into the comprehensive zoning ordinance update.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1871 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 3 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment Study Sessions: The Planning Commission has conducted three Study Sessions on the comprehensive zoning ordinance update (June 25, 2024, August 27, 2024, and October 7, 2024). Additionally, the City Council held two Study Session on November 4, 2024 and April 21, 2025. Comments from all five study sessions have been incorporated in the Preliminary Draft Ordinance. Staff Reports from each Study Session have been attached for reference (Attachments R-V). All attachments for each Staff Report are available on the City’s meeting agenda page on the website, and by request to the Planning Division.

Public Comment Received To Date: City Staff has received 33 public comments specifically for the September 9, 2025 Planning Commission hearing (Attachment W). This is in addition to the 38 written public comments that have been received on the project to date (Attachment X). A total of 12 members of the public have spoken across the five Study Sessions.

City Staff also received numerous phone calls and emails (50+) from the public with questions and/or clarifications on the proposed rezonings. A majority of the public’s concerns were related to the rezoning of single-family residential properties to mixed-use zones. In response, Staff posted a “Proposed Rezoning Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) handout to the project’s webpage addressing the common questions received. A copy of the FAQs is included as Attachment Y.

II. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Environmental Review
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment and associated Rezoning do not propose any new development beyond what was disclosed in the certified 2040 General Plan Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022070095). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required for a later project that is within the scope of the Programmatic EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City finds that no substantial changes are proposed in the project and thus no revisions to the certified 2040 General Plan Final EIR are necessary. In addition to, and in the alternative, the amendment is exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as the changes are administrative in nature and will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment; Section 15061(b)(3) as CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and partly, per Government Code Section 21080.085(a) as CEQA does not apply to a rezoning that implements the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65583 of the Government Code. Please refer to Attachment C for additional information.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1872 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 4 B. Public Notice
A notice of this public hearing was published in the Contra Costa Times Newspaper on August 9, 2025 and August 25, 2025. In addition, notification was provided on the City’s electronic sign, A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library, respectively, and notices of the meeting have also been posted on the City main website, the City’s pleasanthill2040.com website, and at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center. Additionally, public notices were mailed to affected properties and associated property owners of parcels proposed to be rezoned.

III. NECESSARY FINDINGS
According to PHMC §18.125.050 (Planning Commission action), in order to approve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission and City Council are required to make findings as follows:

1. The ordinance shall be consistent with the policies of the General Plan;

2. The ordinance shall be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and implement the policies of the General Plan, more specifically:
a. Provide a precise guide for the physical development of the City to preserve the character and quality of the residential neighborhoods, foster convenient, harmonious and workable relationships among land uses and achieve the arrangement of land uses described in the General Plan.
b. Promote the economic stability of existing land uses. c. Prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of land and buildings. d. Ensure the provision of adequate open space for light, air and fire safety. e. Ensure that service demands of new development will not exceed the capacities of existing streets, utilities or public services.

Additionally, according to PHMC §18.125.070 (Limitations on residential rezoning), the City shall not rezone any area or property zoned for residential use to increase density or change land use unless the following conditions are met:

A. Development of the area or property to be rezoned shall not have growth-inducing impacts on existing residential neighborhoods;
B. Development of the area or property to be rezoned shall not have a significant traffic impact on existing residential neighborhoods; and
C. Development of the area or property to be rezoned shall not have a significant noise impact on existing residential neighborhoods.

The attached Planning Commission resolution (Attachment A) addresses the findings noted above.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1873 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 5 IV. ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Title 18)
A summary of the recent modifications to the preliminary draft of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is included below. The modifications include comments received by the Planning Commission and City Council during previous study sessions. Staff has provided two versions of each Part as follows:

1. Redlined Preliminary Draft: includes all proposed track changes from the City’s existing Zoning Ordinance (Title 18);

2. Clean Preliminary Draft: a clean version incorporating all proposed changes.

Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability
Part 1 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes chapters related to Purpose and Organization (Chapter 18.05), and Applicability and Interpretation (Chapter 18.10) of the Ordinance. Part 1 also includes a revised “Organization of the Zoning Ordinance” (Chapter 18.05.030) section that reflects the proposed Ordinance outline.

The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature to clarify and refine the City’s existing provisions. There have been no substantial changes to Part 1 since the previous Planning Commission Study Session.

Part 2 - Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards Part 2 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include all zoning district regulations and development standards for the following districts:
• Residential
• Mixed-Use
• Commercial, Office, and Industrial
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Precise Plan Districts (PPD) • Hillside Planned Unit Development (HPUD)
• Overlay Districts
• Parks and Recreation Zoning District
• Open Space Zoning District
General Modifications: All zoning district regulations and development standard language has been updated and organized for clarity. Specifically, the land use table for each zone has been updated to clarify that permitted uses require approval of a zoning permit. Additionally, the Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1874 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 6 new land uses (employee housing, mobile/manufactured housing, single-family attached, and Places of Assembly), have been incorporated into the land use tables.

These changes are consistent with what the Planning Commission reviewed at the last Commission Study Session and there have been no substantial changes to the general modifications to Part 2 as noted above.

Residential Zoning Districts: Amendments are proposed to the residential zoning districts chapter to ensure these provisions comply with the recent General Plan update and Housing Element Implementation Program O (Municipal Code Updates), which requires the City to amend the code and define and permit such uses, as proposed.

In response to several public comments received, the City Council requested that Staff reduce the front setback requirement for the R-6 and R-7 single-family zones from 20 feet to 15 feet.

This change stemmed from the fact that the front property line for many properties in Pleasant Hill is located several feet behind the paved portion of the street on what appear as front yards of homes. This change will result in additional developable area for the higher density singlefamily zones.

Unless noted above, the proposed changes are consistent with what the Planning Commission reviewed at the previous Study Session.

Mangini Delu Residential Zones: In response to comments received from the Public and the City Council at the previous Study Sessions, Staff has eliminated the previously proposed two separate zones in favor of a single “Mangini Delu Residential Zoning District (RMD)” district encompassing the entire site. The development standards have also been updated and divided into two separate categories – “single-family residential” and “all other land use classifications” to ensure appropriate development standards are applied to the range of development that could occur on site.

Finally, new language was added to the purpose of the RMD zone, as follows: “Allowed uses and development standards in the RMD zoning district shall be established in a comprehensive, sitewide master plan to be approved prior to any development onsite, unless otherwise provided in this Chapter.” A master plan will be required prior to the development of the site.

Mixed-Use Districts: In response to comments received by the City Council at the previous Study Sessions, Staff has removed the provision requiring buildings that incorporate over 10,000 square feet of office space provide eating facilities for employees.

Staff is proposing a modification to the permitting requirements for employee housing in the Mixed-Use Land Use Regulations Table to allow employee housing to be permitted by-right in all mixed-use zones. This modification is necessary to comply with Housing Element Program O, which requires employee housing to be permitted in the same manner as singlefamily residential structures in the same zone. If recommended by the Planning Commission, Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1875 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 7 Staff will make the noted change to the table prior to City Council review. No other substantial changes to the mixed-use standards are proposed.

Commercial, Office, and Industrial Zoning Districts: The amendments proposed to the Commercial, Office, and Industrial zones are primarily to provide clarity. Specifically, the additional development standards were modified to clarify when certain standards are required in commercial districts adjacent to residential zones/uses. Minimal substantive changes to content are being proposed.

Park and Recreation Zoning District: A new “Park and Recreation” zoning district (REC) is being introduced, which will apply to all Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District (PHRPD)- owned properties. Many of these properties are currently zoned Single-Family Residential. The new Park and Recreation Zoning District focuses on the preservation and support of these facilities. The proposed development standards still mirror those within the Single-Family Residential District to ensure development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The allowable land uses within this proposed zoning district have been limited to only those related to parks and recreation facilities.

In response to comments received by the City Council, Staff has added language to the purpose and intent section of the Chapter (Proposed 18.42.010.B) outlining the structure and role of the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District (Rec & Park) to clarify that Rec & Park has its own review process and procedures. Activities that are determined to be exempt from the section would still be subject to the District’s applicable process and procedures.

In response to comments from the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District, the “Exempt Activities” section clarifies that all maintenance and repairs to both landscaping and buildings are exempt activities. Additionally, tree removals are also exempt. The Land Use Regulations Table (Table 18.45-1) includes the maximum building and accessory structure height of 35 feet. Additionally, clarifying language was added to the “Required Permits and Entitlements” section noting that a zoning permit is required for any new accessory structure (e.g., field lights and play equipment).

Potential noise generated by District facilities would continue to be subject to the City’s noise standards contained in Part 3, Section 18.75.020. Finally, the off-street parking and loading standards applicable to Park and Recreation Facility uses were updated to defer to the Zoning Administrator (Part 3, Section 18.70.030) allowing the City to review parking requirements on a case-by-case basis. For new facilities, or significant modifications to existing facilities, the Zoning Administrator could require a parking assessment to determine the appropriate parking requirements.

Open Space Zoning District: A new Open Space zoning district (OS) is also being introduced to implement the Open Space land use designation in the General Plan. The new Open Space zone is intended to protect natural resources and maintain the landscape’s natural character.

Land uses and development is limited to habitat conservation, watershed protection, cultural and historic resource protection, and public utilities. All development standards will be established by the Zoning Administrator on a case-by-case basis to ensure the purpose and intent of the Open Space zone are met.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1876 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 8 Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts Part 3 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes general provisions that apply to all zoning districts, as follows:
• General Site and Development Standards
• Adult Businesses
• Cannabis
• Creek Setbacks
• Fences, Walls, and Screening
• Off-Street Parking and Loading
• Performance Standards
• Signs
• Tree Preservation
• Water-Efficient Landscaping
• Wireless Telecommunications
General Modifications: This section of the Ordinance has been expanded to include separate Chapters for frequently referenced provisions such as Tree Preservation, or provisions that are currently imbedded under “Additional Site Development Regulations,” (existing Chapter 18.50) such as Creek Setbacks, and Cannabis. Some of the more substantive changes include clarifying how the City measures structure and building heights (from “existing grade” instead of “ground surface”), updating the City’s traffic safety visibility area (proposed Section 18.45.070) to rectify existing discrepancies between the City’s written provisions and associated diagrams, and reorganizing the City’s temporary sign provisions.

Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards: Besides updating the parking requirements for Park and Recreation Facilities as mentioned above (Section 18.70.030), there have been no substantial changes to Part 3 since the previous Planning Commission Study Session.

The proposed parking requirements represent a reduction from the current standards for Studio and Guest Parking, with 1 Bedroom and 2+ Bedrooms unchanged. With the reductions, these changes would meet the intent of Housing Element Program L, while still mirroring requirements in comparable jurisdictions and meeting or exceeding ITE data.

The City is not proposing any further modifications to the multi-family parking requirements since the most recent Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions. The proposed changes for reference are included in the table below:

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1877 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 9 Proposed Parking Requirement for Multi-Family Uses in Pleasant Hill Current Proposed
Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 1.25 spaces per unit
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit Unchanged
2+ bedrooms 2 spaces per unit Unchanged
Guest Parking 1 per 2 units 1 per 4 units
Part 4 - Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures
Part 4 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines the processing procedures for all permits and entitlements that are required by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
• Adult Use Development Permit
• Architectural Review Permit
• Development Plan Permit
• Minor Exception
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Sign Permit
• Temporary Sign Permit
• Master Sign Program
• Use Permit
• Temporary Use Permit
• Variance
• Zoning Permit
Each Chapter includes the purpose of the entitlement, the review and approval authority, filing and processing procedures, required findings, and lapse of approval and revocation regulations. Where applicable, associated conditions of approval are also outlined. The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature and are proposed to add clarity and refinement to the City’s existing regulations. The changes also introduce consistency in the information provided for each permit or entitlement.

There have been no substantial changes to Part 4 since the previous Planning Commission Study Session.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1878 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 10 Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration
Part 5 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance establishes the general administrative authority and procedures for decision making of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes Chapters related to:
• General Provisions
• Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map • Appeals and Calls for Review
• Development Agreement
• Enforcement
• Nonconforming Provisions
• Notice Requirements
Since the previous Planning Commission Study Session, the proposed appeal language has been modified so that all projects remain appealable to the City Council (thus eliminating the previously proposed limit on the number of appeals). Section 18.175.020.B (Right to Appeal, Call for Review, Time Limits) states that any decision of the Planning Commission or Architectural Review Commission may be appealed to the City Council, regardless of the number of previous appeals.

No other substantial changes to Part 5 have been proposed since the previous Planning Commission Study Session.

Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications
Part 6 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes definitions of all Land Use Classifications and Definitions of terms used throughout the ordinance. These Chapters are currently located in separate Parts of the ordinance; Staff proposes combining them into a single Part with this update to improve usability.

There have been no substantial changes to Part 6 since the previous Planning Commission Study Session.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1879 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 11 Update to the Zoning Map – Proposed Rezonings
Key:

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1880 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 12 The City is proposing to rezone 1,080 parcels throughout the City. The primary reason for the rezoning is to ensure zoning consistency with the recently approved 2040 General Plan, which modified the land use designation for many of the properties. The proposed rezonings will also facilitate implementation of the proposed comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment. Finally, some of the proposed rezones will also correct previous inconsistencies that existed under the previous General Plan and were never rectified.

For the purposes of this Staff Report, the proposed Zoning Map has been broken up into four quadrants (Quadrant A – northwest portion, Quadrant B – northeast portion, Quadrant C – southeast portion, Quadrant D – southwest portion) to guide discussion.

Below is a summary of areas of the City proposed for rezoning. Maps showing the proposed properties to be rezoned, the existing zoning designation of those properties being rezoned, and a comprehensive proposed rezoning map are included as Attachment Q.

A. Quadrant A (Northwest portion of the City)
• Several park/open space areas, all currently
owned by the Rec & Park District, will be
rezoned to the new Parks and Recreation
zone. This includes the open space
surrounded by the Elderwood Drive and
Skyview Drive neighborhoods, Paso Nogal
Park, and Shannon Hills Park.
• The Ridgeview Drive neighborhood is
proposed to be rezoned from Low Density
Multi-Family Residential (MFL) to Very
Low Density Multi-family Residential
(MFVL) to comply with the Multi-Family
Very Low Density (MFVLD) General Plan
Designation.
• The property at the end of Janin Place will
be rezoned from Single-Family R-20 to R10 to comply with the Single-Family Medium Density General Plan
Designation.
• The Mangini Delu property will be rezoned
from Single-Family R-10 to the new
Mangini Delu Residential District (RMD).
• The multi-family development at Devon Avenue and Oak Brook Place will be rezoned from MFL to MFVL to comply with the MFVLD General Plan designation. • Several properties along Donegal Way and Donegal Court will be rezoned from Single-Family R-10A to MFL to comply with the MFL General Plan Designation.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1881 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 13 B. Quadrant B (Northeast portion of the City)
• Several park/open space areas, all
currently owned by the Rec & Park
District, will be rezoned to the new Parks
and Recreation zone. This includes the
open space surrounded by the Camelback
Road multifamily development (north of
Chilpancingo Parkway), Chilpancingo
Park, Las Juntas Park, Frank Salfingere
Park, and Pleasant Hill Park.
• The Camelback Road and Scottsdale
Road multifamily development (north of
Chilpancingo Parkway) will be rezoned
from MRL to MFVL to comply with the
MFVLD General Plan designation.
• Diablo Valley Plaza (on the northeast
corner of Golf Club Road and Old Quarry
Road) is proposed to be rezoned from
Retail Business (RB) to Mixed-Use (MX)
to comply with the Mixed-Use General
Plan designation
• The existing Single-Family R-7 neighborhood between Contra Costa Boulevard (west), Marta Drive (east), Anelda Drive (south) and Beth Drive (north), will be rezoned from R-7 to Mixed-Use to comply with the MX General Plan designation. • Several properties along Contra Costa Boulevard between Vivian Drive and Harriet Drive, currently zoned RB, R-7, or Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), will be rezoned to Mixed-Use to comply with the MX General Plan designation. • The John F. Kennedy University property (east of Ellinwood Way) will be rezoned from PAO to Mixed-Use Very High Density Residential (MX-VHD) to comply with the MXVHD General Plan designation.
• The property at 553 Golf Club Road (along the City’s boarder), was previously inaccurately shown on the proposed rezoning map. The parcel is not proposed to be rezoned and will remain Single-Family R-10.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1882 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 14 C. Quadrant C (Southeast portion of the City)
• Several park/open space areas, all
currently owned by the Rec & Park
District, will be rezoned to the new
Parks and Recreation zone. This
includes Pleasant Hill Park and
Pleasant Oaks Park.
• Several properties on the north and
south sides of Gregory Lane will be
rezoned from R-7 to Neighborhood
Mixed Use (MX-NB) to comply
with the Mixed-Use Neighborhood
General Plan designation.
• Several parcels along the south side
of Oak Park Boulevard between
Patterson Boulevard (west) and the
east side of Pleasant Valley Drive
(east), and the north side of Oak Park
Boulevard near the Patterson
Boulevard intersection are proposed
to be rezoned from R-10, MRL,
PAO, NB, or RB to MX-NB to
reflect the new Mixed Use
Neighborhood General Plan
designation.
• Several properties on either side of Douglas Lane, south of Oak Park Boulevard, and on the north side of Oak Park Boulevard west of Hook Avenue will be rezoned from MFL to MFVL to comply with the MFVLD General Plan designation. • The existing PUD 410 along Cleaveland Road, north of Astrid Drive will be rezoned to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (MFM) to comply with the MFM General Plan designation. PUD 410 is a “shell” PUD and contains no specific land use or development standards. Therefore, any future development is already subject to the MFM land use and development standards.
• One additional property currently zoned PUD 410 was previously incorrectly left out of the proposed rezoning. The property is proposed to be rezoned to Open Space as it is owned by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and encompasses the EBMUD Trail.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1883 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 15 D. Quadrant D (Southwest portion of the City)
• Several park/open space areas, all
currently owned by the Rec & Park
District, will be rezoned to the new Parks
and Recreation zone. This includes Rogers
Smith Park, Dinosaur Hill Park, and the
School House property.
• Two parcels near the intersection of
Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory Lane are
proposed to be rezoned from NB to MXHD to comply with the MX-HD General Plan designation. The surrounding parcels
also located within the MX-HD General
Plan designation were previously rezoned
to MX-HD, as they were identified in the
City’s Housing Element.
• The existing development on the south
side of Barnett Terrace, currently zoned
MFM will be rezoned to MFL to comply
with the MFLD General Plan designation.

As previously mentioned, in response to the public inquiries received regarding the proposed rezoning, Staff created a “Proposed Rezoning Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) handout and posed the FAQs to the project’s webpage on the City website. The FAQs address the common concerns brough to Staff’s attention, specifically related to the intent of the rezoning effort, what mixed-use zoning is, and impacts to existing single-family homes, among other topics. A copy of the FAQs is included as Attachment Y.

No-Net Loss Analysis
The proposed rezonings listed above will achieve consistency with the General Plan and results in a substantial net increase of 3,564 potential residential units.

Therefore, the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65863 and does not result in a net loss of residential capacity.

Additionally, the proposed rezonings support the City’s housing goals, as noted in the attached Planning Commission resolution, Attachment A.

V. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed ordinance is consistent with the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as outlined in the attached resolution (Attachment A).

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1884 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 16 VI. RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the public hearing, consider the proposed comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment and proposed rezonings of 1,080 parcels and provide feedback to staff and the City Council, and adopt the resolution recommending approval to the City Council, with the recommendation that the Mixed-Use Land Use Regulations Table be updated to permit employee housing by-right in all mixed-use zones.

VII. ATTACHMENTS
A Proposed Planning Commission Resolution
B Proposed Ordinance (Strikeout/underline)
C CEQA Determination
D Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Redlined Preliminary Draft) E Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Clean Preliminary Draft) F Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
G Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Clean Preliminary Draft) H Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft) I Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Clean Preliminary Draft) J Part 4 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft) K Part 4 - Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures (Clean Preliminary Draft) L Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Redlined Preliminary Draft) M Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Clean Preliminary Draft) N Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Redlined Preliminary Draft) O Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Clean Preliminary Draft) P Crosswalk - from Existing Zoning Ordinance Title 18
Q Proposed Zoning Map with APNs to be Rezoned
R June 25, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) S August 27, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) T October 8, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) U November 4, 2024 City Council Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) V April 21, 2025 City Council Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) W Public Comments received after April 21, 2025 City Council Study Session Meeting X Public Comments received in association with previous PC/CC Study Sessions Y Proposed Rezonings Frequently Asking Questions (FAQs) Z Public Notice
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1885 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Dr. Aiden Martin
605 Maureen Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
951-396-8099
September 15, 2025
City Council
Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express my concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission during the September 9th meeting, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map. Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family parcels at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments are under to meet California’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) requirements, this particular zoning change undermines the foundational intent of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code— which clearly state that zoning changes should not result in significant impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels within existing residential communities.

This is not just a general guideline. Under PHMC §18.125.070, these impacts are part of the necessary findings required to justify a zoning ordinance amendment. Specifically, this section requires that any zoning change must be consistent with the General Plan and must not create significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including traffic and noise. If the City Council finds—or even reasonably believes—that this proposed rezoning would violate these criteria, then it cannot lawfully adopt the ordinance as currently written. An amendment would be required to bring the proposal into compliance with city code and protect the integrity of affected neighborhoods.

The rezoning of parcels at the end of a quiet, internal cul-de-sac like Maureen Lane is exactly the kind of change that would have significant localized impacts. The infrastructure was never designed to support the traffic volume, density, or commercial-residential interface that a mixeduse designation would bring. Many of us moved here specifically because it was a low-traffic, single-family neighborhood, a promise now at risk due to a change made with little to no real community outreach.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1886 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The outreach conducted by the City was limited to directly impacted parcels, leaving the broader neighborhood entirely out of the process. This is not adequate community engagement—it is procedural minimalism that disregards the very people most affected.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council do not pass the proposed rezoning map without first removing the four parcels at the end of Maureen Lane from the proposed Mixed-Use Residential designation.

This approach allows the city to advance its zoning update while also respecting legal requirements, the community’s expectations, and the city’s own planning principles. The residents of Maureen Lane are active, informed, and engaged voters. We are prepared to organize in defense of our neighborhood and to support public officials who demonstrate a genuine commitment to community-driven planning.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Dr. Aiden Martin
On behalf of concerned residents of Maureen Lane
77~7f
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1887 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Outlook
FW: Correspondence for public comment at the 9/15 Council meeting: Marcella and Joshua LashleyOpposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
From Lyone Conner <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/15/2025 12:11 PM
To Jeremy Poggio <[email protected]>
From: Mari Morris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 12:11 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Correspondence for public comment at the 9/15 Council meeting: Marcella and Joshua LashleyOpposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

September 15, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map. Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family parcels located at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, this specific zoning change undermines the foundational goals of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code.

These frameworks clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas.

This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070 (or its local equivalent), findings for zoning ordinance amendments must include consistency with the General Plan and assurance that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance 9/15/25, 12:43 PM FW: Correspondence for public comment at the 9/15 Council meeting: Marcella and Joshua Lashley- Opposition to Rezoning of In… about:blank 1/2
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1888 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal cul-de-sac like Maureen Lane is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council do not pass the proposed rezoning map without first removing the four parcels at the end of Maureen Lane from the proposed Mixed-Use Residential designation.

This solution enables the city to move forward with broader zoning updates while honoring legal obligations, community values, and the principles of responsible planning. The residents of Maureen Lane are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Please confirm receipt of this communication and attachment.

Sincerely,
Marcella and Joshua Lashley
593 Maureen Lane, Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523
925-519-5072& 925-642-9036
9/15/25, 12:43 PM FW: Correspondence for public comment at the 9/15 Council meeting: Marcella and Joshua Lashley- Opposition to Rezoning of In… about:blank 2/2
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1889 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Outlook
FW: Correspondence for public comment at the 9/15 Council meeting: Craig Abernethy - Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
From Lyone Conner <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/15/2025 12:32 PM
To Jeremy Poggio <[email protected]>
1 attachment (21 KB)
Opposition_to_Rezoning.pdf;
From: Craig Abernethy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 12:24 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Correspondence for public comment at the 9/15 Council meeting: Craig Abernethy - Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Please see attached written correspondence for public comment at the 9/15 Council meeting regarding Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment.

Please confirm receipt of this communication and attachment.

Kind regards,
Craig Abernethy
505 Maureen Ln, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(707) 592-9572
9/15/25, 12:47 PM FW: Correspondence for public comment at the 9/15 Council meeting: Craig Abernethy - Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facin… about:blank 1/1
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1890 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Outlook
FW: Rezoning of Maureen Lane
From Lyone Conner <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/15/2025 1:34 PM
To Jeremy Poggio <[email protected]>
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 1:21 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name: Lenore Krause
Street
Address:
115 Hubbard Avenue
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:
925-935-0588
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Rezoning of Maureen Lane
Question
or
Comment:

TO: The Mayor of Pleasant Hill and the City Council Members Please do not rezone part of Maureen Drive to Mixed Use. We moved to Pleasant Hill because it is a community of nice neighborhoods, and we want to keep it that way. This rezoning would change the character of our wonderful city. Lenore Krause
Upload File
Attachment
here
[ ]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by [phillca.gov/MyAccount]signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18513
9/15/25, 1:44 PM FW: Rezoning of Maureen Lane - Jeremy Poggio - Outlook about:blank 1/2
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1891 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Lenore Krause
Street Address:: 115 Hubbard Avenue
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 925-935-0588
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning of Maureen Lane
Question or Comment:: TO: The Mayor of Pleasant Hill and the City Council Members Please do not rezone part of Maureen Drive to Mixed Use.

We moved to Pleasant Hill because it is a community of nice neighborhoods, and we want to keep it that way. This rezoning would change the character of our wonderful city.

Lenore Krause
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/15/2025 1:20:35 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.158.15.115
Referrer Page: https://phillca.gov/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff Form Address: http://phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137
9/15/25, 1:44 PM FW: Rezoning of Maureen Lane - Jeremy Poggio - Outlook about:blank 2/2
----------
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1892 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Outlook
FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
From Lyone Conner <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/15/2025 1:39 PM
To Jeremy Poggio <[email protected]>
From: Monica Villasenor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 1:31 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map. Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family parcels located at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, this specific zoning change undermines the foundational goals of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code. These frameworks clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas.

This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070 (or its local equivalent), findings for zoning ordinance amendments must include consistency with the General Plan and assurance that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal cul-de-sac like Maureen Lane is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail. Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement. 9/15/25, 1:45 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amen… about:blank 1/2
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1893 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council do not pass the proposed rezoning map without first removing the four parcels at the end of Maureen Lane from the proposed Mixed-Use Residential designation.

This solution enables the city to move forward with broader zoning updates while honoring legal obligations, community values, and the principles of responsible planning. The residents of Maureen Lane are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Monica Villasenor
861 Ruth Dr, Pleasant Hill CA 94523
650-776-2867
[email protected]
9/15/25, 1:45 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amen… about:blank 2/2
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1894 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Outlook
FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
From Lyone Conner <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/15/2025 1:39 PM
To Jeremy Poggio <[email protected]>
From: Hannah Robrecht <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 1:33 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map. Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family parcels located at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, this specific zoning change undermines the foundational goals of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code.

These frameworks clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas.

This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070 (or its local equivalent), findings for zoning ordinance amendments must include consistency with the General Plan and assurance that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal cul-de-sac like Maureen Lane is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail. 9/15/25, 1:46 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amen… about:blank 1/2
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1895 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Many residents, like myself, moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its singlefamily character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council do not pass the proposed rezoning map without first removing the four parcels at the end of Maureen Lane from the proposed Mixed-Use Residential designation.

This solution enables the city to move forward with broader zoning updates while honoring legal obligations, community values, and the principles of responsible planning. The residents of Maureen Lane are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Hannah Robrecht
1949 Rose Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Mom, Volunteer, and Non-Profit Marketing Career Professional. 925.303.0736
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
9/15/25, 1:46 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amen… about:blank 2/2
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1896 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Outlook
FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
From Lyone Conner <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/15/2025 2:01 PM
To Jeremy Poggio <[email protected]>
From: Eva Popova <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 1:51 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

September 15, 2025
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family parcels located at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, this specific zoning change undermines the foundational goals of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code. These frameworks clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas.

This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070 (or its local equivalent), findings for zoning ordinance amendments must include consistency with the General Plan and assurance that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal cul-de-sac like Maureen Lane is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail. Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.
9/15/25, 2:06 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amen… about:blank 1/2
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1897 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council do not pass the proposed rezoning map without first removing the four parcels at the end of Maureen Lane from the proposed Mixed-Use Residential designation.

This solution enables the city to move forward with broader zoning updates while honoring legal obligations, community values, and the principles of responsible planning. The residents of Maureen Lane are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Eva Popova
Pleasant Hill Gregory Gardens neighborhood resident.
9/15/25, 2:06 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amen… about:blank 2/2
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1898 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Outlook
FW: Opposition of proposed planned rezoning in Gregory Gardens From Lyone Conner <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/15/2025 3:03 PM
To Jeremy Poggio <[email protected]>
From: Morgan Roth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 3:03 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition of proposed planned rezoning in Gregory Gardens CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor Noack and Members of the Pleasant Hill City Council, I am writing as a resident of Pleasant Hill to respectfully object to the proposed rezoning of my neighborhood, Gregory Gardens, into a “mixed-use” zone.

Our neighborhood is a well-established residential community that offers families safety, stability, and quality of life. We bought in Gregory Gardens just earlier this year to raise our family in a neighborhood that values all of the above.  Rezoning it into mixed-use threatens to disrupt this balance by introducing increased traffic, noise, parking shortages, and density that the existing infrastructure is not prepared to handle. Additionally, such a change risks eroding property values and undermining the residential character that attracted many of us to this area in the first place.

While I understand the City’s intent to encourage economic development and create more housing options, I believe this proposal is not appropriate for our neighborhood. There are more suitable areas within Pleasant Hill for mixed-use developments without displacing or destabilizing long-standing residential zones.

I urge the Council to preserve the residential zoning of our neighborhood and to consider the voices of the residents who will be most directly impacted. Please prioritize thoughtful planning that balances growth with maintaining the integrity of Pleasant Hill’s established communities.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Morgan Roth
1837 Roche dr. Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
9/15/25, 3:19 PM FW: Opposition of proposed planned rezoning in Gregory Gardens - Jeremy Poggio - Outlook about:blank 1/1
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1899 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Outlook
FW: Opposition to Rezoning Maureen Lane
From Lyone Conner <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/15/2025 4:05 PM
To Jeremy Poggio <[email protected]>
From: Cindy Coelho <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 4:04 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Maureen Lane
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

September 15, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map. Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family parcels located at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, this specific zoning change undermines the foundational goals of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code.

These frameworks clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas.

This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070 (or its local equivalent), findings for zoning ordinance amendments must include consistency with the General Plan and assurance that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. 9/15/25, 4:07 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning Maureen Lane - Jeremy Poggio - Outlook about:blank 1/2
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1900 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal cul-de-sac like Maureen Lane is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council do not pass the proposed rezoning map without first removing the four parcels at the end of Maureen Lane from the proposed Mixed-Use Residential designation.

This solution enables the city to move forward with broader zoning updates while honoring legal obligations, community values, and the principles of responsible planning. The residents of Maureen Lane are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Cindy Coelho
Maureen Lane home owner
9/15/25, 4:07 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning Maureen Lane - Jeremy Poggio - Outlook about:blank 2/2
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1901 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Outlook
FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
From Lyone Conner <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/15/2025 4:22 PM
To Jeremy Poggio <[email protected]>
From: Corbin Ragan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 2:16 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor and City Council-members,
I am writing to formally express concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map. Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family parcels located at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, this specific zoning change undermines the foundational goals of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code.

These frameworks clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas.

This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070 (or its local equivalent), findings for zoning ordinance amendments must include consistency with the General Plan and assurance that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance 9/15/25, 4:32 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amen… about:blank 1/3
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1902 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal cul-de-sac like Maureen Lane is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council do not pass the proposed rezoning map without first removing the four parcels at the end of Maureen Lane from the proposed Mixed-Use Residential designation.

This solution enables the city to move forward with broader zoning updates while honoring legal obligations, community values, and the principles of responsible planning. The residents of Maureen Lane are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Additionally, since buying our home in Maureen in 2019 we have been victimized by hit and runs, vehicle break-ins and theft. The potential increase in traffic on a road that already has its existing problems is concerning. Bring back the speed limit sign that was up for all of 2-3 days before it was removed- don’t increase the chance for more cars to fly down this road full of pedestrians and young kids.

Thank you,
Corbin Ragan
9/15/25, 4:32 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amen… about:blank 2/3
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1903 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Maureen Resident
925-323-3922
9/15/25, 4:32 PM FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amen… about:blank 3/3
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1904 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Outlook
FW: Rezoning at Maureen Lane
From Lyone Conner <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/15/2025 4:24 PM
To Jeremy Poggio <[email protected]>
From: Katie Vecchio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 2:14 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Tony Vecchio <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning at Maureen Lane
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

September 15, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map. Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family parcels located at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business MixedUse Residential.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, this specific zoning change undermines the foundational goals of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code. These frameworks clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas.

This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070 (or its local equivalent), findings for zoning ordinance amendments must include consistency with the General Plan and assurance that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal cul-de-sac like Maureen Lane is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement. 9/15/25, 4:34 PM FW: Rezoning at Maureen Lane - Jeremy Poggio - Outlook about:blank 1/2
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1905 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council do not pass the proposed rezoning map without first removing the four parcels at the end of Maureen Lane from the proposed Mixed-Use Residential designation.

This solution enables the city to move forward with broader zoning updates while honoring legal obligations, community values, and the principles of responsible planning. The residents of Maureen Lane are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Katie Vecchio
Katie Clark Vecchio
564 Maureen Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
925/963.3895
9/15/25, 4:34 PM FW: Rezoning at Maureen Lane - Jeremy Poggio - Outlook about:blank 2/2
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1906 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Dr. Aiden Martin
605 Maureen Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
951-396-8099
September 15, 2025
City Council
Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express my concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission during the September 9th meeting, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map. Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family parcels at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments are under to meet California’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) requirements, this particular zoning change undermines the foundational intent of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code— which clearly state that zoning changes should not result in significant impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels within existing residential communities.

This is not just a general guideline. Under PHMC §18.125.070, these impacts are part of the necessary findings required to justify a zoning ordinance amendment. Specifically, this section requires that any zoning change must be consistent with the General Plan and must not create significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including traffic and noise. If the City Council finds—or even reasonably believes—that this proposed rezoning would violate these criteria, then it cannot lawfully adopt the ordinance as currently written. An amendment would be required to bring the proposal into compliance with city code and protect the integrity of affected neighborhoods.

The rezoning of parcels at the end of a quiet, internal cul-de-sac like Maureen Lane is exactly the kind of change that would have significant localized impacts. The infrastructure was never designed to support the traffic volume, density, or commercial-residential interface that a mixeduse designation would bring. Many of us moved here specifically because it was a low-traffic, single-family neighborhood, a promise now at risk due to a change made with little to no real community outreach.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1907 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The outreach conducted by the City was limited to directly impacted parcels, leaving the broader neighborhood entirely out of the process. This is not adequate community engagement—it is procedural minimalism that disregards the very people most affected.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council do not pass the proposed rezoning map without first removing the four parcels at the end of Maureen Lane from the proposed Mixed-Use Residential designation.

This approach allows the city to advance its zoning update while also respecting legal requirements, the community’s expectations, and the city’s own planning principles. The residents of Maureen Lane are active, informed, and engaged voters. We are prepared to organize in defense of our neighborhood and to support public officials who demonstrate a genuine commitment to community-driven planning.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Dr. Aiden Martin
On behalf of concerned residents of Maureen Lane
77~7f
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1908 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Deborah C Donovan
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comment
Date: Monday, September 22, 2025 8:36:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I believe Pleasant Hill can safely and responsibly handle more dense thus more affordable housing. I vote Yes in my backyard for zoning changes that promotes more affordable housing.

Sent from Deb Donovan ‘s iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1909 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 September 15, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing singlefamily parcels located at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, this specific zoning change undermines the foundational goals of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code. These frameworks clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas.

This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070 (or its local equivalent), findings for zoning ordinance amendments must include consistency with the General Plan and assurance that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal cul-de-sac like Maureen Lane is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail. Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1910 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Council do not pass the proposed rezoning map without first removing the four parcels at the end of Maureen Lane from the proposed Mixed-Use Residential designation.

This solution enables the city to move forward with broader zoning updates while honoring legal obligations, community values, and the principles of responsible planning. The residents of Maureen Lane are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Craig Abernethy
505 Maureen Lane, Pleasant Hill
707-592-9572
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1911 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill City Council
September 14, 2025
Dear City Council Members,
We are Phil and Leslie Altman, residents of 422 Soule Avenue since 2006. Leslie Johnson-Altman has been a Pleasant Hill resident since 1976. We respectfully request that you appeal the City Planning Commission’s approval of the Comprehensive Amendment to Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Title 18 (Planning and Land Use) and Amendment to the Zoning Map to include the rezoning of 1,080 parcels throughout the city for consistency with the General Plan 2040, including the 2023– 2031 Housing Element, citywide.

On September 9th, the Planning Commission approved this measure without adequately considering public input from those directly affected, failing to notify impacted residents as required by city precedent, and providing misleading information about land classified as PUD. The public was not meaningfully informed or engaged in this significant change to our city’s landscape.

Instead, residents were told they could only bring their concerns to you, the City Council.

Given the high level of feedback at the September 9th meeting and the procedural and communication failures, we urge you to reject the Planning Commission’s proposal and send it back with a directive to engage in an open, interactive process with residents. At a time of such sweeping change, one-way communication and rigid adherence to rules of order should not replace genuine community engagement.

Areas of Concern

1. Lack of public notification and engagement
• The Planning Commission claimed they followed city rules, yet many affected residents— including us—were not notified. We only learned of the rezoning affecting neighboring lots on September 4th, far too late for meaningful participation. • Per the City’s own Rezoning Application Guide (PHMC §18.125.070), rezonings that impact residential neighborhoods should avoid growth-inducing impacts and require proper notification. Step 4 specifically mandates mailed notices to property owners within 300 feet.

These notices were not sent.
• Reliance on outdated methods such as the Contra Costa Times and small A-frame signs is insufficient for changes of this magnitude. We recommend using the Pleasant Hill Outlook, which residents actively read for city updates, as well as direct mail and digital notices.

2. Misleading statements regarding PUD zoning
• Commissioners claimed all PUD land was already effectively zoned multifamily—this is false. The Pleasant Hill Library lot (formerly PUD) and the future park at 1700 Oak Park prove otherwise.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1912 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • Not all PUD parcels were addressed in the new zoning map, undermining the stated goal of consistency.

3. Misrepresentation of flood control land
• It was stated that flood control properties would not be developed. This is inaccurate. The library site and the adjacent lot (sold in 2024 to a developer) were both once flood control land. History shows such parcels can and will be developed.

Constructive Alternatives
We believe housing growth and community preservation can coexist. We propose the following amendments for consideration:

1. Rezone the 5-acre site next to the library (sold in June 2024 to a developer) for multifamily housing. This would offset the loss of parcels between Cleaveland and Soule/Beatrice.

2. Expand parkland west of the creek. Rezone APN 149-1300-30, 24, and 20 as future parkland to provide much-needed open space, athletic fields, and balance against increased density nearby.

3. Allow multifamily housing east of the creek. Maintain APN 149-130-29, 10, 21, 22, & 23 as multifamily sites.

4. Preserve neighborhood character. Rezone APN 149-130-28, 26, 25, 31, & 32 to R-10, consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood.

Closing
We recognize that state housing mandates place significant pressure on cities. Still, Pleasant Hill deserves a thoughtful approach that balances growth with quality of life. We will also be sharing our concerns with state representatives to advocate for housing policies that better respect suburban communities.

We hope to see the city’s unique charm preserved for our children and grandchildren. We ask you to stand with residents and ensure this process is conducted fairly, transparently, and in true partnership with the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Phil & Leslie Altman
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1913 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 September 29, 2025
To Ms. Croffoot and the City Council:

We are owners of parcel 127-062-003-0 at 113 Lorenzo Drive in Pleasant Hill. We are very concerned about the rezoning of our property and the neighborhood. It is currently zoned residential, but the proposed new zoning designation is "Mixed Use". We understand these zoning changes are "necessary" in order to match the updated General Plan. However, we did not know about the updated General Plan, and even if we were notified, we were definitely not made aware of these fairly drastic zoning changes for this neighborhood. It makes us feel like the City does not care about our lovely residential neighborhood.

We do not understand why the City is changing this beautiful residential neighborhood to mixed use. When we read about Mixed Use Districts (Chapter 18.20) and review Table 18.20-A, there are several items that we feel do NOT belong in our residential neighborhood including but not limited to cannabis retailer, eating and drinking establishments (with live entertainment), and theaters. None of these uses (or most others in Table 18.20-A) belong on Lorenzo Drive or any other residential streets in the neighborhood! Many seem more appropriate for Contra Costa Boulevard. It is unclear why the City didn't limit the mixed-use district to the area along Contra Costa Boulevard and other commercial areas (similar to what was done on Gregory Lane).

Alternatively, if the City feels they must re-zone the area, it is much more appropriate to designate the neighborhood in and around Lorenzo Drive as a "Mixed-Use Neighborhood Business Zoning District." Why was this designation not chosen? We strongly recommend keeping the current residential zoning designation to preserve the neighborhood. If, for whatever reason this cannot be done, then the "Mixed-Use Neighborhood Business Zoning District" should be used.

Thank you,
Lisa Toth
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1914 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: Rezoning opposition letter
Date: Monday, September 22, 2025 9:59:26 AM
Attachments: Samantha.docx
From: Samantha Roberts <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2025 11:47 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning opposition letter
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello City Council members - I am the homeowner of a single family home included in the 1080 parcels up for rezoning. I live at 635 Maureen lane - I bought this home in 2020 while 8.5 months pregnant with my first child. I moved from only 1 mile away on Elinora, because we were on a main thoroughfare through the Gregory gardens neighborhood & the street was too busy.

I moved to a court. This was intentional. My babies play in this court. We are not an outward facing home, and we are not on Gregory lane. Rezoning single family homes within a court feels nothing short of unethical.

Please consider reading the MX-N description in the zoning amendment document and asking yourself how a “small coffee shop” or a “grocery store” makes sense within our established neighborhood. And if this is truly about housing, how can any more density funnel into a court?? As it stands, my home has NO street parking. I implore you to create realistic opportunities for improved housing in our city, instead of degrading the value of single family homes in established neighborhoods like mine.

I attended the public hearing, and it was abundantly clear that the planning commission feels that this matter has been handled and has taken up enough of their time - but I assure you, our neighborhood intends to uphold the integrity of our homes. I need not remind anyone in California the struggle and sacrifice it takes to become a homeowner - let us look for real opportunities to revitalize debilitated/vacant/underused spaces within our city. Drastically amend this rezoning ordinance. Create opportunity for home ownership in places where people do not already live.

Formal letter attached & written copy mailed.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1915 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Thank you for your time & consideration on this matter.

Sincerely,
Samantha Roberts
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1916 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Samantha & Andrew Roberts
635 Maureen Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
September 18, 2025
Pleasant Hill City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Urging Amendment to Proposed Rezoning Ordinance – Maureen Lane Cul-de-Sac Properties Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge you in the strongest terms to amend the proposed rezoning ordinance to explicitly exclude the properties at the end of Maureen Lane where it terminates into a closed culde-sac — specifically, 630, 631, 634, and 635 Maureen Lane.

These parcels were purchased as single-family homes in a quiet, closed court. Rezoning them to Mixed Use Neighborhood is not only incompatible with the character and expectations of the community, but it is also problematic and unethical. The Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan itself makes clear that intensification or rezoning may only occur when there is effective mitigation of environmental constraints, noise, traffic, and other hazards (LU-3.7, LU-4.7). By their very location, these homes cannot satisfy that requirement.

A cul-de-sac, by definition, has only one entry and exit point. Any increase in density on these end lots would force additional vehicles to funnel through the same narrow, dead-end street. This inherently creates increased traffic, congestion, and safety concerns for existing residents.

Unlike other parts of the City where traffic can be dispersed through a grid of streets, the Maureen Lane court has no such capacity. No mitigation is realistically possible.

Furthermore, when my family purchased our home, it was with the clear understanding that the street was zoned for single-family residences. Changing the rules after the fact undermines public trust in City planning, sets a dangerous precedent, and disregards the very policies the City adopted in the 2040 General Plan.

I respectfully but firmly request that the Council take immediate action to amend the rezoning ordinance to exclude these cul-de-sac properties from any Mixed Use designation. Doing so will uphold the City’s own policies, protect existing residents, and prevent irreversible harm to the character and livability of our neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration. I urge you to make this amendment before moving the ordinance forward.

Sincerely,
Samantha & Andrew Roberts
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1917 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: Rezoning opposition letter
Date: Monday, September 22, 2025 9:59:26 AM
Attachments: Samantha.docx
From: Samantha Roberts <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2025 11:47 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning opposition letter
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello City Council members - I am the homeowner of a single family home included in the 1080 parcels up for rezoning. I live at 635 Maureen lane - I bought this home in 2020 while 8.5 months pregnant with my first child. I moved from only 1 mile away on Elinora, because we were on a main thoroughfare through the Gregory gardens neighborhood & the street was too busy.

I moved to a court. This was intentional. My babies play in this court. We are not an outward facing home, and we are not on Gregory lane. Rezoning single family homes within a court feels nothing short of unethical.

Please consider reading the MX-N description in the zoning amendment document and asking yourself how a “small coffee shop” or a “grocery store” makes sense within our established neighborhood. And if this is truly about housing, how can any more density funnel into a court?? As it stands, my home has NO street parking. I implore you to create realistic opportunities for improved housing in our city, instead of degrading the value of single family homes in established neighborhoods like mine.

I attended the public hearing, and it was abundantly clear that the planning commission feels that this matter has been handled and has taken up enough of their time - but I assure you, our neighborhood intends to uphold the integrity of our homes. I need not remind anyone in California the struggle and sacrifice it takes to become a homeowner - let us look for real opportunities to revitalize debilitated/vacant/underused spaces within our city. Drastically amend this rezoning ordinance. Create opportunity for home ownership in places where people do not already live.

Formal letter attached & written copy mailed.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1918 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Thank you for your time & consideration on this matter.

Sincerely,
Samantha Roberts
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1919 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Samantha & Andrew Roberts
635 Maureen Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
September 18, 2025
Pleasant Hill City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Urging Amendment to Proposed Rezoning Ordinance – Maureen Lane Cul-de-Sac Properties Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge you in the strongest terms to amend the proposed rezoning ordinance to explicitly exclude the properties at the end of Maureen Lane where it terminates into a closed culde-sac — specifically, 630, 631, 634, and 635 Maureen Lane.

These parcels were purchased as single-family homes in a quiet, closed court. Rezoning them to Mixed Use Neighborhood is not only incompatible with the character and expectations of the community, but it is also problematic and unethical. The Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan itself makes clear that intensification or rezoning may only occur when there is effective mitigation of environmental constraints, noise, traffic, and other hazards (LU-3.7, LU-4.7). By their very location, these homes cannot satisfy that requirement.

A cul-de-sac, by definition, has only one entry and exit point. Any increase in density on these end lots would force additional vehicles to funnel through the same narrow, dead-end street. This inherently creates increased traffic, congestion, and safety concerns for existing residents.

Unlike other parts of the City where traffic can be dispersed through a grid of streets, the Maureen Lane court has no such capacity. No mitigation is realistically possible.

Furthermore, when my family purchased our home, it was with the clear understanding that the street was zoned for single-family residences. Changing the rules after the fact undermines public trust in City planning, sets a dangerous precedent, and disregards the very policies the City adopted in the 2040 General Plan.

I respectfully but firmly request that the Council take immediate action to amend the rezoning ordinance to exclude these cul-de-sac properties from any Mixed Use designation. Doing so will uphold the City’s own policies, protect existing residents, and prevent irreversible harm to the character and livability of our neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration. I urge you to make this amendment before moving the ordinance forward.

Sincerely,
Samantha & Andrew Roberts
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1920 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: Re-zoning
Date: Monday, September 22, 2025 9:51:48 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2025 2:54 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name: Lisa Gruen
Street
Address:
113 Luella Drive
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:
925918-0582
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Re-zoning
Question
or
Comment:

Dear City Council Members, I am a long-time resident of Pleasant Hill and have lived in Gregory Gardens for 27 years. I originally supported many of the recent initiatives aimed at improving our town, including the promotion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), enhanced walkability with upgraded intersections, sidewalks, and crosswalks, and the general move toward making our neighborhoods more livable for all generations. With the high cost of living in the Bay Area, ADUs seemed like a promising solution to support multigenerational living—allowing adult children and aging parents to remain close and productive within the same community. I also welcomed the focus on walkability, as our tree-lined streets, proximity to stores, parks, and freeway access make this neighborhood ideal for young families starting out, as well as for seniors aging in place in single-story homes. However, I am now seeing some serious unintended consequences that are undermining the quality of life in our neighborhood. Many of the new ADUs are significantly larger than expected, and the resulting overflow of vehicles has led to congested streets, poor visibility, and unfortunately, a rise in accidents. Cars parked in front of homes make it harder for pedestrians and drivers to navigate safely. The new intersection, while well-intended, has created bottlenecks that frustrate drivers—some of whom now speed through our residential streets or make illegal U-turns to avoid the congestion. This has led to dangerous conditions for residents, pets, and children Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1921 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 alike. As the city considers expanding "Mixed Use" zoning in residential areas, I am growing increasingly concerned. While I understand the need for thoughtful development, I fear that without strict guidelines and proper infrastructure planning, such zoning could further disrupt the character and safety of our neighborhood. I respectfully urge you to consider the lived experience of residents like myself when planning future development. We all want a thriving, inclusive, and safe city—but the solutions must be balanced and carefully implemented to avoid doing more harm than good. Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.

Sincerely, Lisa Gruen (Gregory Gardens Resident)
Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18523 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Lisa Gruen
Street Address:: 113 Luella Drive
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 925918-0582
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Re-zoning
Question or Comment::

Dear City Council Members,
I am a long-time resident of Pleasant Hill and have lived in Gregory Gardens for 27 years.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1922 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 I originally supported many of the recent initiatives aimed at improving our town, including the promotion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), enhanced walkability with upgraded intersections, sidewalks, and crosswalks, and the general move toward making our neighborhoods more livable for all generations.

With the high cost of living in the Bay Area, ADUs seemed like a promising solution to support multigenerational living—allowing adult children and aging parents to remain close and productive within the same community. I also welcomed the focus on walkability, as our tree-lined streets, proximity to stores, parks, and freeway access make this neighborhood ideal for young families starting out, as well as for seniors aging in place in single-story homes.

However, I am now seeing some serious unintended consequences that are undermining the quality of life in our neighborhood.

Many of the new ADUs are significantly larger than expected, and the resulting overflow of vehicles has led to congested streets, poor visibility, and unfortunately, a rise in accidents. Cars parked in front of homes make it harder for pedestrians and drivers to navigate safely. The new intersection, while well-intended, has created bottlenecks that frustrate drivers—some of whom now speed through our residential streets or make illegal U-turns to avoid the congestion. This has led to dangerous conditions for residents, pets, and children alike.

As the city considers expanding "Mixed Use" zoning in residential areas, I am growing increasingly concerned. While I understand the need for thoughtful development, I fear that without strict guidelines and proper infrastructure planning, such zoning could further disrupt the character and safety of our neighborhood.

I respectfully urge you to consider the lived experience of residents like myself when planning future development. We all want a thriving, inclusive, and safe city—but the solutions must be balanced and carefully implemented to avoid doing more harm than good.

Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.

Sincerely,
Lisa Gruen
(Gregory Gardens Resident)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1923 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/20/2025 2:53:47 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 66.234.202.31
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/Directory.aspx?did=22 Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1924 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: In Favor of Mixed-Use Zoning
Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 4:21:54 PM
From: Angela Wright Baumsteiger <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 3:11 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: In Favor of Mixed-Use Zoning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear City Council Members,
I believe I've missed some deadline, but I'd like you to know there is at least one resident of Gregory Gardens fully in support of Mixed-Use Zoning.

I'd love to be able to walk to more services. I'd love more affordable housing options for young families. I'd love more revenue for our schools.

I am concerned about traffic - even lately I've noticed it getting hard to turn left onto Elinora. I am also concerned about class sizes at our schools. But, these are things that can be managed.

Please don't listen to just the loud NIMBYs - this could be great for Pleasant Hill and folks do support it.

Thank you,
Angela Baumsteiger, Resident
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1925 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: Regarding attempt to rezone house at end of Maureen Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 10:07:08 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2025 5:55 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name: Georgia Stathis
Street
Address:
630 Maureen Lane
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:
9255863303
Email:* stathis.georgia
Subject:* Regarding attempt to rezone house at end of Maureen Question
or
Comment:

I have just been made aware of the city's plan to rezone the four houses at the end of Maureen Lane. My my house is 630. I have lived in this house since 1984 and it is not my intention to move and I've put over $300,000 of improvements into it and I feel that this thought of rezoning. These four houses is not what our neighborhood wants nor needs and that there should be a variance for those four houses that builders are not able to come in and build. If we sell. I will be at the meeting to complain. Like all of my other neighbors. Go find another place to build. These houses should be off limits. Thank you
Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18541 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1926 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Georgia Stathis
Street Address:: 630 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9255863303
Email:: stathis.georgia
Subject:: Regarding attempt to rezone house at end of Maureen Question or Comment:: I have just been made aware of the city's plan to rezone the four houses at the end of Maureen Lane. My my house is 630. I have lived in this house since 1984 and it is not my intention to move and I've put over $300,000 of improvements into it and I feel that this thought of rezoning. These four houses is not what our neighborhood wants nor needs and that there should be a variance for those four houses that builders are not able to come in and build. If we sell. I will be at the meeting to complain. Like all of my other neighbors. Go find another place to build. These houses should be off limits. Thank you
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/28/2025 5:54:58 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 76.132.41.204
Referrer Page: android-app://com.google.android.gm/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1927 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 6:54:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here City of Pleasant Hill letter.pdf * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18543 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Ken O'Keefe
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning Opposition - Gregory Gardens
Question or Comment:: Hi,
I'm writing to oppose the rezoning of Gregory Gardens and Pleasant Hill neighborhoods. Please see attached letter.

Thank you.

Upload File Attachment here: City of Pleasant Hill letter.pdf Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1928 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/29/2025 6:54:47 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.245.96.231
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1929 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Monday, September 29, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane—from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way, Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods. They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them?
In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement.

Under PHMC §18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quite cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned?
If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1930 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business MixedUse Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Ken O’Keefe
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
k.okeefe177@ gmail.com
925-691-4855
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1931 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:54:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here City of Pleasant Hill Letter Sept 29.docx.pdf * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18544 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Natalie O'Keefe
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment Question or Comment:: Hello,
Please see attached letter. The proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment in no way benefits the current residents of Pleasant Hill. Please consider the impact this will have on the established taxpayers, voters, and residents of Pleasant Hill.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1932 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Upload File Attachment here: City of Pleasant Hill Letter Sept 29.docx.pdf Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/29/2025 7:53:52 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.245.96.231
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1933 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Monday, September 29, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, Pleasant Hill has always prided itself on being a family-oriented community, with families spanning generations. As a family who have been residents for over 71 years, I strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Pleasant Hill cannot absorb more traffic and urban sprawl. Our community must keep the current structure to keep it attractive to current and future residents.

I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane—from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way, Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods. They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them?
In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement.

Under PHMC §18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quite cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned?
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1934 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business MixedUse Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Natalie O’Keefe
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
925-691-4855
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1935 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:27:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18545 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Samantha Roberts
Street Address:: 635 Maureen lane
City: Pleasant hill
Phone Number:: 9257837012
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to rezoning of single family home
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Noack,
My name is Samantha and I live on Maureen Lane. I am writing as one of four parcels whose homes—630, 631, 634, and 635 Maureen Lane—are targeted for rezoning to Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business under the proposed ordinance.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1936 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 I want to begin by saying that I understand the rationale behind the City’s 2040 General Plan, and that the State of California has placed aggressive mandates on Pleasant Hill to expand housing opportunities. I fully appreciate the need to plan responsibly for future growth.

However, Maureen Lane is a true cul-de-sac. Our homes face internally within the Gregory Gardens neighborhood, and it is neither realistic nor reasonable to disrupt an established court with a commercial or mixeduse designation. Unless there are long-term plans for Gregory Lane access that have not yet been disclosed (which senior planning staff have denied), this proposed change feels wholly inconsistent with both the physical layout and intent of our neighborhood.

I urge you to personally drive down Maureen Lane and ask yourself if a Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business designation makes sense in this context. I believe you will find it does not. I am aware of how familiar you are with my neighborhood. I have two babies that will become students at Strandwood Elementary. I too intend to become involved in their PTA. I chose this neighborhood with intent. My dad grew up on Eloise, and he too was a student at Strandwood. This is a true community with deep roots. We bought here for the single family, ride your bike to school, know your neighbors feel. I beg you to consider what these sweeping rezonings would do to the fabric of these inner neighborhood streets.

I purchased my home at the end of a quiet court on Maureen Lane while eight months pregnant because our first home purchase was on Elinora Drive, which as you are aware, is a busy cut-through street in Gregory Gardens. It took us 11 strong offers on homes in the area before we landed on Elinora. I tell you this because I know just how hard it is to buy in this market. It was a sacrifice to make this a reality - and I do not disagree that more housing opportunity is greatly needed. However, I chose to buy a single family parcel, and changing that from underneath me feels like a bait and switch; The move to Maureen Lane came at a premium for the safety, stability, and character that a cul-de-sac provides. Changing the zoning now undermines that investment and the very qualities that drew us here.

The 2040 General Plan itself emphasizes preserving established neighborhoods and protecting the character of single-family areas. For example:
• In its “Land Use” and “Community Design” chapters, there is language about guiding infill and higher-density development to places that already have infrastructure and are appropriate for transition, rather than destabilizing intact single-family courts.
•The plan seeks to balance growth with “neighborhood integrity” so that residential areas with unique features (such as cul-de-sacs, courts) are not harmed by abrupt or incompatible changes. •While our parcels may technically touch Gregory Lane along the rear lot line, they are internally oriented and accessed exclusively via Maureen Lane. They have no frontage, driveways, or visibility on Gregory Lane. Treating them as if they were Gregory-facing is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning and with the 2040 Plan’s policies about compatible transitions
In light of this, I respectfully ask that you and the City Council consider amending the ordinance to remove the four internal-facing Maureen Lane parcels from the Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business rezoning. Doing so would both respect the spirit of the 2040 Plan and honor the lived reality of our court.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and leadership. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further.

Sincerely,
Samantha Roberts
635 Maureen Lane
(925)783-7012
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/29/2025 8:26:58 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 104.28.123.69
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1036/Sue-Noack-Mayor Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1937 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:53:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment
here
Pleasant Hill City Council - Opposition Letter - Protect our Single Family Homes - Aiden Martin.pdf
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18546 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Aiden Martin
Street Address:: 605 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9513968099
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Pleasant Hill City Council - Opposition Letter - Protect our Single Family Homes - Aiden Martin Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: Pleasant Hill City Council - Opposition Letter - Protect our Single Family Homes - Aiden Martin.pdf
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1938 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/29/2025 9:53:34 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.130.76
Referrer Page: https://www.google.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1939 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Dr. Aiden Martin
605 Maureen Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
951-396-8099
September 29, 2025
Mayor Sue Noack
City Council Members
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Dear Mayor Noack and Honorable Members of the City Council, Re: Opposition to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map
I am writing as a concerned resident and homeowner in Pleasant Hill to express my strong opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map— specifically, the proposed rezoning of internal neighborhood single-family homes (SFH) to Mixed-Use or Neighborhood Business Mixed Use.

During recent Planning Commission meetings, statements were made that gave residents the impression that this sweeping rezoning effort was necessary to meet the State’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) mandates. However, after reviewing the Housing Element of the General Plan, it has become clear that no single-family homes were included in the RHNA strategy. This raises a deeply concerning question: If these SFH areas were not required to fulfill RHNA goals, why is the City proposing to eliminate over 200 single-family homes—one of the most needed and scarce types of housing in the Bay Area? This proposal would fundamentally alter the character of our established neighborhoods and undermine the very foundation of Pleasant Hill's community identity. Many residents, myself included, feel blindsided by this process. We are confused, alarmed, and disheartened that such transformative changes are being pursued without clear necessity or sufficient community engagement.

I respectfully urge you to take a step back and fully consider the long-term consequences of this proposal—not only in terms of land use but also in terms of community trust and cohesion. I strongly encourage you to proactively reach out to your constituents before the October 20th meeting to hear their concerns, perspectives, and hopes for the future of our city.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1940 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The decision before you is critical, and I trust you will weigh it with the seriousness and thoughtfulness it deserves. Please protect the neighborhoods and families that have invested their lives in Pleasant Hill.

Thank you for your service and attention to this vital issue.

Sincerely,
Aiden Martin
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1941 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 5:59:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18547 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Andrea Boone
Street Address:: 107 Sylvia Drive
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 6509240189
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Re-zoning
Question or Comment:: Hi there - I’m very worried about the re-zoning efforts underway in GG, East Vivian, and Poet’s Corner. While I love the idea of more walkable and accessible shops and public spaces, people live in these neighborhoods. They’re what makes pleasant hill unique - families, communities together in modest yet lovely homes. Please don’t strip this away from our community.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1942 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/30/2025 5:59:42 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 104.2.26.84
Referrer Page: http://m.facebook.com
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1943 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 7:35:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18548 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Tina Fitzsimmons
Street Address:: 619 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9252127476
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Maureen Lane
Question or Comment:: I am very concerned about the removal of four homes at the end of our street to make room for high density housing or for businesses. We live in a court and this would change the whole dynamics of our court. Can you please reconsider. Thank you for your time.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1944 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/30/2025 7:35:29 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.15.139.229
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1945 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 1:42:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18549 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Samantha Roberts
Street Address:: 635 Maureen lane
City: Pleasant hill
Phone Number:: 9257837012
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition of rezoning of my single family home Question or Comment:: Hello Mayor Noack, this is my second email attempt - I would like this email to be considered for the October 20 public hearing regarding the city council vote for the rezoning ordinance:

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1946 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Dear Mayor Noack,
My name is Samantha and I live on Maureen Lane. I am writing as one of four parcels whose homes—630, 631, 634, and 635 Maureen Lane—are targeted for rezoning to Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business under the proposed ordinance. I want to begin by saying that I understand the rationale behind the City’s 2040 General Plan, and that the State of California has placed aggressive mandates on Pleasant Hill to expand housing opportunities. I fully appreciate the need to plan responsibly for future growth. However, Maureen Lane is a true cul-de-sac. Our homes face internally within the Gregory Gardens neighborhood, and it is neither realistic nor reasonable to disrupt an established court with a commercial or mixed-use designation. Unless there are long-term plans for Gregory Lane access that have not yet been disclosed (which senior planning staff have denied), this proposed change feels wholly inconsistent with both the physical layout and intent of our neighborhood. I urge you to personally drive down Maureen Lane and ask yourself if a Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business designation makes sense in this context. I believe you will find it does not. I am aware of how familiar you are with my neighborhood. I have two babies that will become students at Strandwood Elementary. I too intend to become involved in their PTA. I chose this neighborhood with intent. My dad grew up on Eloise, and he too was a student at Strandwood. This is a true community with deep roots. We bought here for the single family, ride your bike to school, know your neighbors feel. I beg you to consider what these sweeping rezonings would do to the fabric of these inner neighborhood streets. I purchased my home at the end of a quiet court on Maureen Lane while eight months pregnant because our first home purchase was on Elinora Drive, which as you are aware, is a busy cut-through street in Gregory Gardens. It took us 11 strong offers on homes in the area before we landed on Elinora. I tell you this because I know just how hard it is to buy in this market. It was a sacrifice to make this a reality - and I do not disagree that more housing opportunity is greatly needed. However, I chose to buy a single family parcel, and changing that from underneath me feels like a bait and switch; The move to Maureen Lane came at a premium for the safety, stability, and character that a cul-de-sac provides. Changing the zoning now undermines that investment and the very qualities that drew us here. The 2040 General Plan itself emphasizes preserving established neighborhoods and protecting the character of single-family areas. For example: • In its “Land Use” and “Community Design” chapters, there is language about guiding infill and higher-density development to places that already have infrastructure and are appropriate for transition, rather than destabilizing intact single-family courts. •The plan seeks to balance growth with “neighborhood integrity” so that residential areas with unique features (such as culde-sacs, courts) are not harmed by abrupt or incompatible changes. •While our parcels may technically touch Gregory Lane along the rear lot line, they are internally oriented and accessed exclusively via Maureen Lane. They have no frontage, driveways, or visibility on Gregory Lane. Treating them as if they were Gregory-facing is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning and with the 2040 Plan’s policies about compatible transitions In light of this, I respectfully ask that you and the City Council consider amending the ordinance to remove the four internalfacing Maureen Lane parcels from the Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business rezoning. Doing so would both respect the spirit of the 2040 Plan and honor the lived reality of our court. Thank you for your time, consideration, and leadership. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further.

Sincerely,
Samantha Roberts
635 Maureen Lane
(925)783-7012
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/30/2025 1:39:51 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 104.28.124.69
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1947 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 1:54:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18550 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Mac and Lynda Abbey
Street Address:: 413 Roberta Ave
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9253480490
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: No to Rezoning Proposal
Question or Comment:: We are very disturbed by the Rezoning Proposal of the area between Beatrice Rd and the canal, a flood zone. The process of the Planning Commission was highly flawed with no apparent outreach to those of us most greatly affected. Medium density housing could double the traffic in an otherwise quiet neighborhood. The streets are narrow, without sidewalks and often full of walkers and children. We agree that Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1948 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 single family houses in the proposed area could be assimilated in an expanded neighborhood, but there was no opportunity to discuss. We urge the City Council to reject the present proposal and initiate a process that includes participation of members of our neighborhood.

Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/30/2025 1:54:26 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.3.186.42
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1949 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 12:09:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here Pleasasnt Hill City Council - Opposition Letter - General Community - [NAME].doc * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18552 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Bruce Badash
Street Address:: 618 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Concerns on rezoning Gregory Lane
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: Pleasasnt Hill City Council - Opposition Letter - General Community - [NAME].doc
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1950 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/1/2025 12:08:57 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.241.77.81
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1951 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 October 1, 2025
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map.

Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 single-family residential parcels from our community is a step in the wrong direction. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand—which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes.

At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the community without public benefit, and with no clear plan, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties—including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill’s planning process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
• Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without this unnecessary change
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1952 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higherdensity housing • Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress—it is about planning responsibly, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Bruce Badash
618 Maureen Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1953 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jeremy Poggio
To: Sue Noack
Cc: Ethan Bindernagel; Troy Fujimoto; Lyone Conner
Subject: Call from Deanna DeNura Re: Rezoning Matters
Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 9:32:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Good Morning, Mayor Noack:

Deanna DeNura, who resides at 735 Slater Avenue, called this past Monday 9/29, and initially requested to speak to you, however, by the end of the call determined that she did not need a call back. She noted she does not use email and so called with her concerns, which included:
1) During her visit with the Planning Division on Friday 9/26, she was told her parcel was listed as a “cleanup.” She did not appreciate this terminology going on the State report and questioned why her residence was being rezoned.
2) She has been monitoring Orinda’s rezoning matters and felt that their public notice was clearer and more detailed, including a more detailed rezoning map. She wanted to make it known that she will be watching the upcoming Orinda City Council meetings in comparison to how Pleasant Hill handles the rezoning matter. 3) She stated she also owns the property of 731 Slater Avenue, but it was not listed on the report.

This information will be shared with the Planning Division and will be included as public comment regarding the referenced rezoning matter.

Thank you,
Jeremy
Jeremy Poggio - Office of the City Manager
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
p.925-671-5292
Om'OF PLEAS'AMr'llllL
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1954 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 October 1, 2025
Attention:

Pleasant Hill City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 singlefamily residential parcels from our community is a step in the wrong direction. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand-which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes. At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the community without public benefit, and with no clear plan, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties-including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, wou1d violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill's planning-process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
• Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without this unnecessary change • Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing • Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide
Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress-it is about planning responsibly, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill. (f JJ Maureen Lane
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1955 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 October 1, 2025
Attention:

Pleasant Hill City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523
RE: Opposition to Removal of Single-family homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Dear Mayor and City Council members,
Today I signed a letter proposed by the families of my community on Maureen Lane. I agree with the letter (attached) and support its reasoning. However, I feel compelled to write a personal response to learning that zoning changes would affect my home and character of my neighborhood as well as the property vaf ues of our homes.

The proposal removes four single family court homes that closes us into a complete neighborhood with great walking, safe sidewalks and street access without fear to monitor strangers, parking problems or noise at late hours. Rezoning these beautiful homes for multiple use completely destroys the special feeling I have about living in Pleasant Hill. I am greatly annoyed that the council only gave notice to the 4 properties and considering the impact it will have on our community, the very least should have been all properties within a reasonable radius. Two days notice ... come on! That doesn't sound very ethical or demonstrate that the council is supporting its constituents.

I love Pleasant Hill as many do. Use your open space to build housing. Don't destroy well maintained single family homes to develop multi business/housing. Improve the core of our city with a good department store. Changing the atmosphere of our neighborhood will ignite such anger and more residents will join in to stop your plans with their votes.

This is my personal opinion of how feel about the zoning. I will continue to support the neighborhood's efforts to remove the proposed zoning in question from the proposed map, and will vote for council persons who agree.

Sincerely,
~ 'fr;~ ~27 M~ureen Lane -
Pleasant Hill. {15 year resident)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1956 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 October 1, 2025
Attention:

Pieasant Hill City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 singlefamily residentialparcels from our community is a step in the wrong direction. These homes are essenti~t to rriaintaining a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill 'already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA}wifhout needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand-which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes. At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what Is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the community without pubUc benefit, and with no dear plan, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties-including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill's planning process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods . ..
• Honotthe current H6using Elerrient, which already sa-tisfies State requirements without this unnec·essary change • Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing • Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide
Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress-it is- about plarmi'ng responsibly, honoring tommunity character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Th~nk you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
t;tPuJ i(J:i/j/
$ Maureen Lane
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1957 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 October 1, 2025
Attention:

Pleasa"l"1t HiH City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 singlefamily residential partelSfrom our commu'nity is a step in the wrong direction. Thes'e homes are essential to maintai·ning a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal ofthese homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand-which de·arJy shows a continued need for single-family homes. At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fund-a mentally alter the community without pubtic benefit, and with no clear pian, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density; and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties-including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill's planning process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
• Honor the current Housing -Elerhent, which already satisfies St~te reqiuireme6ts without this unn~cessary change • Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing • Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide
Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress-it is about planning responsibly, honoring co"1'.munity character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Jtmb~
lp/3_ Maureen Lane
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1958 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 October 1, 2025
Attention:

Pleasant Hill Cit\l Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill e!.A 94~13
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 singlefamily resrdenti'alparcels from our community is a step in the wrong directi·on. These ·homes are essential to maintaining a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fuUy meets California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA}without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand--which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes. At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundarnentaHy aiter the communitywH:hout pubHc benefit, and with no dear p~an, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not _designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code {PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties-incfuding increasedtraffic, noise, and density. This proposal", if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the inte~rity of Pleasant Hill's planning process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
• Honot the current Hou'singEl-ement~ which alre~dy satisfies State requirements without this unnecessary change • Prioritize the deve!opment of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing • Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide
Preservirtg single-family homes ls not about resisting progress-it is about pJanntng responsibly, honortng cemmunity character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
,27 Maureen Lane
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1959 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Date: Friday, October 3, 2025 2:00:17 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 6:00 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name: Stephanie & Eric Schoen
Street
Address:
407 Maureen Lane
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:
510-290-4502
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Question
or
Comment:

Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map. Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internalfacing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane—from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way, Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods.

They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value. While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them? In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1960 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement.

Under PHMC §18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quite cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned? If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail. Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement. The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted. I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residentialdesignation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city. Sincerely, Stephanie & Eric Schoen 407 Maureen Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 [email protected]; 510-290-4502 Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18555 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Stephanie & Eric Schoen
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1961 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Street Address:: 407 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 510-290-4502
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Question or Comment:: Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane—from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way, Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods. They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them?
In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1962 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 impact to the quite cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned? If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residentialdesignation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Stephanie & Eric Schoen
407 Maureen Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]; 510-290-4502
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1963 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/2/2025 6:00:16 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 66.234.201.229
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1964 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: Request for clarification on Rezoning of East Vivian Neighborhoods Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 8:55:06 AM
From: Deana Rabbach <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2025 1:01 PM
To: Sue Noack <[email protected]>; Haley Croffoot <[email protected]> Cc: Todd Rabbach <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for clarification on Rezoning of East Vivian Neighborhoods CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor Noack,
I’m a resident of 23 Celia Drive in the East Vivian Neighborhood, and recently learned that our home and neighborhood was rezoned from single family residential to mixed-use as part of the 2040 General Plan and is planned to be rezoned as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Could you please share:
• The specific goals this rezoning advances for the City (e.g., housing, transportation, economic development).
• How the City expects the change to positively impact residents—short and long term (safety, traffic, schools, small businesses, tax base, city services). • Any supporting analyses or metrics used to evaluate benefits (infrastructure capacity, fiscal impact, traffic studies, environmental review).
• How resident input was incorporated and what opportunities remain for feedback or refinement.

If helpful, I’m happy to meet or attend the next session where this topic will be discussed. Thank you for your time and for helping residents understand the rationale and expected community benefits.

Regards,
Deana, Todd, Paolina (13) and Roman (13) Rabbach
23 Celia Drive, Pleasant Hill in the East Vivian Neighborhood 510.367.6987
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1965 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Sunday, October 5, 2025 9:43:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18557 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Stacey Pawsey
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Question or Comment:: 10/5/2025
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1966 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map.

Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 single-family residential parcels from our community is a step in the wrong direction. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand—which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes.

At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable singlefamily areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the community without public benefit, and with no clear plan, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties—including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill’s planning process.

We urge the City Council to:

Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without this unnecessary change Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide
Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress—it is about planning responsibly, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Stacey Pawsey
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/5/2025 9:43:40 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.170.16.235
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1967 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Saturday, October 4, 2025 6:39:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18556 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Tina Fitzsimmons
Street Address:: 619 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning
Question or Comment:: I am asking you to rethink about rezoning the end of Maureen Lane. This would greatly affect our sweet neighborhood. We are a court and to take away four homes would not only affect them it would affect all of us. These are custom homes that were built with the promise of always being a court. I want to thank you for your time and consideration in this.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1968 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/4/2025 6:39:50 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.15.139.229
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1969 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: Request for clarification on rezoning of Poets Corner Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 9:08:08 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Asal Bidokhti <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 8:25 PM
To: Sue Noack <[email protected]>; Haley Croffoot <[email protected]> Subject: Request for clarification on rezoning of Poets Corner CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor Noack,
I’m a resident of Poets Corner and recently learned that our area was rezoned from single family residential to 4 story apartments as part of the 2040 General Plan and is planned to be rezoned as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Could you please share:
• The specific goals this rezoning advances for the City (e.g., housing, transportation, economic development). • How the City expects the change to positively impact residents—short and long term (safety, traffic, schools, small businesses, tax base, city services).
• Any supporting analyses or metrics used to evaluate benefits (infrastructure capacity, fiscal impact, traffic studies, environmental review).
• How resident input was/ will be incorporated and what opportunities remain for feedback or refinement.

If helpful, I’m happy to meet or attend the next session where this topic will be discussed. Thank you for your time and for helping residents understand the rationale and expected community benefits.

Sincerely,
Asal Doyle
Poets Corner
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1970 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Lyone Conner
Subject: FW: Rezoning
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 9:21:43 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Fitzsimmons <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 9:02 AM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

First let me start by saying thank you for coming to our meeting Saturday on Maureen Lane. We are very concerned about the rezoning of the four houses on our street. We kindly ask that you take these four houses OFF the general plan. This would change our whole neighborhood. We love PH and the homey feel of it. We have plenty to walk to from our trail. PLEASE take our street if of your plan. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tina Fitzsimmons 619 Maureen Lane
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1971 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:46:07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here ph-citycouncil.docx
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18559 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Kari Balderston
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: ph-citycouncil.docx
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1972 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/6/2025 10:46:00 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1973 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 [DATE]
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane—from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way, Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods. They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them?
In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement.

Under PHMC §18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quite cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned?
If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1974 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business MixedUse Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address in Gregory Gardens]
[Your Email or Phone Number, if desired]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1975 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:49:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here ph-rezone.docx
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18561 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: ph-rezone.docx
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1976 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/6/2025 10:49:46 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1977 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 October 6, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane—from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way, Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods. They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them?
In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement.

Under PHMC §18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quite cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned?
If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1978 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 We bought in this neighborhood, as did my inlaws specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business MixedUse Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Trippe Roloff
124 Beverly Drive
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1979 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Lyone Conner
Cc: Troy Fujimoto; Ethan Bindernagel
Subject: FW: Subject: Request for Clarification on rezoning of Sherman Acres II Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 12:03:34 PM
From: Cindy Walker-sayles <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:55 PM
To: Sue Noack <[email protected]>; Haley Croffoot <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Request for Clarification on rezoning of Sherman Acres II CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor Noack,
I am a resident @ 1925 Marta Drive and recently learned that our area is being rezoned from single family residential to Mixed Use (MU) as part of the 2040 General Plan and is planned to be rezoned as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Could you please share:
* The specific goals this rezoning advances the city (e.g., housing, transportation, economic development).
* Why the designation of Mixed Use (MU) was used rather than Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUD)?
* How the City expects the change to positively impact residents, short and long term? (safety, traffic, schools,
small businesses, tax base, city services).
* Any supporting analysis or metrics used to evaluate benefits (infrastructure capacity, fiscal impact, traffic
studies, environmental review).
* How resident input was gathered and incorporated? What opportunities remain for feedback or refinement?
If helpful I and my neighbors are happy to meet or attend the next session where this topic will be DISCUSSED. (Not just resident comments sessions.)
Thank you for your time and for helping residents understand the rationale and expected community benefits.

Cindy & Ken Sayles
1925 Marta Drive,
Pleasant Hill
Sherman Acres II / East Vivian Neighborhood
cell (925)368-6355
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1980 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Liz Tichenor
To: City Council
Subject: In support of Rezoning
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 10:21:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to voice my support of the proposed plans for rezoning in Pleasant Hill. As one of your local clergy members, and one leading a congregation that would be directly impacted by this change given our location on Gregory Lane, I am delighted to see the vision cast for a more walkable, bikeable, mixed-use community. Even more so, I want to commend the framers of the plan for their commitment to making more affordable housing possible in our community. So many of the people who serve in our community — teachers, nurses, caregivers, civil servants, and more — cannot afford to live here, and I am eager to see that change. Further, my hope is that having more affordable housing would help Pleasant Hill to become a more diverse community, which would be a strength, an asset, and a blessing to us all. While I recognize that this plan may be experienced as an inconvenience to some, and that some neighbors are expressing fear about these changes, I want to offer my gratitude for the courage and vision it takes to help our community be more welcoming, accessible and healthy.

I wholeheartedly support this proposed rezoning.

Thanks and peace,
Liz+
--
The Rev. Liz Tichenor
Rector, Episcopal Church of the Resurrection, Pleasant Hill she/her/hers
resurrectionph.org
My regular work week is Sunday through Thursday. If you have a pastoral emergency on Friday or Saturday, please call me on my cell phone.

Please beware of scammers! If you receive an email that appears to be from me but sounds odd, check if it is from [email protected]. Scammers create new email addresses and just attach my name to them, but they have not actually hacked my account. Know that I will NEVER ask you to send me gift cards or money electronically — if we collect them for those in need, we will always ask you to bring the physical gift card to church. When in doubt, send me a text or email me at this address (rather than responding to the questionable email) to double check.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1981 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 1 Juanita Davalos
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 9:26 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name: Stephen Lubeck
Street
Address:
241 Twinview Dr
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* No to current rezoning plan
Question
or
Comment:

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my strong opposition to any proposal that would rezone or eliminate established internal-facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. Pleasant Hill is already experiencing a shortage of single-family housing. The proposed removal of over 200 single-family residential parcels would further erode this vital segment of our housing stock. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced and diverse housing supply, and they contribute significantly to the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable community for generations. Among the areas affected is Monti Circle—a neighborhood I grew up in. Destroying Monti Circle would be a heartbreaking loss, not only to me personally but to the fabric of our community. It is a quiet, stable, and cherished part of Pleasant Hill, and its removal would irreparably damage the neighborhood’s character and history. There has been no clear justification provided for this rezoning effort. Importantly, the City of Pleasant Hill’s State-certified Housing Element already meets California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements without the need to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. It's my understanding that this proposed change is not mandated by the state, is not necessary for RHNA compliance, and is not aligned with current housing demand, which continues to show a strong need for single-family homes. Moreover, many existing medium- and high-density housing units in Pleasant Hill remain underutilized. If these developments are not reaching capacity, what is the rationale for increasing density in stable single-family areas—especially in locations that are not suited for such development? This proposal risks fundamentally altering our community without delivering clear public benefits. It lacks transparency, a detailed plan, and meaningful community engagement. If enacted, it could displace long-time residents, degrade neighborhood character, increase traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and strain local infrastructure and schools. The cumulative impact of such changes would fragment long-standing neighborhoods and weaken the sense of community that Pleasant Hill residents deeply value. Additionally, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not result in Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1982 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 2 significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties—including increased traffic, noise, and density. As written, this proposal would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of the city’s planning process. I respectfully urge the City Council to: Reject any zoning changes that eliminate or rezone internal-facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods. Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without these unnecessary changes. Focus future development on underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing. Invest in revitalizing and improving existing commercial zones to better serve residents and attract sustainable growth. Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide. Preserving singlefamily homes is not about resisting progress—it is about responsible planning, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations. Thank you for your attention and for your continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill. Sincerely, Stephen and Stacey Lubeck 241 Twinview Dr Pleasant Hill, Ca Upload File
Attachment
here
[ ]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18567 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Stephen Lubeck
Street Address:: 241 Twinview Dr
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: No to current rezoning plan
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my strong opposition to any proposal that would rezone or eliminate established internal-facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map.

Pleasant Hill is already experiencing a shortage of single-family housing. The proposed removal of over 200 single-family residential parcels would further erode this vital segment of our housing stock. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced and diverse housing supply, and they contribute significantly to the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable community Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1983 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 3 for generations.

Among the areas affected is Monti Circle—a neighborhood I grew up in. Destroying Monti Circle would be a heartbreaking loss, not only to me personally but to the fabric of our community. It is a quiet, stable, and cherished part of Pleasant Hill, and its removal would irreparably damage the neighborhood’s character and history.

There has been no clear justification provided for this rezoning effort. Importantly, the City of Pleasant Hill’s State-certified Housing Element already meets California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements without the need to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. It's my understanding that this proposed change is not mandated by the state, is not necessary for RHNA compliance, and is not aligned with current housing demand, which continues to show a strong need for single-family homes.

Moreover, many existing medium- and high-density housing units in Pleasant Hill remain underutilized. If these developments are not reaching capacity, what is the rationale for increasing density in stable single-family areas—especially in locations that are not suited for such development? This proposal risks fundamentally altering our community without delivering clear public benefits. It lacks transparency, a detailed plan, and meaningful community engagement. If enacted, it could displace long-time residents, degrade neighborhood character, increase traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and strain local infrastructure and schools. The cumulative impact of such changes would fragment long-standing neighborhoods and weaken the sense of community that Pleasant Hill residents deeply value.

Additionally, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not result in significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties—including increased traffic, noise, and density.

As written, this proposal would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of the city’s planning process.

I respectfully urge the City Council to:

Reject any zoning changes that eliminate or rezone internal-facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods.

Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without these unnecessary changes.

Focus future development on underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing.

Invest in revitalizing and improving existing commercial zones to better serve residents and attract sustainable growth.

Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide.

Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress—it is about responsible planning, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and for your continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Stephen and Stacey Lubeck
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1984 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 4 241 Twinview Dr
Pleasant Hill, Ca
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/7/2025 9:25:31 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 76.126.222.98
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1985 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 October 08, 2025
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map.

Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 single-family residential parcels from our community is a step in the wrong direction. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand-which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes.

At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If-existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the community without public benefit, and with no clear plan, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties-including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill's planning process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
• Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without this unnecessary change
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1986 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing
• Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress-it is about planning responsibly, honoring commu·nity character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Ardis Richards
1784 Ruth Drive Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
925-212-2524
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1987 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 October 08, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane-from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way: Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods. They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them?
In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference-it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC § 18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no sign1ficant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quite cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned? If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic-a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on di"rectly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input-it amounts to Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1988 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Ardis B. Richards
1784 Ruth Drive, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected] 925.212.2524]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1989 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 10/7/25
Re: Opposition to the Proposed Rezoning and Demolition of Homes in East Vivian Neighborhood Under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dear District 2 Councilmember Andrei Obolenskiy, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my deep concern and strong opposition to the City’s current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map as it pertains to the neighborhood specifically known as East Vivian, also called the Focus Area 5 in the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan.

Under the proposed plan, more than 150 existing single-family homes in East Vivian are targeted to be rezoned as Mixed-Use Residential. This is not a neighborhood upgrade; it is the eradication of a long-established residential community. Families who have lived in East Vivian now face uncertainty, and the potential loss of their neighborhood. It is difficult to see how such a drastic action aligns with the principles of responsible urban planning or community preservation.

While we understand the city’s obligation to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets, this area is not used to meet these requirements. There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand—which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes.

In addition, the current proposal fails to meet the legal and ethical standards required for zoning changes. Under municipal zoning code (PHMC §18.125.070), zoning ordinance amendments must not result in significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties — including impacts related to traffic, infrastructure, and neighborhood character. A rezoning effort that calls for eliminating hundreds of homes clearly fails this test.

The infrastructure in East Vivian including roads, schools, utilities, and public services was not designed to absorb the density increase that a Mixed-Use designation would bring.

Moreover, there has been little meaningful community engagement with affected residents.

The magnitude of this proposed change demands more than minimal public notice or check-the-box outreach. This process should be rooted in transparent communication, good faith dialogue, and genuine consideration of community-driven alternatives.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1990 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 It is unacceptable that a stable, quiet, and diverse residential enclave would be effectively erased rather than incorporated into a more inclusive and sustainable housing solution.

This is not planning; it is displacement.

Therefore, I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove East Vivian from the Mixed-Use Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Pleasant Hill are not opposed to progress but we are opposed to careless planning that sacrifices families and homes. We ask you to uphold the principles of thoughtful, equitable, and community-focused development. The residents of East Vivian are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this critical issue and for your ongoing service to our city.

Sincerely,
Brandi Teverbaugh Crowley
1930 Marta Drive, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(925) 899-9115
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1991 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 1 Juanita Davalos
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 4:31 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name: Brandi Teverbaugh Crowley
Street Address: 1930 Marta Drive
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone Number: 9258999115
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Opposition of Rezoning
Question or Comment: Please see the attached letter opposing the rezoning plan for my neighborhood.

Thank you.

Upload File Attachment
here
Opposition Letter-Proposed Rezoning-East Vivian.docx
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18566 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Brandi Teverbaugh Crowley
Street Address:: 1930 Marta Drive
City: Pleasant Hill
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1992 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 2 Phone Number:: 9258999115
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition of Rezoning
Question or Comment:: Please see the attached letter opposing the rezoning plan for my neighborhood.

Thank you.

Upload File Attachment here: Opposition Letter-Proposed Rezoning-East Vivian.docx Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/7/2025 4:31:02 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 104.2.26.208
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1993 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Saturday, October 11, 2025 10:17:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here October 11 2025 letter.docx * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18575 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Mary Cole
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to Rezoning Gregory Gardens/E Vivian Question or Comment:: Please see attached letter in opposition to the changes.

Upload File Attachment here: October 11 2025 letter.docx Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1994 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/11/2025 10:17:51 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 12.75.243.102
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1995 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 October 11, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane—from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way, Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods. They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value.

While I understand the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them?
In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quiet cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned? If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1996 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city.

Sincerely,
Mary Cole
I am not a Gregory Gardens/East Vivian resident but strongly oppose adverse changes to my city.
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1997 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Maureen Rasmussen
1796 Rtf th Dr
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
s~illthe'f [email protected]
(925(381-0027 I
I
October 4, 2025
Mayor Sue Noack
City Council Members
City of Pleasant Hill I
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 ' ;/
Dear Mayor Noack and Honorable Members of the City Council, Re: Opposition to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map
I am writing as a concerned resident and homeowner in Pleasant Hill to express my strong opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map-specifically, the proposed rezoning of internal neighborhood single-family homes (SFH) to Mixed-Use or Neighborhood Business Mixed Use.

During recent Planning Commission meetings, statements were made that gave residents the impression that this sweeping rezoning effort was necessary to meet the State's RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) mandates. However, after reviewing the Housing Element of the General Plan, it has become clear that no single-family homes were included in the RHNA strategy. This raises a deeply concerq.ing question: If these SFH areas were not required to fulfill RHNA goals, why is the qty proposing to eliminate over 200 single-family homes-one of the most needed 'and scarce types of housing in the Bay Area?
Tpis proposal would fundamentally alter the character of our established n~ighborhoods and undermine the very foundation of Pleasant Hill's community iqentity./ Many residents, myself included, feel blindsided by this process. We are cpnfused, alarmed, and disheartened that such transformative changes are being Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1998 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 pursued without clear necessity or sufficient community engagement.

I respec~fully urge you to take a step back and fully consider the long-term consequences of this proposal-not only in terms of land use but also in terms of commup.ity trust and cohesion. I strongly encourage you to proactively reach out to your copstituents before the October 20th meeting to hear their concerns, p~rspectives, and hopes for the future of our city.

The decision before you is critical, and I trust you will weigh it with the seriousness apd thoughtfulness it deserves. Please protect the neighborhoods and families that h~ve invested their lives in Pleasant Hill.

Thank you for your service and attention to this vital issue.

Sin(erel:Jt1~
Maureen flasmussen
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1999 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 8:41:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18582 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Samantha Roberts
Street Address:: 635 Maureen lane
City: Pleasant hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Noack,
I wanted to take a moment to sincerely thank you for meeting with me and taking the time to hear our concerns as the residents of Maureen Lane. It meant a great deal that you were willing to listen thoughtfully and engage with us about the proposed rezoning.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2000 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 While I am deeply disappointed by the potential rezoning of my home from single-family to mixed-use, I also recognize that the City is operating under extraordinary pressure from state housing mandates. I appreciate the challenging balance you and the Council must maintain between meeting those requirements and preserving the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

Your willingness to hear directly from residents, to understand the unique character of our closed court, and to consider our perspective gives me hope that the City’s decision-making process remains rooted in fairness and community values.

Thank you again for your time, your attention, and your commitment to Pleasant Hill. We are grateful for your openness to dialogue during such a complex process.

Sincerely,
Samantha Roberts
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/15/2025 8:41:41 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 104.28.124.70
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2001 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Saturday, October 11, 2025 2:25:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18576 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Mac and Lynda Abbey
Street Address:: 413 ROBERTA AVE
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9253480490
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: REZONING PROTEST
Question or Comment:: THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ROBERTA AVE AND BEATRICE RD IS LIVING

UNDER A DARK CLOUD OF VASTLY INCREASED TRAFFIC DUE TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE END OF BEATRICE RD FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. THE TWO STREETS ARE NARROW, HAVE NO SIDEWALKS AND HAVE MANY CARS PARKED ON THE STREET. BECAUSE THERE IS Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2002 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025

LITTLE TRAFFIC, THE STREETS ARE USED BY WALKERS, MANY FROM OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BICYCLES, AND CHILDREN PLAYING. THE NEW ZONING PROPOSAL COULD ADD 100-200 MORE VEHICLES THAT WOULD USE THE TWO STREETS, GREATLY INCREASING THE SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO MODIFY THE REZONING

TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHICH COULD BE ABSORBED, SAFELY AND CULTURALLY IN AN EXPANDED NEIGHBORHOOD.

Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/11/2025 2:25:12 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.3.186.42
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2003 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 10:42:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18584 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Dan Dempsey
Street Address:: 115 Hazeltine Circle
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9257652959
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Unfair and Counterproductive Rezoning Proposal Question or Comment:: I agree that new housing and commercial development is important and critical for Pleasant Hill. I just do not agree that the 6 houses on Julian Way, which the only access is a private road should be rezoned to Business Mixed-Use as the rezoning proposal(2040) is stating. There are many site and areas where multi-family and commercial development can occur, including the Mangini Farm property near Pleasant hill Rd Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2004 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 and Taylor Blvd, Contra Costa Blvd, and the former site of Black Angus, which is current up for sale. Thanks for taking these points into consideration at your meeting on 10/20/2025. I believe the current plan for Julian Way does need to be reconsidered. Thank you for you time, Regards, Dan Dempsey Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/16/2025 10:42:47 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 165.225.243.117
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1650/Amanda-Szakats-Dist-5-Councilmember Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2005 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Gaston en Ariane Habets
To: Haley Croffoot; City Council
Subject: City Council Oct 20, comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment and rezoning opposition statement.

Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 6:20:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

City Council,
We want to log our opposition to the rezoning plan:

1. While the Planning Commission meeting approved the plan in the recent Sep 9th meeting the feedback from the public was massive and unanimously against. Although the Committee chair was happy to see us all and wanted to hear our input, none of the substantial written and verbal arguments
mattered. With only casual notetaking many of the points raised during the multi hour public comment period were not even addressed in the discussion that followed. Please review the feedback of your citizens. We did not feel the Planning committee did.

2. The main argument the Planning Commission used; the
rezoning just formalizes what was already in the general plan.

That’s a poor excuse and invalidates the function of a
Planning Committee. Why then insult our intelligence with a sham input process that wastes our time and ‘a priory’ does not matter. It would have spared us trying to read through the 1400+ pages document and many other records.

3. The whole process and timeline, approval and submission to the City Council and deadline to the State was such that any feedback, adjustment was anyhow impossible. This was even asked for clarification by a committee member. Again, a failure of a democratic process. Please do not pretend that our input could have any effect. No surprise that many lose confidence in government and the democratic process if
these public meetings are only is there to check off the minimum legal requirements.

4. Lastly, a remark from a committee member invalidated the whole rezoning plan arguing that, although she could not promise, but it was unlikely a developer would develop the proposed ‘Multiunit’ site because of the creek setback, floodzone and road access issues (Beatrice creekside CCFC properties). That does confirm this whole plan is useless in the committees view and a ruse to file for illusionary
developmental housing units such that the State ‘gets off the City’s back’. Shameful.

5. We want to make perfectly clear that we are NOT against development within the City limits but then use sites that have Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2006 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 easy access without disrupting existing neighborhoods and home values. Multiple people suggested properties that were not included in the proposal and which even by casual
inspection have fewer issues. (e.g. former Black Angus, PHP&R north of library field). If rezoning of existing
neighborhoods is an option and we need to make the States HE numbers why not rezone also our downtown and have
mixed residential – business be an option?
Gaston and Ariane Habets, Beatrice Rd Pleasant Hill.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2007 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Citywide Rezoning
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 1:24:41 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 1:43 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name: Maureen Rasmussen
Street
Address:
1796 Ruth Dr
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:
9253810027
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Citywide Rezoning
Question
or
Comment:

I would like to know where you stand on this? You came to my home asking for my vote last year. You told me you stood for family and community and keeping our small town feel. I have lived here for 32 years and I am horrified and cannot believe this city is heading in this direction. What happened to keeping our town familycentered.... and now talking of losing more than 200 affordable small to mid-sized homes. We have tens of thousands of unoccupied commercial property in this town and much more in Concord. We don't need more massage parlors, nail salons, cigarette stores and the like. We have very few quality retailers here. Fill our currently open spaces. Redevelop those. Redevelop the Grocery Outlet shopping center or the other old ugly centers. We will be an unlovable, uninspiring town if these changes occur. Why no parking for these places, why no open space or places for families to bring their kids for healthy activities. What do we get Car Max, Starbucks and tons of fast food..... Move Goodwill and Salvation Army. So many other choices yet you all decide to spend 1.2 million to hire an outside source to come up with this. Very, very disappointing and I feel like I had the wool pulled over my eyes. So much secrecy within this City now. This is not what Pleasant Hill used to be like.

Upload File
Attachment
[]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2008 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 here
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18564 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Maureen Rasmussen
Street Address:: 1796 Ruth Dr
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9253810027
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Citywide Rezoning
Question or Comment:: I would like to know where you stand on this? You came to my home asking for my vote last year. You told me you stood for family and community and keeping our small town feel. I have lived here for 32 years and I am horrified and cannot believe this city is heading in this direction. What happened to keeping our town familycentered.... and now talking of losing more than 200 affordable small to mid-sized homes. We have tens of thousands of unoccupied commercial property in this town and much more in Concord. We don't need more massage parlors, nail salons, cigarette stores and the like. We have very few quality retailers here. Fill our currently open spaces. Redevelop those. Redevelop the Grocery Outlet shopping center or the other old ugly centers. We will be an unlovable, uninspiring town if these changes occur. Why no parking for these places, why no open space or places for families to bring their kids for healthy activities. What do we get Car Max, Starbucks and tons of fast food..... Move Goodwill and Salvation Army. So many other choices yet you all decide to spend 1.2 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2009 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 million to hire an outside source to come up with this. Very, very disappointing and I feel like I had the wool pulled over my eyes. So much secrecy within this City now. This is not what Pleasant Hill used to be like.

Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/7/2025 1:41:01 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.223.13.165
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1650/Amanda-Szakats-Dist-5-Councilmember Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2010 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of East Vivian Neighborhood Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 1:23:54 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:13 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.

Name: David Lee
Street
Address:
1967 Marta Dr
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of East Vivian Neighborhood Question
or
Comment:

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, My name is David Lee, and I recently moved to Pleasant Hill, where I live at 1967 Marta Dr, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523. I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of the East Vivian neighborhood, identified as Focus Area 5 in the 2040 General Plan. The current plan would rezone more than 150 existing single-family homes into Mixed-Use Residential. That’s not revitalization—it’s the removal of an established community.

This change would threaten the stability of our neighborhood and undermine the character of a long-standing residential area. From what I’ve reviewed, this rezoning isn’t required to meet the State’s RHNA housing targets. Pleasant Hill already has a certified Housing Element that satisfies those requirements. There’s no practical or legal reason to target existing single-family homes to meet state housing goals.

Beyond that, the area’s infrastructure—roads, utilities, schools, and city services— was never built to handle the density a mixed-use designation would bring. The City’s own zoning code (PHMC §18.125.070) states that zoning changes shouldn’t create significant adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. This one clearly would. What’s even more frustrating is how little engagement there’s been with those directly affected. This process should include genuine transparency and dialogue with residents who will live with the consequences. We aren’t against progress—we’re against poor planning that disregards families and the stability of Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2011 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Pleasant Hill’s neighborhoods. I strongly urge the City Council to remove East Vivian from the Mixed-Use Residential designation and commit to a planning process that respects existing homeowners, infrastructure limits, and genuine community input. Thank you for your time and for listening to residents who truly care about the future of this city. Sincerely, David Lee 1967 Marta Dr Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18563 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: David Lee
Street Address:: 1967 Marta Dr
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of East Vivian Neighborhood Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, My name is David Lee, and I recently moved to Pleasant Hill, where I live at 1967 Marta Dr, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523. I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of the East Vivian neighborhood, identified as Focus Area 5 in the 2040 General Plan.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2012 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The current plan would rezone more than 150 existing single-family homes into MixedUse Residential. That’s not revitalization—it’s the removal of an established community.

This change would threaten the stability of our neighborhood and undermine the character of a long-standing residential area.

From what I’ve reviewed, this rezoning isn’t required to meet the State’s RHNA housing targets. Pleasant Hill already has a certified Housing Element that satisfies those requirements. There’s no practical or legal reason to target existing single-family homes to meet state housing goals.

Beyond that, the area’s infrastructure—roads, utilities, schools, and city services—was never built to handle the density a mixed-use designation would bring. The City’s own zoning code (PHMC §18.125.070) states that zoning changes shouldn’t create significant adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. This one clearly would.

What’s even more frustrating is how little engagement there’s been with those directly affected. This process should include genuine transparency and dialogue with residents who will live with the consequences. We aren’t against progress—we’re against poor planning that disregards families and the stability of Pleasant Hill’s neighborhoods.

I strongly urge the City Council to remove East Vivian from the Mixed-Use Residential designation and commit to a planning process that respects existing homeowners, infrastructure limits, and genuine community input.

Thank you for your time and for listening to residents who truly care about the future of this city.

Sincerely,
David Lee
1967 Marta Dr
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/6/2025 10:13:06 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.81.224.57
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2013 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1649/Andrei-Obolenskiy-Dist-2- Councilmember
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2014 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Steve and Stacey Lubeck
To: Sue Noack; Haley Croffoot
Subject: No to the Rezoning Plan
Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 5:40:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor, and City Planning staff
I am writing to express my strong opposition to any proposal that would rezone or eliminate established single-family homes and entire neighborhoods as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map.

Pleasant Hill is already experiencing a shortage of single-family housing. The proposed removal of over 200 single-family residential parcels would further erode this vital segment of our housing stock. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced and diverse housing supply, and they contribute significantly to the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable community for generations.

Among the areas affected is Monti Circle—a neighborhood I grew up in.

Destroying Monti Circle would be a heartbreaking loss, not only to me personally but to the fabric of our community. It is a quiet, stable, and cherished part of Pleasant Hill, and its removal would irreparably damage the neighborhood’s character and history.

There has been no clear justification provided for this rezoning effort.

Importantly, the City of Pleasant Hill’s State-certified Housing Element already meets California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements without the need to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. It's my understanding that this proposed change is not mandated by the state, is not necessary for RHNA compliance, and is not aligned with current housing demand, which continues to show a strong need for single-family homes.

Moreover, many existing medium- and high-density housing units in Pleasant Hill remain underutilized. If these developments are not reaching capacity, what is the rationale for increasing density in stable single-family areas—especially in locations that are not suited for such development? This proposal risks fundamentally altering our community without delivering clear public benefits. It lacks transparency, a detailed plan, and meaningful community engagement. If enacted, it could displace long-time residents, degrade neighborhood character, increase traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and strain local infrastructure and schools. The cumulative impact of such changes would fragment long-standing neighborhoods and weaken the sense of community that Pleasant Hill residents deeply value.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2015 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Additionally, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not result in significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties—including increased traffic, noise, and density. As written, this proposal would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of the city’s planning process.

I respectfully urge the City Council to:

Reject any zoning changes that eliminate or rezone internal-facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods.

Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without these unnecessary changes.

Focus future development on underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing.

Invest in revitalizing and improving existing commercial zones to better serve residents and attract sustainable growth.

Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide.

Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress—it is about responsible planning, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and for your continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Stacey and Stephen Lubeck
241 Twinview Dr
Pleasant Hill, Ca
•
•
•
•
•
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2016 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Asal Bidokhti
To: Sue Noack; Haley Croffoot
Subject: Request for clarification on rezoning of Poets Corner Date: Saturday, October 4, 2025 8:25:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor Noack,
I’m a resident of Poets Corner and recently learned that our area was rezoned from single family residential to 4 story apartments as part of the 2040 General Plan and is planned to be rezoned as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Could you please share:
• The specific goals this rezoning advances for the City (e.g., housing, transportation, economic development). • How the City expects the change to positively impact residents—short and long term (safety, traffic, schools, small businesses, tax base, city services).
• Any supporting analyses or metrics used to evaluate benefits (infrastructure capacity, fiscal impact, traffic studies, environmental review).
• How resident input was/ will be incorporated and what opportunities remain for feedback or refinement.

If helpful, I’m happy to meet or attend the next session where this topic will be discussed. Thank you for your time and for helping residents understand the rationale and expected community benefits.

Sincerely,
Asal Doyle
Poets Corner
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2017 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Sue Noack
Cc: Haley Croffoot; quy tran; Belle La; Ann James
Subject: Zoning Map Update - City Council Meeting - 20 October 2025 Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 9:06:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Mayor Noack -
Here are my written comments regarding the proposed updates to the City's Zoning Map & the related City Ordinances. The Public Notices show this will be an Agenda Action Item for the 20 October 2025 meeting of the Pleasant Hill City Council.

There are four areas of the City where the property owners and/or nearby residents raised serious concerns during the Public Comment portion of the Public Hearing at the September 9th meeting of the City's Planning Commission about the proposed new Zoning which is intended to match the revised 2040 General Plan that was Approved by the City Council about two years ago. LISTENING to the various speakers, this is what I got out of their comments:
1- PUD-410 - the PH Schoolyard Redevelopment Project that was Approved on 2 October 1978. Focusing on the properties West of Grayson Creek roughly between Soule Road & Hawthorne/Monticello. Much of this land is owned by the County Flood Control District. At this time, this should be rezoned to Residential to match the Poets Corner area to the West (R10 ?). I did not hear any objections to leaving the MFM designation on the land East of the Creek. Some development will undoubtedly occur there eventually despite the difficulties that the Flood Plain imposes.

As a further point regarding this area, it would be highly desirable to have two new Bike/Ped ONLY bridges crossing the creek - one near the property line between our new Library & the new Park site and a second one near the north end of the PH Middle School property. 2- the area that the City now calls East Vivian - some think of this as being part of Gregory Gardens, but really Old Timers refer to it as West Sherman Acres, which I believe it may have been originally. (We did move here in time to see a few movies at the old Drive-In on the Plaza Shopping Center site). The residents / owners there might be willing to accept a MFL low density multi-family zoning, but it is clear that they do not want an intrusion of mixed use deep into their area during this Planning Cycle.
3- the area between Shirley Drive & CCB - this is a narrow strip of land where mixed -use development would impose significant negative impacts on the GG Residential neighborhood.

Revert back to the previous zoning.
4- the strip along the North side of Gregory Lane from just east of Helen Drive to the CCCanal. One speaker objected to the impact that this would have for the homes on Maureen Court. While their land is close to the elevation of Gregory Lane, going to the East. it drops off sharply down to Monti Circle & along Helen Drive. These home sites are too low & too shallow to be suitable for development as Neighborhood Businesses. Restore the previous zoning.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2018 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Based on the numerous objections raised, it is readily apparent that either the property owners and/or the nearby neighbors were never properly notified of the proposed changes in the updates for the 2040 General Plan Map. You certainly should recall that the main focus at that time was on the Housing Sites that were needed to gain acceptance of the Housing Element portion of the 2040 General Plan; there was little to no discussion at all about any of the above listed areas. And while there were a number of Public Meetings prior to the City Staff presenting their proposed new General Plan Map, I do not recall seeing any Public Notices for Public Meetings (NOT Hearings) where the pros & cons were actually DISCUSSED ! Over the past several years I have submitted written comments that suggested several other improvements to this visionary document. These are the following:
5- Winslow Center - if the RPD will accept this change, this property should be rezoned for NOT LESS THAN the 8.4+/- dwelling units per acre (210 du / 25 acres) that is being established for the Mangini-Delu farm properties. Higher density such as MFM (20.1-30) or even MFL (12.1-20) would make this property even more valuable in a sale or exchange by the PH Recreation & Park District in a move to provide funding for much needed Capital Improvements, including the development of what I call the "New Library Park". Two Bond Measures on recent Ballots have failed to pass by a narrow margin, and the costs to operate & maintain their existing facilities & programs consumes over 80% of their annual income, leaving little money for their CIP !
6- Gregory Gardens Shopping Center - rezoning of the current home sites on the east side of Susan Lane that back up to the existing antiquated shopping center would allow the possibility for the development of the whole mega-block as one unit without the need for further Zoning changes. This would encompass the whole area surrounded by Contra Costa Blvd., Doray, Susan & Doris. Unlike the proposed rezoning along Shirley Drive (#3 above), this would have minimal negative impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood ! 7- A new housing opportunity has arisen with the sale last June of the Smith family properties on the west side of the Grayson Creek channel addressed as 239-241-243-245-247 Gregory Lane. Including the RPD's parking lot at 237 Gregory Lane & allowing its unfettered sale is another attractive area where they could raise some much needed CIP funding. Changing the Zoning to MFVL would allow up to 12 du/acre to replace the dilapidated housing there now.

This is a WIN-WIN with more housing & more money for Paks ! In addition to the Zoning Map changes, as I have stated repeatedly in Public Comment emails, the height limits for many of the Residential & Mixed-Use Zoning Districts continue to be toooo low to truly encourage developers to propose worthy new projects.

Upon giving due consideration to all the improvements listed above, it is my recommendation that the City Council REJECT the proposed Zoning Map & the related City Ordinance modifications. Rather, the City Staff should be directed to go back & revisit the 2040 General Plan with regard to each & every one of the areas listed above. Then they should notify & hold separate Public Meetings to discuss their recommendations with the local residents / property owners & the nearby neighbors (say those within 300') before submitting a revised General Plan Map & a revised Zoning Map for Approval. Likewise, we need to have a Public Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2019 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 discussion on the new building height limits !
Rest assured, I do have a great professional background on which to base my comments.

I do sincerely hope that you all will accept what I am volunteering here in the spirit in which it is being offered. As always, I am only looking for the best outcome that can be reasonably achieved from each situation !
Jack Prosek aka
John R. Prosek, Jr. PE
48 year Resident / Homeowner
Creator of District Election Map # 5
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2020 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Steve Weiss
To: Lyone Conner
Subject: Why this Bay Area suburb is the center of the next CA housing fight - CalMatters Date: Friday, October 10, 2025 12:15:13 PM
Attachments: Housing Element.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hi Lyone,
I really wish I can attend the October 20 Council hearing regarding the rezoning related to the Housing Element only. I am tending to a sick family member in San Diego. Can you please circulate this to all Council members as an addendum to my previous letter which is attached.

My letter that I sent to the Council should serve as what I truly believe is best for everyone. Please, let’s consider an overlay Specific Plan that addresses a well thought out land use plan as opposed to a take it or leave it concept that has little vision. The attached article is so sad. This will only result in “Lawyering Up” against the State and maybe some of your constituents which is so unnecessary.

Nobody wins.

Please read my letter. My reasonable solution is will do this correctly through enabling legislation and will get the community involved. It’s all about letting your kid and grandkids be safe and able to enjoy this wonderful community. We are not that small anymore. Let’s forget the past annd all of us work together, go to the State/HCD and tell our story before it is too late.

Sincerely,
Steve Weiss
270 Keats Circle
https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/10/los-altos-hills-housing-element-hcd/ Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2021 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 September 18, 2025
Sue Noack, Mayor
Zac Shess, Vice Mayor
Belle La, District 1 Councilmember
Andrei Obolenskiy, District 2 Councilmember
Amanda Szakats, District 5 Councilmember
Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
Subject: September 9, 2025 Planning Commission
I write this with only good intention as a resident homeowner with no affiliation to a district or neighborhood. Now that one week has passed, I was really hoping the City would release a statement or draft minutes as to what occurred at last week’s Planning Commission hearing regarding the zoning code update. Hopefully something will be coming out soon but I cannot wait any longer as the public is feeling mistrusted and disenfranchised with how the rezoning at the hearing was handled, specifically, the 1,800+ zoning opportunity units. No need for throwing daggers, simply, a good number of your constituents felt minimized.

This letter is only about Housing Element compliance. Lumping this with a comprehensive update gave the perception it was a “done deal so people, don’t worry as it is only zoning opportunities as the state is making us.” My recommendation is to be careful especially since we are very late with State certification acceptance and we kind of do have a certified Housing Element for the 2023-2031 State Housing and Community Development (HCD) cycle BUT there might be a problem since our zoning and general plan are not consistent at least as of today. If this goes sideways, we could lose our certification through HCD which will jeopardize future funding. This isn't me talking, it's the Attorney General. Also, unlike many jurisdictions that have timely certification, we have also been dinged by losing our discretionary oversight by ministerially permitting “By Right” affordable housing through the Regional Needs Housing Assessment allocation (RHNA) without one single very low or low income building permit issued during this Housing Element cycle. This exasperates what will be coming in the next cycle which is a new RHNA allocation that will grow even more. The affordable site on Treadway in Gregory Gardens is an example.

I don't think Pleasant Hill residents do well when draconian measures are taken. My gut feeling is these future multi-use residential lots which HCD calls "zoning opportunity areas" need not be on mostly single family or special district property. If I owned one of these properties, especially since I have the ability to develop an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or, possibly subdivide my lot through SB 9 (Lot Split), the last thing I would want is to have is a deed restriction enforced on my property in perpetuity. You can support this plan but it puts you in an awkward position with your constituents unless you develop a bulletproof strategy. I believe a Specific Plan (SP) overlay which needs enabling legislation incorporating complete Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2022 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 beautification through sound urban design principles with of course the correct housing integration makes most sense.

My sincere recommendation is identify the elephant in the room by truly focusing on the obvious vacant and underutilized land that for some reason was left out which is the entire swath, both sides, of Contra Costa Boulevards from North Main to Pacheco, also include in Gregory/Grayson to Taylor as it is a direct feeder from I-680, and Oak Park Boulevard. These properties will benefit and the process will be an open since an SP will identify future opportunities. Another elephant which is the Sun Valley Mall which of course is Concord will be staring at us with thousands of high density units that will greatly impact mostly us.

Concentrating on what is most important can be achieved with public collaboration. An overlay concept is flexible and can be considered an up zone especially for the effected properties.

There are a few more areas but a majority of them can be part of this public process.

Respectfully Submitted
Steve Weiss
270 Keats Circle
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2023 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2024 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2025 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2026 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2027 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2028 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2029 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Sara Kelley
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Date: Thursday, August 14, 2025 3:44:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Ms. Croffoot,
I am writing as a resident of Gregory Gardens in Pleasant Hill to express my concerns regarding the proposed zoning change to designate the East side of our neighborhood as mixed-use.

Gregory Gardens is a well-established residential community, home to many young families and long-term residents. The neighborhood streets are narrow and lack sidewalks, making it unsafe and impractical to accommodate higher traffic volumes or commercial developments such as apartments, retail, or businesses like “Rooted Coffee.” Introducing mixed-use zoning here threatens to disrupt the quiet residential character, negatively impact privacy, increase noise and traffic, and potentially decrease property values.

Furthermore, there are several underutilized commercial areas within Pleasant Hill that could better serve as locations for mixed-use development. For example, the vacant former Lucky’s/OSH Store in downtown, the old Deb’s Flower Mart, Minuteman Press and 3 Brother's From China sites. The shopping centers of Grocery Outlet, Carmelo Plaza, and the liquor store/laundromat strip on Contra Costa and Woodsworth all present opportunities for revitalization without compromising residential neighborhoods.

Given that there are already three nearby strip malls and a large Safeway shopping center adjacent to our neighborhood, expanding mixed-use zoning in Gregory Gardens seems unnecessary and inappropriate. I urge the city to reconsider this proposed change and focus efforts on revitalizing existing commercial zones better suited to mixed-use development.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope the city will prioritize the safety and wellbeing of Pleasant Hill’s residents in its planning decisions.

Sincerely,
Sara Kelley (E Vivian Drive, Pleasant Hill)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2030 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Yahoo! Mail
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Zoning in PH for September 9 hearing
Date: Friday, August 15, 2025 8:43:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

We, the residents of Pleasant Hill for over 35 years, are absolutely against the proposed zoning ordinance. We want to keep our area RESIDENTIAL ONLY!
Sincerely,
Residents on Maureen Lane, Pleasant Hill
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2031 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Levi Cody
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comment on Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment & Rezoning – 900 Golf Club Road Date: Sunday, August 17, 2025 9:46:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To: City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
c/o Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner – [email protected] Date: August 18, 2025
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am submitting this comment regarding the upcoming public hearing on September 9, 2025, for the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and associated citywide rezoning (PHMC Title 18).

As the owner of the property located at 900 Golf Club Road, Pleasant Hill, I respectfully request clarification and consideration regarding how the proposed rezoning will affect this parcel.

1. Current and Proposed Zoning
Please confirm both the current zoning designation and the proposed new zoning classification for 900 Golf Club Road. I would appreciate a summary of how allowable uses, density, and development standards may change under the draft ordinance.

2. Consistency with the General Plan
I understand the intent of this rezoning is to align with the City’s adopted 2040 General Plan and Housing Element. However, our property was currently zoned as open space with a variance to rebuild residence of equal Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2032 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 square footage

3. Impact on Property Use and Value
As a property owner, I am concerned about potential impacts on the parcel’s long-term use flexibility and value as a property with an existing residence. I encourage the Commission to carefully evaluate whether the rezoning supports our residential use while being completely surrounded by Contra Costa Country Club property.

4. Transparency and Communication
As property owners, in order to participate meaningfully, I ask that the City provide clear, parcel-specific rezoning maps and summaries that illustrate exactly how our property will be affected. This will help ensure transparency and build confidence in the rezoning process.

In closing, I appreciate the City’s efforts to modernize the zoning ordinance and ensure compliance with State law. My request is simply for clarity, thoughtful consideration of property-specific impacts, and ongoing communication as these important changes move forward.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Respectfully,
Levi Cody, property owner
900 Golf Club Road
Pleasant Hill Ca 93423
Cell 925-586-0665
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2033 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: quy tran
Subject: Fwd: CC 21 April Study Session - Attachment "Y" - Proposed Zoning Map Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 11:52:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
I am hereby resubmitting my email dated April 6, 2025, as my Public Comment on the proposed 2040 Rezoning Map revisions that are the subject of the Public Hearing at the City's Planning Commission at their meeting on September 9th, 2025.

Jack Prosek, PE
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 8:25 AM
Subject: CC 21 April Study Session - Attachment "Y" - Proposed Zoning Map To: haley croffoot <[email protected]>
Cc: troy fujimoto <[email protected]>, quy tran <[email protected]> Haley -
Please reconsider the proposed Zoning for the following areas shown in Attachment "Y" Proposed Zoning Map to be included in the 2040 Update to the City's General Plan:
1- The proposed rezoning of the properties on the East side of Shirley Drive between Harriett & Doray from single-family residential to Mixed Use is a very poor choice for the future of the residents immediately West of there. The depth of these properties is very shallow; allowing Mixed-Use will bring noise, parking issues, trash handling, site lighting & other problems that do not currently exist. Also, multiple new driveways would be needed from Contra Costa Blvd. for access.
2- On the other hand, the properties on the East side of Susan Lane (immediately West of the Gregory Gardens Shopping Center) already suffer from their neighbor's business activities.

These properties would be more valuable if they were rezoned the same as the shopping center such that they might be combined with a larger scale redevelopment. The increased negative impacts of doing this on the residences to the West would be minimal. 3- The City should reopen discussions with the Rec & Park District Board regarding the future use of their Winslow Center property. The existing building there is in poor condition & has been living on borrowed time for more than a decade now. This property would be much more valuable if it were combined with the Mangini-Delu farm properties in an overall development. A land swap is within the realm of possibilities, and it would be desirable to Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2034 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 have the RPD maintain the creek riparian zone.

Furthermore, the best Master Plan for this site would be to have low density housing on the sloping land to the East of the creek & higher density housing to the West with a height limit there up to 65' (NOT 35' as previously shown) ! This would allow for more Open Space around the buildings without increasing the total density !! 4- The rezoning of the JC Penney Home Store (aka Site "B") to Mixed-Use is NOT noted in the Staff Report section on Quadrant "B" (page 9). Oddly, the Wells Fargo Bank building itself is not included, but the parking areas that serve this building are included. A comprehensive development for this entire Site could be attractive. Also, references to JFKU are obsolete in a forward-looking 2040 Update since they closed operations there at least five years ago . . . . .

It does appear that the 13 Sites included in the Housing Element portion of the 2040 General Plan have already been rezoned & therefore are not being restudied at this time.

Each of the issues listed above were raised verbally if not in my numerous Public Comment emails without having the benefit of a real discussion. Sometimes you will get better insights from the long-time residents than from the "professionals" who prepared these Maps but do not live in this environment on a daily basis . . . . . Please have an actual discussion for each of these points during the April 21st Study Session.

Jack Prosek
48 year Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2035 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2036 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Sue Noack; quy tran; Ann James
Subject: 2040 Zoning Update - New Housing Opportunity
Date: Friday, August 22, 2025 6:59:07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
Please add this email to the Public Comments for the 2040 Zoning Update item on the Agenda of the September 9th meeting of the City's Planning Commission.

Commissioners -
A new housing opportunity has arisen with the sale two months ago of the Smith Family compound. These properties are addressed as 239-241-243-245-247 Gregory Lane. It is my understanding that these five lots total approximately one acre in area; rezoning them from "R7" to Very Low-Density Multi-Family Residential "MFVL" would allow 7 to 12 new dwelling units to replace the fewer than five aging homes now occupying these combined properties.

It is also noted that these properties are landlocked behind the Senior Center Overflow Parking Lot at 237 Gregory Lane. State Law requires a driveway across this property to access the rear properties. If the City were to also rezone that property to "MFVL" & allow the PH Recreation & Park District to sell this property with imposing new burdens, funding could be obtained for some long overdue Capital Improvements in their facilities and another couple more dwelling units might be added to the development. This would have the further advantage of allowing the entry road to be placed along the west edge of this property - thereby moving it further away from the stoplight at the Moiso Lane intersection which also serves the public access to the Senior Center Parking Lot.

Implementing both of these recommendations would be a HUGE WIN--WIN for both the Housing Advocates & RPD taxpayers !!
Jack Prosek, PE
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2037 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Tara Legaspi
520 Beatrice Rd
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected] | 925.360.6269
August 20, 2025
To: City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
100 Gregory Ln
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Impacting Beatrice Rd and Surrounding Neighborhoods Dear Planning Commission,
As a long-time Pleasant Hill resident, homeowner, and community organizer, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of my home and neighboring properties from single-family to medium-density multi-family residential. My home at 520 Beatrice Rd sits in Poet’s Corner, one of the most desirable, established neighborhoods in the city. This proposal threatens not just the integrity of our homes, but the safety, trust, and character of our entire community.

1. Flooding and Environmental Risk
The plan to rezone and build 164 housing units across a 5-acre area that includes a creek known to flood annually is dangerously shortsighted. While the City’s documents refer to this as a “100-year flood zone,” they fail to acknowledge that the open land on Cleaveland Rd floods every year.

Since the library was constructed on Oak Park Blvd, on land that previously absorbed stormwater, flooding has significantly worsened. Promised rain basins have not performed, and as a result, Cleaveland Rd, our backyard, our neighbors' yards, and the culvert at the end of Beatrice Rd overflow annually.

After the library was built, the culvert at the end of Beatrice Rd began to clog after rainstorms with regular red dirt runoff, something we had never experienced before. The dirt originates from the baseball fields in Pleasant Oaks Park. During one storm, the culvert became so blocked that a neighbor had to physically dig it out to prevent flooding. This is not a rare occurrence, it has become a pattern. The City’s assumption that rain basins underneath the new Library development could effectively manage water has proven to be a failure, and the result is that homes continue to be endangered due to new development.

Without neighbors stepping in to clear blockages and redirect water, several properties would have already suffered serious flood damage.

I walk this creek daily, including after rainstorms. I have observed over time, and sometimes overnight, how the absence of concrete in this area has allowed the creek to naturally erode and expand in width, from as little as five feet to 20 feet in a short span. This allows it to accommodate water. The natural floodplain plays a critical role in protecting homes on Cleaveland Rd, Beatrice and Roberta Roads, and areas further downstream. Removing open land or disrupting this creek system with new construction could destabilize the delicate balance, resulting in greater runoff and increased flood damage to the surrounding neighborhoods.

If this development moves forward, grading the land to support construction will force floodwaters into surrounding streets and homes, including those on Beatrice Rd, Cleaveland Rd, and potentially further Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2038 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 downstream toward Soule Ave. This is not theoretical. It’s happening already. Just two years ago, an elderly woman had to be rescued from her car on Cleaveland Rd during flooding. These are real risks with real consequences, including people’s homes, livelihood, and lives.

2. Lack of Transparency and Eminent Domain Concerns
The Housing Element plan does not fully align with the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. The rezoning encompasses homes that are not part of the current development proposal, raising significant concerns about future intentions. If the goal is simply to accommodate the number of units outlined in the Housing Element, why rezone additional, currently occupied single-family homes?
The inclusion of these properties on Beatrice Rd, Cleveland Rd, and Soule Ave without transparency suggests a broader plan that could involve eminent domain to displace homeowners for high-density construction. This approach would irreversibly alter the fabric of our neighborhood and undermine public trust in the Planning Commission. Our community has pushed back against similar proposals for decades, and we are prepared to do so again.

3. Traffic and Safety Impacts
The plan proposes 106 to 135 units, with the potential for more if the three homes at the end of Beatrice Rd, multiple houses on Cleaveland Rd, and two houses on Soule Ave are taken through eminent domain.

This would place a large residential development directly adjacent to a middle school. Increased traffic from such density would flow through narrow neighborhood roads, especially Beatrice Rd, Patterson Ave, Cleaveland Rd, and potentially Soule Ave. All are narrow streets which are already congested with three schools nearby during commute times. A bridge once existed over the creek but was washed away by flooding. Rebuilding it is not a safe or sustainable option.

This dramatic increase in traffic volume in a family-oriented, school-adjacent neighborhood is a threat to pedestrian safety, especially for children. The lack of public transportation exacerbates the risk of traffic to the neighborhood and the inability for proposed low-income housing residents to gain transportation to work and for errands to meet family’s basic needs.

As someone who has spent over 25 years working in child abuse prevention and treatment services, I am deeply concerned. High-density housing directly adjacent to schools is a recipe for increased risk to vulnerable populations.

4. Personal Investment and Financial Harm
My husband and I have invested $60,000 in the architectural design and development of an addition to our home that would raise it out of the flood zone. This plan was crafted in full compliance with current zoning and easement requirements of a single-family home. A zoning change now would invalidate our plans, financially harm us, and force a complete redesign. We are prepared to pursue all legal avenues to recover these damages if this rezoning is approved.

Our property evaluation during this process revealed a high water table, just feet below the surface—another clear sign that the area is not suited for dense development.

5. Better Alternatives Exist
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2039 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 This proposal prioritizes overdevelopment in one of Pleasant Hill’s most cherished communities instead of exploring smart, community-building alternatives. If the goal is truly to address housing needs, why not redirect development to underutilized spaces such as:
● The former Black Angus site (instead of a hotel)
● Empty lots on the outskirts of Gregory Gardens, including Woodworth Ln ● Underdeveloped, failing business sections of Contra Costa Blvd, including former OSH and Bed Bath & Beyond sites
● Open land behind the Pleasant Hill Library, land that was previously proposed for a public park but failed at a ballot measure, should now be reclassified and repurposed for dense housing These alternatives would bring new housing without displacing families, burdening schools, or jeopardizing flood-prone neighborhoods.

Final Thoughts
This proposal does not build community—it fractures it. Every few years, residents like myself are forced to defend our homes against ill-conceived plans or environmental hazards. Instead of working with us, the City continues to work around us. I urge you to reconsider this proposal not only for the safety and future of our homes but for the integrity of Pleasant Hill.

To the fullest extent of the law, I will oppose this rezoning. I will organize. I will speak out. And I will continue fighting for my home and this neighborhood.

Respectfully,
Tara Legaspi
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2040 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Dom Legaspi
520 Beatrice Rd
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected] | 925.207.6480
August 28, 2025
To: City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Opposition to proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment I love living in Pleasant Hill—especially in Poet's Corner—and I love our home at 520 Beatrice Road.

The proposed rezoning of approximately 60 parcels in the Beatrice/Cleaveland area would lay the groundwork for the transformation of a long-established single-family neighborhood into a multifamily development zone. While I understand the growing need for additional housing across the region, the plan to rezone existing single-family parcels—many of which have occupied homes—is deeply flawed and ignores decades of community input, real environmental constraints, and basic planning realities.

Residents of Poet's Corner have consistently opposed redevelopment of the vacant land near Grayson Creek. The public record reflects years of opposition from neighbors and stakeholders. Our position has not changed: this area is not suitable for large-scale development, and the reasons why remain as valid today as ever.

From a distance, the Beatrice/Cleaveland area may appear to be an underutilized pocket of land ripe for infill housing. But the reality on the ground tells a different story. In our daily lives, we are constantly reminded of the reason this land has remained largely undeveloped since the 1970s-1980s: Grayson Creek.

This area lies squarely within a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain, a fact acknowledged in the City's own Housing Element. The creek overflows during the rainy season, and flooding has only worsened since the development of the new library and the Davidon project at Oak Park and Monticello. After those projects were completed, runoff flowing through our culvert was filled with the red infield dirt from the Pleasant Oaks baseball fields—clear evidence of the increased strain on local drainage.

On New Year’s Day 2023, flooding at Cleaveland Road and Astrid Drive was so severe that people had to rescue an elderly woman trapped in her car. The Housing Element’s assertion that flood risk can be "mitigated upon development" is overly simplistic and dangerously naive. Every new project pushes floodwaters further downstream. Development in this area will lead to flooding between here and Sequoia Middle School. Streets like Soule Avenue, Hardy Circle, Campbell Lane, Katie Court, and Babette Court will be next. Mitigation may reduce localized risk for new structures, but it does nothing to address cumulative impact, both downstream and in Pleasant Valley. This is a reality our area has already experienced firsthand.

Mitigating flood risk in this area would require major infrastructure investment across a broad area. That kind of expense only becomes feasible through dense, multifamily development that spreads the cost across a large number of units. This sets the stage for an intensive build-out of apartment blocks and Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2041 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 condominiums stretching from Boyd Road to Astrid Drive on the east side of Grayson Creek. The west side, impacting Poet’s Corner, would require new access routes through narrow streets like Beatrice and Roberta Roads. Soule Avenue, which includes properties targeted for rezoning, is also too narrow to handle the inevitable traffic increase. Such a transformation would severely degrade the aesthetic and character of our community.

Every time redeveloping this land comes up, there's inevitably talk about reconnecting Beatrice Road over the creek. Any major redevelopment could easily incorporate such a plan, introducing a new through-traffic corridor from Cleaveland to Patterson. This would be disastrous for the quiet, residential nature of Roberta and Beatrice Roads.

Redevelopment would also bring years of noise, construction, and disruption to our neighborhood, robbing us of the peace and quiet that makes Poet’s Corner one of Pleasant Hill's most desirable communities. The impact on property values would be significant. Such intensive development threatens to displace current residents and diminish the value of homes that remain.

Beyond human concerns, this area supports a thriving riparian ecosystem. From our home, which sits closest to the creek's west bank, we observe a wide variety of birds, reptiles, and/or mammals every day.

The mature oak trees here are not only beautiful, they are part of the very identity of Pleasant Hill. It is deeply ironic that the city, whose logo features an oak tree, would consider a zoning change that would put so many of them at risk.

Most revealing of all is the inclusion of multiple occupied single-family homes, including ours, in the proposed rezoning. There is no discernible reason to rezone these parcels without opening the door for eventual redevelopment. Our home, and those like it, simply cannot coexist with the kind of dense multifamily development this plan would enable. We will not stand by while our neighborhood is sacrificed for a vision that ignores our history, geography, and community voice.

We respectfully urge the Council to reconsider this proposal, to protect the integrity of Poet’s Corner, and to honor the residents who have called this special part of Pleasant Hill home for decades.

Sincerely,
Dom Legaspi
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2042 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jeffery Dewlaney
To: Planning
Subject: Rezoning Beatrice Road and Cleaveland Road
Date: Sunday, August 31, 2025 12:19:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom it May Concern
I have been a resident of Pleasant Hill for 39 years, and more specifically a current resident of Beatrice Road for over 35 years. I have the last 61 years of my 66 years of life within 5 miles of where I currently live. Pleasant Hill has always been a small welcoming town; geographically or other otherwise it was always meant to be as such. My family and most of the residents moved here because of this. Pleasant Hill, in general and specifically Beatrice Road, was not meant to be a sprawling congested city. The infrastructure of Pleasant Hill including roads, schools, fire, police precludes the city of Pleasant Hill from this overgrowth. The property values of the current residents will decline sharply; homeowners do not want to be surrounded by all of this congestion. We moved into the area because of the suburban neighborhoods, not to be surrounded by unwelcomed housing. The streets are ill equipped to handle the increase in traffic and schools are already overwhelmed. You are taking value from the current Pleasant Hill residents and redistributing it to other people not here. I don’t need to tell you what this is and feels like to all of us current residing here. We have spent years building a life and home here and we don’t want to see it taken away with a stroke of a pen.

Sincerely,
Jeffery P. Dewlaney, MS, CFM, CMA, CPA
Virus-free.www.avast.com
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2043 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: David Muhlenkamp
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Proposed Zoning Changes in the Beatrice-Roberta Road Area of Pleasant Hill Date: Sunday, August 31, 2025 2:54:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am sending you this e-mail as I will be unable to attend the September 9, 2025 planning commission meeting due to a previous commitment but wanted my thoughts on the matter entered into the record. I am the owner and resident of 426 Beatrice Rd. and have lived here for approximately 28 years.

For your reference I have included a map of the planned rezoning so that we can speak exactly to the same areas. The areas I would like to address in this e-mail are labeled #45, 8, 51, 24, 21 and 7.

Additionally I would like to comment on the houses at the end of Beatrice Rd that are marked with a red X designating them to be rezoned. Before I start my comments I would like to make it perfectly clear that I am not against building new housing units in Pleasant Hill as I am fully aware that our area has a housing shortage. In other words you will not hear any NIMBY-ism from me. What you will hear is a plea for smart planning and development that is in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhoods.

My points are as follows:

1. The three red X houses at the end of Beatrice Rd. were built before the City of Pleasant Hill was incorporated. They have always been single family homes where kind and wonderful neighbors have lived in harmony with the surrounding area. It is the height of hypocrisy to change their zoning. I can't conceive of a reason for responsible planning commission members to change the zoning for these long standing houses that have been lovingly maintained for over 80 years. This is not good planning and is certainly not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. A perfect example of bad planning.

2. The Beatrice Rd - Roberta Rd. neighborhood is composed of single family houses. The vast majority of the houses are on 1/3 acre lots which has helped to create a diverse and in demand neighborhood that is the envy of many Pleasant Hill residents. For areas #45, 8 and those portions of 51 that are on the west side of the creek it would not be appropriate to rezone to multi family, high density development. In order to keep with the character of the neighborhood these areas need to be maintained as single family houses. If I recall correctly the total area of these parcels is approximately 3 acres. Assuming 1 acre for infrastructure and creek set back that would allow at most 2 acres for development. In keeping with the other lots in the neighborhood that would accommodate at most 6 new houses. This type of development would be acceptable to me as it keeps my neighborhood intact and would not put undue pressure on the existing infrastructure in the area. I would consider such a development, if done at all, good planning as it keeps neighborhood character intact.

3. In relation to item #2 above, any construction of high density housing (I understand there is a proposal for 163 units) in those areas would lead to unacceptable impacts to the Beatrice-Roberta neighborhood.

Currently the streets are not wide enough to accommodate the traffic caused by 163 units. I believe the suggested number above of 6 new houses could be accommodated with minimal disruption. The only way to make 163 new units feasible would be to significantly widen both Beatrice and Roberta by taking away large sections of the properties on those streets. The cost and disruption caused by this would make this totally unfeasible and would surely be challenged in court adding significantly to the cost. This is not smart planning and development.

4. If any development were conducted on the areas in question it is critical that Beatrice Rd. not be extended over the creek to connect to Cleaveland Rd as this would increase traffic in the corridor to such an extent that the current infrastructure would not be sufficient thus requiring the widening of the roads as Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2044 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 stated in # 3 above. As you are well aware, during school hours traffic caused by Sequoia Elementary, Sequoia Middle and Pleasant Hill Middle is extremely heavy. If Beatrice Rd was allowed to go through directly to Cleaveland Rd., drivers would quickly learn to funnel their trips though this corridor over streets completely unable to handle the increase. Once again, not smart planning and development.

5. Areas #24, 21 and 51 east of the creek do make sense for higher density development. Cleaveland Rd. is a wide street with ample street parking and bike lanes. It is equipped to handle increased traffic loads. Additionally, across the street from these areas higher density housing already exists thus higher density in the parcels does keep with the overall character of the area. As long as Beatrice Rd does not cross the creek for reasons stated in point #4, this would be a good example of smart planning and development.

6. As stated in point #1 above, I would object to rezoning the single family housed located in area #7 and adjacent houses. Why does it make sense to change zoning on pre-existing houses? Is it the commissions desire to turn the whole area into apartments? That certainly does not maintain the existing character of the the neighborhoods and is once again an example of bad planning and development.

7. Lastly I would like to make my displeasure known about the way this whole effort has been communicated to the affected neighborhoods. Why weren't all households in and adjacent to the proposed areas notified about these changes? Is the Commission trying to make changes in the dead of the night without community input? Is it that the members know that what is being proposed is not in the interest of the majority of the residents of the affected areas and is just in the best interests of the City's tax revenue and possible development companies? Approximately 10 to 15 years ago the City Council made similar proposed changes and did not notify the residents in the affected areas of the changes. At that time many protests were lodged over the secrecy. The Council made a promise at that time to the residents that everyone within 1000 feet of the proposed changes would be notified going forward. Why has this pledge been abandoned? It is my understanding that members of the Planning Commission are public servants. How does this secrecy serve the Public? It doesn't and is one more example of bad planning and development.

Thank you for you time and consideration of my thoughts.

Sincerely,
David E. Muhlenkamp
426 Beatrice Rd.

Pleasant Hill CA 94523
(925)212-0148
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2045 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2046 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Deana Rabbach
To: Haley Croffoot; Lyone Conner; Troy Fujimoto; Planning Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Impacting Celia Drive & Surrounding Communities Date: Sunday, August 31, 2025 7:15:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Pleasant Hill Planning Commission,
As long-time Pleasant Hill residents, homeowners, and community participants, we are writing to strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of our home and neighboring properties from single-family to a range mixed-use multi-family residential and commercial buildings. Our home at 23 Celia Drive sits in Sherman Oaks (also known as Gregory Gardens), one of the most desirable, established neighborhoods in the city. This proposal threatens not just the integrity of our homes and livelihood, but the safety, trust, and character of our entire community. We chose to buy our home in Pleasant Hill and raise our children in this neighborhood because of the safety, quaintness, location and charm.

The rezone proposal of our neighborhood threatens the following:

1. Traffic and Safety Impacts
The addition of multi-family residential and commercial units under the proposed rezoning would significantly increase traffic in our neighborhood. This surge in volume would be funneled through narrow residential streets that were never designed to handle such density. These roads are not just thoroughfares—they are where children play, families walk, and neighbors gather. Increasing traffic in this family-oriented, walk-toschool neighborhood would create unsafe conditions for current residents, particularly for young children and pedestrians. The resulting safety risks from higher traffic volumes are unacceptable and directly conflict with the character and livability of our community.

2. Personal Investment and Financial Impact
Over the past three years, my family has invested several hundred thousand dollars into the architectural redesign and improvement of our home. This addition was completed in full compliance with all current zoning regulations and easement requirements for a single-family residence. A zoning change at this point would impose significant financial harm on us. The introduction of multi-family residential or commercial developments on neighboring lots would substantially reduce the value of our property. The very qualities that made this neighborhood desirable for purchasing a single-family home—privacy, Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2047 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 character, and residential stability—would be undermined by the proposed rezoning. As a result, our family's investment would be devalued, and we would face considerable financial loss.

3. Overcrowded Schools: Growing Concern
Overcrowding in public schools is a serious issue affecting the quality of education for millions of students across the country. As enrollment numbers rise without a matching increase in school infrastructure and resources, classrooms become packed, teachers are stretched thin, and students receive less individualized attention. Overcrowding makes it difficult for teachers to manage the classroom effectively, tailor instruction to different learning styles, or identify students who may be falling behind. As a result, academic performance often suffers, and both students and educators experience higher levels of stress and burnout. This rezoning proposal will only exasperate the current overcrowding in public schools which has been a growing concern over the last several years. The quality of education in overcrowded schools will continue to decline, widening educational gaps and limiting opportunities for future generations.

4. Community and Social Dynamic Impacts
One of the most profound concerns with the proposed rezoning is the disruption it would cause to the strong sense of community that has long defined our single-family neighborhood. Over the years, residents have built lasting relationships rooted in shared values, mutual respect, and a stable, familiar environment. Rezoning for multi-use, multi-family and commercial developments would alter this dynamic by introducing a transient population and fundamentally changing the neighborhood’s character. As a result, long-time residents may experience a loss of identity, diminished social cohesion, and a weakening of the very community fabric that makes this area unique and desirable. This erosion of neighborhood culture is a legitimate and deeply felt point of opposition.

5. Current Infrastructure and Environmental Risk
Our existing sewer infrastructure is not designed to support medium-density, multifamily developments. The proposed rezoning would place significant additional strain on already limited systems, requiring careful planning, engineering upgrades, and substantial investment to ensure adequate capacity. Without proactive infrastructure improvements, mixed-use developments risk overwhelming the local sewer system— leading to backups, service disruptions, and serious environmental hazards. These are not hypothetical concerns; they carry real consequences for public health, safety, and property. Moreover, it’s not just sewer systems at risk. Our community’s water supply, electrical grid, roads, and schools were all designed with single-family density in mind.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2048 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Increased population would mean more frequent maintenance, the need for costly upgrades, and potentially higher costs passed on to local taxpayers. This would sacrifice the well-being of current Pleasant Hill residents.

6. Environmental Considerations
A key point of opposition to the proposed rezoning is the significant environmental impact that mixed-use development would bring. Increasing housing density will inevitably reduce green space and tree cover, replacing natural areas with buildings, pavement, and other impervious surfaces. This not only contributes to the urban heat island effect but also increases stormwater runoff, which can overwhelm drainage systems and degrade water quality. Additionally, the displacement of urban wildlife and loss of habitat would further disrupt the local ecosystem. These environmental consequences are not just aesthetic—they affect the health, safety, and quality of life of current residents and must be considered before any zoning changes are approved.

7. Eminent Domain Concerns
If the primary goal is to meet the housing unit targets outlined in the Housing Element, why rezone currently occupied single-family properties? The quiet inclusion of these homes in the Sherman Acres area raises serious concerns about transparency and suggests the possibility of a broader plan—one that could ultimately involve the use of eminent domain to make way for high-density development. Such a move would displace hundreds of current homeowners and families—many of whom have been long-standing residents and taxpayers in Pleasant Hill. This kind of approach would not only irreversibly change the character of our neighborhood but also erode public trust in the Planning Commission. Our community has successfully opposed similar proposals in the past, and we are fully prepared to do so again.

8. Better Alternatives Exist
This proposal prioritizes overdevelopment in one of Pleasant Hill’s most cherished communities instead of exploring smart, community-building alternatives. If the goal is truly to address housing needs, why not redirect development to underutilized spaces such as:

The former Black Angus site (instead of a hotel)
Empty lots on the outskirts of Gregory Gardens, including Woodworth Ln Underdeveloped, failing business sections of Contra Costa Blvd, including former OSH, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Rite Aid sites
Open land behind the Pleasant Hill Library, land that was previously proposed for a public park but failed at a ballot measure, should now be reclassified and repurposed for dense housing
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2049 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 These alternatives would bring new housing without displacing families or burdening schools.

Final Thoughts
This proposal does not build community—it fractures it. Every few years, residents are forced to defend our homes against ill-conceived plans or environmental hazards. We urge the city to reconsider this proposal not only for the safety and future of our homes but for the integrity of Pleasant Hill. We will continue fighting for our home and this neighborhood.

Respectfully,
Deana & Todd Rabbach
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2050 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Mac Abbey
To: Planning
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning between Beatrice Road and Grayson Creek Date: Monday, September 1, 2025 4:34:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Commission,
We strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of the land between Beatrice Road and Grayson Creek.

1. Foremost is the risk of flooding from Grayson Creek. I grew up on Roberta Avenue and remember flooding of the creek since the 1950s, and with climate change periodic heavy rains must be considered. Expanded protection of the flood zone should be first priority, before housing is planned.

2. The propsed multi-family housing units is disproportionate to the neighborhood, increasing immensely the amount of traffic and creating safety concerns.

We recommend that first priority be given to a flood control plan that addresses an expected "100 year flood". Mitigation would probably recommend that the creek protection be expanded into areas now designated for housing. Second, on the basis of the flood plan, we think a modified proposal with reduced housing would be considered within the limits of road access and safety of the neighborhood.

We look forward to participating in the decision making process of this proposal.

Sincerely,
Mac and Lynda Abbey
413 Roberta Ave
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2051 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Steve Caudle
To: Planning; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: 9/9 Planning Commission meeting - rezone
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:00:51 AM
Attachments: Opposition to Rezoning.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Good morning. Our family will be at your meeting on the 9th. I am very confused on how our City would not communicate this to the neighborhoods being affected. I guess we will hear more next week, but rest assured that these decisions should not be made hastily. You are OUR planning department and supposed to be making decisions that benefit and protect our residents. Instead, this will forever change one of the true gem neighborhoods in Pleasant Hill not the mention the numerous other concerns that Tara has listed in her letter, which I've attached.

See you on the 9th.

Steve R. Caudle
427 Roberta Ave.
(925) 890-8958
Steve R. Caudle
(925) 890-8958
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2052 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Janet Clark
To: Haley Croffoot; Planning; [email protected]
Subject: proposed rezoning for
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 12:11:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Ms Croffoot and Pleasant Hill City Planners:

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS EMAIL A LETTER FOR PUBLIC RECORD RE REZONING MEETING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
I own the house at 419 Roberta Ave--only a few homes away from the zoning change being proposed for the end of Beatrice Road and Cleaveland Road--and am stunned at the lack of attention paid to quality of life and potential tax dollars this proposal indicates.

I have served on another city's planning commission so I'm aware of how difficult it is to put a dollar value on "quality of life", but with regard to this proposal it seems moot point because the architect of the plan completely ignored the issue.

As for such an enormous increase in auto and foot traffic, existing flood issues that will need to be addressed, the huge negative environmental impact--not to mention the difficulty for emergency response--you will need to reduce the depth of our front yards to widen streets which on any given day are filled with school children, dog walkers, maintenance vehicles, etc.. I'm staggered by this proposal. To make this plan work you have to be planning to use eminent domain to meet your goal. I see your current proposal head for a courtroom.

Why don't you tell current residents what your goals/motives are and let us help you draw up a viable plan? Are you just looking for more tax dollars? We've got ideas and experience.

Janet Clark
419 Roberta Ave
(925) 934-3841
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2053 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to rezoning Beatrice Road and Cleaveland for multi-family housing.

Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:40:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I have lived at 418 Roberta Avenue for 47 years and love the Poet's Corner neighborhood. It has not changed significantly in 47 years. However I think the proposed rezoning of the Beatrice Road/Cleaveland area would be a disaster for people who are currently living on Roberta, Beatrice and possibly Soule. It is my oldfashioned idea that city government is supposed to protect the well-being of residents. A tremendous increase in the number of people living in the Beatrice/Cleaveland area would NO DOUBT increase the risk of dangerous flooding from the nearby creek as well as add a much greater number of cars driving through the Roberta/Beatrice area, something none of the residents want. I heartily oppose any change in the local zoning that would allow multi-family units in the neighborhood.

Carol Teitelman
418 Roberta Avenue
Pleasant Hill
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2054 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2055 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2056 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Chris Sullivan
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 9:15:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I oppose the rezoning of Beatrice road . I am a local homeowner on Roberta ave . This will have a negative effect on property value and will increase traffic in Poets corner residential neighborhood . Chris Sullivan Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2057 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2058 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: ND Post
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 8:42:20 AM
Attachments: image005.png
Tara Legaspi
Poet's Corner·
6 hr ago
·
URGENT: Help Stop Harmful Rezoning in Poet’s Corner! Pleasant Hill is pushing a rezoning plan that would allow medium-density housing (100+ units) in our single-family neighborhood—including properties on Beatrice Rd, Cleaveland Rd, and Soule Ave. I’ve lived here for years and have seen firsthand the flooding, traffic, and safety issues already affecting our area. Adding dense development on flood-prone land, right next to a middle school, without proper infrastructure, puts homes, kids, and our community at risk. ⚠️ Here’s what’s at stake: •Annual flooding on Cleaveland Rd is getting worse.

The City’s "solutions" have failed. •The area’s creek naturally controls stormwater— building over it could cause devastating runoff. •Increased traffic near 3 schools will make streets more dangerous for our kids. •The rezoning includes occupied homes not even part of the development—raising fears of eminent domain. There are better alternatives: empty lots, old commercial sites, and land behind the new library. Why destroy a thriving neighborhood? We’ve stopped plans like this before—and we can do it again. Make your voice heard. Contact the Planning Commission and say NO to rezoning Poet’s Corner. Questions or want to get involved? DM me. Let’s protect our neighborhood—together. —Tara Legaspi #PleasantHill #PoetsCorner #StopRezoning #ProtectOurNeighborhood
16 Joshua Bello
6h · Edited·Poet's Corner
What Tara is referring to is outlined here: https://www.phillca.gov/1666/ComprehensiveZoning-Ordinance-Amendment If you scroll down, you can see the proposed map, and the areas proposed for rezoning in our neighborhood are outlined in brown. It's primarily the open space surrounding and adjacent to Grayson Creek, and straddling Cleaveland Rd between Boyd Rd and PHMS. I believe that much of this land was previously intended Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2059 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 to be used as a flood retention basin in order to mitigate flooding in our area, but funding was never found to do so. We absolutely need to build more housing in our area, that is the only way to even come close to addressing the affordability issues in our area, but Tara's points about the need to mitigate flood risk is also extremely important. The City of Pleasant Hill does require a lot of study and analysis of stormwater flows and runoff before they issue any kind of development permit, but I believe it is usually projectspecific. So if this area is developed in a piecemeal fashion, the full scope may not actually be considered. I am not a planning professional or hydrologist, I'm just spitballing here. I do think that a balance can be found between addressing concerns around the flooding that plagues our neighborhood and still allowing Pleasant Hill to be a place where perhaps my children can one day afford to buy a home also.

Reply
2 Tara Legaspi
Author6h·Poet's Corner
Here are some of my initial thoughts about low-income housing areas: The former Black Angus site (instead of a hotel) Empty lots on the outskirts of Gregory Gardens, including Woodworth Ln Underdeveloped, failing business sections of Contra Costa Blvd, including former OSH and Bed Bath & Beyond sites Open land behind the Pleasant Hill Library, land that was previously proposed for a public park but failed at a ballot measure, should now be reclassified and repurposed for dense housing Reply
2 Mark B.
5h·El Dorado Park
So let's get this straight - it is NOT Poet's Corner, which lies west of Patterson. Beatrice and Cleaveland are not poet names.

Reply
Tara Legaspi
Author4h·Poet's Corner
Mark
hi! I’m going to correct you as Beatrice Rd is named after Dante Alighieri’s Beatrice Portinari. Beatrice Rd is only accessed through Poet’s Corner.

Reply
1 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2060 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Dom L.
4h·Poet's Corner
Mark
That’s incorrect and unhelpful. Thanks for chiming in, neighbor. Get this straight… people are at risk of losing their homes.

Reply
Andy Byde
4h·Carriage Square
Dom
Speaking of incorrect and unhelpful, stating that people are going to loose their homes because of the rezoning is incorrect and unhelpful. The City is not going to use eminent domain (for many reasons, not the least of which it doesn't have the money). Get this straight: no homeowner is going to loose a home because of a rezoning, that is not how zoning works.

Reply
2 Peter Scriven
4h·Poet's Corner
Mark
, the map shows a small area of medium-density housing on the West side of the creek on Soule and Beatrice. I believe that this is Poet’s Corner (I live on Hardy, 100 yards away.) If I’m looking at this correctly, the planned rezoning appears to “bridge” the stream at the end of Soule and the spur road off Beatrice, onto and into the undeveloped flood plain areas. These streets are both cul-de-sacs at the moment. I’m in favor of higher density housing but am most concerned here with major traffic increases should vehicle access from Cleaveland onto either Soule or Beatrice be approved. This will make these roads (and a few others) in residential areas around the three nearby schools an alternative to the Boyd traffic, substantially changing the character of a currently quiet residential area. My hope is that higher density housing will be possible as infill on either side of the stream (provided flood plain issues can be addressed) but that no roads are built over the stream.

Reply
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2061 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 2 Dom L.
4h·Poet's Corner
Andy
why rezone existing single family homes as multi family if you didn’t want to leave the door open for redevelopment? My statement is that we’re at risk, which we are.

Reply
Tara Legaspi
Author4h·Poet's Corner
Andy
hi Andy. The plan also means building multi-floor complexes right next to single-family homes. Ask yourself, how would you feel about being surrounded by multi-level complexes and complexes that butt up against a school? There’s so much more that I could respond with, but let’s start with that.

Reply
Tara Legaspi
Author4h·Poet's Corner
Peter
I own the road in front of my house, so either they take my property which wouldn’t allow for a fire truck to be able to turn around or they go through Cleveland and over the creek.

Reply
Ed W.
2h·Woodlands
I suspect under state zoning that this will be allowed. Years of cities blocking development along with so much open space designation has lead to a shortage of land and housing such that infill housing is going to be the norm.

Reply
2 Erin C.
2h·Parkmead
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2062 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 It appears from the FAQs that since the general plan has already been adopted the zoning change (to meet what's in the plan) is a mere formality. (it also addresses the issue of eminent domain):
https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/23153/Rezoning-FAQs?bidId= "1. Why is the City rezoning my property? The City adopted a new 2040 General Plan in May 2023.

As a result, several areas of the City were re-designated to a different General Plan designation (e.g., some single-family properties were re-designated to mixed-use).

Therefore, the City is now rezoning those properties to ensure that underlying zoning districts are consistent with the overarching General Plan designations. " Reply
1 Ed W.
1h·Woodlands
Erin yep..this will go thru 100% if the developer follows through.

Reply
Erin C.
1h·Parkmead
Ed
There is no developer in this case. This is part of the City's housing element process, and applies to numerous areas of the city, not just this particular group of parcels.

Reply
1 Randy Cox
1h·Poet's Corner
The developer will follow through. there is money in it for them and it increases the tax base for the greedy little politicians. They will have more money for their new pet projects. It wouldn't be so bad if they would follow through with their last pet projects.

Increasing the tax base is what they are all about. I wonder why that is? Reply
David Kellogg
38m · Edited·Briarwood North Cherry Lane
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2063 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 It's good to have zoning that allows dense housing. Especially near schools. The eminent domain concerns are really a stretch. That's not on the table. The flooding concerns can be addressed through building codes. This rezoning was, I understand, already agreed to by the city as part of their housing element. I have no polite description of the outright opposition to denser housing near single family homes.

Reply
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2064 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Rants and Raves Post
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 8:43:18 AM
Tara Bartholomew Legaspi
tpedooSnrs4hml07u978ui634l9125ah105ih63ha1h3fm1umtmu4u92fg9g · Rant: Here is my letter to the Planning Commission who is trying to rezone Cleaveland, Beatrice, and Soule. Please come to the meeting on Sep 9 and speak out for our community!
Re: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Impacting Beatrice Rd and Surrounding Neighborhoods
Dear Planning Commission,
As a long-time Pleasant Hill resident, homeowner, and community organizer, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of my home and neighboring properties from single-family to medium-density multi-family residential. My home on Beatrice Rd sits in Poet’s Corner, one of the most desirable, established neighborhoods in the city.

This proposal threatens not just the integrity of our homes, but the safety, trust, and character of our entire community.

1. Flooding and Environmental Risk
The plan to rezone and build 164 housing units across a 5-acre area that includes a creek known to flood annually is dangerously shortsighted. While the City’s documents refer to this as a “100-year flood zone,” they fail to acknowledge that the open land on Cleaveland Rd floods every year.

Since the library was constructed on Oak Park Blvd, on land that previously absorbed stormwater, flooding has significantly worsened. Promised rain basins have not performed, and as a result, Cleaveland Rd, our backyard, our neighbors' yards, and the culvert at the end of Beatrice Rd overflow annually.

After the library was built, the culvert at the end of Beatrice Rd began to clog after rainstorms with regular red dirt runoff, something we had never experienced before. The dirt originates from the baseball fields in Pleasant Oaks Park. During one storm, the culvert became so blocked that a neighbor had to physically dig it out to prevent flooding. This is not a rare occurrence, it has become a pattern. The City’s assumption that rain basins underneath the new Library development could effectively manage water has proven to be a failure, and the result is that homes continue to be endangered due to new development. Without neighbors stepping in to clear blockages and redirect water, several properties would have already suffered serious flood damage.

I walk this creek daily, including after rainstorms. I have observed over time, and Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2065 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 sometimes overnight, how the absence of concrete in this area has allowed the creek to naturally erode and expand in width, from as little as five feet to 20 feet in a short span.

This allows it to accommodate water. The natural floodplain plays a critical role in protecting homes on Cleaveland Rd, Beatrice and Roberta Roads, and areas further downstream. Removing open land or disrupting this creek system with new construction could destabilize the delicate balance, resulting in greater runoff and increased flood damage to the surrounding neighborhoods.

If this development moves forward, grading the land to support construction will force floodwaters into surrounding streets and homes, including those on Beatrice Rd, Cleaveland Rd, and potentially further downstream toward Soule Ave. This is not theoretical. It’s happening already. Just two years ago, an elderly woman had to be rescued from her car on Cleaveland Rd during flooding. These are real risks with real consequences, including people’s homes, livelihood, and lives.

2. Lack of Transparency and Eminent Domain Concerns
The Housing Element plan does not fully align with the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. The rezoning encompasses homes that are not part of the current development proposal, raising significant concerns about future intentions. If the goal is simply to accommodate the number of units outlined in the Housing Element, why rezone additional, currently occupied single-family homes? The inclusion of these properties on Beatrice Rd, Cleveland Rd, and Soule Ave without transparency suggests a broader plan that could involve eminent domain to displace homeowners for high-density construction. This approach would irreversibly alter the fabric of our neighborhood and undermine public trust in the Planning Commission. Our community has pushed back against similar proposals for decades, and we are prepared to do so again.