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 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2066 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 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
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
Dana Kearney
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2067 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Tara, I live right next to the Allwell 4 story apartment building on Cleaveland that opened up last December after 2 and a half years of construction.
The neighbors here fought it for over 4 years, we were not against building something, but just did not want 4 stories which is as tall as the movie theater behind it.
We went to all the Pleasant Hill planning commission meetings over the course of 3 years stating our concerns, we poured through the Environment Impact statement, composed many emails and had a petition with 90 signatures stating our opposition to a 4 story building.
The Pleasant Hill Planning commission voted down the 4 story proposal 5 to 1. But despite this, the proposal got routed up the the Pleasant Hill City Council that approved it 5 to 1.
At that final meeting, I could tell after 5 minutes that the City Council had decided to approve the 4 story project years ago despite what the neighbors said or the Planning Commission said.
Well I wish you luck ! I just wanted to give you feedback on my experience 7h
Reply
Edited
Tara Bartholomew Legaspi
Author
Dana Kearney I followed that. It was horrible.
Does anyone even live there? They look empty with no one going on and out. I wonder what the occupancy rate is?
7h
Reply
Dana Kearney
Tara Bartholomew Legaspi it started out with low occupancy but is now 2/3 full, 129 units occupied out of 190. Anyway, good luck
4h
Reply
Edited
Denise Plummer Johnsonbaugh
Great letter. Unfortunately we are located in Gregory Gardens and have already felt the impact of allowing medium density housing when our neighbor installed an ADU in her backyard. Overnight we lost all privacy we had in our backyard and with both the adu and front home being rentals we had about 6 additional cars parking on the street. There are Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2068 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 no restrictions or requirements on having adequate parking. Also no restrictions on set backs, or light pollution. It’s been a long couple of years trying to figure out what to plant to get our privacy back. My understanding is that this is all being driven by the state.
Cities must comply or lose state funds.
6h
Reply
Tara Bartholomew Legaspi
Author
Denise Plummer Johnsonbaugh there are way better alternatives. Look at Lafayette.
They are building on Mt Diablo rather than impacting single-family neighborhoods.
This will impact GG as Grayson Creek runs straight down there. There have been reports that back this up for over thirty years.
6h
Reply
Stephanie Marin Keough
Best of luck. We dealt with something similar a few years back. Hundreds of showed up to the planning commission meetings for public commentary. The meeting went from 6 PM until past 11 PM due to so much commentary. Letters were sent. The Planning Commission does not care. They do not represent us.
2h
Reply
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2069 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Richard Alcina
To: Haley Croffoot; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:27:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I am a resident of the Roberta / Beatrice neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, writing in opposition to the proposed rezoning of the County property immediately to the east of our neighborhood. There are numerous negative impacts created by this proposal, but my greatest concern is the traffic impact on Roberta and Beatrice Avenues. Both of these streets are narrow and without sidewalks. The addition of many new units at the east end of our existing single family neighborhood would have severe negative and even dangerous consequences including pedestrian safety. Also please note there is a hill on Roberta Ave that blocks the view of oncoming cars and pedestrians. When cars parked at the curb at the top of the hill, it forces drivers to the center of the street. A significant increase in the traffic flow would greatly increase the risk of problems at this location.
Sincerely,
Richard Alcina
412 Roberta Ave., PH
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2070 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Gavin Harmon
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Cc: Kim Harmon
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning at Beatrice Rd, Soule Ave and Cleveland Rd Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:29:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Members of the Pleasant Hill Planning Commission and City Council, We are writing as concerned residents of Pleasant Hill to oppose the proposed rezoning of land in our neighborhood. We respectfully ask that you consider the significant impacts this change would have on our community and uphold the protections afforded by the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code.
Rezoning the land at Beatrice Rd, Soule Ave and Cleveland Rd would undermine the safeguards established in Chapter 18 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, particularly:
Section 18.125.070, which requires that any rezoning must not create significant growthinducing impacts, nor increase traffic or noise for established residential districts.
Section 18.20, which sets clear standards for density, land use, lot size, height, and setbacks in residential areas; the proposed changes risk violating these standards and disrupting our neighborhood’s character.
Any potential use of Planned Unit Development (18.30.050) must clearly show how infrastructure, open spaces, and neighborhood harmony will be protected— requirements that have not been adequately addressed in the current proposal.
We are specifically concerned about:
Increased traffic congestion and greater risk to pedestrian safety Additional strain on public utilities, emergency response, and local schools Loss of green space and diminished quality of life for residents Negative economic impact on property values and community stability Threats to local wildlife and their habitat, as rezoning may lead to the destruction or fragmentation of ecological corridors, adversely affecting birds, small mammals, and other native species known to rely on these open spaces.
We also wish to remind the City that public comments and written objections, like this letter, must be collected and considered as part of any public hearing regarding rezoning (Gov. Code § 65009(B)).
We urge you to protect our community by rejecting this rezoning request. Pleasant Hill’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are designed to maintain safe, stable, and Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2071 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 harmonious neighborhoods. Please enforce these local rules and prioritize the long-term well-being of our residents.
Thank you for your careful consideration.
Sincerely,
Kim and Gavin Harmon
104 Soule Avenue, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2072 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Rezoning & Development
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:09:57 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: Tara Legaspi
Street
Address:
520 Beatrice Rd
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:
9253606269
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Rezoning & Development
Question
or
Comment:
Good morning, I first want to thank you for taking the time to speak with my neighbor, Linda. She has very nice things to say about you. I would like to speak to you about the rezoning, proposed Housing Element, and intercity council and commission communication practices. I do believe we can build a better, more robust Pleasant Hill with a bit more creativity than the Housing Element Plan currently outlines. Thank you in advance. Warmly, Tara
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=18487 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.:
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2073 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Name:: Tara Legaspi
Street Address:: 520 Beatrice Rd
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9253606269
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning & Development
Question or Comment:: Good morning,
I first want to thank you for taking the time to speak with my neighbor, Linda. She has very nice things to say about you.
I would like to speak to you about the rezoning, proposed Housing Element, and intercity council and commission communication practices.
I do believe we can build a better, more robust Pleasant Hill with a bit more creativity than the Housing Element Plan currently outlines.
Thank you in advance.
Warmly,
Tara
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 9/4/2025 10:45:44 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.3.186.121
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1552/Zac-Shess-Vice-Mayor Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2074 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: gene reffkin
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 3:21:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I live on Beatrice Rd.
My opposition is not about NIMBY.
For me it’s about safety - my safety. I moved here in 2006 with my family. I am now much older. I also am half deaf as I lost all hearing in one ear. Hearing aids are of no use. I have no sense of direction, no sense of location. My street has no sidewalks and there is no room to put them in. When I am walking down the streets here when cars approach I don’t always hear them. Often drivers honk at me to get out of the way. If I am walking with someone, they have to guide me when they hear a car coming. But on my own I cannot tell when a car is coming nor from where it is coming.
For me this is a very dangerous situation. Building here in this neighborhood or even nearby means more people driving up and down and through here. More cars mean more chances of getting hit by someone who is driving carelessly or assumes I can hear them coming.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Gene Reffkin
411 Beatrice Rd
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2075 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Susan Rohlicek
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal
Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 8:39:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To All Members of the Pleasant Hill Planning Commission:
I strong oppose the proposed rezoning of Beatrice Rd., Soule Rd. and Cleaveland Rd. Grayson Creek is an important feeder into Pacheco Creek. Wildlife including many kinds of birds, turtles, otters (I’ve seen them!) will be permanently displaced is proposed developments are permitted to move forward.
I’ve lived in Poet’s Corner since 1983. My kids went to school here, my husband and I worked in Pleasant Hill, and we are dedicated to our neighbors and this wonderful community.
Traffic has increased beyond my ability to quantify in the past twenty years. We do not need more development and more traffic!
We have flood insurance, not because we “have to” due to a mortgage, but because we are realists and have seen local creeks burst their banks and reshape their flow path from time to time. Please do not force Grayson Creek into a channelized dead zone in order to eliminate flood risk so that multi-unit housing can be built. Let the existing new multi-unit housing fill up so we can assess traffic, commercial and residential needs, impacts to neighborhood schools, police and fire safety needs before we permit additional housing in the same area.
I strongly oppose the rezoning. I also question the process because the City of Pleasant Hill did not notify me directly about this proposed rezoning. Why? Are you rushing it through? It’s unfair to approve increased development on an accelerated timeline without due notice to the neighborhood.
Please do not approve this rezoning.
I would appreciate the courtesy of a response. Thank you in advance.
Sincerely, and with great concern,
Susan Rohlicek
15 Dudley Ct.
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2076 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: kmuskrat
To: Planning
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:16:11 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 in Poets Corner!
Kathleen Muskopf
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2077 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Adam Malatesta
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:38:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
As a resident of Poets Corner, I don’t agree with the rezoning of our neighborhood. This would completely change what all of our residents have come to love and is the reason we all want to live in this neighborhood. We have received no notice for something that would reduce our quality of life and the property value of our home that we have worked so hard to acquire. You guys made us jump through hoops to remodel our home and now you’re going to ok massive apartment complexes right behind us? These projects will add to our flood risk and increase traffic.
We will be losing plant and animal biodiversity and our property values. This is total hypocrisy. See you guys on Tuesday.
Adam Malatesta
Malatesta Family Pool Co.
925-689-2311
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2078 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Comcast
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:54:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I recently read about your planned rezoning proposal. We live on Hardy Cir and love the Poets Corner neighborhood because they are quiet walkable streets.
The rezoning of parcels on the west side of Grayson Creek makes me think that the city will want to connect the high density housing on Cleveland thru our neighborhood both on Soule and Beatrice. This will change the character of our neighborhood significantly by directing traffic thru our neighborhood.
I’m all for developing the Cleveland Rd area for higher density housing but to connect that development thru existing neighborhood is just wrong. The streets are too narrow and are really close to one lane roads when cars are parked along them. Adding through traffic to those streets would be a traffic nightmare. Soule from Patterson to Boyd is a perfect example of a residential street that too many people use as a connector when they should stay on the real connector streets like Patterson and Boyd.
Apparently the General Plan the city recently adopted indicated these parcels would change designation.
Unfortunately our neighborhood was not aware and did not notice this designation change then but that does not make it right to include these parcels and potentially change our neighborhood.
Please correct this mistake now before some developer gets ideas and ruins our neighborhood.
Thanks
Pattie McNamee
Hardy Cir
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2079 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lisa Brydon
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 7:54:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Stop the re-zoning of Beatrice Rd, Soule Rd & Cleavland Rd.
I highly oppose this!
Lisa Brydon
Brydon & Ives Team
925-285-8336
BI@ brydonivesteam.com
BrydonIvesTeam.com
BRE# 01408025
COMPASS
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2080 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Dave Strong
To: Planning
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 8:55:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I think something is very odd about this rezoning proposal. It looks similar to the same thing that happened to Walnut Creek, with high density housing, more traffic, loss of property values and it smells of developers making enormous sums of .
I wonder out loud if any "Decison makers" live anywhere near the affected areas. What is done in the name of progress has a different meaning to those of us affected by it. Keep in mind that WE PUT YOU INTO OFFICE AND WE CAN TAKE YOU OUT.
I say No to rezoning.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2081 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Patrick
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 8:55:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Hello P. Hill City people,
I really appreciate all you do, and love living in Pleasant Hill.
But have you ever actually been to the neighborhood around Beatrice / Soule / Cleaveland? Building a large complex in this area is not a good idea.
We already get some pretty serious flooding every winter, to the point that I have multiple pumps set up and areas sandbagged for several months out of the year. If you build over the flood escape area near the creek, im not sure how we'll be able to deal with the excess water.
Also, there are a lot of young families raised here. Part of the charm of this neighbord is all the kids riding bikes and playing out in our quiet little streets. Adding a complex like this will roughly quadruple the traffic on our street, making it totally unsafe and completely ruining the character of this area.
I appreciate your time. I think everyone does know this project is an awful idea, and I hope our city has the fortitude to make the right decision for its loyal residents.
Best,
Patrick Dunton
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2082 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Laura Fischer
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 10:11:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Planning Commission,
I urge you to oppose the proposed rezoning in Poet’s Corner and Cleaveland Rd. The risks to families in this community are too great.
The open fields being considered for development are natural flood buffers. Removing them will send more stormwater into homes downstream on Beatrice, Cleaveland, and Soule. For families already living with rising insurance premiums, this rezoning will mean even higher costs and greater financial stress for years to come. Approving a plan that knowingly increases flood risk for the sake of profit puts developers ahead of residents, and that is unacceptable.
It is also important to note that the most recent FEMA flood map for this area was completed in 2009, which already indicates there is no mitigation for this floodplain. In the ten years I have lived here, I have seen the water shelf in my yard rise higher every year as storms have become more intense. There is already a clear increase in flood risk, yet as far as I can see, no surveys have been updated since 2009. Without new data, we cannot understand how severe the flooding could be for residents or how far downstream the creek and surrounding areas will be impacted. Moving forward without updated assessments is reckless.
On top of the flooding concerns, our neighborhood simply does not have the infrastructure to support dense housing. Roads are already congested and unsafe, and schools are overcrowded.
High-density development would make all of these problems worse, leaving residents with permanent safety and quality-of-life issues.
This rezoning is not a minor adjustment. It is a permanent change that puts profit over people, leaving families to shoulder the risk and the cost. Please put the safety and financial security of existing residents first.
Sincerely,
Laura Fischer
413 Soule Ave.
925-323-1325
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2083 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 10:05:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
We oppose this rezoning proposal.
We are residents on Soule ave in poets corner
-Igor Kipnis
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2084 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2085 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2086 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2087 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Larissa Suhonos
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 2:55:29 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 strongly opposed to the rezoning proposal. We spent good money to buy a place in beautiful, coveted, poets corner because it was low density. Please don’t make us regret this decision and put more cars on this road where all of our children ride bikes and scooters freely.
Sincerely,
A concerned resident of Poets corner,
Larissa Suhonos
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2088 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 September 2, 2025
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
RE: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Impacting Dawn Drive & Surrounding Communities Dear Pleasant Hill Planning Committee & City Council:
As long-time residents, homeowners, and active members of the Pleasant Hill community for nearly 20 years, we are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of our home and neighboring properties from single-family residential to a mixed-use zoning district. Our home is located at 34 Dawn Drive in the West Sherman Acres neighborhood adjacent to Gregory Gardens, which is one of the most desirable and well-established neighborhoods in the city. The rezoning proposal threatens not just the integrity of our homes and livelihood, but also the safety, trust, and character of our entire community. We chose to buy our home in Pleasant Hill and raise a family in this neighborhood because of its relative safety, quaintness, central location, charm and strong sense of community.
The proposed mixed-use zoning would allow for higher intensity development, including high-density residential, commercial, hotel, office, entertainment, and personal service uses–often located within the same building or site. It encourages a variety of multi-family residential typologies such as live-work units, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums. While such developments are suited to urban centers known for dense structures, busy streets and high levels of activity, they are fundamentally incompatible with the suburban character of our neighborhood. We respectfully urge the city to explore alternative locations for mixed-use development that does not compromise the character, cohesiveness and livability of our close-knit, family-friendly community. Please reaffirm Pleasant Hill’s commitment to providing a high-quality suburban lifestyle to its residents.
We oppose the proposed rezoning of our neighborhood based on:
1. Increased traffic and safety risks
The addition of multi-family residential and commercial developments 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. There are no sidewalks in our neighborhood. Increasing traffic in this family-oriented, walk-to-school neighborhood would create unsafe conditions for current residents, particularly for young children, 1 of 3
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2089 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 pedestrians and pets. The resulting safety risks from higher traffic volumes are unacceptable and directly conflict with the character and livability of our community.
2. Reduced property value and financial impacts
The introduction of multi-family residential and commercial developments in our neighborhood would significantly diminish property values. The proposed rezoning undermines the very qualities that made this neighborhood desirable for purchasing a single-family home—privacy, character, and residential stability. These elements are not only essential to our quality of life, but they also represent the foundation of our financial investment. For many of us, our homes are our most significant asset; our investments are not limited to our original purchase but also include the costs of home improvements and renovations completed over time. Devaluing that investment through incompatible zoning changes would result in substantial financial loss, both in terms of immediate property value and long-term equity. This is not just a matter of market perception—it reflects a real and measurable impact on the financial well-being of families who have lived, contributed to, and cared for this community for years.
3. Disrupted community and social dynamics
Over the years, our neighborhood has cultivated lasting relationships grounded in shared values, mutual trust, and a stable, familiar environment. This neighborhood isn’t just a place to live—it’s a tight-knit community where neighbors know one another, children grow up together, and families feel connected and supported. Rezoning to allow multi-use, multi-family, and commercial developments would dramatically alter this dynamic. The introduction of higher-density housing and transient populations associated with rental units and commercial activity would fundamentally change the neighborhood’s identity. The predictable rhythms of suburban life—quiet evenings, walkable streets, friendly faces—could be replaced by increased turnover, noise, and a lack of long-term resident investment in the community. This transformation threatens to erode the social fabric that makes our neighborhood unique and desirable. Long-time residents may experience a loss of belonging and the overall sense of community could weaken. This is not a hypothetical concern—it is a deeply felt and legitimate objection to a proposal that puts long-established neighborhood values at risk.
4. Overburdened infrastructure and environmental considerations The proposed rezoning would place significant stress on infrastructure systems that were never designed to support mixed-use developments. For example, our existing sewer system and the neighborhood drainage lack the capacity to handle increased demand. We already experience backups and pooling of water under current conditions. In addition, essential services like water supply, electricity, roads and schools were all built for single-family use. Increased population density would accelerate wear, require more frequent maintenance, and lead to expensive infrastructure improvements; all of these costs could ultimately fall on local taxpayers and degrade the quality of life for current residents. Higher density development also reduces green space and tree cover, contributing to the urban heat island effect and increased stormwater runoff, which could further overwhelm drainage systems and harm water quality. In addition, habitat loss and wildlife displacement could also disrupt the local ecosystem. These considerations all pose real, tangible risks to public health, safety, and the well-being of our community.
5. 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, then we suggest focusing on underutilized spaces that would not displace families or negatively impact existing neighborhoods, such as:
● The former Black Angus site (instead of a hotel)
● Underdeveloped, failing business sections of Contra Costa Boulevard, including former OSH, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Rite Aid sites
2 of 3
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2090 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 ● Open land behind the Pleasant Hill Library (which was previously proposed for a public park but failed at a ballot measure)
The proposed rezoning does not build community; instead, it threatens to fracture it. This part of the general plan risks undermining the very qualities that make Pleasant Hill a desirable city to live in.
As the city continues to grow, neighborhoods like ours should be protected–not compromised–so that Pleasant Hill can uphold its promise of a high-quality, family-friendly suburban lifestyle for generations to come. More than just a place to live, West Sherman Acres and Gregory Gardens foster a sense of belonging, where neighbors know each other, families grow together, and community pride runs deep. We enjoy the unique balance of small-town charm and city convenience, with quiet, tree-lined streets, good schools, and easy access to shops, parks, and local amenities. We urge the city to reconsider the proposed rezoning—not only to protect the safety, value, and future of our homes, but to preserve the integrity and identity of Pleasant Hill itself.
We are committed to standing up for our neighborhood, for our community, and for the place we proudly call home.
Sincerely,
ShaneWSmiley CrystalAnneSmiley
Shane Smiley Crystal Smiley
3 of 3
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2091 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Alexander Suhonos
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 4:08:46 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 Concern,
I am deeply opposed to the rezoning proposal in poets corner. The flood risk and wildlife should not be in peril to make this area higher density. Poets corner is a beautiful place to live and this proposal will alter its beauty. -Alec Suhonos
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2092 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Joe Velez
To: Planning
Subject: Rezoning Pleasant Hill
Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 5:35:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Are we looking to change the fabric of our city for more taxes, more people, why ? Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2093 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Joe Velez
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Rezoning Pleasant Hill
Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 5:41:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Are we at the crossroad, changing the character of a small neighborhood. Change isn’t always a good thing.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2094 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Matt Regan
To: Planning
Subject: Fwd: Item 6.1 Planning Commission September 9th Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 5:54:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
My name is Matt Regan and I am a long standing homeowner and parent in Pleasant Hill.
Over the years that I have been pleased to call Pleasant Hill home I have tried to contribute back to my community and have served on the Iron Horse Trail CAC, I Chaired the Redevelopment Successor Agency, and for over a decade I represented Pleasant Hill on the Contra Costa First Five Children and Families Commission. I also served on the Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Planning Committee for close to a decade and sat on the ABAG/MTC Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology Committee that created the metrics and standards by which our region's housing obligations were distributed to our 9 counties and 101 cities. (For the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle, the Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new homes and of that total Pleasant Hill is responsible for 1,803) I am writing to you today in support of the staff report on Item 6.1 to amend the Municipal Code in order to allow Pleasant Hill to comply with State law in regards to its General Plan and Housing Element obligations.
Context is important. There is a very simple reason why California and the Bay Area in particular is becoming less and less affordable for working families. There is a good reason why our schools are unable to hire teachers, why our small businesses cannot find employees, and why over 120,000 people every day drive into this region to work, from their homes in the far flung exurbs of Patterson, Manteca or Stockton. We simply have not built enough housing at all levels of affordability for many decades. As recently as the mid 1980s California built over 300,000 homes in a single year. For the past decade we have been averaging less than 80,000 new homes. Many of the people opposing this item probably purchased their homes in the 80s or 90s when the level of new construction made buying a home here affordable, yet they refuse to allow the next generation that same opportunity. It should also be pointed out that since 1990 PLeasant Hill's population has grown at a far slower pace than either Contra Costa County or the Bay Area region, so we are more to blame than most for this housing crisis.
It is also important to know that every community in California is going through this exact same process; finally having an honest conversation about how much housing we need and where it should go. This challenge is not unique to Pleasant Hill.
I believe that City staff have done an incredibly thorough job in the updating of our General Plan and Housing Element and in the preparation of Item 6.1 before you tonight. I believe the vision for Pleasant Hill's future is a good one and if we succeed we will pass on a better and Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2095 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 more affordable place to our children and grandchildren.
It is very important that you are also aware of what happens if you fail to comply with State law and create a plan with sufficient viable sites, zoned at appropriate density to meet our mandated RHNA obligation. First, a decertified Housing Element means that for developers, zoning no longer applies. In what is known as the "builders remedy" a developer can acquire any site zoned for housing in a city without a certified Housing Element and build as tall as they choose, and the City has no recourse. Second, the State of California can (and already has done elsewhere) withheld funds for roads and other civic needs if a city does not comply with State housing law. Finally, the courts can intervene and punish cities that refuse to comply with State Law. Just last week the City of Norwalk California agreed to a $250,000 settlement with the State over its past refusal to comply with affordable housing requirements. Should Pleasant Hill decide not to amend its Zoning Map to comply with its Housing Element, it risks decertification and all the ramifications that come with that eventuality.
Sincerely
Matt Regan
Pleasant Hill, CA
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2096 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Peter
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 6:28:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I live on Hardy Circle, with Soule as our cross street. Although I am in favor of additional medium density housing in Pleasant Hill, parts of the proposed rezoning will significantly change the character of our neighborhood and the traffic flows to and from Patterson.
Traffic from both Soule and Beatrice at school drop-off and pick-up time is already heavy. Soule and Patterson are used as waiting streets at pick-up times, leading to egress issues and restricted sight lines. I am concerned that any increase will create safety issues, particularly for the children on foot.
My suggestion would be to avoid rezoning the 5 properties on Soule and Beatrice, instead providing access to future developments to the West of the stream from Monticello Avenue and possibly from Babette Court and Cleaveland.
Monticello has no exiting homes in the vicinity of the rezoning although additional traffic management measures would be necessary around school areas.
I am also concerned about environmental issues close to the stream and would need convincing that the flood zones in the rezoning area are no longer necessary.
Clearly my preference would be to avoid adding extra traffic West of the stream. This would allow the additional traffic load to be absorbed at the existing traffic lights at Boyd and Cleaveland.
Finally, I would ask for clearer and direct communication with those residents who could be impacted by the planned rezoning.
Peter Scriven
(901) 229-0615
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2097 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Natalya
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to Beatrice Rd Rezoning – Please Remove from MFM Map Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 6:50:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
(Please include this letter in the public record for the September 9 Planning Commission hearing.)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
My name is Natalya Kolyvayko, and I am a resident of Beatrice Road. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of our neighborhood from single-family to Medium-Density Multi-Family (MFM) residential as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update.
While I understand the City’s obligation to align zoning designations with the General Plan and Housing Element, I believe the decision to include Beatrice Rd and adjacent properties in the MFM rezoning map raises serious concerns in three key areas: floodplain, traffic and pedestrian safety, procedural, and available alternatives.
1. Floodplain Development Impact
Grayson Creek borders on our neighborhood and the proposed area to be rezoned.
The City has stated that any future development will require elevation above base flood levels.
This means that multi-story buildings will likely sit atop elevated pads, rising well above existing one-story homes in the neighborhood. This is not theoretical; it is the predictable consequence of rezoning for density in a floodplain.
We respectfully ask the Commission to request a supplemental hydrological review before finalizing this rezoning.
2. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety
Beatrice Road is approximately 24 feet wide. With vehicles parked on both sides, the remaining width is insufficient for two cars to pass each other in opposing directions (please see attached photograph). There are numerous families with children that own homes along Beatrice Road. Increased vehicle traffic due to development will result in a currently safe and quiet street becoming a much higher-density access road.
3. Zoning Process Transparency
The City has described the rezoning as a “cleanup” of PUD 410 — a shell designation lacking Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2098 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 standards. However, for families like ours, this is not a minor technical adjustment. Rezoning grants significant entitlement rights to future developers and removes existing zoning ambiguity that previously offered some protection.
Many residents were not notified of this change, despite the fact that it affects occupied properties, creates uncertainty for families who have invested in remodels and additions under current zoning, and potentially exposes homeowners to displacement or eminent domain in the future.
This process requires greater transparency, neighborhood-specific engagement, and a carveout or delay in any action that has the potential to impact properties on Beatrice and Roberta parcels.
4. Better Alternatives Already Identified
Most notably, the City-owned parcel north of the Library (PUD 940) was designed for community amenities such as sports fields, restrooms, and parking, and is not located in a floodplain. This site, along with underutilized commercial lots on Contra Costa Blvd, could accommodate MFM housing without impacting existing homes or burdening narrow residential streets.
Final Request
For these reasons, we respectfully ask the Commission to:
Remove Beatrice Rd and Roberta Avenue from the MFM rezoning map, or Postpone rezoning of this area until further hydrologic and traffic studies are completed and alternatives are properly evaluated.
Please include this letter in the public record for the September 9 Planning Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
Natalya Kolyvayko
407 Beatrice, Pleasant HIll CA, 94523
925-663-5128
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2099 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2100 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: MILDRED MATEO
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 11:41:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I, Mildred Mateo, resident of 206 Astrid Drive Pleasant Hill California, strongly OPPOSED the REZONING PROPOSAL PLANNING OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL. This alter the beauty and charm of the Old Pleasant Hill we knew.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2101 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Nicole Skinner
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Saturday, September 6, 2025 11:01:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
We are opposed to the re-zoning.
- Nicole & Scott Skinner
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2102 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 510 Beatrice RD
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
415.699.5174 and 925.330.7598
[email protected]
September 6, 2025
(sent by email)
Planning Commission
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
RE: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Public Hearing – 09/09/2025 Dear Pleasant Hill Planning Commission:
We write this letter to oppose The City of Pleasant Hill’s (“the City”) proposal to rezone our property located at 510 Beatrice RD, APN 149-130-026 to a “multifamily, medium-density” designation. The City’s rezoning proposal includes our neighbors’ property at 520 Beatrice RD, APN 149-130-025 as well as the unoccupied lot to our immediate south - APN-149-130-020 (“empty lot - south”).
We have owned and resided in this property since 2002, having purchased from the original owners.
We have raised our son in Poets Corner and plan to retire here. We have served as PTA Board members for Strandwood Elementary and College Park High School and as ongoing Member, Umpire Leadership Team, PHBA. We provide this opposition in writing in our attempt to preserve our rights pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(B) as well as any other applicable laws and regulations.
We intend to significantly improve our property in the near future to enable us to age in place and we have NO intention of relocating. Our neighbors at 520 Beatrice RD (Tara and Dom Legaspi) have advised us that they as well have no intention of relocating. Without our cooperation, any attempt to develop the empty lot – south property will be next to impossible and your rezoning plan therefore, does nothing except cause us stress and financial hardship. This plan will lessen the value of our properties, the neighborhood generally, and simultaneously not solve for the housing crisis it attempts to address. We are currently planning on involving as many of the neighborhood homeowners as possible in this discussion and are confident there will be widespread opposition to any proposed development. Other means to solve the housing challenges faced by California exist. Our opposition includes but is not limited to the following points:
1. Insufficient notice was given to the affected property owners. We recently surveyed our neighborhood’s awareness of these proposed plans and discovered none (except those whom work for the City of Pleasant Hill) knew anything about the proposed rezoning. All were shocked and frustrated. In addition, contrary to recent public statements made by City officials, our homes have never been zoned “multifamily, medium-density”, never Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2103 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 been “treated as multifamily, medium-density” nor has there ever been any expressed intention from the City to do anything regarding our property within at least the last 12 years.
Our home as well as the homes located at 520 Beatrice RD and 535 Beatrice RD, the empty lot – south, and the lot and homes on Soule Avenue immediately north of 535 Beatrice RD were not included as part of the focus/land to be rezoned pursuant to the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan adopted May 2023 as found on the City’s website. https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21502/2040-Pleasant-Hill-GeneralPlan_reduced (see pg. 58 “Development Focus Ares Within Pleasant Hill”). Had these properties been included, homeowners would have had the opportunity to be heard at the time the plan was debated and adopted. This new proposed zoning is NOT CONSISTNENT with the underlying General Plan. Any claim by the City (statements to local media, news report, resident inquiries) that the end of Beatrice RD rezoning is merely part of a “zoning clean-up” is inaccurate and deceptive. The City is trying to do an end around it’s adopted plan, any zoning “oversights” it has made in the past, and its citizens. The City should be estopped from taking this course of action.
2. The empty lots south and north of Beatrice Rd are largely inaccessible to through traffic and highly difficult to develop without the removal of our homes. The school property with a narrow access road borders the empty lot - south and the creek borders the empty lot to the east. Creek setback will be required to construct new roads and homes.
Case law, statues as well as litigation working its way through the Courts makes it increasingly difficult if not impossible for local governments to take property from private owners for economic benefit. Therefore, there is no benefit to the City to rezone these properties as any attempt at medium density development is futile. The City’s plan to rezone our property comes across as hostile in nature – and expression of an intention to remove our homes for some “bigger” financial gain at our expense.
3. Beatrice Road and Roberta Road provide access to our parcels and the empty lot south and north and both roads are currently too narrow to provide fire truck turn-around. Any new development would require taking of neighboring property front yards along Beatrice RD and/or Roberta RD in order to provide access to new construction. As well, development will create congestion and a change in character of our diverse single family home neighborhood – single family home lots are a major attraction of Poets Corner.
We would like to note a few years back the empty lot – south caught fire. A large firetruck attempted to respond to the fire, having to first slowly and gingerly navigate to the end of Beatrice Rd. Once it arrived the firefighters determined they had no ability to access the empty lot – south from their position as they could not maneuver around 520 Beatrice.
4. All properties discussed and others proposed to be rezoned in our adjacent areas are located in FEMA zone “AE” – “high flood area”. It will be extremely to develop for affordable housing or otherwise, if this is the City’s intention. Construction projects such as Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2104 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 the Pleasant Hill Library and adjacent new home construction have increased water intrusion and flooding to our parcels and that of our neighbors. Any attempt to develop these properties will further exacerbate the flooding problem. Our property is adjacent to the culvert between the end of Beatrice RD. A number of years back the homeowner across the street was required to widen the pipe located on his property at his personal expense carrying water away from properties to lessen the flood pressure coming from Patterson as well as from the south baseball fields and school. Subsequent to that and the Pleasant Hill library development - flooding has worsened – we had to personally clear the Beatrice Road culvert approximately 20 months ago to prevent flooding to our home and our neighbors. The water coming through the culvert was red – from the baseball fields.
5. We are very concerned that the new zoning will require us to conform to “multiuse”/add extra housing to our lot when we remodel. Adding an ADU to our property, for example, is likely impossible and/or extremely burdensome – we have a 30,000 gallon swimming pool in the middle of our property running the length of the yard east to west with no room for sewer lines to either side. Any such requirement to construct additional housing on our property would be economically devastating.
6. In the future, if we are forced to or need to sell our property the City’s rezoning will cause us extreme economic loss. Any future buyer would be wary of the City’s intentions to take the property and/or develop around them.
It is unfair for the City to add another real threat to our ability to use our property and to our security. We have endured years of the City’s unsuccessful attempts to create a flood plan for Pleasant Hill which included direct threats of taking our property for that project. At the time flood plain planning was abandoned by the City, we were assured we were safe from losing our home. When Redevelopment Agencies were dissolved in 2012, we were assured and relieved our property was safe from taking. Now we face another threat to our financial security and our ability to plan for our future.
Please be advised we will strongly consider any and all legal action necessary to preserve our rights, including but not limited to forming a collective defense with neighboring property owners as well as involving various organizations such as the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Lesley S. Pope & Eric F. Pope
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2105 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Katie Hindt
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comments re: Proposed 2040 Rezones
Date: Saturday, September 6, 2025 10:05:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Ms. Croffoot:
My name is Katie Hindt and my family resides in Gregory Gardens.
My husband and I and our young son moved here 4 years ago from San Jose.
We were drawn to this area based on the hometown feel, peaceful streets, good schools and family friendly atmosphere.
In reviewing the proposed 2040 Rezones, I became genuinely concerned regarding various areas to be rezoned.
I would like to respectfully present my concerns:
- MX-NB along Gregory (change from residential) - This stretch of Gregory should remain unspoiled, as inserting retail and/or higher density residential would change the feel of this area. It was in fact this drive from Contra Costa Blvd to our family's home along Gregory that I absolutely love driving. The change in zoning would increase traffic and decrease the overall visual appeal/consistency of this area.
- MX - E Vivian (change from residential) - Maintaining this area as SFR residential would maintain a more peaceful area. Inserting higher density housing/retail would potentially increase crime that already exists along Contra Costa Boulevard. Can the City explore options to change zoning of the vacant Rite Aid parcel on CCB to medium or high density residential/mixed use? That parking lot is laden with crime and drug use and converting that disused parcel would benefit that area and would be more appropriate than imposing that zoning to the E Vivian neighborhood.
- MX-HD - Walgreens site at PHR and Grayson (change from Neighborhood Business) - This change is unnecessary as having the current retail at the corner suits the surrounding residential needs. Adding high density housing would be unsuitable for this small area and would increase traffic down Gregory/Grayson/PHR. This intersection is already backed up during the 5pm hour. Such high density buildings are imposing and do not fit in with the fabric of this corner.
Our family moved to this area from San Jose. The South Bay has undergone a huge development boom with too many mixed use high rises being built. The buildings are not only visually unappealing, but the ground floor commercial/retail units are largely vacant. They are uninviting and I prefer to drive by such developments and I never feel compelled to stop at these establishments. There are many areas with such developments in San Jose, and Mountain View that have ruined the neighborhood feel of the area.
I respectfully request that the City of PH have a thoughtful approach to development/growth for the future. It should be not only sustainable but should be compatible with the look and feel of the city. I do not want to live around retail/high rises as the city will lose its charm that residents and visitors are drawn to.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2106 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 I understand that some of these pressures to increase the density of housing in the City are mandated by the State, however it appears that there are certain jurisdictions that are exempt. I would like to request that the City explore its options to request a waiver and not comply with these mandates.
Thank you for reading my thoughts and concerns.
I trust that the City will fight to keep what makes PH special and not a cookie-cutter town.
Respectfully,
Katie Hindt
1955 Rose Ln, PH
831.295.9725
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2107 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Melissa Doherty
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 9:06:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
City of Pleasant Hill:
My family and I vehemently oppose the rezoning proposal of Beatrice, Soule and Cleaveland Rd for many reasons.
We have recently purchased our home in this area and the addition of high rise, multi unit housing erodes the neighborhood character and will lower the value of the property we just paid top dollar to move into. Additionally, the safety concerns it brings to the area due to traffic overload is of huge concern. I have a small child and one of the reasons we purchased a house on this street is the low traffic and safety of the street and area. Fire trucks can’t safely turn around at the end of Beatrice and dense housing increases this risk.
This is an unfair process that the city has under taken in that they have failed to notify our neighborhood. Had we known, it likely would have impacted our decision and the price we offered on the house just purchased.
Please reconsider this rezoning effort.
Melissa
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2108 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Kenan Pandza
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 9:11:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I live at 190 Cleaveland Rd #15, Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523 and would like to add my voice in oposition to the change in zone classification in this area.
I would like to see the area around the creek preserve as the open space. Better use of this space would only as a public park.
Respectfully,
Kenan Pandza
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2109 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lisa Smith
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 10:00:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
This area is already severely impacted with traffic during commute times and dangerous for kids trying to get to PHMS and sequoia in the mornings. The added traffic this will cause is going to increase this issue while devaluing the homes in Poets Corner.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2110 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Janet Spencer
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 10:08:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I live in Poet’s Corner . I bought my house 20 years ago and selected it because of the quiet nature of my neighborhood. In addition, I appreciate the charm of streets that do not encourage commuting. The rezoning that you are proposing will change traffic patterns and diminish the value of my home. Grayson creek is not only a viable wildlife corridor, but it also serves as flood control. I do not believe your planning has taken into consideration all of the risks, damages and permanent changes that this rezoning would cause.
Janet Spencer
925-639-9948
112 Hardy Circle
Sent from Janet's iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2111 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Brian Dodge
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 11:41:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Here we go again. Someone at the City has dredged up the 50 year old School Yard Redevelopment Plan. Apparently no one has recently looked at the properties involved to see the improvements that have been made since that redevelopment plan was first created.
Indeed, our house and that of our neighbors have both been substantially upgraded and increased in size and are now each valued at well over one to one and a half million dollars. It makes no sense to consider tearing these houses down in order to build multifamily dwellings at the end of a quiet single family residential street (Soule Ave). So why is the current proposal to zone these as multi-family (MFMD)?!
We have lived in our house (501) at the east end of Soule Avenue since December 1982.
During that time span, we have had numerous interactions with City staff regarding the School Yard Redevelopment and Eminent Domain seizure as it affects our property. We were repeatedly promised by the City that our property and our adjacent neighbor (500 Soule Avenue) would be removed from the multi-family housing designation and be included in the neighboring adjacent single-family zoning. The City, despite several 10-Year Plan revisions, has consistently failed to do what was promised.
We are therefore opposed to the new Rezoning Plan which shows all the properties on the west side of Grayson Creek as Multi-family Medium Density. Indeed, a previous plan by the City showed any development on the west side of Grayson Creek to be zoned Single-family.
All the properties on the west side of Grayson creek are land-locked, have limited access and are subject to flooding. Any development of these parcels would be difficult and costly for a prospective developer. We think that the homes that are currently included in this west side part of the proposed plan should be rezoned as single family and that there should be a renewed and much more careful consideration of the zoning and future potential development of the vacant properties as well.
We ask that this correspondence be included in the public comments for the September 9, 2025 public meeting.
Sincerely,
Brian and Ellen Dodge
501 Soule Avenue
Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2112 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Caren Lucich
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 3:30:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Hi, there:
I’m sure you’ve received many emails regarding the Rezoning Proposal, but it’s worth adding to what you’ve received. My home is on Beatrice Road, right where Beatrice and Roberta converge. Now, I’m in favor of progress and I do like what I’ve seen as far as the plans for developing Pleasant Hill, BUT at what cost to residents in the targeted areas?
- in the 30+ years my husband and I have lived in Poet’s Corner, I can recall a couple of times that new buildings have negatively impacted where I live. When the gorgeous Library and the condos on Cleveland were built, even though we were told it would not, we experienced flooding. Do you know how scary it is to see that water come for your home? Fortunately, for us, it reached our frontyard, but not our home. - Any traffic added to Beatrice and Roberta would be disastrous. As it is, if two vehicles are parked on opposite sides of the street, two cars cannot go in opposite directions. Don’t forget about pedestrians. - Forcing people out of their homes in the name of progress isn’t just heartbreaking, it’s plain old wrong. Whatever the city might offer to buy homes would not be as much as people could sell their homes for when they’re ready.
Please take this all into consideration. Progress is necessary and great, but it’s nothing compared to keeping the beauty and character of a much cherished neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Caren Lucich
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2113 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Bobby Bell
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Support for Rezoning Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 5:13:56 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 received a flyer on my doorstep propagating the usual NIMBY nonsense about how building anything new is bad. Pleasant Hill is in dire need of more housing to bring down the insanely overpriced costs of both renting and buying.
The opposition’s statement that “High rise, multi-unit housing erodes our charm and lowers value” is an open admission that this type of opposition functions as a price-fixing cartel and is a not so subtle hint that some residents prefer de facto housing segregation. Their claimed concern for “wildlife loss” is severely misguided as denser development means more walking and shorter commutes with less driving, the best way to lower carbon emissions and protect the environment. The status quo NIMBYs defend is one of non-stop sprawl into exurban areas which require long commutes, contradicting their claimed concern about “traffic overload”.
I don’t know if I will be able to make it to the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday evening but now that I am alerted to this issue, I will be voting against anyone who opposes rezoning for more housing.
Bobby Bell
270 Cleaveland Rd, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(510) 225-8999
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2114 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Daniel Guerra
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: 9/9/25 public hearing
Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 9:49:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Good evening,
Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend the meeting in person but I would like provide my thoughts on the proposed rezoning. We moved to Pleasant Hill 3 years ago on E Vivian after looking for and finding a quiet neighborhood. We were lucky enough to buy the house and even more lucky start a family with the birth of our son. We would like to keep the neighbor as is without 3 story town houses, large apartment complexes or tax payer buildings.
I know this isn't a vote, but for lack of better term we vote no on the rezoning.
Thank you,
Daniel Guerra
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2115 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Roberto Garuti
To: Planning
Subject: Comment on Pleasant Hill Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 11:10:51 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 just want to express my full support for the rezoning proposal. The limits on housing that exist in the US are insane, the reasons they were initially created a century ago were blatantly elitist and racist and now they cause a housing shortage and unaffordability for most people.
No one gets hurt by some more dense housing in their neighborhood except for the ones that need to control other people's lives.
Regards,
Roberto Garuti
2597 Oak Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2116 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
h ello @ yimbylaw .org
9/8/2025
City of Pleasant Hill
Planning Commission
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Statutory Rezoning, Agenda Item 6.1
To the City of Pleasant Hill:
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Element Law.
Pleasant Hill has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. Should the County fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced.
In accordance with both Pleasant Hill’s certified Housing Element and its 2040 General Plan, the City proposes to rezone 1,080 properties to facilitate residential development.
Both documents were finalized and adopted in May of 2023; even besides the numerous study sessions and community outreach events leading up to both plans, the community has had over two years to become familiarized with these proposals and provide input.
Regardless of those few public comments, generally fueled by exclusionary motives, we write to remind Pleasant Hill that its commitments are statutory requirements and not matters of preference. Housing Element programs are mandatory and enforceable, especially rezoning obligations. Government Code § 65583 requires each jurisdiction to identify specific programs in its housing element that will “implement the policies, goals, and objectives” of the plan. These programs must include timelines for implementation and are a core component of compliance.
Moreover, Government Code § 65583(c) requires programs to include “a schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake during the 1 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2117 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 planning period” that will “result in the accomplishment of the program’s objectives.” Once adopted, these programs are enforceable obligations. Government Code § 65587(a) confirms this enforceability by stating that the housing element “shall be implemented in accordance with its schedule of actions.” The City is therefore legally required to carry out the commitments it has made in its adopted housing element.
Government Code § 65860(c)(1)(A)(iii) requires zoning to be consistent with city general plans, and in the case of any contradiction, the general plan controls. More specifically, cities have a statutory obligation to complete Housing Element associated rezonings within (in the case of Pleasant Hill) three years. The City must follow through on all adopted housing element programs, as required by Government Code §§ 65583 and 65587. Failure to comply with housing element law exposes the City to potential enforcement actions under Government Code §§ 65585, 65587, and 65589.5, among others.
We urge the City to fulfill its legal commitments and ensure that its housing element is fully implemented in good faith. Should the City fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.
Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 2 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2118 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Rezoning Beatrice and Cleaveland Roads
Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 8:40:47 AM
From: Jeffery Dewlaney <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 4:48 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning Beatrice and Cleaveland Roads
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Troy Fujimoto
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 2119 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Proposed Zoning Changes in the Soule/Beatrice/Roberta Area of Pleasant Hill Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 9:23:22 AM
From: Ryan Guest <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2025 9:52 PM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning <[email protected]>; Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Zoning Changes in the Soule/Beatrice/Roberta Area of Pleasant Hill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
My name is Ryan Guest, and I strongly oppose the rezoning of Beatrice Rd, Soule Ave, and parts of Cleaveland Rd. I have lived in Poet’s Corner for 15 years and moved into my current residence at 423 Roberta Ave five years ago.
While I understand the city’s obligation to address its housing goals, this specific plan for 149 units is flawed. It is incompatible with our community’s long-term well-being and directly conflicts with the stated goals of both the Housing Plan and the Climate Action Plan currently being developed.
Floodplain Concerns
The most urgent and undeniable flaw with this proposal is location. These parcels sit within a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain, with a creek running directly through the site. Any development here would likely require a massive, prohibitively expensive stormwater retention system.
We have already seen the failures of Pleasant Hill’s drainage infrastructure in this area.
During recent “atmospheric river” events, storm drains overflowed, creeks swelled beyond capacity, and streets in our neighborhood were forced to close. During the 2023 floods, Patterson was closed for flooding and traffic from Beatrice and Soule had to be detoured. In previous years, my neighbors have literally kayaked down Beatrice Road.
The open floodplain behind our homes is not wasted space, it is a natural buffer that protects existing homes from serious flooding. If developed, that protection disappears, putting residents of Beatrice and Roberta directly in harm’s way.I know this risk firsthand. In just five years living here I have done over $100,000 worth of work to my homes. We have installed a 30-foot structural beam, poured foundation piers, repaired foundation cracks, added a foundation anchor, installed a French drain, and added a sump pump to prevent flooding. On parcels like the Cleaveland site, developers are advised to “build up”, but that would only slope more water onto existing homes on Beatrice, Soule, and Roberta.
Environmental Concerns
The site is home to mature oak trees and diverse wildlife, including acorn woodpeckers, Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2120 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 turtles, foxes, snakes, and a group of red-tailed hawks that helps balance the local ecosystem. Clearing this land would permanently remove a rare natural habitat in Pleasant Hill.
Our creeks are among the last remaining open waterways in the city. Environmental groups have already called for 50-foot riparian buffers and public access protections. Ignoring those calls in order to build on a flood-prone, environmentally sensitive site is a sustainability concern.
Traffic
Traffic is already one of our community’s greatest challenges. Adding 149 new units would significantly worsen congestion, particularly in the mornings during school drop off.
This neighborhood is sandwiched between Pleasant Hill Middle School, Sequoia Middle, and Sequoia Elementary. The schools already funnel hundreds of cars into our area every day. Because the Sequoia schools are not neighborhood schools, the percentage of students driven to campus is much higher than elsewhere in the district. The intersection of Boyd and Patterson, which sits right in front of the Sequoia schools, has already been identified by the city as a high risk intersection. This intersection was one of the seven intersections included in Pleasant Hill's 2023 Intersection and Crosswalk Improvement Project (No. 05-23). The goal of the project was to increase pedestrian safety. The total cost of the project was $800,679.50, for all seven intersections. After construction, there has been little to no change in pedestrian safety. Intentionally funneling more cars directly toward this intersection does not make sense. The Roberta and Beatrice roads are narrow and in some places require one car to pull over so a car going the opposite direction can pass. These roads were never designed for this kind of volume. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
Diablo Vista Water Concerns
The access streets for these parcels are tied to the aging Diablo Vista Water System. The Diablo Vista Water system serves approximately 470 homes and has 27,000 linear feet of water transmission lines. Today, when a repair shuts down a street in this area, it inconveniences only a handful of homes. With 149 new units, those same outages would disrupt street access for hundreds of residents.
Rezoning Existing Homes
The city can meet its housing targets without rezoning established homes. Rezoning 510 Beatrice, 520 Beatrice, 535 Beatrice, 500 Soule, and 501 Soule allows developers to remove existing single-family homes in a desirable neighborhood. Removing these homes would permanently alter the character of the neighborhood. It is unfair that the city would choose to target these families when alternative sites exist.
Safety
Above all, this proposal endangers our children. I am the father of three boys (ages 7, 5, and 1). They are at the stage where every day means riding bikes, shooting hoops, or skateboarding in the driveway. Our neighborhood streets are already narrow and lined with Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2121 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 cars. Adding the daily traffic of hundreds of new residents will turn what is now a safe and walkable neighborhood into something dangerous.
We have a rule in our house: the boys can ride their bikes down the street to “Dave’s House,” where I can still see them from the front porch. If this project goes through, that simple joy will be gone. In front of Dave’s house won’t be kids on bikes, it will be a line of cars cutting across our neighborhood to get to I-680.
Notification and Transparency
Finally, this process has lacked the transparency residents deserve. I live 99.02 feet away from one of the parcels included in the plan, but I never received the required notice by mail about this meeting or the proposed changes. There is no signage indicating a planning commission meeting at the rezoning sites, though I saw signs posted for rezoning on Oak Park Boulevard, where the rezoning of Oak Park Boulevard proposal is much more popular.
Had my neighbors not reached out nine days ago, I would not have known this rezoning was happening.
In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider the rezoning of the Beatrice, Soule, and Cleaveland parcels. The feedback from the 2021, 2023, and now 2025 discussions and feedback from the GPAC have been consistent against this rezoning in this area. There are more suitable locations in Pleasant Hill to meet our housing needs without sacrificing our city’s character, safety, and environment.
Please don’t destroy one of the greatest neighborhoods in the Bay Area.
Ryan Guest
423 Roberta Ave.
Pleasant Hill, CA
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2122 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to rezoning proposal
Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 12:24:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Planning Commission,
We have great concerns regarding your proposed zoning for the area between the Beatrice Road and Grayson Creek. This is presented in your plans as part of the Beatrice Road/Cleaveland parcels.
We live on Beatrice Road, a small 'cull the sac' neighborhood of 29 single family homes and have lived here for 28 years. This is where our kids grew up, where we walked to school and where we are now retired and still walking the neighborhood to stores and restaurants.
We sympathize with your efforts to comply with the States need and HE requirements, but the designed density here is misplaced.
The reasons are:
1. It does not fit the existing neighborhood and will decrease property values
2. It goes against your own rezoning stated goals, purposes and intent
3. It will cause traffic problems on streets that are not designed for more traffic, leading to unsafe streets
4. It does not consider the Grayson Creek natural environment
5. It does not consider the creek flooding issues that are already happening every winter and will only get worse with climate change
As for not fitting the neighborhood, right now Beatrice road has 29 single family homes with a density of between 3-4 houses per acre. You are proposing to add 78 units (and that is only on the Beatrice side of the creek) in a density of 20-30 units per acre. Most of the houses in on Beatrice Rd are single story old ranchers at about 15-20’ feet high and you are proposing MFM zoning with a height limit of 40' on top of the buildup needed for flood zone mitigation. This proposal will destroy the character of the neighborhood and the quality of live and will negatively impact the property values of the current residents of the area.
This is also not in line with your own guidelines and I quote:
2040 General Plan Guidelines Goals as stated in Chapter 4.4, Item H5.1: “High Quality Neighborhoods: Maintain and enhance the quality of Pleasant Hill’s neighborhoods, through highquality design, neighborhood compatibility and consideration of surrounding uses, and maintenance and improvement of public infrastructure, so they will retain their value as they mature” Purpose and Intent of Residential Zoning Districts 18.20.010.A.2.: “Protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, overcrowding, excessive traffic, excessive on-street parking, insufficient parking and other adverse environmental effects.
A5. “Minimize the out-of-scale appearance of large homes, parking areas, and other development relative to their lot size and to other homes in a neighborhood.” Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2123 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Nowhere else in the Poets Corner neighborhood is any building of this density. Even the most recently allowed housing development on McKissick is developing 4 2-story houses, with a density of
3.375 units per acre.
As for traffic problems, neither Beatrice Rd nor Roberta Ave can accommodate traffic from an extra 78 housing units. Often enough cars must wait to navigate single file down our street. This is typical in Poets Corner. People, kids, and elderly walk and bike these streets, we have no sidewalks. How you can triple the traffic down these streets without causing frustration, probably accidents and issues with response times for fire and medical services. And don’t think that building a bridge across Grayson Creek will be a solution, that will add to the local traffic from people that try to avoid school and other traffic to cut through our streets.
As for Grayson Creek, you know there are flooding issues every year in Poets Corner, during rain storms the creek is filled to the rim and that will only get worse with climate change and further build up in the flood plain. The area is needed to mitigate the flood issues, building and pavement here makes it worse. Also, the creek is a beautiful and unique part of our neighborhood that Pleasant Hill should not lose. We and many others enjoy the creek side habitat. There is the resident great egret, in winter hooded mergansers and even a flash of a kingfisher. We volunteered multiple times to fish out trash, a never-ending hobby. Many towns around us, Martinez, Concord, Walnut Creek have incorporated and revived their creeks into parks. It's an opportunity and an asset.
Instead, here is our personal proposed solution. Be creative and don't immediately focus on the obstacles.
Rezone the area west of Grayson (~ about 3.8 acres) to a density that fits the existing neighborhood, 3-5 houses per acre
Use the vacant lot north of the library for higher density development, with a nice bridge over the creek with access to the trail, library and wide streets for traffic. Trade that vacant PH Parks and Rec lot for a generous buffer around Grayson creek and have them develop a creek side park, a bike-walk trail, maybe a dog walk area, native plantings, some victory gardens.
The developers and current and future residents will be thankful if you double the width of the creek as creek levels will be lower and flooding is less likely. Such creek side park would give some high quality green space and separation for more higher density development along Cleaveland with easier traffic flows.
Also consider rezoning the former Black Angus site, the hotel never came, we need the land for housing, not more hotel space on top of the 7 hotels and motels we already have. That area has good highway access and could support higher density development Thank you for your attention.
Gaston and Ariane Habets, 410 Beatrice Rd
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2124 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2125 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal – East Vivian Drive / Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Title 18)
To: [email protected]
CC: Email The City Council
Dear Ms. Croffoot, Members of the Planning Commission, and City Council, I am writing as a longtime resident of East Vivian Drive to express my strong opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Title 18) and the associated rezoning plans that would impact established residential neighborhoods like mine.
Why I Oppose This Rezoning
I purchased my home in 2011 because of the exact qualities that would be threatened by this proposal:
large lots, family-friendly front yards and backyards, easy access to Contra Costa Blvd, and a calm, livable residential environment.
Rezoning our neighborhood for higher density or commercial use would fundamentally alter the character of East Vivian Drive. Our streets are already difficult to navigate during peak hours, and adding retail, restaurants, or denser housing will only worsen traffic and strain local infrastructure.
Critical Questions to Address
● How does this rezoning support the 2040 General Plan’s goals around smart growth, livability, and neighborhood preservation?
● What findings justify this rezoning? Have there been documented “changed circumstances” or a demonstrated need?
● How will increased density affect traffic, infrastructure, public services, and adjacent properties?
● Has the Housing Accountability Act or Builder’s Remedy been considered? What role does it play in this decision?
● Why were residents not informed in 2020 that intact neighborhoods like East Vivian Drive would be rezoned?
● What specific maps, materials, or communications were provided to voters and public attendees during the 2020 rezoning vote, and why did they exclude these neighborhoods? ● Does the City believe the disclosure in 2020 met the standards for notice and transparency under PHMC Chapter 18.125? If so, can those original notices and reports be released for review?
Better Alternatives the City Should Consider
Instead of disrupting stable neighborhoods, I urge the City to pursue more thoughtful and sustainable approaches:
1. Infill on Underused Commercial Sites
○ Target vacant retail lots, hotel sites, strip malls, and oversized parking areas especially along Contra Costa Blvd, Gregory Lane, and near Sunvalley Mall for vertical mixed-use development, not existing neighborhoods.
○ These areas are already zoned for commercial use and could support housing above shops, without displacing families or altering established communities.
2. Phased, Context-Sensitive Zoning
○ If changes are necessary, implement phased or site-specific rezonings rather than sweeping, district-wide changes.
○ Use overlay zones or adaptive design standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding homes.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2126 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025
3. Preserve Intact Neighborhoods
○ Neighborhoods like East Vivian Drive are not the problem. These areas are livable, established, and in harmony with the City’s long-term goals. We should not break them up to meet goals that can be achieved elsewhere.
4. Revitalize Existing Retail Areas
○ Rather than replacing local shopping and community areas, improve what we already have. Make retail zones more functional and inviting instead of eroding the residential base that supports them. Think about the businesses that are there today or non-existent that can increase better foot traffic and attract good spending and quality time spent with families.
Concerns Regarding Legal and Policy Conflicts
Under PHMC Chapter 18.125, any residential rezoning must show that:
● It won’t cause significant growth impacts on neighboring residential areas. ● It won’t increase traffic congestion.
● It won’t raise noise or service strain in nearby zones.
I respectfully request the City provide findings that show these requirements are met.
Grounds for Opposition - Lack of Transparent Disclosure (2020 Outreach) When the rezoning initiative was first introduced and voted on in 2020, there was no clear disclosure that existing, stable residential neighborhoods—particularly areas like East Vivian Drive—would be rezoned.
Materials and public notices at the time emphasized alignment with the new General Plan and Housing Element, but omitted specific maps or mention of residential community impacts.
This omission denied residents fair opportunity to participate or raise questions at a formative stage, and raises concerns about the fairness and integrity of the process under PHMC Chapter 18.125, which requires careful, transparent notice for residential rezoning.
Final Request
The zoning proposal currently under review does not reflect the values or priorities of those who live in and care about this community. Please reconsider a more balanced, neighborhood-sensitive approach to growth. I urge the City to:
● Halt the rezoning of East Vivian Drive and similar intact neighborhoods. ● Refocus growth in commercial corridors and underutilized retail areas. ● Engage with residents before altering the places we’ve worked hard to call home.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Josephine Greer
Resident – East Vivian Drive, Pleasant Hill
(415)350-0114
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2127 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Recyci<::d Daocr
�D EASTBAY
<._J_> MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
September 8, 2025
Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Notice of Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Citywide, Pleasant Hill
Dear Ms. Croffoot:
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Citywide located in the City of Pleasant Hill (City). EBMUD has the following comments.
GENERAL
EBMUD owns seven parcels (APNs 127-190-002, 127-190-003, 127-190-004, 148-020-009, 149-320-002, 149-320-003, and 170-300-002) within the City which contain EBMUD's Mokelumne Aqueducts (see Attachment A- Map of EBMUD Aqueducts in Pleasant Hill).
EBMUD understands that these parcels have a land use designation of "Semi-Public and Institutional" and requests that these parcels be zoned to align with the land use designation.
Please note that the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan, Table 3-1 "General Plan Land Use Designations" does not include a "Misc." Land Use Designation, but "Misc." is included in the land use figures throughout Section 3.
MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCTS
Portions of EBMUD's Mokelumne Aqueducts are located within the City. Any projects being planned within or immediately adjacent to EBMUD property will need to follow EBMUD's Procedure 718 - Raw Water Aqueduct Right-of-Way Non-Aqueduct Uses (see Attachment B - EBMUD's Procedure 718). Design drawings for any project encroachment (roadway, utility, facility, etc.) or restoration projects crossing or within the Aqueduct right-of-way will need to be submitted to EBMUD for review of possible drainage, site grading, fencing, construction access, and other conditions that may impact EBMUD property. EBMUD requires a full set of drawings 375 ELEVENTH STREET . OAKLAND . CA 94607-4240 . TOLL FREE 1-866-40-EBMUD Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2128 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner
September 8, 2025
(full size or 11" x 17") as well as an electronic copy in PDF format. All submittals shall be sent to the attention of Douglas A. Hooper, Superintendent of Aqueduct Section, 1804 West Main Street, Stockton, CA 95203. Additional information and an encroachment package are included in EBMUD's Procedure 718. Applications for non-EBMUD uses will not be processed unless accompanied by the appropriate application fees outlined in the current applicable Water and Wastewater System Schedule of Rates and Charges and Fees. Contractors must secure an encroachment permit from EBMUD Aqueduct Section prior to mobilizing and starting construction work. A pre-construction meeting with EBMUD is mandatory.
When a project involves the construction of a retaining wall and fence along EBMUD's property line, these must be constructed completely outside of EBMUD property, including all footings.
The project sponsor for such a project shall contact EBMUD's Survey Section to coordinate identifying, locating and marking correct property lines.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Sandra J. Mulhauser, Senior Civil Engineer, Major Facilities Planning Section at (510) 287-7032.
Sincerely,
1/ tv� c(!lc0vt�
David J. Rehnstrom
Manager of Water Distribution Planning
DJR:RT:kn
wdpd25 _ 149 _ Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map Response Letter Attachments: A -EB MUD Aqueducts in Pleasant Hill
B-Procedure 718-Raw Water Aqueduct Right-of-Way Non-Aqueduct Uses Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2129 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Attachment A
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2130 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Procedure 718
EFFECTIVE 10 DEC 24
AUTHORIZED USES OF PIPELINE
RIGHTS-OF-WAY
SUPERSEDES 13 DEC 22
LEAD DEPARTMENT O&M
PURPOSE – To establish procedures and criteria for review and authorization of overhead, surface, and subsurface use of District-owned and easement established property containing raw and distribution water aqueducts and pipelines (“pipelines”) for purposes other than installation, maintenance, and operation of District pipelines.
Forms Used L-14 Limited Land Use Permit
K-47 Work Request Agreement
N-15 Certificate of Public Liability Insurance
N-17 Certificate of Workers’ Compensation Insurance
Application for Use of EBMUD Property or Request for Information General Fund Receipts for Miscellaneous Payments
Authority and
Responsibility
Use, development, and control of fee-owned and easement established rights-of-way for District and non-District uses must be consistent with the District’s operations, maintenance, security, and the rights and obligations of the District. District and nonDistrict uses of District-owned pipeline rights-of-way may be permitted, at the District’s sole discretion, only if the uses conform to Policy 7.01 - Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way Maintenance and the requirements of this Procedure. All use of District pipelines right-of-way should take into account and to the extent reasonably possible mitigate negative impacts on marginalized and underserved communities. • No use of District pipeline rights of way or property by others will be permitted as a condition to meet city/county zoning requirements or to obtain any land use permit, approval, or entitlement affecting properties not owned by the District. • No use of District properties by others will be permitted except under terms of a written agreement.
• Use of pipeline rights-of-way for District purposes shall have the concurrence of the Director of Operations and Maintenance and shall include all applicable protections required for similar third-party use.
• The Board of Directors has exclusive authority to approve any proposed right-of-way use requiring the adoption and implementation of one or more mitigation measures to minimize potentially significant environmental impacts. • The decision whether to authorize any party other than the District to use Districtowned property containing pipelines for any non-District purpose is a legislative act undertaken at the sole discretion of District staff. No notice or hearing is required to consider an application for use of such property, and staff’s decision is not subject to appeal.
Acceptable long-term uses of the pipeline rights-of-way include but are not necessarily limited to: utility crossings, road crossings, limited agriculture, equestrian and pedestrian trails, parks, oil and gas leases, and District-owned ground water wells. Acceptable long-term uses of rights-of-way and easements for future pipelines will be evaluated upon facility completion. Such uses will be authorized in writing. All approved uses will conform to the requirements and limitations described in the attached EBMUD Requirements for Entry or Use of Pipeline Rights-of-Way (Requirements for Entry or Use) and all other conditions as specified in the written approval.
Attachment B
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2131 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:
PAGE NO.:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
2 10 DEC 24
The Water Supply Division and the Water Treatment and Distribution Division are each primarily responsible to implement this Procedure with respect to proposed uses of rights-of-way containing a facility “owned” by that Division. Facility “ownership” for this purpose is determined based on which Division has “Overall Responsibility” for the facility according to Table 1 of Procedure 706 – Facilities: Inspection, Maintenance and Repair. Wherever this Procedure allocates responsibility to both Divisions in the alternative, the responsibility shall rest with the Division which owns the facility within the right-of-way which is proposed to be used.
The Water Supply or the Water Treatment and Distribution Divisions are responsible for monitoring permitted uses and detecting and preventing unauthorized uses of pipeline rights-of-way, respectively.
The Office of General Counsel and the Manager of Real Estate Services will be consulted when an unauthorized user will not voluntarily desist.
The Water Supply or the Water Treatment and Distribution Divisions are responsible for coordinating the development of recommendations with respect to the terms and conditions to be stipulated when a District or non-District use of a pipeline right-of-way is to be permitted.
The Director of Engineering and Construction shall be consulted as necessary to provide location analysis or to determine what structural, grading, drainage, corrosion protection or other engineering measures are required and to obtain estimates of engineering, design and inspection costs.
Inquiries and
Applications for
Use
Applications and inquiries for use of pipeline rights-of-way shall be processed by the Water Operations Department. Applications for non-District uses will not be processed unless accompanied by the appropriate application fees specified in the District’s “Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges, and Other Fees”.
The Water Operations Department is responsible for:
• Providing requirements for use of the District’s pipeline rights-of-way to applicants requesting use of the right-of-way. See the attached Requirements for Entry or Use. • Providing requirements to applicants for proposed work located adjacent to the District’s pipeline rights-of-way which has the potential to impact the District’s pipelines (e.g., proposed excavations that may include use of tiebacks that could result in a vertical encroachment and/or excavations that have the potential for ground movements that could damage District pipelines). • Checking for completeness of any permit (e.g., Encroachment Permit Application) to ensure compliance with the requirements for entry or use of pipeline rights-of-way contained in Requirements for Entry or Use plus any other conditions applicable to the proposed use.
• Collecting engineering, plan review and construction inspection costs and documentation of insurance coverage, if necessary.
• Monitoring existing encroachments and inspection of the construction of new approved encroachments.
• Providing information to the Engineering and Construction Department for technical input regarding additional permit requirements or special restrictions that may be applicable (in addition to those outlined in the Requirements for Entry or Use). • Assuring proper environmental documentation for proposed uses through consultation with the Water Distribution Planning Division, when appropriate. Policy
7.01 - Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way Maintenance, requires the District to ensure that any construction impacts from third-party use of District rights of way are mitigated to the level of “no significant impact.” Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2132 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:
PAGE NO.:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
3 10 DEC 24
Real Estate Services is responsible for:
• Advising the Manager of Water Supply or the Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution of any real estate matters which relate to a specific proposed use. • Collecting application fees and charges, preparing and executing limited land use permits, leases, easements, and all other property-related agreements (except for revocable licenses and temporary entry permits) and recommending fees and charges appropriate to the property use allowed, and for securing payment. See the current applicable Water and Wastewater System Schedule of Rates and Charges and Fees.
• Maintaining records relating to rights-of-way crossings and use, and providing information to the Engineering and Construction Department for the update of District pipeline drawings and GIS applications.
Types of Permit
License or
Easement
The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution shall keep available the forms listing the general requirements set forth in Requirements for Entry or Use for each of the following:
Temporary Entry/Temporary Construction Permit
For temporary access to pipeline rights-of-way such as for surveying, potholing, construction, for temporary access via the District’s right-of-way to property adjacent to the right-of-way, and other similar short-term situations.
Revocable License and Revocable Landscape License
For pipelines, sewers, storm drains, overhead and underground cables, public trails, landscaping and other crossings or lateral encroachments.
Limited Land Use Permit
Provides for agricultural or other surface use of the right-of-way for a period not to exceed one year (vehicular parking is prohibited). These permits are renewable annually if inspection reveals satisfactory conformance to conditions of permit.
Easement
For streets, highways, large diameter pipelines, canals and railroads, and other permanent publicly-owned encroachments. Easements are officially recorded with the county having jurisdiction. The consideration for the easement (e.g., fee) will be based on the value of the property being encumbered.
The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution shall request review of any proposed revisions to application forms and lists of requirements from the Engineering and Construction Department, Real Estate Services Division, Office of General Counsel, and the District’s Pipe Committee.
Processing
Applications
Temporary Entry Permits and Temporary Construction Permits The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee) may issue temporary entry and construction permits including imposing standard and temporary conditions relating to the use. The Manager of Real Estate Services and the Office of General Counsel will be consulted regarding unusual circumstances.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2133 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:
PAGE NO.:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
4 10 DEC 24
Revocable Licenses
The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee), if warranted, shall conduct a field investigation to determine pipeline protection requirements and in consultation with the Design Division or the Pipeline Infrastructure Division, will set forth the engineering and operating requirements.
The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee), shall then specify any and all requirements, including special conditions to the applicant, and discuss the terms and conditions of the license agreement as well as any processing, design and inspection costs and license fee. The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution may then enter into a standard license agreement with relevant special conditions on behalf of the District. The Manager of Real Estate Services and the Office of General Counsel shall be consulted regarding any unusual circumstances.
Copies of all revocable licenses issued by the Water Supply Division or the Water Treatment and Distribution Division shall be provided to the Manager of Real Estate Services.
Copies of all licenses or leases issued by the Manager of Real Estate Services on Pipeline Rights-of-Ways shall be provided to the Water Supply Division or the Water Treatment and Distribution Division.
Limited Land Use Permits
The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee), shall convey the District’s requirements to the applicant and investigate to determine any special conditions.
Real Estate Services shall prepare the Limited Land Use Permit (Form L-14) in duplicate, including special conditions or stipulations, accompanied by a Districtprepared location sketch that will refer to pipeline stationing and other appropriate location identifiers, including adjacent pipeline structures.
Engineering and Construction Department shall prepare the location sketch.
After payment of the stipulated consideration determined by Real Estate Services, the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee) shall review and execute the permit. These copies are then returned to the Manager of Real Estate Services, together with any stipulated consideration.
Forty-five days before expiration of a Limited Land Use Permit, the Manager of Real Estate Services shall notify the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution, who shall investigate the permittee’s operations. If renewal of the permit is recommended, the permit will be renewed by letter from the Manager of Real Estate Services.
Leases and Easements
The Water Supply or Water Treatment and Distribution Divisions shall conduct a field investigation to determine requirements for pipeline protection and, in consultation with the Design Division or Pipeline Infrastructure Division, if necessary, will set forth the engineering and operating requirements.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2134 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:
PAGE NO.:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
5 10 DEC 24
If structural or corrosion protective facilities are required, the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee) shall request the Manager of Design Division or Pipeline Infrastructure Division to proceed with the required design or plan reviews. (During design, the designer will communicate with the applicant’s engineer.) Upon completion of design, the plans will be delivered to the applicant via the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee), who will arrange for inspection as required.
The Manager of Real Estate Services shall discuss with the applicant the terms of the agreement and the amount of the consideration, including any processing, design, and inspection costs. Real Estate Services shall obtain an appraisal and engineering estimates, if necessary.
Upon agreement with the applicant, the Manager of Real Estate Services, shall draft, for review and approval by the Manager of Water Supply Division or the Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution Division and Office of General Counsel, an agreement granting the applicant the property interest under the terms and for the consideration as approved. Real Estate Services shall assure that evidence of insurance is provided, if required. The lease or easement shall be submitted to the District’s Board of Directors for approval, if required by Procedure 108 - Real Estate Transactions. Two copies of the lease or easement shall be sent to the applicant with instructions to sign and return the copies, together with the consideration, to the Manager of Real Estate Services.
Easements shall be recorded and the applicant shall provide the Manager of Real Estate Services with the recording data.
Approvals District and non-District uses of pipeline rights-of-way shall be confirmed in writing, listing any special conditions which may apply to the proposed use to the requesting District departments or third parties by the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee).
Terminations Any third-party use of the District’s pipeline property may be terminated at the District’s sole discretion, so long as the termination is authorized by and done in a manner compliant with the terms and conditions of the permit, license, or lease that governs the use. If the Water Supply Division or the Water Treatment and Distribution Division terminates any permit or license, the Manager of Real Estate Services and the Design Division shall be so notified by memo. The Office of General Counsel may be consulted before undertaking a termination which may affect the District’s legal interests.
Terms and
Conditions
The final determination of generally applicable terms and conditions appropriate for District uses of pipeline properties rests with the Director of Operations and Maintenance.
A specific third-party applicant for use of pipeline property may be required, as a condition of approval of the application, to comply with the generally applicable terms and conditions, or with different or additional terms and conditions that are determined to be in the District’s best interest. The decision to approve or deny an application, and the selection of terms and conditions of any approval, shall rest with the Director of Operations and Maintenance. There is no right to an administrative appeal or hearing, and the decision of the Director or designee is final.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2135 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:
PAGE NO.:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
6 10 DEC 24
Records The Manager of Real Estate Services shall maintain a file containing copies of all documents relating to right-of-way crossings or uses, except for temporary encroachment permits, and is responsible for the assignment of right-of-way crossing numbers to approved documents.
The Engineering and Construction Department shall maintain as-built and right-of-way drawings and other information of pipelines. Updates to these drawings shall be made following:
1. Grant of Revocable License or Easement. Notice to be supplied by the Manager of Real Estate Services.
2. Completion of crossing construction covered by license or easement. Notice, including “as built” location data, to be supplied by the applicant to the Water Supply Division or Water Treatment and Distribution Division for transmittal to the Engineering and Construction Department. This notice will be routed through the Engineering and Construction Department, as necessary, then to the Manager of Real Estate Services.
3. Termination of any pipeline right-of-way use. Notice to be supplied by the Manager of Real Estate Services.
Drawings of right-of-way crossings and uses within the service area will be updated in GIS applications by Mapping Services based on information provided from Real Estate Services.
Required Fees Pipeline right-of-way fees for the processing of applications and documents related to proposed uses are included in the “Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges, and Other Fees”. The Manager of Water Supply and Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution are responsible for periodic review and updating of Requirements for Entry or Use. The Manager of Real Estate Services is responsible for review and updating of Fees and Documentation Charges, Use of Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way by Others.
References Policy 7.01 – Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way Maintenance Procedure 108 – Real Estate Transactions
Procedure 436 – Miscellaneous Accounts Receivable and Cash Receipts Procedure 706 – Facilities: Inspection, Maintenance and Repair Requirements for Entry or Use of Pipeline Rights-of-Way (attached) Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges, and Other Fees (as updated periodically)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2136 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:
PAGE NO.:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
7 10 DEC 24
EBMUD REQUIREMENTS FOR
ENTRY OR USE OF PIPELINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2137 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025
1. Requests for encroachment rights or for other uses of the District’s raw and distribution water aqueduct and pipeline (“pipeline”) properties shall be directed to the Manager of Water Supply, 1804 West Main Street, Stockton, California 95203. Property uses shall only be permitted subject to appropriate written permit, license, easement, or lease agreement.
2. Requests for property uses shall be in writing and accompanied by a completed application, application fees, plan and profile drawings of the area and work involved. District pipeline stationing and adjacent above-ground structures must be shown. Applicant’s horizontal and vertical control must be correlated to the District’s. Drawings and maps shall be ANSI D size (22x34 inch) or ANSI B size (11x17 inch) and must also be provided in electronic .pdf format.
Application must include complete insurance documentation.
3. The applicant must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the District and associated personnel from and against any claims, losses, and liability arising by reason of the applicant’s use of District’s property or the applicant’s acts or omissions pursuant to any permit or approval issued by the District, on such terms as the District may require. The applicant may be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage.
4. All requests for uses of District property must be consistent with requirements and limitations set forth by Procedure 718 and will be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis.
5. District land and facilities shall be restored to a condition as good as that which existed before applicant’s entry on the right-of-way.
6. Applicant’s use of property shall not increase District costs or interfere with District access, operations, maintenance, or repair of its facilities.
7. The applicant must pay the District the appraised value of the easement or lease, if appropriate, for the rights granted to the applicant. Appropriate environmental documentation must be completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act before the rights can be granted. The District may require the applicant to prepare the documentation at its expense before the application will be considered for approval. The District will review the environmental documentation to determine whether it (i) adequately describes the applicant’s project, (ii) contains a detailed disclosure and analysis of the project’s impacts, (iii) describes feasible measures to mitigate any construction impacts to the District’s right-of-way to a level of no significant impact, and (iv) is otherwise legally sufficient. The District may rely on any existing environmental documentation for the applicant’s project if the District determines that the existing documentation meets the above-described standards.
8. For any District-approved encroachment, the applicant must pay the District for any of the following measures, as determined necessary by the District:
a. Design of structural protective measures
b. Design of fences or other structures
c. Corrosion control protective measures
d. District engineering, plan review, and inspection of activities e. Environmental documentation
f. Application, permit or license fees.
9. The plan for the execution of the work must be approved by the District.
10. Use of District-owned property must consider the potential impacts on marginalized and underserved communities, and steps must be taken to mitigate any negative effects.
11. The type and weight of equipment working over the pipelines must be approved by the District.
12. The use of vibratory compaction equipment is prohibited on the pipeline right-of-way unless otherwise approved by EBMUD. Allowable compaction effort, allowable equipment, and maximum depth of each lift of fill shall be subject to District review and approval before start of construction.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2138 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Supplement No. 2 To Procedure 718
13. A minimum of 48 business hours’ notice must be given to the District before work commences on District pipeline right-of-way. Contact information will be provided in permit.
14. A preconstruction meeting is required prior to start of work.
15. No building or portions of buildings shall be constructed on the property. No other types of structures shall be constructed unless specific approval is given by the District.
16. No longitudinal encroachments such as drainage ditches; gas, phone, or electrical lines; pipelines, or roads will be permitted. All property line fences (including footings) must be located completely outside District property lines.
17. District staff shall monitor pile driving or other work which can result in vibration and occurs within 100 feet of the aqueducts. District staff shall also monitor other work located within 100 feet of the pipeline right-of-way, if such work has the potential to result in ground movements that could damage the District’s facilities (i.e., large excavations with potential for horizontal or vertical ground deformations within the District’s rights-of-way).
18. Railroad, freeway and highway crossings of the pipeline right-of-way shall be on permanent bridges with a minimum vertical clearance of 14 feet 6 inches between the finished ground surface and the underside of the bridge. Crossings of pipeline rights of way, on grade will be over structurally-encased aqueducts with a sleeve for a fourth aqueduct.
19. Street and road crossings constructed on grade shall incorporate protection of the pipelines.
Protective measures will be designed by applicant’s licensed engineer to District standards with specific District approval of each design.
20. Existing pipeline protective measures such as concrete slabs shall not be cut, penetrated, or otherwise disturbed. If a protective measure is cut, penetrated, or disturbed, it shall be replaced with a new protective measure, designed by applicant’s licensed engineer to District standards with specific District approval of design.
21. Traffic control fences or approved barriers shall be installed along each side of the street, road or trail before opening to the public.
22. Temporary construction fences and barricades shall be installed by contractor as directed by the District.
23. No geotechnical exploration such as drilling or boring shall be allowed on an pipeline right-of-way without prior written approval from the District.
24. Any changes in finished grade in the pipeline right-of-way must be approved by the Aqueduct Section. Earth fills or cuts on adjacent property shall not encroach onto District property except where authorized for vehicular crossings on grade and where the District determines that there will be no detrimental effect on or maintenance of the pipelines.
25. Crossings shall be perpendicular to the pipelines and on a constant grade across District property.
26. Sanitary sewers, water lines, petroleum product lines, or other lines crossing above the pipelines must be encased in a steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or reinforced concrete pipe conduit or be imbedded in reinforced concrete with a minimum vertical clearance of two (2) feet between the casing/embedment and the top of District pipelines. The casing shall extend the entire width of the pipelines right-of-way.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2139 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Supplement No. 2 To Procedure 718
27. All pipelines crossing below the pipelines must be encased in a steel or reinforced concrete conduit and provide a minimum of three (3) feet of clearance between the casing and the bottom of the District pipelines.
28. Trenchless construction methods such as horizontal directional drilling or jack-and-bore between the top of the pipelines and the bottom of the protective structure (slab) are prohibited.
29. On pressurized pipe crossings, shutoff valves shall be provided outside and adjacent to both sides of District property.
30. At the point of crossing, steel pipeline crossings and steel casings shall incorporate electrolysis test leads, bond leads, and leads necessary for interference testing. Corrosion control devices, when required, must be approved by the District.
31. Cathodic protection for steel encasements must be installed as follows:
• Provide a dielectric coating to the exterior surface of the steel casing within the District’s rightof-way, 16 mil epoxy or equivalent. • Provide galvanic protection to the portion of the steel casing within the District’s right-of-way in accordance with the National Association of Corrosion Engineers RP-01-69. • If the carrier pipe is constructed of ductile iron or steel, provide electrical isolation between the carrier and casing using casing insulators; redwood skids are not permitted. • Provide test results to the District demonstrating the adequacy of the cathodic protection system, and the adequacy of the electrical isolation of the carrier (if metallic) from the casing.
The District reserves the right to witness any such tests.
32. Gravity drainage of District property shall be maintained. Open channels constructed across the right-of-way shall be paved with reinforced concrete. Headwalls, inlets, and other appurtenances shall be located outside District property. Drainage facilities shall be provided outside the District’s property at the top and/or toe of fill slopes or cuts constructed adjacent to District property to assure adequate drainage.
33. Overhead electrical power conductors across the property shall be a minimum of 30 feet above ground. Communication and cable TV crossings shall be a minimum of 20 feet above the ground.
Supporting poles or towers shall be located outside the pipelines right-of-way.
34. Buried electrical cables passing over the pipelines shall be installed in PVC conduit and encased in red concrete across the entire width of the right-of-way. In some cases, PVC-coated steel conduit with a red concrete cap may be substituted. All other buried cables shall be installed in conduits and marked in the appropriate Underground Service Alert (USA) colored marking materials and with surface signs installed at 4-foot intervals that include the utility name, type, and emergency contact information across the entire width of the right-of-way. The minimum vertical clearance between the conduit and the top of the District’s pipelines is two (2) feet.
35. Electrical or telecommunications cables shall not be allowed to pass under the pipelines.
36. Vehicular parking and storage of equipment or material on aqueduct or distribution pipelines property are prohibited.
37. All District survey monuments and markers shall be undisturbed. If any District survey markers or monuments must be disturbed, they will be replaced or relocated by the District at applicant’s expense prior to the start of any ground disturbing work.
38. All pipeline crossings involving mechanical excavation on the right-of-way require potholing of all pipelines at the site of the proposed crossing. Visible reference markings showing the pipeline alignments and depths to top of pipe shall be maintained for the duration of any mechanical Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2140 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Supplement No. 2 To Procedure 718
excavation on District property. Excavations within two (2) feet of pipelines shall be made by hand.
Entry permits are required for pothole work.
39. All grading or excavating of the right-of-way requires USA notification and the maintenance of a current inquiry identification number.
40. Certified six-sack mix is the minimum acceptable concrete batch to be used on the pipelines rightof-way. Concrete compression strength shall be 3,000 per square inch (PSI) or better at 28 days.
If samples do not reach 3,000 PSI at 28 days, the entire section of slab or encasement related to that sample must be removed and replaced at applicant’s expense.
41. Each truckload of concrete to be placed on the right-of-way may be sampled by the District. No water may be added to the mix after sampling.
42. Maximum allowable slump is three inches. All concrete exceeding three inches will be rejected and cannot be used on the right-of-way.
43. No traffic will be allowed over protective slabs until 3,000 PSI is reached.
44. All work areas shall be inspected by the District for final approval. As-built drawing submittals are required for District approval.
45. No work is allowed on weekends or District-recognized holidays unless otherwise authorized in the required permit.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2141 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Nicole Field
To: Planning
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 8:41:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To the Planning Commission,
As a neighbor in the Soule/Beatrice/Cleaveland area, I am very concerned about the zoning changes. My main concerns are:
-lack of communication of this change to the residents affected -traffic congestion and flow. Have any traffic studies been done? This area is very congested in the mornings. -flood risk related to development drainage. Have any studies been done? -changes to the character of the neighborhood
With these concerns in mind, please recommend that the City Council not change the zoning in this area.
Thank you,
Nicole Field
105 Hardy Circle
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2142 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Claude Bardin
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 7:00:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
NO and NO. We need more green spaces, not more concrete.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2143 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Todd Meier
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 9:22:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Planning Department and City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning near Poet’s Corner. As a longtime resident, I am deeply concerned about the potential impact this change would have on the character, infrastructure, and livability of our neighborhood.
Poet’s Corner is a uniquely cherished part of Pleasant Hill, known for its tree-lined streets, single-family homes, and close-knit community. Rezoning to allow higher-density development—even if technically consistent with the General Plan—would fundamentally alter the fabric of this area. Increased traffic, parking strain, and loss of neighborhood identity are real and pressing concerns.
I understand the need for responsible growth, but this proposal feels misaligned with the values and expectations of the residents who have invested in this community. I urge the Council to reconsider or delay this action until a more inclusive and transparent dialogue can take place.
Please count this message as formal opposition to the rezoning proposal. I plan to attend the meeting on September 9 and encourage others to do the same.
Sincerely, Todd Meier
Pleasant Hill Resident
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2144 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 September 9, 2025
Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail ([email protected])
RE: Concerns About Proposed Rezoning of Grayson Creek Floodplain (Beatrice/Cleaveland); Implementation of General Plan Provisions for Creek and Flood Protection; Designation of Creek Protection Zone (General Plan Policy ENV-3.1); Development of Master Plan Dear Planning Commissioners:
Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks (FPHC) is a nonprofit community volunteer organization of Pleasant Hill residents who care about our creeks. We respectfully submit the following comments and recommendations on the proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance and Proposed Rezoning Map.
I. CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED REZONING
The Grayson Creek Floodplain at Beatrice / Cleaveland includes seven undeveloped parcels, six of which are owned by the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District and one of which is privately owned.
1 This multi-acre undeveloped site is an ecologically significant 100-year floodplain with a natural creek and seasonal wetlands. It has also been identified as a high priority restoration and enhancement opportunity site for the Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Plan. (Attachments AB) The proposed amendments would rezone this site from PUD to Multi-Family Medium Density and would also apparently allow parcel-by-parcel development. FPHC opposes this rezoning approach because developing this site parcel-by-parcel, without a comprehensive well-designed plan, would exacerbate flooding that would put both new housing and existing neighborhoods at risk, destroy wildlife habitat, and eliminate precious open space. Please note that FPHC does not object to new housing development on this site so long as it is part of a well-designed plan that (i) protects and restores the Grayson Creek riparian corridor, wildlife habitat, and adjacent open space / flood plain; and (ii) does not increase flood risk to surrounding neighborhoods.
II. SIGNIFICANCE OF SITE
1. Natural Creek & Floodplain: Grayson Creek is a natural creek that flows through Pleasant Hill. As noted in the Housing Element, the Grayson Creek at Beatrice/Cleaveland site is a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain. This area has repeatedly experienced significant flooding. For example, in October 2021, a strong storm led to Grayson Creek overtopping its banks and flooding this site. (Attachment A, Fig. 3-6; see also FEMA National Flood Hazard map, Fig. 7) The severity of flooding is expected to increase with climate change. (Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan, 9-14) For decades, the City, County, and community members have explored solutions to mitigate flood risk for the residents of southern Pleasant Hill. According to historical records, the parcels at this site were acquired by the County specifically for flood protection purposes. Studies concluded that “large regional flood protection systems don’t have enough benefits to be eligible for federal participation. The focus will now shift to smaller, local solutions that can be funded locally.”2 Restoring this site while enhancing its natural stormwater carrying capacity is a key “local solution.” Conversely, paving over this floodplain would not only repeat the errors of 20th century development, which resulted in the significant flooding issues that our community has experienced for decades, it would exacerbate them. 1 The county-owned parcels are: 149-130-020; 021; 022; 023; 024; and 030. Parcel 149-130-029 is privately owned. 2 Grayson / Murderer’s Creek 2013 Feasibility Study—Summary.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2145 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 2 2. Ecological Significance: During a five-year wild bird survey conducted with Mt. Diablo Bird Alliance, FPHC documented more than 100 species of native and migratory California birds in the Grayson Creek riparian corridor as well as other native wildlife (Attachment C). Western pond turtles, a California Species of Special Concern, have been documented in Grayson Creek, and neighbors have observed nesting turtles at this site. Seasonal wetlands support wildlife, including migrating birds. Downstream, beavers and Chinook salmon have been observed.
3. High Priority Restoration and Enhancement Opportunity Site: FPHC is currently participating in the development of the Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Plan, a joint initiative of the Walnut Creek Watershed Council, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District. The Beatrice-Cleaveland site has been identified as a high priority restoration and enhancement opportunity site. (Attachment B)
4. Open Space: The site is one of the last remaining areas of publicly owned open space in southern Pleasant Hill. A well-designed plan should include preservation of public open space and publicly accessible amenities such as trails and equitable opportunities to connect with nature.
5. Community Engagement & Stewardship: The Pleasant Hill community is actively engaged with stewardship of this site. There are community creek cleanups twice a year at this site, involving volunteers, neighbors, and students from local schools. (Attachment D) Nearby trails are popular with walkers, joggers, bicyclists, dog-walkers and birdwatchers. Multiple neighbors have contacted us with concerns about the potential impact of development on the creek.
III. IMPLEMENTATION OF CITY AND COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS A. Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
As noted in our letters dated 6/25/24 and 10/08/24 (Attachment E), the proposed zoning amendments do not incorporate new creek setbacks and other provisions approved in the new Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan (General Plan). In a meeting with Planning Department staff in October 2024, we were informed that provisions of the General Plan that were not incorporated in this cycle of amendments could be incorporated into future amendments of the City’s zoning ordinance, which are expected to occur every five years. We hope to see this occur. It is important to note, however, that whether or not General Plan provisions are specifically enumerated in the zoning ordinance, they must still be applied to new development:
• “Development must not only meet the specific requirements of the zoning ordinance, but also the broader policies set forth in the General Plan.” (General Plan, 1-3). • “After the General Plan is adopted, the Planning Commission must ensure that all subsequent land use ordinances, policies, guidelines, and development applications are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs in the General Plan.” (General Plan, 1-4) (emphasis added).
Table 1 provides a compilation of key provisions of the General Plan directly applicable to this site.
Table 1: Key Provisions of the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Applicable to this Site ID# Goals and Supportive Policies/Programs
Goal HS-5 Minimize the potential for serious flooding and drainage problems including damage to property, loss of life, and economic displacement.
Policy HS-5.1 Flood Damage Potential Reduction: Reduce flood damage potential in areas known to be prone to flooding.
Policy HS-5.4 Development Stormwater Impacts: Require new development to manage stormwater runoff in a safe, responsible manner. Where possible, implement a zerodischarge policy.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2146 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 3 Policy HS-5.5 Development in Floodplains: Minimize development in the 100-year floodplain and require projects in the 100- and 500-year floodplains to incorporate required stormwater management and flood-prevention design measures. (emphasis added) Policy HS-5.6 Low-Impact Development: Require low-impact development (LID) measures in new development, major remodeling projects, and public projects to limit the amount of impervious surface in new development and to increase retention, treatment, and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff.
Policy HS-5.7 Creek Clean-Up: Coordinate with regional agencies, underlying property owners of the creek, and local volunteer groups to clear debris from creeks within the City to allow water to flow uninterrupted minimizing the impact of flooding.
Goal ENV-2 Protect the quality of water resources in Pleasant Hill.
Policy ENV-2.6 Creek Preservation: Creek setbacks, where feasible, should exceed minimum regulatory setback guidelines to protect native vegetation and enhance creek environments.
Policy ENV-2.7 Watercourse Preservation: Preserve natural watercourses or provide naturalized drainage channels within the city. Where feasible, implement restoration and rehabilitation opportunities.
Policy ENV-2.8 Creek Clean-up: Collaborate with local and regional agencies, businesses, property owners, and organizations proactively to reduce litter, illegal dumping, and reestablish native vegetation along local creeks and waterways.
Goal ENV-3 Preserve and restore streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to function as open space and wildlife corridors.
Policy ENV-3.1 Creek Protection Zone Establishment for New Development: Establish creek protection zones for creeks that extend a minimum of 25 feet (measured from the top of a bank and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank), with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. (emphasis added) The City shall prohibit development within a creek protection zones, except as part of greenway enhancement, including habitat conservation, bike and walking paths, wildlife habitat, and native plant landscaping).
City approval is required for the following activities within the creek protection zones: 1. Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure; 2. Excavation, filling, or grading; 3. Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or 4. Alteration of any embankment.
Policy ENV-3.2 Creek Contamination and Sedimentation Prevention: Require new development to use site preparation, grading, and construction techniques that prevent contamination and sedimentation of creeks and streams.
Policy ENV-3.3 Creek Bank Stabilization: Require new development proposals to include appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, and any additional steps necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation but preserve natural creek channels and riparian vegetation.
Policy ENV-3.4 Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Reclamation: Reclaim degraded streams, wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife migration corridors, where possible, in cooperation with the Flood Control District, and other local and regional organizations.
Policy ENV-3.5 Reclamation with New Development: Require new development adjacent to creek protection zones to include the reclamation of adjacent creeks, wetlands, and riparian areas.
Policy ENV-3.6 Natural Stream Corridor Retention and Improvement: Actively support the use of natural waterways within the city. The City will actively work to avoid any new channelization of creeks and waterways within the city and shall work with regional agencies to restore channelized sections to a more natural channel, where feasible.
Policy ENV-3.7 Erosion Control Plans: Require erosion control plans for new development that require significant grading or are near streams, wetlands, and riparian areas. The plans shall include recommendations for grading practices that prevent erosion, loss Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2147 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 4 of topsoil, and scouring of drainageways, consistent with biological and aesthetic values.
Policy ENV-3.8 Educational and Research Access: Work with public and private landowners adjacent to creeks to allow access to creeks, waterways, and riparian areas for educational and research programs.
Policy ENV-3.9 Restoration and Creek Maintenance: Encourage all landowners in the city to remove invasive species, plant native plant species, and prevent pollution from entering local creeks and waterways.
Goal ENV-4 Protect and preserve natural habitat, plants, and wildlife Policy ENV-4.1 Minimize Development Impacts: Require new development and construction activities to minimize impacts and disturbances on plants and animals, including sensitive habitat and migration corridors, landforms, and trees.
Policy ENV-4.2 Natural Habitat Protection: Preserve, protect, and improve remaining natural habitats, sensitive habitats for special status species, waterways, and wetlands.
Policy ENV-4.3 Fish Bypass Facilities: Support efforts of the County to determine the feasibility of constructing fish bypass facilities for flood control drop structures in area creeks.
Policy ENV-4.4 Biological Resources Assessment: Require that applicants for development projects proposed within or adjacent to critical habitat areas complete a site-specific biological resources assessment as part of the development review process and modify designs or add mitigations to reduce potential impacts.
Policy ENV-4.5 Special Status Species Protection: Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to ensure that new development does not substantially affect any special status species on State or Federal rare, endangered, or threatened species lists.
Implementation Programs
Program H Creek Restoration Funding: Seek regional, State, and federal funding sources to reclaim, restore, and enhance local creeks and waterways in order to:
• Reduce embankment erosion and deterioration;
• Clearing debris to maintain free flowing waterways; and • Stabilize and restore stream banks through the planting of new vegetation.
B. Contra Costa County 2045 General Plan
Since six parcels at this site are currently owned by and under the jurisdiction of the County, we believe that the provisions of the Contra Costa County 2045 General Plan are also applicable.3 IV. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) COMPLIANCE The General Plan’s Environmental Impact Report findings of less than significant impact rely on specific General Plan provisions regarding creek protection, see, e.g., DEIR Impact BIO-2.4 Failure to comply with the relevant General Plan provisions could expose the City and future developers to litigation.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Master Plan: Given the complexity and unique features of this site, we request that the City develop a Master Plan through a multi-stakeholder community-engaged process, similar to the process envisioned for the Mangini-Delu Focus Area.
5 We believe that only a Master Plan can protect the unique values of this site while addressing flood risk.
3 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4732/General-Plan 4 https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21503/Draft-EIR (3.3-27-30). 5 https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21502/2040-Pleasant-Hill-General-Plan_reduced (3-23).
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2148 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 5 Specifically, the Master Plan should:
a) Engage the Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, other property owners, neighbors, community organizations, and other stakeholders in a comprehensive planning process prior to any development.
b) Designate this site as a Creek Protection Zone (see General Plan Policy ENV-3.1), with a significant buffer to optimize stormwater management and protect habitat value and seasonal wetlands. c) Establish a multi-benefit riparian restoration and enhancement plan focused on increasing stormwater management capacity, protecting/enhancing wildlife habitat, and providing public amenities (e.g., trails).
d) Identify appropriate locations and develop a plan for future housing that (i) protects and restores the Grayson Creek riparian corridor, wildlife habitat, and adjacent open space / flood plain; and (ii) does not increase flood risk to surrounding neighborhoods. e) Promote clustered development, especially at the eastern end near existing infrastructure with access to Downtown Pleasant Hill, to allow for preservation of open space. f) Implement relevant provisions from the City’s General Plan and County’s General Plan. g) Align with the Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Plan and the County’s 50 Year Plan, “From Channels to Creeks,” adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in 2009.6 h) Consider examples of multi-benefit site development plans that protect creeks and restore/enhance their natural flood plains. We would be happy to provide such examples. i) Engage restoration professionals with experience designing multi-benefit urban creek restoration and enhancement plans.
2. Chapter 18.70 (Creek Setbacks): Since the draft zoning ordinance does not yet include all of the creek-related goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan, including “Creek Protection Zones,” (Policy ENV 3.1) we respectfully request that the Planning Commission add the following crossreference to 18.70.040 Additional Regulations: “Applicable Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan.”
CONCLUSION
We look forward to working with the City and all stakeholders in planning for this unique riparian area of Pleasant Hill. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Alan Bade, Wendy Gollop, and Heather Rosmarin
Co-Founders, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks | A Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs 25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | [email protected] cc: City Council of Pleasant Hill
Supervisor Ken Carlson
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District
Walnut Creek Watershed Council
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
6 The 50 Year Plan “From Channels to Creeks,” https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6853/50--- Year-Plan-3-20-09-BOS-compressed-PDF?bidId=.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2149 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 6 Attachment A
Grayson Creek Floodplain at Beatrice / Cleaveland
Fig. 1: East Branch of Grayson Creek between Beatrice Rd. and Cleaveland Rd.
Fig. 2: Grayson Creek Floodplain: Undeveloped Parcels Proposed to be Rezoned Source: Contra Costa County (CCMap)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2150 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 7 Fig. 3: 10/24/2021, Looking east from Beatrice Rd.
Fig. 4: 10/24/2021, Looking Northeast from southwest FCD parcel Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2151 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 8 Fig. 5: 10/24/2021, Looking north from Pleasant Hill ballfield Fig. 6: 10/24/2021, Looking north from east end of Pleasant Hill Middle School ballfield Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2152 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 9 Fig. 7
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer Map
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2153 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 9/6/2025 at 9:58 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8 B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
122°4'16"W 37°56'38"N
122°3'38"W 37°56'10"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2154 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 10 Attachment B
Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Planning Resources
• Walnut Creek Watershed Council: https://www.wcwatershed.org/watershed-restoration-plan.html • Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/10011/Walnut-Creek-Watershed-Restoration-Plan • Report: Envisioning a Healthier Walnut Creek Watershed: Initial Identification of High and Medium Priority Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities for the Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (Nov. 15, 2024): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o-J5GDV2h2PEb3NvhAKzZweUPSTQp-i/view?usp=sharing Fig. 8: Grayson Creek Watershed High or Medium Priority Projects Grayson Creek @ Beatrice is Shown as Project #25
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2155 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 11 Attachment C
Grayson Creek Bird Survey Species List
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2156 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Grayson Creek Bird Survey Species List
Grayson Creek Riparian Corridor sections between Oak Park Blvd. and Chilpancingo Parkway, Pleasant Hill, CA November 2017—November 2022
1. Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons)
2. Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii)
3. Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)
4. Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)
5. American Wigeon (Mareca americana)
6. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
7. Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)
8. Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus)
9. Common Merganser (Mergus merganser)
10. Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) *
11. Pie-billed grebe (Podilymbus Podiceps)
12. Rock Pigeon (Columba livia) *
13. Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) *
14. Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)
15. White-throated Swift (Aeronautes saxatalis)
16. Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri)
17. Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna)
18. Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)
19. American Coot (Fulica americana)
20. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous)
21. Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago delicata)
22. Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis)
23. California Gull (Larus californicus)
24. Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus)
25. Great Blue Heron (Ardea Herodias)
26. Great Egret (Ardea alba)
27. Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)
28. Green Heron (Butorides virescens)
29. Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)
30. Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)
31. Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius)
32. Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus)
33. Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
34. Red Shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)
35. Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
36. Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon)
37. Red-breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber)
38. Acorn Woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus)
39. Downy Woodpecker (Dryobates pubescens)
40. Nuttall’s Woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii)
41. Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus)
42. American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)
43. Merlin (Falco columbarius)
44. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
45. Western Wood-Pewee (Contopus sordidulus)
46. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii)
47. Pacific-slope Flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis)
48. Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)
49. Say’s Phoebe (Sayornis saya)
50. Hutton’s Vireo (Vireo huttoni)
51. Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus)
52. Steller’s Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri)
53. California Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma californica)
54. American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
55. Common Raven (Corvus corax)
56. Chestnut-backed Chicadee (Poecile rufescens)
57. Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus)
58. Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx
serripennis)
59. Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor)
60. Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina)
61. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)
62. Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
63. Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)
64. Wrentit (Chamaea fasciata)
65. Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula)
66. Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis)
67. White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)
68. Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris)
69. Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii)
70. European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) *
71. Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
72. Western Bluebird (Sialia Mexicana)
73. Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus)
74. American Robin (Turdus migratorius)
75. Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum)
76. House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) *
77. American Pipit (Anthus rubescens)
78. House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus)
79. Purple Finch (Haemorhous purpureus)
80. Pine Siskin (Spinus pinus)
81. Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria)
82. Lawrence’s Goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei)
83. American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis)
84. Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerine)
85. Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca)
86. Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis)
87. White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
88. Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla)
89. White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)
90. Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)
91. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia)
92. Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii)
93. California Towhee (Melozone crissalis)
94. Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus)
95. Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)
96. Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus)
97. Bullock’s Oriole (Icterus bullockii)
98. Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)
99. Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater)
100.Brewer’s Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus)
101.Orange-crowned warbler (Leiothlypis celata)
102.Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)
103.Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia)
104.Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata)
105.Black-throated gray Warbler (Setophaga nigrescens)
106.Townsend’s Warbler (Setophaga townsendi)
107.Wilson’s warbler (Cardellina pusilla)
108.Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana)
Notes on other birds seen:
• One Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos): flyover.
• One Red-naped x Red-breasted Sapsucker
• * Introduced species.
Total Species: 108, Total Raptor Species: 9
Total Native and Migratory Species: 103
Data Source: Grayson Creek Bird Survey, a joint
community science project of Friends of Pleasant Hill
Creeks (a project of SEE) and Mt. Diablo Audubon
Society. Updated: 10/17/23.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2157 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 12 Fig. 9 Hooded Mergansers in Grayson Creek near Beatrice Rd Fig. 10 Cooper’s hawk in Beatrice creek area
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2158 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 13 Fig. 11 Otter in Grayson Creek near Beatrice Rd
Fig. 12. Western Pond Turtle in Grayson Creek near Chilpancingo Park Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2159 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 14 Attachment D
Community Engagement and Stewardship
Fig. 13 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup (April 2024)
Fig. 14 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup (April 2024)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2160 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 15 Fig. 15 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup (October 2024) Fig. 16 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup and Arundo Removal (May 2025) Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2161 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 16 Attachment E
Comment Letters on Proposed Zoning Amendments Submitted by Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks Dated 06/25/24 and 10/08/24
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2162 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 | www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | @PHcreeks Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks is a Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
June 25, 2024
City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail: [email protected]
RE: Study Session #1—Zoning Ordinance Amendments—Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) Dear Commissioners:
We are writing to provide input and support for the process of updating Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) to be consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan. We are concerned that the current draft amendments include the same creek setbacks that were adopted in 2009, which are outdated, inadequate, and inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, we respectfully request revision of Chapter 18.60 to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan and with best practices for protecting our creeks and enhancing the community benefits they provide, including clean water, wildlife habitat, flood protection, and natural beauty. Below are (1) relevant sections of the 2040 General Plan, (2) specific comments and considerations, and (3) recommended next steps.
1. 2040 General Plan. Relevant goals of the 2040 General Plan include:
• ENV-2: Protect the quality of water resources in Pleasant Hill. • ENV-3: Preserve and restore streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to function as open space and wildlife corridors.
• PFS-3: Provide a resilient, sustainable stormwater management system that reduces runoff volume and minimizes flood potential from existing and future development.
Relevant policies include:
ENV-3.1 Creek Protection Zone Establishment for New Development. Establish creek protection zones for creeks that extend a minimum of 25 feet (measured from the top of a bank and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank), with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. The City shall prohibit development within a creek protection zones, except as part of greenway enhancement, including habitat conservation, bike and walking paths, wildlife habitat, and native plant landscaping). City approval is required for the following activities within the creek protection zones:
1. Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure;
2. Excavation, filling, or grading;
3. Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or
4. Alteration of any embankment.
ENV-3.2 Creek Contamination and Sedimentation Prevention. Require new development to use site preparation, grading, and construction techniques that prevent contamination and sedimentation of creeks and streams.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2163 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 ENV-3.3 Creek Bank Stabilization. Require new development proposals to include appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, and any additional steps necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation but preserve natural creek channels and riparian vegetation.
ENV-3.4 Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Reclamation. Reclaim degraded streams, wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife migration corridors, where possible, in cooperation with the Flood Control District, and other local and regional organizations.
ENV-3.5 Reclamation with New Development. Require new development adjacent to creek protection zones to include the reclamation of adjacent creeks, wetlands, and riparian areas.
Please note that this is not a comprehensive list of all the provisions in the 2040 General Plan that should be considered.
2. Specific Comments and Considerations.
Below is a screenshot of the proposed creek setback requirements (Packet Pg. 147). Please note that these proposed requirements are a continuation of prior City creek setbacks adopted in 2009 and do not reflect any updates based on the 2040 General Plan. Pleasant Hill has an opportunity and obligation to review these standards and update them consistent with the 2040 General Plan.
The 2009 setbacks do not reflect current knowledge of the complexities and environmental values of the creeks of Pleasant Hill. Our hardworking creeks serve many functions. We have small upland tributaries, larger connector creeks and major stems that need to convey significant amounts of storm water. Our creeks serve as important habitat and corridors for wildlife. More than 100 species of native and migratory birds, Chinook salmon, river otters, beavers, and Western pond turtles have been documented in Pleasant Hill’s creeks. The creek system’s stormwater functions will be greatly impacted by climate change and greater urban density. We need to plan for much greater resiliency. Therefore, the current "one size fits all" approach is not consistent with our community’s needs or our new 2040 General Plan.
Updated creek setbacks should take a number of issues into account, including the following • The codes in nearby cities and Contra Costa County (“County”) take bank slope angles along with depth into effect and have larger setbacks. For instance, the County uses a line from the toe (bottom) of the creek bank sloping at a 2.5 to 1 ratio (horizontal to vertical) to intersect with the top of the bank to determine the starting point of the required setback (in their case a minimum of 30 feet).1 This is a much safer approach as it provides for a buffer in case of erosion and increases climate resiliency.
• At a minimum, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (“CCFCD”) should be consulted regarding safer, more environmentally friendly setbacks given our now better understanding of climate risks and the need for riparian restoration, consistent with the CCFCD's 50 Year Plan.2 1 See https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41701/Creek-Structure-SetbackPamphlet_March_2024-PDF?bidId= 2 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6853/50---Year-Plan-3-20-09-BOS-compressedPDF?bidId= Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2164 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • Orinda and Lafayette also have different setbacks for creeks with slopes of greater than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) than for lesser slopes. This means that on creeks with vertical banks the required setback does not start at the top edge of the bank as it can in Pleasant Hill. A buffer zone is added based on the slope angle and creek depth. Please note that vertical creek banks using a 1:1 ratio for depth/required setback are potentially unstable, according to CCCFCD. A vertical bank can easily erode at its base causing the top to collapse. For reference, we have included links to Orinda's guidelines3 and Lafayette's guidelines4 in the footnotes. • Pleasant Hill should consider stream channel types as do other municipalities. An ephemeral upstream channel may have different setback needs than much larger downstream channels. • It is possible to retain current exemptions for legally constructed but non-conforming structures should new setbacks be considered (keeping current requirements that non-conformity not be increased). Our city is mostly built-out and the standards should reflect that, but our new standards should also consider that there are large creek-side areas still undeveloped, on both private and public land.
3. Recommended Next Steps:
• We request that Pleasant Hill’s creek setback standards be updated to implement the goals, policies, and programs of the City’s recently adopted 2040 General Plan as well as current best practices for development adjacent to creeks and riparian areas.
• We encourage the Planning Commission and City staff to consult and collaborate with community stakeholders, adjacent cities, and the County (including the CCCFCD) regarding creek setbacks. • We also encourage collaboration on a watershed-wide basis to improve our riparian areas with flood conveyance and environmental values.
• We request that the City appoint a staff person to coordinate this revision process. • We request the opportunity for the public to review a copy of the “City of Pleasant Hill Creek System” map, as referenced in Section 18.60.010B.
We look forward to working with the City and other stakeholders to update the City’s Creek Setback standards. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Alan Bade
Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks / SEE
[email protected]
3 Chapter 17.4 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BASE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS | Code of Ordinances | Orinda, CA | Municode Library
4 635561390008430000 (lovelafayette.org)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2165 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Hours
Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Friday 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Closed 12:00-1:00 p.m.
Records Counter is closed on Fridays
Phone numbers:
Main number: (925) 313-2000
Fax number: 313-2333
Administrative Services: 313-2340
Buchanan Airport: 681-4200
Byron Airport: 608-8383
Capital Projects: 957-2471
County Clean Water Program: 313-2360
Custodial: 313-7096
Design/Construction Division: 313-2320
Engineering Services Division: 313-2170
Facilities Maintenance: 313-7052
Finance Division: 313-2344
Fleet Services: 313-7021
Flood Control District: 313-2270
Information Technology Division: 313-2261
Kids at Work: 313-2380
Maintenance Division: 313-7000
Materials Management: 313-2000
Print and Mail: 646-5521
Purchasing: 957-2499
Real Property Division: 957-2467
Records Section: 313-2356
Special Districts Section: 313-2170
Transportation Engineering: 313-2370
Traffic Section: 313-2370
Watershed Program: 313-2236
Public Works Website:
www.cccpublicworks.org
CREEK
STRUCTURE
SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS
FOR NATURAL
(UNIMPROVED)
CHANNELS
Contra Costa
County
Public Works
Department
255 Glacier Dr.
Martinez, CA
(925) 313-2000
CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
AREA
CREEK
PROPERTY
CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
LINE
Example aerial view of property traversed by
a natural (unimproved) channel.
Provide CSS line determinations (by the
method explained on the other side of this
pamphlet) for at least three locations of the
channel. The red stars ( ) show a few potential locations at which to calculate the setback distance.
Note: There may be other regulations that
need to be investigated before working near
natural (unimproved) channels, such as the
County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance.
An exception to the CSS may be granted
provided that the requirements outlined in
Section 92-6.002 are satisfied. You will need
to verify that the creek banks are stable and
not susceptible to erosion by submitting supporting technical data.
CREEK
Other Useful Information
“FAQ for Property Owners Near Creeks” by
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
Warren Lai,
Director
Deputy Directors
• Stephen Kowalewski, Chief
• Allison Knapp
• Carrie Ricci
• Joe Yee
March 2024
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2166 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 If your property is traversed by, or is adjacent to, a natural (unimproved) channel, you must determine the CSS area, as required by
the County Title 9 Ordinance Code and the
County General Plan. No permanent structures of any kind, other than drainage structures, may be constructed within, under, or over the structure setback area (Ordinance
Sections 914-14.010 and 74-6.010).
The CSS area will need to be shown on the
site plan for building permits.
If you are subdividing the property, you will
be conditioned to relinquish “development
rights” over the structure setback area of the
creek. When you “relinquish development
rights” over an area, it means that you are
forfeiting your right to construct buildings or
structures within that area. The CSS area will
need to be shown on the final/parcel map
and the improvement plans.
“Top of bank” is defined as the following:
I) The point where the water surface plus sufficient freeboard for the design average recurrence interval runoff (see Section 914-2.010 on how to determine the design average recurrence interval runoff) intersects
the existing ground, OR
II) The point where a line with slope of 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical, extending from the toe of the channel, intersects the existing ground.
Whichever point is the greatest vertical distance
above the channel invert will be the point used in
determining the setback line, per Section 914-
14.012.*
What is a creek structure setback?
How do I determine the CSS area?
You may wish to consult a registered Civil
Engineer and/or a licensed Land Surveyor for
assistance in determining the CSS area.
Chapter 914-14 of the County Title 9 Ordinance Code, entitled “Rights-of-Way and Setbacks,” outlines the procedure for defining
a structure setback area.
Per Section 914-14.012 of Title 9, the structure setback line is determined by measuring a horizontal distance from the top of bank on
each side of the watercourse. Section 914-
14.012 provides the following table:
Height of top of bank
above channel invert
Horizontal distance between top of bank and
setback line
Less than 20’ 30’
20’-29.99’ 35’
30’-39.99’ 40’
40’-49.99’ 45’
50’ and greater 50’
For examples on how to determine the CSS
line, see the two diagrams above, where
H = Height of top of bank above channel
invert
X = Horizontal distance between top of bank
and setback line
See the back for an aerial view of the CSS
area.
*Policy 8-89 of the County General Plan,
Chapter 8, “Conservation Element,” states
that the creek setback area shall be a minimum of 100 feet; 50 feet on each side of the centerline of the creek. The setback line will
need to meet this policy, in addition to meeting the Title 9 CSS requirements.
Case I. Design average recurrence interval Creek structure setback line* Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
Case II.
Creek structure setback line*
Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
\\pw-data\grpdata\engsvc\Forms\PUB\PUB-5 Creek Structure Setback pamphlet_2024 March_v4 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2167 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Lafayette Municipal Code Ordinance No. 512
Article 5. Creek Setback Requirements
6-1841 Structure setback.
(a) As defined by Section 6-312 and Section 6-355, buildings and structures shall be set back from an unimproved creek channel as follows:
(1) Channel Depth of Zero through 21 Feet. If the side slopes of the channel are steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), the width of the structure setback is determined by a line measured from the toe of the slope a distance of twice the channel depth plus the appropriate top-of-bank setback as follows:
Channel Depth Top of Bank Setback
(Feet) Minimum Width (Feet)
0 — 6 12 each side
6 — 12 15 each side
12 — 18 18 each side
18 — 21 21 each side
If the side slopes of the channel are flatter than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) the structure setback is the appropriate setback indicated in the table above, measured from the top of the bank. (2) Channel Depth Exceeding 21 Feet. If the depth of a channel exceeds 21 feet, the width of the structure setback is determined by measuring from the toe of the slope a distance of three times the channel depth. (b) If a parcel is subject to subdivision easements or setback requirements under Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Sections 914-14.002 through 14.014 which are inconsistent with Section 6-1841(a), those subdivision requirements control.
(c) No permanent structure other than fences and drainage and erosion protection improvements may be constructed within the setback area. Landscaping (including trees and shrubs) is permitted within the setback area. (Ord. 512 § 1 (Appx. A (part)), 2000)
(Lafayette 4-00)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2168 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 | www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | @PHcreeks Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks is a Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
October 08, 2024
City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail: [email protected]
RE: Study Session—Zoning Ordinance Amendments—Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) and other amendments.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We would like to submit the following comments regarding updates to Section 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) and other amendments. We submitted comments at the June 25, 2024 Study Session requesting that the proposed setbacks be made consistent with the goals and policies of the newly adopted General Plan 2040. Sadly, we note that inconsistencies remain.
Section 18.60: specifically, no provision for the following policy is made:
ENV-3.1 Creek Protection Zone Establishment for New Development. Establish creek protection zones for creeks that extend a minimum of 25 feet (measured from the top of a bank and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank), with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. The City shall prohibit development within a creek protection zones, except as part of greenway enhancement, including habitat conservation, bike and walking paths, wildlife habitat, and native plant landscaping). City approval is required for the following activities within the creek protection zones:
1. Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure;
2. Excavation, filling, or grading;
3. Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or
4. Alteration of any embankment.
Creek Setbacks: we note a continuation of the 2009 creek setbacks.
These setbacks are outdated in regards to expected increases in storm runoff with climate change. Updating the 2009 creek setbacks is a matter of public safety. They are substantially less protective than creek setbacks in our surrounding municipalities and those of Contra Costa County, as described in our 06/25/24 Study Session comments.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2169 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Many of our creek banks are near vertical and susceptible to undercutting. As urban densities increase, so will impervious coverage. The 2040 GP should modernize our creek setbacks to meet these new conditions. We have witnessed storms in recent years that severely tax our creek systems. Pleasant Hill narrowly avoided significant flooding, as evidenced by our attached photos.
Sections Env-3.1 through Env-3.9: We are pleased to note that the 2040 GP has many references to discouraging the use of invasive non-native plants in the Environment Element (Sections Env-3.1, Env-3.6, Env-3.9) as well as the Health and Safety Element (Sections 3.12 and 3.14 Wildfire Risk Reduction). In the wildfire risk reduction policies, the planting of fireprone non-native species is prohibited. We ask that similar prohibitions are implemented along our creeks. Species such as Arundo donax (Giant reed), Tree of Heaven, English ivy and others are creating significant, costly management issues for local agencies in our watershed and major efforts are underway for their removal. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains a list of highly invasive and sometimes illegal invasive plants separated by geographic area1. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has a similar list for wetland and riparian areas2.
New Park and Recreation Zoning District:
We note that many of our creeks are located on Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District lands.
We are concerned about changes to the public review process included in the new Park and Recreation Zoning District. Review at the Staff Level only with no appeals does not provide for adequate public input on potentially major projects as envisioned by the Park District’s “Big Picture”. Properly noticed projects with greater public input lead to better projects overall. The Rec and Park District currently does traffic studies, noise analysis, and public noticing through the City’s review process. There are no provisions to require the new zoning district to include the same review processes that Pleasant Hill residents are currently accustomed to. If the District chooses not to, projects will be built with little public review other than voting on a bond measure. We work collaboratively with our current Rec and Park Board but these zoning changes will extend far into the future.
Many of the City’s heritage trees are on land owned by the Rec and Park District. It is counter to the tree preservation goals in the 2040 General Plan to allow protected tree removals without City and public review. This is a weakening of the tree protection goals adopted in the 2040 General Plan.
While we think the new zoning district is a good idea, we feel the new zoning district should be subject to the same restrictions and review process as all other entities in the City of Pleasant Hill.
Recommendations:
• Env-3.1: A “creek protection zone” as detailed in our adopted GP needs to be included in the zoning ordinance.
1 https://www.cal-ipc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/InvasivePlantChecklistforCaliforniaLandscaping.pdf 2 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stream_wetland/app1in clrefs.pdf
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2170 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • 18.60-A: More protective, greater creek setbacks are a matter of public safety as we increase urban density and will improve environmental values and increase climate resilience.
• Env-3.1, Env-3.6, Env-3.9: We ask that prohibitions against invasive non-native plants be adopted. Resources such as Cal-IPC, the RWQCB, the California Native Plant Society, the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District have specific guidance. • Park and Recreation District: We ask that this be subject to standard City review as all other entities in Pleasant Hill.
• Creek Setbacks: Our current setbacks are inadequate. We encourage the Planning Commission and City staff to consult and collaborate with community stakeholders, adjacent cities, and the County (including the CCCFCD) regarding creek setbacks. We request that the City appoint a staff person to coordinate this revision process. • We again request the opportunity for the public to review a copy of the “City of Pleasant Hill Creek System” map, as referenced in Section 18.60.010B.
Thank you for consideration of these comments. We hope these issues will be discussed in this Study Session and look forward to collaborating with the City and other stakeholders.
Thank you,
Alan Bade
Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks / SEE
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2171 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Murderer’s creek 10/24/2021:
Murderer’s Creek 10/24/21:
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2172 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Beatrice Road area 10/24/21:
Beatrice Road area 10/24/21:
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2173 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Invasive Plant Checklist for
California Landscaping
2018.05.08
California’s Model Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance and the CALGreen Building Standards strongly discourage the use of invasive plants in landscaping. This checklist is designed to serve as a reference to help landscape designers in California avoid the use of invasive plants. Three sources are referenced: the California Dept. of Food & Agriculture (CDFA), which regulates plants in the state; the PlantRight initiative, which brings together a diverse range of stakeholders, including the nursery and landscaping industry, to prevent the use of invasive plants in horticulture; and the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), which assesses the environmental impact of invasive plants.
The California Dept. of Food & Agriculture has authority to designate noxious weeds in California. These plants are illegal. See www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/IPC.
In general, CDFA is restricted from listing horticultural plants as noxious weeds.
PlantRight is a collaborative, science-based, and voluntary program led by the nonprofit Sustainable Conservation, with a steering committee representing the green industry, agencies, universities and environmental groups. PlantRight’s list is entirely voluntary. It includes plants from the CalIPC Inventory that all stakeholders agree should not be used in landscaping in regions where they cause environmental damage. See www.plantright.org.
The California Invasive Plant Council is a nonprofit organization that maintains a list of environmentally harmful plants based on a transparent science-based criteria system. Cal-IPC supports land managers working to stop the spread of invasive plants, but also supports landscape professionals in preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants. Cal-IPC listing is for informational purposes and carries no any regulatory authority. See www.cal-ipc.org.
The following checklist includes all plants from each list that are known from horticulture. Plants from the CDFA Noxious Weed List are illegal and marked with a red X. Plants for which PlantRight has reached Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2174 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 consensus with all partners including the nursery industry are marked with a green X. All other species are only listed by Cal-IPC.
Regions based on Sunset Climate Zones were developed by PlantRight (see source online).
Notes
E Edible This plant species has edible fruit and is grown for human consumption. Though birds may spread seeds, these plants can be grown relatively safely if fruit is harvested.
Particular care should be taken near riparian areas. Fruitless varieties may be available for landscaping, and can be grown safely.
F Forage This plant species is used for forage and is already widespread in California. Additional use is unlikely to increase the plant’s spread.
T Turfgrass This plant species is used for turfgrass and may be used safely for sports fields and landscaping if properly tended within borders.
Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2175 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Checklist of Invasive Plants
Regions
Acacia dealbata silver wattle
Acacia melanoxylon blackwood acacia
Agrostis stoloniferaT creeping bentgrassT
Ailanthus altissima tree-of-heaven X
Arctotheca calendula fertile capeweed X
Arctotheca prostrate South African capeweed
Arundo donax giant reed X
Asparagus asparagoides bridal creeper
Asphodelus fistulosus onionweed X
Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush
Briza maxima big quakinggrass
Carpobrotus chilensis iceplant
Carpobrotus edulis highway iceplant X
Centaurea debeauxii meadow knapweed X
Chrysanthemum coronarium garland chrysanthemum
Cordyline australis giant draceaena
Cortaderia jubata jubatagrass X
Cortaderia selloana pampasgrass X
Cotoneaster franchetii cotoneaster
Cotoneaster lacteus Parney's cotoneaster
Cotoneaster pannosa silverleaf cotoneaster
Cotula coronopifolia common brassbuttons
Crataegus monogyna English hawthorn
Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora montbretia
Cynara cardunculus artichoke thistle X
Cynodon dactylonT Bermuda grassT
Cynoglossum officinale beggar's-lice
Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom X
Cytisus striatus Portuguese broom
Dactylis glomerataF orchard grassF
Delairea odorata Cape-ivy X
Digitalis purpurea foxglove
Dipsacus fullonum common teasel
Echium candicans pride-of-Madeira
Egeria densa Brazilian egeria
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2176 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth X
Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive
Erica lusitanica Spanish heath
Erodium cicutarium filaree
Eucalyptus camaldulensis red gum
Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian bluegum
Euphorbia esula leafy spurge X
Euphorbia oblongata oblong spurge X
Festuca arundinaceaT alta fescueT
Ficus caricaE edible figE
Foeniculum vulgareE fennelE
Gazania linearis gazania
Genista monspessulana French broom X
Hedera canariensis Algerian ivy
Hedera helix English ivy
Helichrysum petiolare licorice plant
Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean mustard
Holcus lanatus common velvet grass
Hypericum canariense Canary Island St.
Johnswort
X
Hypericum perforatum klamathweed X
Ilex aquifolium English holly
Iris pseudacorus yellowflag iris X
Isatis tinctoria dyer's woad X
Kochia scopariaF kochiaF
Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy
Linaria genistifolia ssp. Dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax X Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax
Lobularia maritime sweet alyssum
Lolium multiflorumF Italian ryegrassF
Ludwigia hexapetala creeping waterprimrose X
Ludwigia peploides creeping waterprimrose
Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife X
Marrubium vulgare horehound
Mentha pulegium pennyroyal
Mesembryanthemum crystallinum crystalline iceplant Myoporum laetum ngaio tree
Myosotis latifolia common forget-me-not
Myriophyllum aquaticum parrotfeather
Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2177 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Olea europaeaE European oliveE
Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle X
Pennisetum setaceum green fountain grass X
Phalaris aquatic hardinggrass
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm
Phytolacca Americana common pokeweed
Plantago lanceolata buckhorn plantain
Poa pratensisT Kentucky bluegrassT
Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed X
Prunus cerasifera cherry plum
Pyracantha angustifolia, P. crenulata, P.
coccinea
firethorn
Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup
Retama monosperma bridal veil broom X
Ricinus communis castor bean
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel
Saccharum ravennae ravennagrass X
Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean sage X
Saponaria officinalis bouncing-bet
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree
Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree
Sesbania punicea scarlet wisteria X
Silybum marianum milk thistle
Spartium junceum Spanish broom X
Stipa tenuissima Mexican feathergrass X
Tamarix parviflora smallflower tamarisk X
Tamarix aphylla athel
Tamarix ramosissima, T. gallica, T. chinensis saltcedar X Tanacetum vulgare common tansy
Triadica sebifera Chinese tallow tree X
Verbascum thapsus wooly mullein
Vinca major bigleaf periwinkle X
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm
Watsonia meriana watsonia
Zantedeschia aethiopica calla lily
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2178 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Record of Changes
2017.09.07 – Corrected Cordyline australis regions. Updated Cal-IPC description and logo. 2018 05.08 – Corrected Crocosmia regions.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2179 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Regie Ronquillo
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 9:40:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2180 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: anthony toribio
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 11:05:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Hello,
My name is Anthony Toribio. My family and I have lived in poet’ corner since the early 2000s.
I am writing to share my opposition to the rezoning of Beatrice Rd, Soule Rd, and Cleaveland Rd.
There are several reasons why I am against the rezoning. These included traffic overload, safety concerns, flood risk, etc.
As a voting community member, I urge you to stop rezoning this area.
Thank you,
Anthony.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2181 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Wendy Gollop
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: 9/9/25 Planning Commission agenda item 6.1 Correction of map Attachment Q Ellinwood Creek name Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 12:15:15 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,
Please correct the name of Ellinwood Creek on the City map. This creek is labeled Ellinwood creek when it is actually the cut off formerly main channel of Walnut Creek. When the 680 freeway was built, it cut off Walnut Creek at the bend. Culverts were put under the new roadway to connect the cut off channel from the main channel. You can still see the connections that were established at both ends back when the freeway was built. The original Walnut Creek that runs through Ellinwood has never been desilted or maintained so the culverts are now mostly buried in dirt. The Walnut Creek channel that runs through Ellinwood is listed on the National Database of Wetlands. I can find no official documents that refer to this creek as Ellinwood creek. Please change the name on the map from Ellenwood Creek to its correct designation as Walnut Creek. See attached screenshot in Google Maps with creek and correct name.
Thank You.
Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade
Co founders of Pleasant Hill Creeks
Resilient Landscape Vision for Lower Walnut Creek:
https://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/biblio_files/Resilient%20Landscape%20Vision%20for%20Lower%20Walnut%20Creek.pdf Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2182 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2183 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Wendy Gollop
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Alan Bade
Subject: 9/9/25 Planning Commsion meeting agenda item 6.1 : Rezone of Beatrice Rd focus area Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 12:17:04 PM
Attachments: SPH ADHOC TF 2004002.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Planning Commission
I am writing to comment on the Planning Commission's Public Hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment on Sept 9th 2025. Please make this letter part of the public record. These comments specifically address the Beatrice Rd site zoning change from PUD to medium density multi-family residential. I do not think that this is an optimal zoning designation for this parcel. Please consider an RMD zone,similar to Mangini/Delu.
The vacant land next to Beatrice Rd is scheduled for rezoning to medium density multi-family.
Presently it is a vacant collection of
lots that are largely owned by the Contra Costa County Flood Control district. The land was purchased by the Flood Control District to mitigate persistent flooding issues in Southern Pleasant Hill that have been well documented by others.
Currently Grayson Creek does not have the capacity to contain a 100 year flood. " Along the lower reaches of Grayson Creek, the principal flood problems are caused by a lack of channel capacity and constriction of the floodplain by inadequate levees. Beginning with the Center Avenue Bridge, located in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, and proceeding upstream, numerous undersized or poorly maintained bridge crossings cause overbank flooding. In the upper portion of Grayson Creek, south of Viking Drive and continuing on to East Fork Grayson Creek, a concrete box channel constructed in the late 1950s causes overbank flooding". Source:
https://map1.msc.fema.gov/data/06/S/PDF/06013CV001C.pdf? LOC=b67bda4e24d4967b7250cd83380d4dc3
Due to the persistent and unmitigated flooding issues, dense development would only worsen current flooding. Previous studies on how to address flooding in Southern Pleasant Hill focused on the old high schoolyard parcels on Oak Park Blvd combined with the Beatrice Rd area. But now housing, and a library are built on the old schoolyard site with recreational fields scheduled for development on the open space that is left. This does not leave enough space to contain flood water from the surrounding development. Astrid and Cleveland Rd are often shut down due to this flooding. This situation needs to be taken into account when designating this area for new development.
Climate change and global warming is producing heavier and more frequent storms which will result in a greater need for areas where flood waters can accumulate and more slowly enter the local creek system. The Contra Costa County Flood Control district has adapted a 50 year plan called "From Channels to Creeks" to address upcoming needed changes to local creeks and flood control channels. The FCD states:
"The Flood Control District’s mission is consistent with current public policy and the mandate from the regulatory agencies to provide flood protection while preserving riparian and maintaining water quality. The “flood control” issues of today are different from the flood control issues of the past. The issues of today are, for lack of a better term, “creek issues”. Creek issues combine the Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2184 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 concerns for flood protection, ecosystem preservation, and water quality. To resolve the issues we face today, we must approach them from a multi-objective perspective. We must identify the stakeholders involved in the issue, determine their interests and needs, and then provide alternatives that meet those needs and interests. The alternatives must be based on sound science to ensure that the creek system will provide all the functions necessary for the watershed. Planning for creek issues requires community-based planning. This type of community planning will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries. Resolution of today’s issues must go beyond the traditional focus of the “plumbing” of the watershed (i.e., the creeks), and extend to the watershed as a whole. The solutions of tomorrow must be watershed-based and multi-objective, or more accurately, the solutions of tomorrow must evolve from community-based watershed planning." Source:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6853/50---Year-Plan-3-20-09-BOScompressed-PDF?bidId= During the many public outreach meetings that the City held for input into the new General Plan, natural creek and flood control projects and creek restoration were very high on communities interest list. Hopefully the City will continue to reach out to its citizens in developing these plans.
In light of the above discussion, these issues need to be considered in designating the zoning changes to this area.
1. Sections from the 2040 General Plan Environmental Element that concern riparian and creek settings need to be incorporated into the zoning plan.These include:
ENV 2.5-2.8 Creek preservation, Watercourse preservation, and creek clean up.
ENV 3.1 -3.9) Preserving and restoring streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to function as open space.
ENV 4.1-4.6 Protect and preserve natural habitat, plants, and wildlife https://pleasanthill2040.com/images/docs/PHGPU_08_Final_Environment_2023%2006%2030.pdf
2. Consider placing multi family housing along Cleveland Rd where access to streets, public transit and utilities are located. Also, if multi-family housing is developed along Cleveland Rd, there will need to be water containment onsite from this development. The FCD land could serve that purpose as well as mitigate already existing flooding issues to the surrounding neighborhoods.
3. Since this collection of lots is mostly FCD property, the Counties 50 Year Plan needs to be incorporated into the zoning consideration. Therefore, keep Flood Control property vacant to address flooding issues in the future. According to the Technical Advisory Committee report of The Southern Pleasant Hill Ad Hoc Task Force on April 4, 2002, 6.5 acres of land were acquired in the Beatrice Road area by the Contra Costa Flood Control District specifically for this purpose (see attachment, page 2). Even though larger flood basins on the school yard and old library site did not meet federal matching criteria, this smaller parcel can and should be used in a way that contributes to a solution or mitigation of flooding issues in the area, as intended. It was determined by FEMA and local authorities that smaller local solutions should be employed instead of large FEMA funded projects. Once this property is developed, there will be no land left to develop local solutions to the flooding issues of Southern Pleasant Hill.
4. Open space dedication for new development will be required per the General Plan. Goal (OSP
2.6) is for 3 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents. The South Pleasant Hill area may not be in compliance already. Any new development will need to contribute to parkland acquisition. Source:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/PleasantHill/html/PleasantHill17/PleasantHill1740.html#17.40 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2185 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 This money is required to be spent only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhoods or community parks or
recreational facilities to serve this subdivision. (Govt. Code § 66477(a)(3)). Land can also be dedicated for this purpose but
projects larger than 50 units must do both. Perhaps some of this land could be retained for flood mitigation, riparian restoration and
open space.
5. The General Plan (ENV 3.1) states that a creek protection zone should be created for new developments with setbacks that extend a minimum of 25 ft or more. The new creek protection zones in ENV 3.5 require new development, where feasible, to reclaim adjacent creek, wetlands and riparian areas.
As stated above, this is a very complex development site. Perhaps the City should consider the RMD special zoning district designation for this focus area similar to the Mangini-Delu property. It seems like a better fit than the multi-family medium density residential description. Many of the same development challenges apply here too.
As stated in the General Plan, the Mangini-Delu special district zoning (RMD) would allow for more development options and a more coordinated project that takes into account the flooding issues, and the juxtaposition of single family houses next to higher density multi-family housing. At the Mangini focus area, there is a need for creek preservation, flood control, open space and transition to existing single family housing too. The special planned district for the Mangini-Delu site (LU 6.7) states: " It shall be subject to a comprehensive planning process that assures the site is planned and developed in a coordinated, integrated manner. A plan for the site shall, at a minimum, include a traffic study and parking analysis, review of site orientation and clustering of development, preservation of natural habitat, inclusion of open space and onsite amenities, and review of compatibility and consistency with surrounding development." This zoning designation is well suited for the Beatrice site and should be considered instead of multi-family medium density residential. Please see the entire Mangini -Delu Land use Element in the references below, specifically LU 6.7 -6.13. (pg 23 General Plan 2040).
I hope that the Planning Commision will consider these issues in rezoning of this parcel and keep the residents and neighbors informed
of future plans .
Sincerely
Wendy Gollop
References:
Focus Area 2:
https://pleasanthill2040.com/images/docs/PHGPU_03_Final_Land%20Use_2023%2006%2030.pdf Mangini-Delu Mangini-Delu is one of the largest underutilized sites left within Pleasant Hill. The Mangini-Delu property is located in the
far western portion of the city at the intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road.
Located adjacent to the property and
directly at the intersection is the Winslow Center, which is owned by the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District. The Mangini-Delu
property has a rich history within the city. The property is currently open space and used to be an active farm. The property is presently
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2186 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 designated for Single-Family Medium Density residential development, with a corresponding R-10 zoning designation. Over the years there
have been several proposals for future development of the site. Those proposals have been met with community concerns about converting the farm to residential development. The 2040 General Plan assumes the Mangini-Delu property will be developed and includes land use changes that meet the needs of the property owners and community. The 2040 General Plan envisions the Mangini—Delu property being developed into a vibrant neighborhood driven by a Master Plan process that allows the community to weigh in on important factors for the site’s development. The master planned development at a minimum will address open space preservation, recognize creek restoration, and focus on the transition between new and existing development. Development is envisioned to include a range of housing types, expanding the opportunity for home ownership within Pleasant Hill. New development proposed within the ManginiDelu focus area is subject to the policies in this section, as well as other relevant sections of the General Plan.
LU-6.7 Comprehensive Planning Process Prior to any development of the Mangini-Delu site shall be subject to a comprehensive planning process that assures the site is planned and developed in a coordinated, integrated manner shall be completed. A plan for the site shall, at a minimum, include a traffic study and parking analysis, review of site orientation and clustering of development, preservation of natural
habitat, inclusion of open space and onsite amenities, and review of compatibility and consistency with surrounding development.
LU-6.8 Housing Diversity Require future development of the Mangini-Delu site to include a variety of housing types.
LU-6.9 Transition between Surrounding Development Require development of the Mangini-Delu site to incorporate design and development
techniques meant to implement a seamless transition between existing residential neighborhoods and proposed development.
LU-6.10 Cluster Development Promote clustered development on the Mangini-Delu site to allow for enhanced opportunities to preserve
and/or create open space and resident amenities.
LU-6.11 Limited Access Limit access points for the Mangini-Delu site from Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, if appropriate, to ease
congestion and mitigate traffic impacts. Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan | Policy Document 3-24 Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Adopted
May 2023
LU-6.12 Creek Access Requires new development of the Mangini-Delu site to provide publicly accessible walking trails that provide access to the creek.
LU-6.13 Creek Preservation and Incorporation Coordinate with Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCFCD) to support creek preservation on the Mangini-Delu site and the incorporation of environmentally friendly flood control measures.
NOTE: For additional goals and policies pertaining to creek preservation, restoration, and biological resources, please see Section 8.2 (Biological Resources) in the Environment and Sustainability Element.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2187 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2188 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2189 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2190 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2191 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2192 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2193 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2194 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2195 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2196 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2197 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2198 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2199 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2200 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2201 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2202 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Wendy Gollop
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Agenda Item 6.1 Public Hearing on the Draft Comprehensive Zoning Ammendment. Rec and Park District zone Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 12:29:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Planning Commision
I am greatly concerned about the new zoning designation for the Pleasant Hill Rec and Park District land. This new zoning ordinance will completely remove any guidance for the development of these parcels from the design guidelines of the new City of Pleasant Hills 2040 General Plan. The Rec and Park district encompases about 275 acres of land within the City of Pleasant Hills sphere of influence.
The Rec and Park District is more than just ball fields and open space. They own and maintain many buildings for Community use by people young and old that live both in and out of the City itself.
They have a General Plan that is a guideline for future development of buildings and facilities. Some of these new facilities, sports fields and courts will come into close contact with the residences of Pleasant Hill. By rezoning the Rec and Park Land and removing them from Pleasant Hills design guidelines there will no longer be any oversight of development by the City. I am concerned that the Rec and Park district does not have an adequate structure to address large community developments. There is no Planning commision to look at traffic flows around new construction of gyms, pools, pickle ball courts, bike parks, or community buildings that are in their general Plan. There is no ARC committee to comment on design or lighting (or guidelines for that matter). There are no height limits on buildings next to residential development. Heritage trees could be removed without notice and there are no standards for creek setbacks or riparian protection in parks with wetlands and creeks of which there are many on park district land.
Questions:
1 Will there be adequate notice of development of new buildings and sport facilities. Guidelines of public notice for development needs to be publicized in a timely manner to allow residents to comment.
Perhaps the Rec and Park district should adopt the public notice guidelines of the City.
2. Will Rec and Park create development standards for building and infrastructure heights, setbacks for buildings and creeks, lighting, noise, landscaping, etc? Parking and traffic flow around facilities that hold tournaments could be problematic too. Hopefully, Rec and Park will encourage public input into these standards. I can think of several areas where inadequate planning could be quite contentious.
Lighting and noise from recreational facilities adjacent to residential areas could pose problems that will bring residents to City Chambers with complaints. Most residents of Pleasant Hill don't realize that the Pleasant Hill Rec and Park is a separate district from the City.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2203 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Please consider how this new zoning ordinance will be implemented in light of these issues.
Sincerely
Wendy Gollop
Pleasant Hill Rec and Park district "Big Picture Master Concept Plan" https://www.pleasanthillrec.com/DocumentCenter/View/4474/The-Big-Picture-Master-Plan-Final-PDF?bidId= Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2204 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 To the members of the City Council and Planning Commission, City of Pleasant Hill, California I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed re-zoning of my house on Marta Drive, and the surrounding houses in my neighborhood, to mixed-use zoning. While I understand the city's mandates for housing, this proposed change raises numerous questions and potential negative impacts that require thorough consideration and transparent community engagement before such a change should be enacted. My concerns are multi-faceted, encompassing the fundamental character of our neighborhood, negative effects on home value, potential impacts on traffic and infrastructure, environmental considerations, crime, and the overall planning process.
1. Impacts on Neighborhood Character and Quality of Life:
• Incompatibility With Existing Homes: The re-designation to mixed-use represents a fundamental shift in the fabric of Pleasant Hill and could significantly alter the character of our individual neighborhood. The prior general plan encouraged the aesthetic enhancement of residential areas while retaining their "charm and character." Introducing mixed-use, especially higher-density housing, may be "out of character with the adjoining neighborhoods" and disrupt this established balance.
• Increased Density and Building Height: Mixed-use designations in Pleasant Hill can range widely, from lower intensity to much higher densities. Residents are concerned about the introduction of three-story units (and higher) and other taller structures that could be "out of scale" or "out of place" with the surrounding single-family homes. This could impact sight lines, solar energy production and surrounding views. New buildings may require objective design standards for transitioning appropriately in building scale, height, and massing to mitigate impacts on adjacent single-family properties.
• Loss of Open Space and Privacy: Higher density can lead to a reduction in private and shared open spaces, and increased "massing" could reduce sunlight and privacy for existing homes.
Our community has consistently valued the preservation of green spaces for which we have limited access to.
• Property Values: There is a significant concern among residents that such re-zoning and subsequent development could negatively impact the property values of existing single-family homes.
• Discourage the maintenance of existing homes: Most of the homes in our neighborhood have had or need significant repairs or improvements. Current and future residents could be discouraged in making necessary shorter-term investments to re-model and modernize existing homes given the possibility of future larger development in the area and perceived loss of that investment when those developments occur.
• Property Taxes: It’s not clear how this change could impact property taxes in our area. • Family Relocation: If the re-zoning leads to redevelopment that displaces existing single-family homes, it could require "family relocation," causing significant disruption to the community.
Those needing to relocate for many potential reasons, such as roadway adjustments, parcel consolidation efforts or simply changes to overall housing development can find themselves facing additional financial burdens that would have been otherwise avoided by not changing the designated purpose/zoning of our neighborhood.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2205 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • Affordability and housing availability: Our neighborhood is already home to some of the most affordable starter-homes in the area. Residents come to Pleasant Hill for a suburban lifestyle not densified city living. In recent months, there have been many houses available in nearby areas with increasing days-on-market (MLS). Simplify the building processes for future and existing residents, create re-usable or adaptable plans for current structures to increase density throughout the city. Encourage newer generations to buy, build and live in this community.
2. Traffic and Circulation Impacts:
• Increased Traffic Congestion: Mixed-use developments typically combine residential, retail, commercial, and office uses, which inevitably generate more traffic. There are widespread concerns about increased traffic congestion, particularly on our already narrow local streets not designed for higher volumes.
• Parking Deficiencies: Increased density will inevitably strain existing parking resources.
Residents are concerned about a lack of sufficient parking for new residents and their guests. In addition, many of our residents have RVs and it is unclear how the new zoning could impact parking of different types of vehicles on the street and residences designated parking spots. • Egress and Ingress: The design of entry and exit points for new developments is crucial. Right now our neighborhood has two ways in and out. Your 2040 plan intends to change that which has significant implications for traffic in front of my house and throughout the neighborhood. • Increased crime: We have witnessed multiple police chases outside of our residences in our neighborhood coming from the nearby freeway exit. Criminal activity is generally discouraged by the lack of egress options and changes to that could easily increase criminal activity. • Roadway Infrastructure: Significant re-zoning and development will require substantial investment in sewers and drainage, electrical infrastructure, and roadway improvements. All of which are currently unknown to residents as to how the city would accomplish this and the implications of those changes on our parcels.
3. Environmental Considerations:
• Noise and Air Quality: Intensification of land use raises concerns about increased noise and air quality impacts on our existing residential neighborhoods. • Tree Preservation: The importance of "increased urban forestation" and the use of native trees for reducing ambient air temperature and improving air quality should be emphasized.
4. Planning Process and Transparency:
• Need for a Comprehensive Plan: Residents prefer a specific plan that allows for a holistic approach to development, addresses traffic, circulation, parking, and architectural character, and genuinely incorporates "community input" and interaction. Our neighborhood has not had sufficient representation in these processes given the proposed changes and we’re left in the dark with how these changes would progress in the coming years to a final vision. • Clarity on Design Guidelines: There is a need for design guidelines and development standards that are appropriate for new mixed-use typologies and reflect current realities, rather than outdated codes.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2206 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • Maintaining Consistency: The General Plan is required to be "internally consistent,” and re-zoning single-family neighborhoods without careful consideration could create policy conflicts.
• Balancing Housing Needs with Community Concerns: While the City faces significant mandates to meet Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) numbers, this must be balanced with the goal of creating desirable and sustainable communities. There are concerns that the process is moving too quickly, leading to "radical changes" without adequate deliberation.
• Accessibility of Information: Most of our residents were unaware of any rezoning planned in our neighborhood from the 2040 general plan. We were not notified that our neighborhood was changing until receiving a notice of public hearing Saturday, August 9th. The city is attempting to rush this change through in a deceptive manner. Residents do not feel properly notified given the significance of the change going back many years to 2023 or earlier where this change was initially proposed.
We urge you to thoroughly consider these points regarding the proposed re-zoning of Marta Drive and similar single-family houses to mixed-use. A thoughtful, transparent, and truly collaborative approach that prioritizes community character, environmental protection, and robust infrastructure planning is essential for the future of Pleasant Hill.
Sincerely,
Scott Loyd and Jessica Loyd
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2207 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Bonnie stephens
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Cc: Gerald Stephens
Subject: Proposed re-zoning of Beatrice Rd, Soule Ave, and Cleaveland Rd Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:02:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
We own the house at 423 Soule Ave. We moved here from Lafayette 10 years ago. We knew of the coveted Poets’ Corner area and set our sights here. Through the decade, we have spent a significant amount of time and money improving our property. We feel extremely fortunate to have been able to purchase this house…. our “forever” home.
Not only is the street very quiet because it is a dead end, there is an amazing piece of land (identified as 45 in green on your map) behind us that is home to much wildlife and adds greatly to the serenity and uniqueness of our neighborhood .
We have learned in just the past 5 days, that you are considering changing the zoning on that property to allow medium density housing.
First of all, as owners of the directly adjacent property, we were not notified by you! That is totally unacceptable! We only found out due to a neighborhood flyer.
We have a drainage creek that flows through the back of our property. This creek is fed from Beatrice/Roberta neighborhoods and other streets that flow into there. We are the low point.
We have seen that “flood
control” lot covered in a few inches of standing water during the rainy season. In addition, there have been times that water has spilled over onto our property. Sandbags become a necessity.
What are your plans for studying the environmental impacts of building on this land? To say we are concerned is a huge understatement!
Unfortunately because we are travelling and the short notice of this meeting, we are unable to attend. We strongly disagree with the zoning proposal without seeing intensive studies on impacts to the environment and how they could be resolved.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Gerald and Bonnie Stephens
423 Soule Ave
Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523
Sent from Bonnie’s phone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2208 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: john phelps
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2:25:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I am a Pleasant Hill resident for 40 years.I oppose your rezoning proposal because it will lower the quality of life for all of us.I live at 422 Beatrice rd .and have an open field behind my house.
Your zoning proposal is too extreme for this neighborhood.You need to scale back your plan to a low density single family units.Your plan is a threat to our property values.The open fields provide flood protection that no flood mitigation can equal.Over the decades,I have seen some close calls.Our homes did not flood out for one simple reason.The soil soaked up thousands of gallons of water. Regards, J Phelps
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2209 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Tara Legaspi
To: Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto; Planning; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment for this Evening’s Planning Commission Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:09:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I would like to formally put on the record that social media posts and comments made by individuals who do not live in Pleasant Hill were placed in this evening's public comments record and should be redacted. The City went onto social media and included these outside comments in the official packet because several of them favored rezoning. But these individuals do not live here. Their homes and community will not be directly impacted by the proposed rezoning, and their opinions should not carry weight in this decision.
Leaving these comments in the public record gives undue weight to outside voices and misrepresents the perspective of Pleasant Hill residents who will be most affected by this decision. I respectfully ask that only the comments of current Pleasant Hill residents be included for consideration in the packet.
When non-resident comments are removed, the record clearly shows that Pleasant Hill residents overwhelmingly oppose the rezoning plan.
It did not go unnoticed that the Committee’s Meeting Packet buried our voices in a 1,451 page document. This showed how little value you place on our concerns, our homes, and our community. Instead of elevating our voices, the packet was used to advance an agenda, regardless of how residents feel. It was belittling, dehumanizing, and stripped us of our voice. And it showed us that the vote for rezoning was a yes before we all walked into this door.
We are not asking for much. We simply want to be heard, respected, and for our lives and homes to be valued. We are asking for basic decency.
I urge the Planning Commission to vote against any plan that rezones single-family properties, or properties that hold—or once held—single-family homes. We strongly oppose the building of multi-unit, multi-level housing adjacent to our creeks. Instead, I ask that you vote to fix any zoning issues by restoring these lots to R-20 and R-15 single-family low-density zoning.
The City Council already approved a multi-story project—the Alwell Apartments at 85 Cleaveland Road. It includes 210 multi-family units. And yet, the property managers are struggling to fill them. They are offering two months of free rent and a $1,000 rent credit just to attract tenants.
This multi-million dollar project has not been successful, and it proves a point—these are not the kinds of homes people move to Pleasant Hill for. Our city does not attract residents seeking large, multi-level housing complexes. We lack the public Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2210 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 transportation, nightlife, restaurants, and shopping that typically support such developments.
Finally, let me remind you of the Duty of Care. A city council’s duty of care involves managing public assets competently, using due diligence, and acting with reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to the public. The fiduciary responsibility means council members must act faithfully, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure decisions are made with informed consideration for the public’s benefit rather than personal gain.
Leaving constituents living in fear of losing their homes, being swallowed up by developers, or harmed financially by this commission or the city council's decisions does not meet that duty of care.
Look at what residents have accomplished in just one week. Imagine what we can do during election season. California will see high voter turnout in 2025 with the special election, and again in 2026 with the midterms. We may not elect Planning Commission members, but we do elect our City Council. And we will remember these votes at the polls.
Sincerely,
Tara Legaspi
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2211 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Daniel Franke
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:24:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council,
I’m writing to urge you to reject the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map as currently drafted. Poet’s Corner is one of Pleasant Hill’s most intact, livable, and community-oriented neighborhoods—the crown jewel of the city—and the proposal puts it, and our shared watershed, at risk.
1) Flooding history and the role of our creeks
Poet’s Corner sits within the Grayson Creek sub-watershed, with tributaries historically overtopping banks and flooding homes—including events in 1997, 2005, 2008, and 2017 (e.g., Sequoia Elementary). These are not hypothetical concerns; they are documented flood events. Building up intensity and hardscape near these waterways or within their contributing drainage areas invites unnecessary risk.
The City’s own capital pages confirm how dependent our neighborhoods are on aging storm infrastructure that discharges into Grayson Creek and the County flood control channels; even mid-century systems (e.g., Gregory Gardens #6) are at end of life and require rehabilitation to maintain capacity. Large rezonings that induce redevelopment without commensurate drainage upgrades could exacerbate downstream flooding.
Contra Costa Flood Control and the U.S. Army Corps have repeatedly undertaken channel desilting and capacity maintenance on Grayson Creek precisely because sedimentation and storm intensity threaten to overwhelm conveyance. Any plan that densifies near these facilities should proceed cautiously and only after site-specific hydrology and capacity analysis, not through blanket entitlement.
Even the City’s 2040 General Plan EIR recognizes that Pleasant Hill’s waterways (Grayson Creek and the Contra Costa Canal) remain part of an extensive drainage system—with the Flood Control District expressly asking to be involved in review of drainage facilities before final entitlements. That underscores the need for case-by-case scrutiny rather than streamlining.
2) Creek corridors are functioning wildlife habitat and movement links City environmental documents describe riparian corridors supporting species and movement—western pond turtle, beaver, river otter, and more—and acknowledge these corridors as habitat and wildlife linkages. Intensifying development along these waterways fragments remaining habitat, adds night lighting and human activity, and narrows setbacks.
This is a poor trade for a community that values open space, biodiversity, and environmental education for our kids.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2212 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 3) Traffic and circulation impacts are already significant The General Plan EIR states that, even with mitigation, transportation impacts measured by VMT are “significant and unavoidable” under Impact TRA-2. Adding more mixed-use and higher-intensity entitlement in and around Poet’s Corner—where neighborhood streets are narrow and used by families walking and biking—will predictably worsen cut-through traffic, congestion at Gregory/Oak Park/PH Road, and parking spillover. Approving upzoning before corridor-level transportation fixes and safety investments is putting the cart before the horse. 4) Neighborhood character, privacy, and views
Poet’s Corner is prized for its single-story character, open yards, tree canopy, and modest rooflines—qualities that create sunlight, privacy, and sightlines to the hills. Injecting taller massing and mixed-use envelopes adjacent to back fences in a flood-prone riparian neighborhood will block views, shade yards, and permanently alter the neighborhood’s scale and feel. The City’s own public-facing materials bill Poet’s Corner and similar areas as key to livability; the zoning should reflect that.
5) The proposal “streamlines processes” while diminishing meaningful public review
The City advertises that this overhaul is meant to “clarify and streamline existing processes.” While administrative clarity is welcome, streamlining often shifts projects from discretionary review (with noticed public hearings and robust appeal rights) toward ministerial or reduced-discretion pathways, limiting the public’s ability to be heard before approvals get locked in. Given our flood history and environmental sensitivity, Poet’s Corner projects should not be fast-tracked. The City’s own Part 4 (Permit & Entitlement Procedures) emphasizes timelines and consolidated hearings; residents deserve stronger—not weaker— opportunities for comment and appeal when creeks and drainage infrastructure are at stake. 6) Mixed-use “flexibility” is being aimed at stable single-family areas The City’s Rezoning FAQ confirms that some single-family areas (e.g., East Vivian area) were re-designated to mixed-use to accommodate long-term growth and RHNA. That “flexibility” might be suitable along transit corridors and commercial strips, but it is misapplied to flood-adjacent, creek-dependent neighborhoods like Poet’s Corner. The FAQ also concedes there are no specific mixed-use projects in review today—proof that we are not reacting to an actual project, but rather pre-entitling sensitive blocks without site-specific environmental checks.
7) Reasonable alternatives exist—focus growth away from the floodplain Pleasant Hill has ample underutilized commercial land and oversized parking fields along Contra Costa Boulevard, Buskirk Avenue, and within specific plan areas (Downtown Pleasant Hill, Contra Costa Center). If the City seeks capacity, it should prioritize intensification there—where transit access, commercial services, and existing height/mass transitions already exist—before upzoning creek-adjacent, low-impact single-family blocks. (See City pages for Downtown and Contra Costa Center as examples of appropriate growth areas.)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2213 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 8) What a defensible path forward looks like
Please remove Poet’s Corner and other flood-adjacent, riparian blocks from the rezoning map and commit to:
Site-specific hydrology and drainage capacity studies (with Flood Control District participation) before any intensification near Grayson Creek or its tributaries.
Enhanced creek setbacks, dark-sky lighting, and riparian habitat protections beyond the citywide minimums recognized in the EIR.
Discretionary review with noticed public hearings and intact appeal rights for any project within the watershed influence area—not streamlined or ministerial approvals.
Transportation safety fixes and VMT mitigation first, acknowledging the EIR’s “significant and unavoidable” transportation finding, before adding units that will increase local trips.
Shift growth to commercial corridors and specific plan areas with fewer hydrology constraints and better transit.
Pleasant Hill’s planning vision should be resilience-first. Poet’s Corner has repeatedly borne the brunt of flooding; our creeks serve as both critical drainage infrastructure and living habitat. Protecting that dual function is good planning, good environmental stewardship, and good governance.
As a lifelong resident, I strongly reject the plan for rezoning and zoning code overhaul as proposed, and direct staff to return with exclusions for Poet’s Corner and other floodadjacent areas, plus the safeguards outlined above.
Respectfully,
Daniel Franke
500 Soule Ave
Pleasant Hill, CA
925-381-1070
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2214 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Lesley Pope
To: Tara Legaspi
Cc: Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto; Planning; [email protected] Subject: Re: Public Comment for this Evening’s Planning Commission Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:51:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Thank you Tara for including me on this thread. In the interest of efficiency and preserving the record, and assuming the meeting tonight will be contentious, I submit these additional comments for the planning commission hearing.
510 Beatrice RD:
We have put detailed comments in writing to the Planning Commission and we won’t repeat them here because we are sure a lot of people want to be heard tonight.
More than 15 years back PH was threatening to take our property for a flood basin. When the Federal Govt would not fund the plan we were relieved. When the State of CA dissolved Redevelopment Agencies in 2012 - again we were relieved. For over 13 years we have been told nothing about PH intending to develop our property and the surrounding properties. End of Beatrice Road properties were not even mentioned in the May 2023 approved 2040 General plan. It is inaccurate to say we have been treated as a multi density property and this plan is just a “zoning cleanup". We are a single family, single story home in a neighborhood of mostly single story, all single family lots.
When we received the City’s notice last month of the rezoning plan we were shocked and very angry. Then we realized the adjacent neighbors were not being notified and we felt like something very deceptive was happening.
In addition to all the arguements about how the end of Beatrice road rezoning and multifamily development is inappropriate for the character of the neighborhood, adjacent wildlife, dangerous with regard to flooding, traffic, lack of fire truck turnaround and that there are other options available, we believe it is unfair and damaging to us personally.
Rezoning our property damages us - it damages our property value and it puts a giant flag above our property inviting a developer to come over and try to bully us out. As well the city can say it will not use eminent domain now, but we all know if the price is right, that plan may change. We all know developers have deep pockets.
We oppose the rezoning of our property and we are adamantly asking the Planning Commission and City Council to not move forward with this plan. Thank you Lesley & Eric Pope Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2025, at 3:09 PM, Tara Legaspi <[email protected]> wrote:
I would like to formally put on the record that social media posts and comments made by individuals who do not live in Pleasant Hill were placed in this evening's public comments record and should be redacted.
The City went onto social media and included these outside comments in the official packet because several of them favored rezoning. But these individuals do not live here. Their homes and community will not be directly impacted by the proposed rezoning, and their opinions should not carry weight in this decision.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2215 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Leaving these comments in the public record gives undue weight to outside voices and misrepresents the perspective of Pleasant Hill residents who will be most affected by this decision. I respectfully ask that only the comments of current Pleasant Hill residents be included for consideration in the packet.
When non-resident comments are removed, the record clearly shows that Pleasant Hill residents overwhelmingly oppose the rezoning plan.
It did not go unnoticed that the Committee’s Meeting Packet buried our voices in a 1,451 page document. This showed how little value you place on our concerns, our homes, and our community. Instead of elevating our voices, the packet was used to advance an agenda, regardless of how residents feel. It was belittling, dehumanizing, and stripped us of our voice.
And it showed us that the vote for rezoning was a yes before we all walked into this door.
We are not asking for much. We simply want to be heard, respected, and for our lives and homes to be valued. We are asking for basic decency.
I urge the Planning Commission to vote against any plan that rezones single-family properties, or properties that hold—or once held—singlefamily homes. We strongly oppose the building of multi-unit, multi-level housing adjacent to our creeks. Instead, I ask that you vote to fix any zoning issues by restoring these lots to R-20 and R-15 single-family lowdensity zoning.
The City Council already approved a multi-story project—the Alwell Apartments at 85 Cleaveland Road. It includes 210 multi-family units. And yet, the property managers are struggling to fill them. They are offering two months of free rent and a $1,000 rent credit just to attract tenants.
This multi-million dollar project has not been successful, and it proves a point—these are not the kinds of homes people move to Pleasant Hill for.
Our city does not attract residents seeking large, multi-level housing complexes. We lack the public transportation, nightlife, restaurants, and shopping that typically support such developments.
Finally, let me remind you of the Duty of Care. A city council’s duty of care involves managing public assets competently, using due diligence, and acting with reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to the public. The fiduciary responsibility means council members must act faithfully, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure decisions are made with informed consideration for the public’s benefit rather than personal gain.
Leaving constituents living in fear of losing their homes, being swallowed up by developers, or harmed financially by this commission or the city Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2216 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 council's decisions does not meet that duty of care.
Look at what residents have accomplished in just one week. Imagine what we can do during election season. California will see high voter turnout in 2025 with the special election, and again in 2026 with the midterms. We may not elect Planning Commission members, but we do elect our City Council. And we will remember these votes at the polls.
Sincerely,
Tara Legaspi
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2217 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Laura Cutilletta
To: [email protected]; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4:24:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
402 Beatrice RD
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
September 9, 2025
(Via email)
Planning Commission
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
RE: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Public Hearing – 09/09/2025 Dear Pleasant Hill Planning Commission:
I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposed rezoning of properties at the end of my street from single-family to medium-density, multi-family residential.
This rezoning would significantly increase housing density in a small, difficult-to-access area.
Our street infrastructure is not designed to support such development, and traffic congestion would likely become a serious issue. I am particularly concerned about safety. The street is narrow, and in past instances, fire trucks have been unable to turn around easily. Adding more units would only worsen this problem and put residents at risk.
In addition, the proposed properties lie within a high-flood zone. The natural floodplain currently absorbs overflow from the creek, allowing it to expand and contract without causing damage. If development were permitted in this area, that natural buffer would be lost, increasing the likelihood of flooding. Such flooding would create unnecessary financial and environmental burdens for neighboring homeowners, developers, and the City itself.
For these reasons, I urge the Commission to deny this rezoning request in order to preserve safety, protect the community, and maintain responsible land use planning.
Thank you for your consideration,
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2218 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Laura Cutilletta
510-220-5342
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2219 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal – East Vivian Drive / Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Title 18)
To: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Croffoot, Members of the Planning Commission, and City Council, I am writing as a longtime resident, and homeowner, of East Vivian Drive to express my strong opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Title 18) and the associated rezoning plans that would impact established residential neighborhoods like ours. We are a family of four and our children have grown up in this neighborhood since 1-2 yrs old.
In addition to the purchase of the home, we have invested in an addition, remodel and other improvements. We expected to live here with the knowledge that our neighborhood, and ultimately our property value, would improve as other neighbors improved.
Our family has lived in Pleasant Hill for almost 20 years and have contributed to our community.
One objection I have is that we were not informed in 2020. We did not receive a notice as we did for the re-zoning, which was 5 years after the original re-districting plan meeting.
Grounds for Opposition - Lack of Transparent Disclosure (2020 Outreach) Why were residents not informed in 2020 that intact neighborhoods like East Vivian Drive would be rezoned? When the rezoning initiative was first introduced and voted on in 2020, there was no clear disclosure that existing, stable residential neighborhoods—particularly areas like East Vivian Drive—would be rezoned. Materials and public notices at the time emphasized alignment with the new General Plan and Housing Element, but omitted specific maps or mention of residential community impacts.
This omission denied residents fair opportunity to participate or raise questions at a formative stage, and raises concerns about the fairness and integrity of the process under PHMC Chapter 18.125, which requires careful, transparent notice for residential rezoning.
Infrastructure
Rezoning our neighborhood for higher density or commercial use might lead to construction that would fundamentally alter the character of East Vivian Drive. Narrow streets are already difficult to navigate during peak hours, and adding retail, restaurants, or denser housing will only worsen traffic and strain local infrastructure.
I understand our neighborhood may not develop in the near future, however my concern is that if outlying areas are developed, the city may choose to add streets through our neighborhood, thereby straining the already congested traffic and noise in the area.
Under PHMC Chapter 18.125, any residential rezoning must show that:
● It won’t cause significant growth impacts on neighboring residential areas. ● It won’t increase traffic congestion.
● It won’t raise noise or service strain in nearby zones.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2220 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 I respectfully request the City provide findings that show these requirements are met.
Critical Questions to Address
● How does this rezoning support the 2040 General Plan’s goals around smart growth, livability, and neighborhood preservation?
● What findings justify this rezoning? Have there been documented “changed circumstances” or a demonstrated need?
● How will increased density affect traffic, infrastructure, public services, and adjacent properties? ● Has the Housing Accountability Act or Builder’s Remedy been considered? What role does it play in this decision?
● Why were residents not informed in 2020 that intact neighborhoods like East Vivian Drive would be rezoned?
● What specific maps, materials, or communications were provided to voters and public attendees during the 2020 rezoning vote, and why did they exclude these neighborhoods? ● Does the City believe the disclosure in 2020 met the standards for notice and transparency under PHMC Chapter 18.125? If so, can those original notices and reports be released for review? Alternatives the City Should Consider
Instead of disrupting stable neighborhoods, I urge the City to pursue more thoughtful and sustainable approaches:
1. Down-zoning instead of up-zoning.
○ Sensitive zoning that reflects the neighborhood character.
2. Flexible Phased, Context-Sensitive Zoning
○ If changes are necessary, implement phased or site-specific rezonings rather than sweeping, district-wide changes.
○ Use overlay zones or adaptive design standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding homes.
3. Preserve Intact Neighborhoods
○ Neighborhoods like East Vivian Drive are not the problem. These areas are livable, established, and in harmony with the City’s long-term goals. We should not break them up to meet goals that can be achieved elsewhere.
4. Revitalize Existing Retail Areas
○ Rather than replacing local shopping and community areas, improve what we already have. Make retail zones more functional and inviting instead of eroding the residential base that supports them. Think about the businesses that are there today or non-existent that can increase better foot traffic and attract good spending and quality time spent with families.
Final Request
The zoning proposal currently under review does not reflect the values or priorities of those who live in and care about this community. Please reconsider a more balanced, neighborhood-sensitive approach to growth. I urge the City to:
● Halt the rezoning of East Vivian Drive and similar intact neighborhoods. ● Refocus growth in commercial corridors and underutilized retail areas. ● Engage with residents before altering the places we’ve worked hard to call home.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Scott Greer
Resident – East Vivian Drive, Pleasant Hill
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2221 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 (415)370-9602 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2222 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Rezoning for 1657 Oak Park Bl.
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:06:23 AM
From: Peterson Construction <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 7:11 PM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Rezoning for 1657 Oak Park Bl.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley,
Thank you for your email.
Currently, I'm sitting in one of the overflow rooms since there isn't enough room in the main city council chamber.
In case there isn't enough time for everyone to address the planning commission, I wanted to provide you with notice that as I understand the rezoning plan I am not in support of it.
The reason I do not support the rezoning plan is it seems like the affected single family zoned property owners will lose the economic benefits provided by SB 9.
I look forward to hearing from you and if you can explain anything I might be missing.
Thank you for your time.
Jeffrey Peterson
1657 Oak Park Blvd, Pleasant Hill, CA
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2223 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2224 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2225 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2226 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2227 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 5:58:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I am opposed to any rezoning plans in the Cleaveland area. There is too much traffic and will be a further problem with construction. Why can't you concentrate on what needs fixing before creating more problems to fix. For example, flooding, traffic, loss of wildlife, quiet enjoyment of nature. Please help maintain Pleasant Hill's beauty instead of making it look like college dorms where there's no college.
Diane Skillman
55 Katie Court
Pleasant Hill
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2228 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: don rushton
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 1:56:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I want to give my whole hearted support to all the Poets Corner property owner commenters at the September 9, 2025 planning commission meeting who were opposed to the specific rezoning in our neighborhood. The proposed multi-family zoning off Soule and Beatrice are potentially disruptive to our neighborhood as well as detrimental the environment and to the whole feeling and charm of this part of Poets Corner. My wife and I have lived on Hardy Circle for the past 50 years and sincerely hope that you do whatever you can to change this detrimental rezoning proposal.
Thank you,
Don Rushton
113 Hardy Circle
Pleasant Hill
Sent from my iPad
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2229 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Diane Skillman
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 5:45:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I am against any rezoning of the Cleaveland Rd. We have enough issues with parking on Cleaveland and traffic jams. We need to maintain what we have before creating more. Where is the rain supposed to go when you have so much construction going on and we know flooding will be much worse with the proposed zoning.
Please help us preserve Pleasant Hill.
Diane Skillman
55 Katie Court
Pleasant Hill
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2230 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Gina Cutaia
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 9:25:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Gina and Richard Cutaia
241 Campbell Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
September 9, 2025
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Rezoning of Beatrice Rd., Soule Rd and Cleaveland Rd. near my property at 241 Campbell Lane .
For over 30 years, my family and I have endured repeated flooding on our property. Each major rainfall event has carried the risk of significant damage, financial loss, and emotional stress. The proposed rezoning, which would allow [more development/higher density/commercial use], will almost certainly increase stormwater runoff and worsen the flooding issues that already affect this neighborhood.
Rezoning this area without adequate infrastructure improvements would place residents like myself at even greater risk. Approving this change could compromise property values, public safety, and the long-term sustainability of our community.
I respectfully urge you to reconsider this proposal. Any development in this flood-prone area should be carefully studied through an updated Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2231 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 hydrological impact assessment, with flood mitigation measures required before rezoning is approved.
Our community deserves protection from further hardship caused by flooding. I ask that you prioritize the safety and well-being of residents over short-term development interests.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Gina Cutaia
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2232 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Ordinance Revisions - Chapter 18.45 General Site Standards Date: Saturday, June 22, 2024 12:57:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
This email is limited to my comments on the proposed General Site and Development Standards for the City of Pleasant Hill. Please distribute this email to the Planning Commissioners for their Study Session on Tuesday June 25th. pages 6 & 7 Height Standards and Exceptions - I am really surprised to see that Elevators & Penthouses are among the listed Exceptions to the height limits. Over the last 40+years I have attended a number of Planning Commission hearings where the proposed building heights were being questioned by the Residents & I never heard any of the City Staff Planners point out these Exceptions. In particular, this applies to the office building at 400 Taylor Blvd., both as originally designed & thru three major revisions. page 7 para. 18.45.030 A.6. Penthouse - you might want to clarify that this applies to mechanical / electrical / elevator equipment penthouses, and not for a residence or commercial space penthouse.
pages 7 & 8 para. 18.45.030 B.2. Flat Roofs - for Flat Roofs more than 1 or 2 stories above grade I believe that the Building Codes require a guardrail or parapet wall that extends 42" above the roof edge, so the height measurement should be to the top of that structure in every case. Also, Flat Roofs (really, Low Slope Roofs) should always have a slope of at least 1/4" / ft. to the nearest storm water drain for proper drainage. page 9 para. 18.45.040 A.1. Fractions - for the example given, a 50' strip divided by 30 equals 1.67 (not 1.37); maybe the example you want to use in this case is a 40' strip divided by 30 equals 1.33.
page 13 Section 18.45.070 Screening of Mechanical Equipment - since this Section has been deleted in its entirety, are these requirements covered elsewhere in the Standards or Regulations ?
page 13 Section 18.45.070 Traffic Safety para. A., B.1. & B.2. - I don't know of any alleys in the City of Pleasant Hill, but these regulations would severely restrict fences & outbuildings in a typical backyard.
page 14 Section 18.45.070 para. C. Height Limit - the use of two standards (30" & 36") is confusing at best; can a residence have a 1' to 2' high landscape retaining wall & then measure the 36" from the higher grade on the inside ??
page 14 Section 18.45.070 Traffic Safety - Figure 18.45-7 appears to be missing . . . . . page 15 Section 18.45.090 Underground Utilities - when my subdivision was built about Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2233 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 60 years ago, the telephone wiring was all underground. About 25 years later, Pacific Bell came thru & installed overhead wiring on the same poles that already held both electrical power & Cable TV wiring because they had experienced numerous service interruptions & excessive maintenance costs with the original underground installation.
Some years ago I thought that the City had a regulation that no fences or landscape plants could be within 5' of the curb on any street that did NOT have a public sidewalk. If this is still applicable, I would note that there are numerous violations of the provision all over the City ! Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2234 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Ordinance Revisions - Chapter 18.70 Off-Street Parking ad Loading Date: Friday, June 21, 2024 6:02:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
This email is limited to my comments on the proposed Off-Street Parking regulations for the City of Pleasant Hill. Please distribute this email to the Planning Commissioners for their Study Session on Tuesday June 25th.
page 40 para. A - the provision to "insulate surrounding land uses from adverse impacts" is the key provision of this entire document !
page 41 para. B.1.a. - the "change of use" also is an important provision - one that the City Planners totally ignored when office spaces on Civic & Norse Drives were converted from offices to college classrooms !
page 44 Section 18.70.030 - Table 18.70-xx - the parking requirements for Single Family Residential reflect an outdated 60 yo standard. As was repeatedly discussed at various City Hearings, this is grossly inadequate for the small sf lot housing developments now being proposed such as those on Monticello at Oak Park & at 401 Taylor. Mature subdivisions consistently show that the standard suburban 2-car garage rarely ever houses more than one car; the other half is used for lawn & garden equipment, bicycles, freezer chests, overflow storage, etc. When the lot sizes go significantly below 6000 sf, there is inadequate street parking for guests & service vehicles. In the case of the aforementioned housing developments, this was resolved by requiring 18' minimum long driveways for these 3500 sf +/- lots.
page 45 Section 18.70.030 - Table 18.70-xx - the requirements for Schools, Public or Private, do not recognize the vast differences between Elementary, Middle, High Schools & Colleges.
For Elementary & Middle Schools, it is suggested that you have one space per employee onsite plus 0.5 guest spaces per classroom. On the other hand, upwards of half the number of Students do drive to the High Schools in this area & the College Student vehicles are mostly driven by single occupants, although they are not onsite every day classes are being held.
Perhaps this requirement should be something like the number of employees daily plus 25% for HS students and 33% for College students. (but my understanding is that the City has little to no jurisdiction over any of the Public Schools).
page 48 Section 18.70.040 Shared Parking Facilities - whenever a landlord chooses to assign more than 15-20% of the required number of parking spaces to specific businesses, there should be a provision to increase that requirement by 25% to account for the underutilization of the available parking - given that 20% of the spaces might go unused during peak times.
page 50 Section 18.70.060 - one quarter of a mile is a very tight criteria for a "regional transit hub"; I would have expected to see this to be between 1/2 & a full one mile for the allowable Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2235 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 reduction. Also expected to see some reduction for dwelling units within 1/2 mile of a bus stop that has daily service at 30-40 minute intervals.
page 51 Section 18.70.090 - para A.1 - as I read the EV parking space requirements in subparagraphs a. & b., a facility that has 199 spaces requires five spaces while one with 201 spaces needs fifty - 10 times as many - is that the intent ? page 53 Section 18.70.100 Parking Space - Table 18.70-yy - there are no entries in dimension columns for Residential Garages. The 19' length for Uncovered Residential Spaces exceeds the 18' driveway lengths that I believe were approved for the Oak Park & 401 Taylor Housing projects. Do you need to add the size requirements for angular spaces in Nonresidential sites ?
pages 53-57 - Section 18.70.100 - a second paragraph "A" follows "D" on page 55 - does this Section need to be renumbered ?
page 55 Section 18.70.100 - para D. Wheel Stops - are these required at ALL single family & multi-family residential properties ? (they are a very serious tripping hazard, especially for Senior Citizens !).
That's it for this Chapter . . . . .
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2236 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Ordinance Revisions - Section 18.45.040 Screening Mechanical Equipment Date: Sunday, June 23, 2024 5:32:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
This email is limited to my comments on the proposed Equipment screening requirements for the City of Pleasant Hill. Please distribute this email to the Planning Commissioners for their Study Session on Tuesday June 25th.
Well, now I found that Screening of Mechanical Equipment is covered by the renumbered Section 18.65.040 on page 37 which explains Section 18.45.070 was deleted.
The Title for Section 18.65.040 should be revised to read "Screening of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment".
para. A. - in the first sentence, add "and electrical" after mechanical. para. A. - The list of equipment to be screened should be expanded to include plumbing equipment, electrical switchgear & communications equipment & antennas. para. A. - If "plumbing lines" need to be screened, then you also should include hot & chilled liquid piping & electrical conduits & raceways.
para. A. - revise the second sentence of the text which now reads "Equipment to be ... equipment ...". (also note that plumbing lines & ductwork would not ordinarily be considered to be "equipment").
para. A. - do backflow prevention valve assemblies also need to be screened ? para. C. - concrete (or concrete block) is unlikely to be used for screens other than at ground level, but other materials would likely include various metals & plastics which would have a longer lifespan than wood.
para. C. - 50% openings in the screen would be a lot; should this be a lower figure - say 20- 30% ?
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2237 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Bruce Irion
To: Troy Fujimoto
Cc: Haley Croffoot; David Blau
Subject: Definition of "Public Transit"
Date: Friday, June 21, 2024 6:12:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I note that the proposed regulatory revisions in front of the Planning Commission for their 6/25 meeting contain a section that says:
B. Parking Minimum Exception. In compliance with California Government Code Sections 65585
and 65863.2, qualifying projects shall be exempt from providing the number of parking spaces
required by this Chapter when located within one-half miles of public transit, as defined in Part
6 Chapter 18.205 (Definitions). However, the City may impose of enforce minimum parking
requirements if the City makes written findings, within 30 calendar days of receipt of a complete
application, that not imposing the parking minimum required by this Chapter would have
substantially negative impacts on the City’s ability to meet its share of specified housing needs
of existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of housing development.
[Source: NEW, State legislation]
I could not find Part 6 Chapter 18.205 but in reviewing AB 2097 to try to understand what being "within one-half mile of public transit" means I found the following:
Public transit is defined as any major transit stop that is included in regional transit plans or the intersection of two or more bus routes with a frequency of service of 15minutes
For Pleasant Hill, I am presuming this translates to within 1/2 mile of the PH BART station as none of the bus lines servicing Pleasant Hill have frequency of service less than 30minutes.
Am I interpreting this section and definition correctly? Thanks,
Bruce Irion
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2238 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2239 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2240 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2241 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2242 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2243 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 | www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | @PHcreeks Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks is a Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
June 25, 2024
City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail: [email protected]
RE: Study Session #1—Zoning Ordinance Amendments—Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) Dear Commissioners:
We are writing to provide input and support for the process of updating Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) to be consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan. We are concerned that the current draft amendments include the same creek setbacks that were adopted in 2009, which are outdated, inadequate, and inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, we respectfully request revision of Chapter 18.60 to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan and with best practices for protecting our creeks and enhancing the community benefits they provide, including clean water, wildlife habitat, flood protection, and natural beauty. Below are (1) relevant sections of the 2040 General Plan, (2) specific comments and considerations, and (3) recommended next steps.
1. 2040 General Plan. Relevant goals of the 2040 General Plan include:
• ENV-2: Protect the quality of water resources in Pleasant Hill. • ENV-3: Preserve and restore streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to function as open space and wildlife corridors.
• PFS-3: Provide a resilient, sustainable stormwater management system that reduces runoff volume and minimizes flood potential from existing and future development.
Relevant policies include:
ENV-3.1 Creek Protection Zone Establishment for New Development. Establish creek protection zones for creeks that extend a minimum of 25 feet (measured from the top of a bank and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank), with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. The City shall prohibit development within a creek protection zones, except as part of greenway enhancement, including habitat conservation, bike and walking paths, wildlife habitat, and native plant landscaping). City approval is required for the following activities within the creek protection zones:
1. Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure;
2. Excavation, filling, or grading;
3. Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or
4. Alteration of any embankment.
ENV-3.2 Creek Contamination and Sedimentation Prevention. Require new development to use site preparation, grading, and construction techniques that prevent contamination and sedimentation of creeks and streams.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2244 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 ENV-3.3 Creek Bank Stabilization. Require new development proposals to include appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, and any additional steps necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation but preserve natural creek channels and riparian vegetation.
ENV-3.4 Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Reclamation. Reclaim degraded streams, wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife migration corridors, where possible, in cooperation with the Flood Control District, and other local and regional organizations.
ENV-3.5 Reclamation with New Development. Require new development adjacent to creek protection zones to include the reclamation of adjacent creeks, wetlands, and riparian areas.
Please note that this is not a comprehensive list of all the provisions in the 2040 General Plan that should be considered.
2. Specific Comments and Considerations.
Below is a screenshot of the proposed creek setback requirements (Packet Pg. 147). Please note that these proposed requirements are a continuation of prior City creek setbacks adopted in 2009 and do not reflect any updates based on the 2040 General Plan. Pleasant Hill has an opportunity and obligation to review these standards and update them consistent with the 2040 General Plan.
The 2009 setbacks do not reflect current knowledge of the complexities and environmental values of the creeks of Pleasant Hill. Our hardworking creeks serve many functions. We have small upland tributaries, larger connector creeks and major stems that need to convey significant amounts of storm water. Our creeks serve as important habitat and corridors for wildlife. More than 100 species of native and migratory birds, Chinook salmon, river otters, beavers, and Western pond turtles have been documented in Pleasant Hill’s creeks. The creek system’s stormwater functions will be greatly impacted by climate change and greater urban density. We need to plan for much greater resiliency. Therefore, the current "one size fits all" approach is not consistent with our community’s needs or our new 2040 General Plan.
Updated creek setbacks should take a number of issues into account, including the following • The codes in nearby cities and Contra Costa County (“County”) take bank slope angles along with depth into effect and have larger setbacks. For instance, the County uses a line from the toe (bottom) of the creek bank sloping at a 2.5 to 1 ratio (horizontal to vertical) to intersect with the top of the bank to determine the starting point of the required setback (in their case a minimum of 30 feet).1 This is a much safer approach as it provides for a buffer in case of erosion and increases climate resiliency.
• At a minimum, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (“CCFCD”) should be consulted regarding safer, more environmentally friendly setbacks given our now better understanding of climate risks and the need for riparian restoration, consistent with the CCFCD's 50 Year Plan.2 1 See https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41701/Creek-Structure-SetbackPamphlet_March_2024-PDF?bidId= 2 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6853/50---Year-Plan-3-20-09-BOS-compressedPDF?bidId= Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2245 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • Orinda and Lafayette also have different setbacks for creeks with slopes of greater than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) than for lesser slopes. This means that on creeks with vertical banks the required setback does not start at the top edge of the bank as it can in Pleasant Hill. A buffer zone is added based on the slope angle and creek depth. Please note that vertical creek banks using a 1:1 ratio for depth/required setback are potentially unstable, according to CCCFCD. A vertical bank can easily erode at its base causing the top to collapse. For reference, we have included links to Orinda's guidelines3 and Lafayette's guidelines4 in the footnotes. • Pleasant Hill should consider stream channel types as do other municipalities. An ephemeral upstream channel may have different setback needs than much larger downstream channels. • It is possible to retain current exemptions for legally constructed but non-conforming structures should new setbacks be considered (keeping current requirements that non-conformity not be increased). Our city is mostly built-out and the standards should reflect that, but our new standards should also consider that there are large creek-side areas still undeveloped, on both private and public land.
3. Recommended Next Steps:
• We request that Pleasant Hill’s creek setback standards be updated to implement the goals, policies, and programs of the City’s recently adopted 2040 General Plan as well as current best practices for development adjacent to creeks and riparian areas.
• We encourage the Planning Commission and City staff to consult and collaborate with community stakeholders, adjacent cities, and the County (including the CCCFCD) regarding creek setbacks. • We also encourage collaboration on a watershed-wide basis to improve our riparian areas with flood conveyance and environmental values.
• We request that the City appoint a staff person to coordinate this revision process. • We request the opportunity for the public to review a copy of the “City of Pleasant Hill Creek System” map, as referenced in Section 18.60.010B.
We look forward to working with the City and other stakeholders to update the City’s Creek Setback standards. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Alan Bade
Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks / SEE
[email protected]
3 Chapter 17.4 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BASE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS | Code of Ordinances | Orinda, CA | Municode Library
4 635561390008430000 (lovelafayette.org)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2246 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Hours
Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Friday 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Closed 12:00-1:00 p.m.
Records Counter is closed on Fridays
Phone numbers:
Main number: (925) 313-2000
Fax number: 313-2333
Administrative Services: 313-2340
Buchanan Airport: 681-4200
Byron Airport: 608-8383
Capital Projects: 957-2471
County Clean Water Program: 313-2360
Custodial: 313-7096
Design/Construction Division: 313-2320
Engineering Services Division: 313-2170
Facilities Maintenance: 313-7052
Finance Division: 313-2344
Fleet Services: 313-7021
Flood Control District: 313-2270
Information Technology Division: 313-2261
Kids at Work: 313-2380
Maintenance Division: 313-7000
Materials Management: 313-2000
Print and Mail: 646-5521
Purchasing: 957-2499
Real Property Division: 957-2467
Records Section: 313-2356
Special Districts Section: 313-2170
Transportation Engineering: 313-2370
Traffic Section: 313-2370
Watershed Program: 313-2236
Public Works Website:
www.cccpublicworks.org
CREEK
STRUCTURE
SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS
FOR NATURAL
(UNIMPROVED)
CHANNELS
Contra Costa
County
Public Works
Department
255 Glacier Dr.
Martinez, CA
(925) 313-2000
CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
AREA
CREEK
PROPERTY
CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
LINE
Example aerial view of property traversed by
a natural (unimproved) channel.
Provide CSS line determinations (by the
method explained on the other side of this
pamphlet) for at least three locations of the
channel. The red stars ( ) show a few potential locations at which to calculate the setback distance.
Note: There may be other regulations that
need to be investigated before working near
natural (unimproved) channels, such as the
County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance.
An exception to the CSS may be granted
provided that the requirements outlined in
Section 92-6.002 are satisfied. You will need
to verify that the creek banks are stable and
not susceptible to erosion by submitting supporting technical data.
CREEK
Other Useful Information
“FAQ for Property Owners Near Creeks” by
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
Warren Lai,
Director
Deputy Directors
• Stephen Kowalewski, Chief
• Allison Knapp
• Carrie Ricci
• Joe Yee
March 2024
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2247 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 If your property is traversed by, or is adjacent to, a natural (unimproved) channel, you must determine the CSS area, as required by
the County Title 9 Ordinance Code and the
County General Plan. No permanent structures of any kind, other than drainage structures, may be constructed within, under, or over the structure setback area (Ordinance
Sections 914-14.010 and 74-6.010).
The CSS area will need to be shown on the
site plan for building permits.
If you are subdividing the property, you will
be conditioned to relinquish “development
rights” over the structure setback area of the
creek. When you “relinquish development
rights” over an area, it means that you are
forfeiting your right to construct buildings or
structures within that area. The CSS area will
need to be shown on the final/parcel map
and the improvement plans.
“Top of bank” is defined as the following:
I) The point where the water surface plus sufficient freeboard for the design average recurrence interval runoff (see Section 914-2.010 on how to determine the design average recurrence interval runoff) intersects
the existing ground, OR
II) The point where a line with slope of 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical, extending from the toe of the channel, intersects the existing ground.
Whichever point is the greatest vertical distance
above the channel invert will be the point used in
determining the setback line, per Section 914-
14.012.*
What is a creek structure setback?
How do I determine the CSS area?
You may wish to consult a registered Civil
Engineer and/or a licensed Land Surveyor for
assistance in determining the CSS area.
Chapter 914-14 of the County Title 9 Ordinance Code, entitled “Rights-of-Way and Setbacks,” outlines the procedure for defining
a structure setback area.
Per Section 914-14.012 of Title 9, the structure setback line is determined by measuring a horizontal distance from the top of bank on
each side of the watercourse. Section 914-
14.012 provides the following table:
Height of top of bank
above channel invert
Horizontal distance between top of bank and
setback line
Less than 20’ 30’
20’-29.99’ 35’
30’-39.99’ 40’
40’-49.99’ 45’
50’ and greater 50’
For examples on how to determine the CSS
line, see the two diagrams above, where
H = Height of top of bank above channel
invert
X = Horizontal distance between top of bank
and setback line
See the back for an aerial view of the CSS
area.
*Policy 8-89 of the County General Plan,
Chapter 8, “Conservation Element,” states
that the creek setback area shall be a minimum of 100 feet; 50 feet on each side of the centerline of the creek. The setback line will
need to meet this policy, in addition to meeting the Title 9 CSS requirements.
Case I. Design average recurrence interval Creek structure setback line* Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
Case II.
Creek structure setback line*
Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
\\pw-data\grpdata\engsvc\Forms\PUB\PUB-5 Creek Structure Setback pamphlet_2024 March_v4 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2248 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Lafayette Municipal Code Ordinance No. 512
Article 5. Creek Setback Requirements
6-1841 Structure setback.
(a) As defined by Section 6-312 and Section 6-355, buildings and structures shall be set back from an unimproved creek channel as follows:
(1) Channel Depth of Zero through 21 Feet. If the side slopes of the channel are steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), the width of the structure setback is determined by a line measured from the toe of the slope a distance of twice the channel depth plus the appropriate top-of-bank setback as follows:
Channel Depth Top of Bank Setback
(Feet) Minimum Width (Feet)
0 — 6 12 each side
6 — 12 15 each side
12 — 18 18 each side
18 — 21 21 each side
If the side slopes of the channel are flatter than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) the structure setback is the appropriate setback indicated in the table above, measured from the top of the bank. (2) Channel Depth Exceeding 21 Feet. If the depth of a channel exceeds 21 feet, the width of the structure setback is determined by measuring from the toe of the slope a distance of three times the channel depth. (b) If a parcel is subject to subdivision easements or setback requirements under Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Sections 914-14.002 through 14.014 which are inconsistent with Section 6-1841(a), those subdivision requirements control.
(c) No permanent structure other than fences and drainage and erosion protection improvements may be constructed within the setback area. Landscaping (including trees and shrubs) is permitted within the setback area. (Ord. 512 § 1 (Appx. A (part)), 2000)
(Lafayette 4-00)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2249 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Study Session - PC meeting 8-27-2024 - Ordinance Amendments Date: Friday, August 23, 2024 3:57:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
So, the documents for the Planning Commission meeting on August 27th were finally posted around noon today - this gives the members of the Public a very short window of opportunity to review these enormously complex document revisions, especially in light of the renumbering & other revisions to the documents that were presented at earlier meetings.
Some of the crucial changes are not even noted . . . . .
From the General Organizational Structure and Outline pages 2 & 3, it appears that Chapter 18.20 has been moved to Chapter 18.15 and Chapter 18.22 has been moved to Chapter 18.20. The earlier versions of these Chapters are shown in the current Staff Report to have been approved as such by the City Council on January 8, 2024 ! Also note that the title for the new Chapter 18.15 does not include Residential District R-MD - the proposed new District for the Mangini-Delu farm properties - even though regulations for the land use is included on page 7 under paragraph 18.15.010 B-4 and in Table 18.15-2.
18.15.030 Table 18.15-2 (formerly known as Schedule 18.20.030 ?):
We note that the allowable Building Height has been increased for Residential Zone MFVH (formerly MRVH) from 60' to 75' which is an improvement. However, the allowable Building Heights for zones MFM (MRM) and MFH (MRH) remain stuck at the earlier figures which we still believe are too low to attract quality developments.
18.20.030 Table 18.20-2 (formerly known as Schedule 18.22.030 ?):
We note that the allowable Building Height has been increased for 3 of the 4 Mixed Use Zones (excluding MX-N) which is an improvement. However, the allowable Building Heights for all four Zones still may be too low to attract quality developments. My email dated October 30, 2023, for the November 1st Special Meeting of the Planning Commission recommended that these be increased to 45', 60' & 70' for the MX-N, MX & MX-HD Zones respectively.
18.20.040 - paragraph "M-1" (formerly known as 18.22.040 paragraph "N-1" ?):
My email dated October 30, 2023, for the November 1st Special Meeting of the Planning Commission noted that "this Development Regulation appears to prevent the future use of the DVC North / Overflow Parking Lot (Site "A") to meet a portion of their needs for Student & Staff parking - is that your intent ???". My email went on further to BOLDLY point out that the available parking including the spaces in the existing North / Overflow parking lot was woefully inadequate to meet their daily needs in the pre-pandemic era & it should be anticipated that the same condition will reappear when normalcy fully returns. That situation produced an extreme violation of paragraph A-2 of Chapter 18.15.010 Purpose and intent of Residential Zoning Districts which reads "Protect residents from the harmful effects of Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2250 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 excessive noise, overcrowding, excessive traffic, excessive on-street parking, insufficient parking and other adverse environmental effects". Many of the Residential neighborhoods that surround the DVC Campus were literally flooded with DVC students who chose to use the streets that we paid for as their preferred parking lots ! I hereby request that the Planning Commissioners actually discuss each & every one of the points made above.
Jack Prosek
PH Resident
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2251 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Bruce Irion
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: David Blau; annette gelinas; Shereen Motarjemi; Planning Commission; City Council Subject: Comments on Land Use Regulations
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 6:39:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission
We offer the following comments to the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. These comments directly or indirectly relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higherdensity residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW]
First, we appreciate that this description specifically calls out preserving natural open space while allowing for development. This is consistent with all the public discussions that occurred during the city’s development of the General Plan, particularly for Mangini-Delu and its creek corridor.
The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”. Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. The description of housing types for residential designations between Mangini-Delu’s 4.6 to 13 DU/acre are as follows:
R-7 and R-6 – Single Family High Density Residential (4.6 to 6.9 DU/acre) - allows for single-family and low-density multi-family residential developments (e.g., duplexes, triplexes) and other compatible uses
MFVL – Very Low-Density Multi-Family Residential (7 to 12 DU/acre) – allows for very low-density multi-family residential uses including duplexes, townhomes, and attached or detached single-family homes on small lots.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2252 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 MFL- Low Density Multi-Family Residential (12.1 to 20 DU/acre) – allows for low-density multi-family residential uses including duplexes, townhouses, single family attached homes with zero lot line, (including) manufactured housing or cluster housing.
For housing densities between 4.6 and 20 DU/acre, none of the land uses include “apartment complexes” in their description. This term does not appear until you get to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (20-30 DU/acre). Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description.
We also note there is no reference to the Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment. We believe there should be reference to a future Master Plan which includes consideration for concerns voiced by the public. We further note that Table
18.15-1, Land Use Regulations, includes a column for R-MD. Given that ManginiDelu spans a range of Land Uses and that the promised Master Plan would presumably define new parcels under existing Land Uses, is it prudent to include RMD in the table? For the wide range of housing densities, it is impossible to capture all the land use regulations accurately. We believe it would it be more accurate to include a footnote that Land Use Regulations for Mangini-Delu will be consistent with parcel land use designations defined by the Master Plan.
We believe our comments are more consistent with public hearings and comments to date and we appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
David Blau, Annette Gelinas, Shereen Motarjemi, & Bruce Irion Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2253 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Shereen Motarjemi
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comment on R-MD
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 7:19:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW] The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”.
Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2254 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.
The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.
Sincerely.
Shereen Motarjemi
100 Mercury Way
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2255 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Karen Pierce
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Land Use Regulation Revisions
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 7:38:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To Planning Commission and City Staff:
I would like to comment about the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW]
The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from lowdensity to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”. Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to.
Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higherdensity residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods” The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.
Sincerely,
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2256 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Karen Lee
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2257 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Christine Finkas
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Aug 27, 2024
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 8:30:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW] The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”.
Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2258 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 description rather than apartment complexes.
I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.
The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.
Sincerely,
Christine and Kevin Finkas
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2259 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Clifton Crawford
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting & Mangini Property Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 8:36:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
We live just down the street from Mangini farm and while we hate to see it go....we understand that development means $ for city.......HOWEVER, we do not believe zoning regulations should EVER be changed and certainly not in this case. The original zoning was established for good reasons and changing them only indicates either greed or desperation. DO NOT DO IT!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shereen Motarjemi <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 7:09 AM
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting & Mangini Property To: Shereen Motarjemi <[email protected]>
Hello Friends & Neighbors,
The city has posted notice of a Planning Commission meeting for this Tuesday, Aug 27th. The meeting will be held in person at City Hall or virtually as follows:
Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, August 27th, 6:30PM, City Hall (or)
Meeting link: www.zoom.us
Meeting ID: 886 7016 0924
Passcode: 614614
Staff has proposed a number of revisions to Land Use Regulations. While most are administrative or mandated by new state laws, they have proposed several revisions dealing with Mangini-Delu which we feel are not fully consistent with discussions to date.
We urge you to send letters to the Planning Commission voicing your opinions. We have attached a proposed letter that captures our concerns that you are free to use as a template.
Sincerely,
Bruce, David, Annette, Shereen
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2260 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 You can send your letters to
Project Planner: Haley Croffoot,[email protected] To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW] The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”.
Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2261 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.
The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.
Sincerely.
(add your name)
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2262 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Bushra Toma
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Mangini-Delu
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 12:37:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW] The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”.
Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2263 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.
The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.
Sincerely.
Bushra Toma
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2264 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Julie Golinski
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Upcoming Planning Meeting on Tuesday
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 3:04:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
I’d like to comment on the revisions to the proposed zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the ManginiDelu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW] The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”. Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between lowdensity and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes.
Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include a reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date, and I would appreciate your consideration of my concerns.
Best.
Julie Golinski
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2265 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Veronica Ortiz Andres
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting: R-MD – Mangini Delu Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 5:08:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
I want to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of various housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from singlefamily homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW]
The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”.
Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single-family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the descriptions of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2266 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.
The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
Veronica Ortiz Andres
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2267 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Anamarie Orgera
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting & Mangini Property Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:53:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW] The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”.
Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2268 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.
The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.
Health and happiness,
Anamarie Courey
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2269 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Weir
To: Planning
Cc: Jack Weir
Subject: August 27 Planning Commission Meeting
Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:27:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I am unable to attend the meeting in person or via zoom, but would like to submit this comment:
In regards to rezoning of the Mangini farm property on Pleasant Hill Road, I urge the commission to adopt that rezoning plan that allows for the least density and least traffic impact.
Given the city’s current “passive traffic enforcement policy” we are encountering rampant violation of traffic signals at virtually all intersections. Drivers routinely ignore red lights and often accelerate as they proceed dangerously and illegally through the intersection.
And the recent installation of “speed bumps” versus traditional school intersection crossing guards puts parents and schoolchildren at serious risk.
Additional traffic from development of the Mangini property will heighten the threat to pedestrians and cyclists at the Pleasant Hill Road/Taylor Boulevard intersection.
During the prior development proposal of the property the consultant ignored traffic impact and we neighbors were able to halt the development proposal. In the subsequent years traffic has increased dramatically as has the danger of red light violations.
Please consider these factors in your deliberations.
Thank you,
Jack Weir
former Pleasant Hill council member
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2270 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Weir
To: Planning
Cc: Jack Weir
Subject: Rezoning of the Mangini Farm
Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:34:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
In considering the rezoning of the Mangini farm on Pleasant Hill Road please note that the city’s current “passive traffic enforcement” policy has led to rampant violation of traffic signals at virtually all city intersections, including that of Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard. I witness these dangerous acts every day in my travels around the city.
Also, replacing school crossing guards with “speed bumps” may save little money but the risk to our parents and schoolchildren walking or biking ti school is dire.
Please approach any proposed rezoning of the Mangini property with these factors in mind.
Thank you,
Jack Weir
Former Pleasant Hill councilman
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2271 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Mark de Wit
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Mangini-Delu property - Planning Commission Meeting August 27, 2024 Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:06:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
Like many of my neighbors I have concerns regarding development of the ManginiDelu property further impacting the quality of life in our wonderful community.
Already negatively impacting the neighborhoods in the area was the construction of the commuter-option “improvements” to Pleasant Hill Road from Gregory Lane to Taylor Boulevard. As you may be aware, there is a considerable volume of traffic along this stretch with a high percentage of vehicles speeding at greater than 40 mph, commonly at 45-50 mph at all times of the day and night. It is now more dangerous than ever for pedestrians in general and for school-age children going to and from school. Unfortunately, the neighborhood-option was not selected due to a focus on accommodating commuters racing across town, rather than protecting the character of our residential neighborhoods, which was the City’s highest priority in the General Plan when I became a resident of Pleasant Hill in 1999.
Now the City has another opportunity to protect quality of life in our community with wise and sensible development of the Mangini-Delu property. I share my neighbors’ concerns and offer my comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the ManginiDelu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan.
The description says, “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”. Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2272 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between lowdensity and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes.
Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
Like my neighbors, I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns. Please protect the character of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Sincerely.
Mark de Wit
248 Steven Circle
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2273 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Renee Walter
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Mangini Delu - Pleasant Hill
Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:27:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning
Commission: 8/26/24
I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the ManginiDelu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW] The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”. Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between lowdensity and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes.
Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2274 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.
Best,
Renee Walter
240 Linda Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2275 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Catherine Boccellari
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comments re Revisions to Zoning Ordinances
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:46:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW]
The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from lowdensity to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”. Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to.
Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higherdensity residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods” The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the descriptions of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.
Sincerely,
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2276 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Catherine and Paul Boccellari
206 Steven Circle, Pleasant Hill
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2277 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: [email protected]
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Aug 27, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting, Mangini Deli site Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 1:20:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
My husband and I have lived on Malaga Way behind the Mangini Delu site for over 30 years.When we bought our home, that property was zoned for four houses to the acre, as is our current neighborhood.We recognize the increased need for housing and are not opposed to reasonable development that maintains the character of our neighborhood.We are very concerned about the possibility of introducing apartment complexes onto this site.
Therefore, I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higherdensity residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW]
The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”.Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods.” The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes.
Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2278 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.
Sincerely,
Irene Menegas
488 Malaga Way
Pleasant Hill
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2279 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jeremy Magruder
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Revisions to Mangini-Delu zoning and community Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:20:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To City Staff and the Planning Commission:
I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:
R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW] The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”.
Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character and sightlines of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2280 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.
The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.
I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Magruder
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2281 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 1:06 PM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Cc: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>
Subject: PC October 8th Study Session - Ordinance Revision Documents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
Congrats on getting the Staff Report & the extensive related documents for the Ordinance Revision posted a full SIX Business Days prior to the Planning Commission's Study Session on October 8th. I might have thought that the package also would have included Proposed Zoning Ordinance OUTLINE since the June document has a different numbering system than the one seen by the City Council at their September 9th meeting. This was included as Attachment "A" for the August 27th PC Study Session.
The new Staff Report for this meeting does indicate that some revisions were made regarding the Mangini-Delu properties & a very minor reduction in Parking requirements for smaller dwelling units. The 35' height limit for the M-D West area prevents having 4 or 5 story buildings there that would allow more of the site to be open for landscaping & parking. However, I have seen no additional information so far regarding the very restrictive Building Heights or the other Parking concerns that have been raised by the Public ! So once again I have to ask HOW CITY Staff arrived at these numbers for the Building Heights - since we believe that many of them are too low to encourage QUALITY developments . . . . .
The Parking standards are largely unchanged - which fails to address the concerns raised by the Public in the last Study Session.
I am asking that the Commissioners have an actual discussion as to the appropriate figures to be used in both instances !!
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2282 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 2:58 PM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Cc: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>
Subject: Chapter 18.45 Parks and Rec Zoning - New Ordinances CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
Listed below are my comments on Chapter 18.45 which contains the Ordinances for the new Parks and Recreation Zoning District.
18.45.010 - A.1. - the reference to the RPD's Master Plan in the City Ordinance is questionable since this document may be modified by others without participation by the City. Previously existing links to the current document, known as "The BIG Picture" dated May 2020, have disappeared & the document is no longer prominently displayed on the RPD's website. Furthermore, not all of the Master Plan objectives are included in the proposed Scope of Work to be done under their current Bond Measure "S" while some of this Scope was not in "The BIG Picture" as needs & community interests have changed during the four year period since its adoption !!
18.45.040 - A.1. - we believe that "protected" trees should not fall under A. Exempt Activities.
18.45.050 - A. - we do not believe that decisions by the Zoning Administrator should be exempt from the appeals process. Too much power is being granted to a sole individual with no oversight !
Please add this email to the Public Comment documents for the Planning Commission's Study Session on Tuesday October 8th.
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2283 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 | www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | @PHcreeks Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks is a Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
October 08, 2024
City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail: [email protected]
RE: Study Session—Zoning Ordinance Amendments—Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) and other amendments.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We would like to submit the following comments regarding updates to Section 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) and other amendments. We submitted comments at the June 25, 2024 Study Session requesting that the proposed setbacks be made consistent with the goals and policies of the newly adopted General Plan 2040. Sadly, we note that inconsistencies remain.
Section 18.60: specifically, no provision for the following policy is made:
ENV-3.1 Creek Protection Zone Establishment for New Development. Establish creek protection zones for creeks that extend a minimum of 25 feet (measured from the top of a bank and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank), with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. The City shall prohibit development within a creek protection zones, except as part of greenway enhancement, including habitat conservation, bike and walking paths, wildlife habitat, and native plant landscaping). City approval is required for the following activities within the creek protection zones:
1. Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure;
2. Excavation, filling, or grading;
3. Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or
4. Alteration of any embankment.
Creek Setbacks: we note a continuation of the 2009 creek setbacks.
These setbacks are outdated in regards to expected increases in storm runoff with climate change. Updating the 2009 creek setbacks is a matter of public safety. They are substantially less protective than creek setbacks in our surrounding municipalities and those of Contra Costa County, as described in our 06/25/24 Study Session comments.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2284 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Many of our creek banks are near vertical and susceptible to undercutting. As urban densities increase, so will impervious coverage. The 2040 GP should modernize our creek setbacks to meet these new conditions. We have witnessed storms in recent years that severely tax our creek systems. Pleasant Hill narrowly avoided significant flooding, as evidenced by our attached photos.
Sections Env-3.1 through Env-3.9: We are pleased to note that the 2040 GP has many references to discouraging the use of invasive non-native plants in the Environment Element (Sections Env-3.1, Env-3.6, Env-3.9) as well as the Health and Safety Element (Sections 3.12 and 3.14 Wildfire Risk Reduction). In the wildfire risk reduction policies, the planting of fireprone non-native species is prohibited. We ask that similar prohibitions are implemented along our creeks. Species such as Arundo donax (Giant reed), Tree of Heaven, English ivy and others are creating significant, costly management issues for local agencies in our watershed and major efforts are underway for their removal. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains a list of highly invasive and sometimes illegal invasive plants separated by geographic area1. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has a similar list for wetland and riparian areas2
.
New Park and Recreation Zoning District:
We note that many of our creeks are located on Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District lands.
We are concerned about changes to the public review process included in the new Park and Recreation Zoning District. Review at the Staff Level only with no appeals does not provide for adequate public input on potentially major projects as envisioned by the Park District’s “Big Picture”. Properly noticed projects with greater public input lead to better projects overall. The Rec and Park District currently does traffic studies, noise analysis, and public noticing through the City’s review process. There are no provisions to require the new zoning district to include the same review processes that Pleasant Hill residents are currently accustomed to. If the District chooses not to, projects will be built with little public review other than voting on a bond measure. We work collaboratively with our current Rec and Park Board but these zoning changes will extend far into the future.
Many of the City’s heritage trees are on land owned by the Rec and Park District. It is counter to the tree preservation goals in the 2040 General Plan to allow protected tree removals without City and public review. This is a weakening of the tree protection goals adopted in the 2040 General Plan.
While we think the new zoning district is a good idea, we feel the new zoning district should be subject to the same restrictions and review process as all other entities in the City of Pleasant Hill.
Recommendations:
• Env-3.1: A “creek protection zone” as detailed in our adopted GP needs to be included in the zoning ordinance.
1 https://www.cal-ipc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/InvasivePlantChecklistforCaliforniaLandscaping.pdf 2 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stream_wetland/app1in clrefs.pdf
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2285 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 • 18.60-A: More protective, greater creek setbacks are a matter of public safety as we increase urban density and will improve environmental values and increase climate resilience.
• Env-3.1, Env-3.6, Env-3.9: We ask that prohibitions against invasive non-native plants be adopted. Resources such as Cal-IPC, the RWQCB, the California Native Plant Society, the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District have specific guidance. • Park and Recreation District: We ask that this be subject to standard City review as all other entities in Pleasant Hill.
• Creek Setbacks: Our current setbacks are inadequate. We encourage the Planning Commission and City staff to consult and collaborate with community stakeholders, adjacent cities, and the County (including the CCCFCD) regarding creek setbacks. We request that the City appoint a staff person to coordinate this revision process. • We again request the opportunity for the public to review a copy of the “City of Pleasant Hill Creek System” map, as referenced in Section 18.60.010B.
Thank you for consideration of these comments. We hope these issues will be discussed in this Study Session and look forward to collaborating with the City and other stakeholders.
Thank you,
Alan Bade
Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks / SEE
[email protected]
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2286 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Murderer’s creek 10/24/2021:
Murderer’s Creek 10/24/21:
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2287 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Beatrice Road area 10/24/21:
Beatrice Road area 10/24/21:
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2288 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Invasive Plant Checklist for
California Landscaping
2018.05.08
California’s Model Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance and the CALGreen Building Standards strongly discourage the use of invasive plants in landscaping. This checklist is designed to serve as a reference to help landscape designers in California avoid the use of invasive plants. Three sources are referenced: the California Dept. of Food & Agriculture (CDFA), which regulates plants in the state; the PlantRight initiative, which brings together a diverse range of stakeholders, including the nursery and landscaping industry, to prevent the use of invasive plants in horticulture; and the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), which assesses the environmental impact of invasive plants.
The California Dept. of Food & Agriculture has authority to designate noxious weeds in California. These plants are illegal. See www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/IPC.
In general, CDFA is restricted from listing horticultural plants as noxious weeds.
PlantRight is a collaborative, science-based, and voluntary program led by the nonprofit Sustainable Conservation, with a steering committee representing the green industry, agencies, universities and environmental groups. PlantRight’s list is entirely voluntary. It includes plants from the CalIPC Inventory that all stakeholders agree should not be used in landscaping in regions where they cause environmental damage. See www.plantright.org.
The California Invasive Plant Council is a nonprofit organization that maintains a list of environmentally harmful plants based on a transparent science-based criteria system. Cal-IPC supports land managers working to stop the spread of invasive plants, but also supports landscape professionals in preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants. Cal-IPC listing is for informational purposes and carries no any regulatory authority. See www.cal-ipc.org.
The following checklist includes all plants from each list that are known from horticulture. Plants from the CDFA Noxious Weed List are illegal and marked with a red X. Plants for which PlantRight has reached Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2289 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 consensus with all partners including the nursery industry are marked with a green X. All other species are only listed by Cal-IPC.
Regions based on Sunset Climate Zones were developed by PlantRight (see source online).
Notes
E Edible This plant species has edible fruit and is grown for human consumption. Though birds may spread seeds, these plants can be grown relatively safely if fruit is harvested.
Particular care should be taken near riparian areas. Fruitless varieties may be available for landscaping, and can be grown safely.
F Forage This plant species is used for forage and is already widespread in California. Additional use is unlikely to increase the plant’s spread.
T Turfgrass This plant species is used for turfgrass and may be used safely for sports fields and landscaping if properly tended within borders.
Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2290 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Checklist of Invasive Plants
Regions
Acacia dealbata silver wattle
Acacia melanoxylon blackwood acacia
Agrostis stoloniferaTcreeping bentgrassT
Ailanthus altissima tree-of-heaven X
Arctotheca calendula fertile capeweed X
Arctotheca prostrate South African capeweed
Arundo donax giant reed X
Asparagus asparagoides bridal creeper
Asphodelus fistulosus onionweed X
Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush
Briza maxima big quakinggrass
Carpobrotus chilensis iceplant
Carpobrotus edulis highway iceplant X
Centaurea debeauxii meadow knapweed X
Chrysanthemum coronarium garland chrysanthemum
Cordyline australis giant draceaena
Cortaderia jubata jubatagrass X
Cortaderia selloana pampasgrass X
Cotoneaster franchetii cotoneaster
Cotoneaster lacteus Parney's cotoneaster
Cotoneaster pannosa silverleaf cotoneaster
Cotula coronopifolia common brassbuttons
Crataegus monogyna English hawthorn
Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora montbretia
Cynara cardunculus artichoke thistle X
Cynodon dactylonT Bermuda grassT
Cynoglossum officinale beggar's-lice
Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom X
Cytisus striatus Portuguese broom
Dactylis glomerataF orchard grassF
Delairea odorata Cape-ivy X
Digitalis purpurea foxglove
Dipsacus fullonum common teasel
Echium candicans pride-of-Madeira
Egeria densa Brazilian egeria
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2291 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth X
Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive
Erica lusitanica Spanish heath
Erodium cicutarium filaree
Eucalyptus camaldulensis red gum
Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian bluegum
Euphorbia esula leafy spurge X
Euphorbia oblongata oblong spurge X
Festuca arundinaceaT alta fescueT
Ficus caricaE edible figE
Foeniculum vulgareEfennelE
Gazania linearis gazania
Genista monspessulana French broom X
Hedera canariensis Algerian ivy
Hedera helix English ivy
Helichrysum petiolare licorice plant
Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean mustard
Holcus lanatus common velvet grass
Hypericum canariense Canary Island St.
Johnswort
X
Hypericum perforatum klamathweed X
Ilex aquifolium English holly
Iris pseudacorus yellowflag iris X
Isatis tinctoria dyer's woad X
Kochia scopariaFkochiaF
Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy
Linaria genistifolia ssp. Dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax X Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax
Lobularia maritime sweet alyssum
Lolium multiflorumFItalian ryegrassF
Ludwigia hexapetala creeping waterprimrose X
Ludwigia peploides creeping waterprimrose
Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife X
Marrubium vulgare horehound
Mentha pulegium pennyroyal
Mesembryanthemum crystallinum crystalline iceplant Myoporum laetum ngaio tree
Myosotis latifolia common forget-me-not
Myriophyllum aquaticum parrotfeather
Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2292 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Olea europaeaE European oliveE
Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle X
Pennisetum setaceum green fountain grass X
Phalaris aquatic hardinggrass
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm
Phytolacca Americana common pokeweed
Plantago lanceolata buckhorn plantain
Poa pratensisT Kentucky bluegrassT
Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed X
Prunus cerasifera cherry plum
Pyracantha angustifolia, P. crenulata, P.
coccinea
firethorn
Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup
Retama monosperma bridal veil broom X
Ricinus communis castor bean
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel
Saccharum ravennae ravennagrass X
Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean sage X
Saponaria officinalis bouncing-bet
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree
Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree
Sesbania punicea scarlet wisteria X
Silybum marianum milk thistle
Spartium junceum Spanish broom X
Stipa tenuissima Mexican feathergrass X
Tamarix parviflora smallflower tamarisk X
Tamarix aphylla athel
Tamarix ramosissima, T. gallica, T. chinensis saltcedar X Tanacetum vulgare common tansy
Triadica sebifera Chinese tallow tree X
Verbascum thapsus wooly mullein
Vinca major bigleaf periwinkle X
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm
Watsonia meriana watsonia
Zantedeschia aethiopica calla lily
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2293 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Record of Changes
2017.09.07 – Corrected Cordyline australis regions. Updated Cal-IPC description and logo. 2018 05.08 – Corrected Crocosmia regions.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2294 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2295 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2296 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2297 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Hours
Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Friday 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Closed 12:00-1:00 p.m.
Records Counter is closed on Fridays
Phone numbers:
Main number: (925) 313-2000
Fax number: 313-2333
Administrative Services: 313-2340
Buchanan Airport: 681-4200
Byron Airport: 608-8383
Capital Projects: 957-2471
County Clean Water Program: 313-2360
Custodial: 313-7096
Design/Construction Division: 313-2320
Engineering Services Division: 313-2170
Facilities Maintenance: 313-7052
Finance Division: 313-2344
Fleet Services: 313-7021
Flood Control District: 313-2270
Information Technology Division: 313-2261
Kids at Work: 313-2380
Maintenance Division: 313-7000
Materials Management: 313-2000
Print and Mail: 646-5521
Purchasing: 957-2499
Real Property Division: 957-2467
Records Section: 313-2356
Special Districts Section: 313-2170
Transportation Engineering: 313-2370
Traffic Section: 313-2370
Watershed Program: 313-2236
Public Works Website:
www.cccpublicworks.org
CREEK
STRUCTURE
SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS
FOR NATURAL
(UNIMPROVED)
CHANNELS
Contra Costa
County
Public Works
Department
255 Glacier Dr.
Martinez, CA
(925) 313-2000
CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
AREA
CREEK
PROPERTY
CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
LINE
Example aerial view of property traversed by
a natural (unimproved) channel.
Provide CSS line determinations (by the
method explained on the other side of this
pamphlet) for at least three locations of the
channel. The red stars ( ) show a few potential locations at which to calculate the setback distance.
Note: There may be other regulations that
need to be investigated before working near
natural (unimproved) channels, such as the
County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance.
An exception to the CSS may be granted
provided that the requirements outlined in
Section 92-6.002 are satisfied. You will need
to verify that the creek banks are stable and
not susceptible to erosion by submitting supporting technical data.
CREEK
Other Useful Information
“FAQ for Property Owners Near Creeks” by
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
Warren Lai,
Director
Deputy Directors
• Stephen Kowalewski, Chief
• Allison Knapp
• Carrie Ricci
• Joe Yee
March 2024
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2298 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 If your property is traversed by, or is adjacent to, a natural (unimproved) channel, you must determine the CSS area, as required by
the County Title 9 Ordinance Code and the
County General Plan. No permanent structures of any kind, other than drainage structures, may be constructed within, under, or over the structure setback area (Ordinance
Sections 914-14.010 and 74-6.010).
The CSS area will need to be shown on the
site plan for building permits.
If you are subdividing the property, you will
be conditioned to relinquish “development
rights” over the structure setback area of the
creek. When you “relinquish development
rights” over an area, it means that you are
forfeiting your right to construct buildings or
structures within that area. The CSS area will
need to be shown on the final/parcel map
and the improvement plans.
“Top of bank” is defined as the following:
I) The point where the water surface plus sufficient freeboard for the design average recurrence interval runoff (see Section 914-2.010 on how to determine the design average recurrence interval runoff) intersects
the existing ground, OR
II) The point where a line with slope of 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical, extending from the toe of the channel, intersects the existing ground.
Whichever point is the greatest vertical distance
above the channel invert will be the point used in
determining the setback line, per Section 914-
14.012.*
What is a creek structure setback?
How do I determine the CSS area?
You may wish to consult a registered Civil
Engineer and/or a licensed Land Surveyor for
assistance in determining the CSS area.
Chapter 914-14 of the County Title 9 Ordinance Code, entitled “Rights-of-Way and Setbacks,” outlines the procedure for defining
a structure setback area.
Per Section 914-14.012 of Title 9, the structure setback line is determined by measuring a horizontal distance from the top of bank on
each side of the watercourse. Section 914-
14.012 provides the following table:
Height of top of bank
above channel invert
Horizontal distance between top of bank and
setback line
Less than 20’ 30’
20’-29.99’ 35’
30’-39.99’ 40’
40’-49.99’ 45’
50’ and greater 50’
For examples on how to determine the CSS
line, see the two diagrams above, where
H = Height of top of bank above channel
invert
X = Horizontal distance between top of bank
and setback line
See the back for an aerial view of the CSS
area.
*Policy 8-89 of the County General Plan,
Chapter 8, “Conservation Element,” states
that the creek setback area shall be a minimum of 100 feet; 50 feet on each side of the centerline of the creek. The setback line will
need to meet this policy, in addition to meeting the Title 9 CSS requirements.
Case I. Design average recurrence interval Creek structure setback line* Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
Case II.
Creek structure setback line*
Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
\\pw-data\grpdata\engsvc\Forms\PUB\PUB-5 Creek Structure Setback pamphlet_2024 March_v4 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2299 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Lafayette Municipal Code Ordinance No. 512
Article 5. Creek Setback Requirements
6-1841 Structure setback.
(a) As defined by Section 6-312 and Section 6-355, buildings and structures shall be set back from an unimproved creek channel as follows:
(1) Channel Depth of Zero through 21 Feet. If the side slopes of the channel are steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), the width of the structure setback is determined by a line measured from the toe of the slope a distance of twice the channel depth plus the appropriate top-of-bank setback as follows:
Channel Depth Top of Bank Setback
(Feet) Minimum Width (Feet)
0 — 6 12 each side
6 — 12 15 each side
12 — 18 18 each side
18 — 21 21 each side
If the side slopes of the channel are flatter than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) the structure setback is the appropriate setback indicated in the table above, measured from the top of the bank. (2) Channel Depth Exceeding 21 Feet. If the depth of a channel exceeds 21 feet, the width of the structure setback is determined by measuring from the toe of the slope a distance of three times the channel depth. (b) If a parcel is subject to subdivision easements or setback requirements under Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Sections 914-14.002 through 14.014 which are inconsistent with Section 6-1841(a), those subdivision requirements control.
(c) No permanent structure other than fences and drainage and erosion protection improvements may be constructed within the setback area. Landscaping (including trees and shrubs) is permitted within the setback area. (Ord. 512 § 1 (Appx. A (part)), 2000)
(Lafayette 4-00)
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2300 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I'd like to comment on the parking requirements associated with Mixed Use- Neighborhood Business.
In Table 18.70 (packet page 385), it states that one parking place is required per 100 sq ft of gross floor area for eating and drinking establishments. However, there are no off street loading requirements. While this may be fine for single establishments, very often many restaurants are aggregated into a single shopping center. This creates a situation where many, many large truck deliveries are arriving at a Mixed Use-NB shopping center.
Indeed in our experience, restaurants have by far the most deliveries of any business in the shopping center. They need fresh, in-season ingredients and order them from large corporate suppliers. The beverage suppliers are separate deliveries. We often witness conflicts in deliveries where one truck needs to wait because there are multiple trucks already in the parking lot..
The problem arises particularly when a large number of restaurants are aggregated. And in fact, this aggregation is stated as a goal in our new General Plan. There should be some threshold as to when a certain number of restaurants require additional loading zone spaces especially in a MU-NB shopping center.
Another issue is that shopping centers only require 1 parking space per 250 sq ft of floor area. It is my understanding that the shopping center can be mostly restaurants (as desired in the new GP) and we'd still only have the 1/250 sq ft requirement. This will be wholly inadequate. There should be some threshold when the aggregate usage for a business class changes the parking requirement.
Thank you, Alan Bade
Pleasant Hill resident
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2301 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Bruce Irion <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 5:29 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>; Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: David Blau <[email protected]>; annette gelinas <[email protected]>; Shereen Motarjemi <[email protected]>; Alan Bade <[email protected]>; Wendy Gollop <[email protected]>; Heather Rosmarin <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Suggestion for joint review of Rec and Park projects CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
In review of zoning ordinances, staff has proposed to exempt the Rec and Park District from requirements to go through the city’s public review process for many building and maintenance projects including removal of heritage trees.
Those in support of the change argue that Rec and Park has an elected board voted on by the citizens they serve. They are subject to the same public review and notice requirements as the city. Requiring city reviews duplicates those already held by the Rec and Park District and may give a slanted view of public opinion as arguably city review might be dominated by those opposing a project and unsatisfied by the public reviews held by the Rec and Park District.
Those opposed to exempting the Rec and Park District from city reviews point out that while Rec and Park and the City have many views in common, they have different objectives and do not view projects through the same lens. In addition, to simply require Rec and Park to abide by non-discretionary single family residential zoning requirements, ignores that Rec and Park projects may involve large parking lots, pickle ball courts, and lighting stands that would not be seen in single family housing projects but would create resident concerns for noise, traffic, lighting and other nuisances.
When forced to choose between good arguments on both sides, why not choose both? We propose to hold joint public review sessions with Rec and Park and the City Planning Commission. This will avoid duplicate public reviews and streamline permitting for Rec and Park projects. Most of the time we suspect they can arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. And if not, the City Council can arbitrate and make the deciding vote.
We believe this solution should satisfy all involved.
David Blau
Annette Gelinas
Shereen Motarjemi
Bruce Irion
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2302 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Bruce Irion <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 9:46 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>; Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: David Blau <[email protected]>; annette gelinas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Master Plan must be comprehensive!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
We note that in the last proposed zoning ordinance revisions, staff has proposed to divide the Mangini-Delu site into east and west sides and called for R6/7 single family housing adjacent to existing single family homes. Given that the 4.6 to 13 DU/acre is higher than any of the surrounding neighborhoods, it is commendable to consider how best to transition to higher density housing.
However, in calling out a division between east and west sections of Mangini-Delu, we expect that city and staff will require a comprehensive Master Plan encompassing both sections. Concerned M-D neighbors have attended & spoken at 35 GPAC & Council meetings to arrive at a promise that the entire M-D property will be addressed as one. A zoning decision should not alter that commitment. A comprehensive, detailed master plan for the entire 26 acres is the only way to properly address & solve the traffic & circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties. To do anything else would be to piece-meal the process, a clear violation of environmental and public review requirements
David Blau
Annette Gelinas
Shereen Motarjemi
Bruce Irion
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2303 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: CHARLES DAMIANAKES
To: Troy Fujimoto; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Mangini-Delu property
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 12:36:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: CHARLES DAMIANAKES <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: 10/29/2024 2:14 PM PDT
Subject: Mangini-Delu property
The City Council has requested input on proposed zoning ordinance revisions at their Nov 4th session.
I would like to see Section 18.15.010 paragraph B(4) modified to require a comprehensive Master Plan for Mangini-Delu as follows:
"Allowed uses and development standards in the RMD zoning districts shall be established in a comprehensive, site wide adopted master plan or specific plan before development takes place, unless provided otherwise in this Chapter"
Staff has recommended to split the Mangini-Delu site into east and west zones and while commendable to want to ease transition to higher density housing, this
should not be used to piece-meal the Master Plan. Concerned neighbors have attended and spoken at 35 GPAC and Council meetings to arrive at a promise
that the entire M-D property will be addressed as one. A zoning decision should
not alter that commitment. A comprehensive, detailed master plan for the entire
26 acres is the only way to properly address and solve the parking, traffic, and
circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties.
Soteria "Terrie" Damianakes
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2304 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: RE: Mangini-Delu property
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 3:33:29 PM
From: CHARLES DAMIANAKES <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Mangini-Delu property
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
The City Council has requested input on proposed zoning ordinance revisions at their Nov 4th session.
I would like to see Section 18.15.010 paragraph B(4) modified to require a comprehensive Master Plan for Mangini-Delu as follows:
"Allowed uses and development standards in the RMD zoning districts shall be established in a comprehensive, site wide adopted master plan or specific plan before development takes place, unless provided otherwise in this Chapter" Staff has recommended to split the Mangini-Delu site into east and west zones and while commendable to want to ease transition to higher density housing, this should not be used to piece-meal the Master Plan. ConcernedM-D neighbors have attended and spoken at 35 GPAC and Council meetings to arrive at a promise that the entire M-D property will be addressed as one. A zoning decision should not alter that commitment. A comprehensive, detailed master plan for the entire 26 acres is the only way to properly address and solve the parking, traffic, and circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties.
Soteria "Terrie" Damianakes
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2305 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Re: PC October 8th Study Session - Draft Ordinance Revisions Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 5:48:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Thanks Haley -
New & revised building heights were shown in the earlier Drafts - the question here is HOW CITY Staff arrived at these numbers - since we believe that many of them are too low to encourage QUALITY developments . . . . .
The Parking standards appear to be largely unchanged - which fails to address the concerns regarding shopping centers raised by Wendy Gollop in the last Study Session. Also I think there may be an inherent conflict between an 18' (?) required building setback & a desire for 19' (?) long driveways to allow for parking vehicles in front of one's garage. And in today's world, I would also question whether 2-car garages are needed for smaller homes - those having 1, 2 or maybe even 3 bedrooms ?
I want to see the Commissioners have an actual discussion as to the appropriate figures to be used in both instances !!
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 5:08 PM Haley Croffoot <[email protected]> wrote:
Jack,
Thank you for your email. We are anticipating circulating the preliminary draft of the ordinance earlier to allow for ample review time.
The preliminary drafts will include building height standards and parking requirements. We also plan on providing the revised zoning maps at the City Council Study Session, but they will not be available for the October 8th Planning Commission Study Session.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2306 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Thanks,
Haley Croffoot, AICP
Senior Planner, Planning Division
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Office: 925.671.5297
Email: [email protected]
From: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:48 PM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>; Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]> Subject: PC October 8th Study Session - Draft Ordinance Revisions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
As noted by one of the Commissioners during the last Study Session on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Revisions, the time allowed for the Commissioners & the Public to review these extensive & complex documents was insufficient. At a bare MINIMUM, I believe that we all should have three BUSINESS days between the time these documents are posted / distributed and the start of the Planning Commission's meeting. Better yet would be to have FIVE business days given the above parameters.
To me, the two most significant issues that should be addressed at this time are the Building Heights allowed for various Residential & Mixed-Use Zones and an Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2307 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 update of the Parking requirements for all occupancies (changes NEEDED are NOT shown thus far) ! The City Staff should be prepared to justify the regulations that are being proposed / needed for both of these topics.
We are still waiting to hear when the revised Planning & Zoning Maps will be available for review . . . . .
Thanks for your attention to these details in advance of the PC Study Session on October 8th !
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2308 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Shereen Motarjemi
To: Troy Fujimoto; Haley Croffoot; City Council
Subject: Proposed zoning provisions for Nov 4 mtg
Date: Friday, November 1, 2024 12:30:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Hello,
The City Council has requested input on proposed zoning ordinance revisions at their Nov 4th study session.
I would like to see Section 18.15.010 paragraph B(4) modified to require a comprehensive Master Plan for Mangini-Delu as follows:
“Allowed uses and development standards in the RMD zoning districts shall be established in a comprehensive, site wide adopted master plan or specific plan before development takes place, unless provided otherwise in this Chapter.”
Staff has recommended to split the Mangini-Delu site into east and west zones and while commendable to want to ease transition to higher density housing, this should not be used to piece-meal the Master Plan. Concerned neighbors have attended & spoken at 35 GPAC & City Council meetings to arrive at a promise that the entire Mangini-Delu property will be addressed as one. A zoning decision should not alter that commitment. A comprehensive, detailed master plan for the entire 26 acres is the only way to properly address & solve the parking, traffic, & circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties.
Yours Truly,
Shereen Motarjemi
100 Mercury Way
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2309 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Annette Gelinas
To: Troy Fujimoto; Haley Croffoot; City Council
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Nov 4 Study Session
Date: Friday, November 1, 2024 2:15:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
The City Council has requested input on proposed zoning ordinance revisions at their Nov 4th study session:
I would like to see Section 18.15.010 paragraph B(4) modified to require a comprehensive Master Plan for Mangini-Delu as follows:
“Allowed uses and development standards in the RMD zoning districts shall be established in a comprehensive, site wide adopted master plan or specific plan before development takes place, unless provided otherwise in this Chapter.”
Staff has recommended to split the Mangini-Delu site into east and west zones and while commendable to want to ease transition to higher density housing, this should not be used to piece-meal the Master Plan.
Concerned neighbors have attended & spoken at 35 GPAC & City Council meetings to arrive at a promise that the entire Mangini-Delu property will be addressed as one. A zoning decision should not alter that commitment. A comprehensive, detailed master plan for the entire 26 acres is the only way to properly address & solve the parking, traffic, & circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties.
Regards,
Annette Gelinas
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2310 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Bruce Irion
To: Troy Fujimoto; Haley Croffoot; City Council
Subject: Items for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Revisions
Date: Friday, November 1, 2024 3:15:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I have two items I'd ask the City Council consider on proposed zoning ordinance revisions at their Nov 4th study session.
1) I would like to see wording in Section 18.15.010 paragraph B(4) modified to require a "comprehensive, site wide" Master Plan for Mangini-Delu.
Staff has recommended to split the Mangini-Delu site into east and west zones and while commendable to want to ease transition to higher density housing, this should not be used to piece-meal the Master Plan.
Concerned neighbors have attended & spoken at 35 GPAC & City Council meetings to arrive at a promise that the entire Mangini-Delu property will be addressed as one. A zoning decision should not alter that commitment. A comprehensive, detailed master plan for the entire 26 acres is the only way to properly address & solve the parking, traffic, & circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties.
2) I would like to hear the City Council discuss the proposal to hold joint public hearing sessions with the Rec & Park for Rec & Park project permits.
Staff has proposed to give Rec & Park considerable autonomy for their projects. Proponents, including Rec and Park, have pointed to duplicate public hearings and potential bias in holding duplicate public hearings as justification to eliminate required city hearings. At the last Planning Commission meeting, several residents spoke out in concern saying that while having similar interests, City and Rec & Park have different lenses when viewing permits. In addition, to simply require Rec and Park to abide by non-discretionary single family residential zoning requirements, ignores that Rec and Park projects may involve large parking lots, pickle ball courts, and lighting stands that would not be seen in single family housing projects but would create resident concerns for noise, traffic, lighting and other nuisances.
In seeking a solution to both viewpoints, we had suggested joint public hearings with Park & Rec and the Planning Commission. This would achieve the streamlined permitting requested by Rec and Park while providing the City review requested by residents.
Thank you!
Bruce Irion
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2311 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto; quy tran
Subject: CC 21 April Study Session - Attachment "Y" - Proposed Zoning Map Date: Sunday, April 6, 2025 8:25:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
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 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.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2312 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 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 2313 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto; Sue Noack
Subject: Zoning Ordinances - Chapter Numbering
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:00:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Folks -
I guess that there is something really basic about writing City Zoning Ordinances that I really don't understand . . . . . that the same Chapter numbers would be used for different purposes in various Parts of these documents.
In Part 2 you have "Chapter 18.45 - Parks and Recreation Zoning District" and "Chapter
18.50 - Open Space Zoning District" while in Part 3 you have "Chapter 18.45 - General Site and Development Standards" and "Chapter 18.50 - Adult Businesses".
And then in Part 5 you have "Chapter 18.190 - Nonconforming Provisions" and "Chapter
18.195 - Noticing Requirements" while in Part 6 you have "Chapter 18.190 - Land Use Classifications" and "Chapter 18.195 - Definitions".
In administering these Ordinances, I would have thought that each Chapter would have its own unique number - not overlapping numbers in the successive Parts ! All this comes after years of efforts in updating these nearly final documents . . . . . renumbering at this point might well affect various cross-references in the various Parts.
Please advise where this is going !
Jack Prosek
PH Resident
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2314 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: CC 21 April Study Session - Attachments "A" thru "X" - Draft Ordinance Updates Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 11:11:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
The following comments apply to the Study Session on the Draft Ordinance Updates (Attachments "A" thru "X") that are to be discussed at the April 21st meeting of the Pleasant Hill City Council (CC). Rather than retyping all the text, I am simply going to refer everyone to the emails that contained my earlier comments - all of which are readily available in Attachment "DD" - Public Comments.
Friday June 21, 2024 - Chapter 18.70 - Off-Street Parking and Loading Saturday June 22, 2024 - Chapter 18.45 - General Site Standards ...
Sunday June 23, 2024 - Section 18.45.040 - Screening Mechanical Equipment ... moved to Section 18.65.040
Friday August 23, 2024 - PC Meeting 8-27-2024 ... major revisions to the Chapter Numbering - the former Chapter 18.20 is now 18.15 and the former 18.22 is now 18.20.
The major issues addressed here were the revised restrictions in building heights in new Chapters 18.15 & 18.20 and the need for additional parking at the DVC Campus, especially if the North Overflow Parking Lot is developed for dwelling Units (P. M-1 in Chapter 18.20.040).
Saturday September 14, 2024 - Building Heights & Parking requirements (again) Tuesday September 17, 2024 - Building Heights & Parking Requirements (& again) Tuesday October 1, 2024 - PC Study Session - October 8th - Building Heights & Parking Requirements (& yet again)
Monday October 7, 2024 - Chapter 18.45 ... Part 2 - Parks and Recreation Zoning District
It is truly disappointing to see how very little impact that all my volunteer work has had on these documents. Little more than glorified "typos" were changed . . . . .
Meanwhile, here we are already 27% of the way thru the 8-year time period for the RHNA Cycle 6 and we have yet to see any meaningful progress - Applications, Design Submittals, Study Sessions or Public Hearings before either the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) or the Planning Committee (PC) - on any of the 13 Sites for Lower Income residents that were included in the Approved Housing Element (HE). These include:
ten Sites "C" thru "L" - privately owned commercial properties with redevelopment potential
Site "A" - the DVC North Overflow Parking Lot - owned or at least controlled by a public entity.
two vacant Sites identified as Morello Terraces & Paso Nogal - both are steeply sloped & have a long history of landslide problems in the immediate vicinity.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2315 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 In addition, there is real potential for redevelopment of Site "B" - the JC Penney Home Store - either as Residential or Mixed-Use, but this was not acceptable for Lower Income residents according to the State HCD. Furthermore, there does not seem to be any forward progress on the development of the Mangini - Delu farm properties - which is not surprising since the City Council still is wrestling with exactly what they want to accept there . . . . .
I attribute this lack of progress to the overly restrictive Ordinances that Pleasant Hill has - existing & being proposed for the future. More specifically I see the building height limits for both Residential & Mixed-Use developments, the 25% commercial space minimum for Mixed-Use projects & the building orientation restrictions as the MAJOR deterrents to the quality projects that we all would like to see in the pipeline. Even if the City Council does approve a deviation from the Ordinance limits, a project can be stopped or downgraded by "public-interest" lawsuits. Just witness what happened to "Stumpy" - my nickname for the pylon sign for the businesses at DVC Plaza. They were hoping to attract customers off the I680 freeway, but the height was cut from about 55' down to 35'. One needs only to look across the freeway to see the many new residences that are going ahead next door in the City of Concord.....
Yet again, I hereby request that the City Council schedule an open forum Town Hall style meeting during which all these issues can be freely discussed - unlike the more restrictive environment mandated by the Study Session during the regular City Council meetings where Public Comments are routinely ignored.
Jack Prosek
48 year Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2316 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto; quy tran
Subject: Re: CC 21 April Study Session - Attachment "Y" - Proposed Zoning Map Date: Monday, April 14, 2025 10:30:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
Here are some additional questions regarding the proposed Zoning Map & the Planning Map that was approved by the City Council at their Special Meeting on 18 May 2023 which I presume is the latest version.
5- The Winslow Center property at the SE corner of Taylor Blvd. & Pleasant Hill Road is shown as light blue Institutional on the Planing Map & R-10 dark yellow on the Zoning Map - why is this not green for Parks like all the other RPD properties ? 6- The Hope Center Church property is shown as dark blue Office on the Planning Map & red Retail Business on the Zoning Map - why is this not light blue Institutional on the Planning Map like the other Church / Private School uses around the City ? 7- The designations on the Zoning Map for our new Library site & the new park land just north of it are confusing as well - dark blue Office rather than Institutional & Park.
These are just three examples from the very small portions of the City that I am most familiar with where corrections are needed in one or both of these Maps. I would bet that there are many more . . . . . further input & study is needed if we are to have worthy documents.
Is there an easy way to get full-color copies of these two Maps ? Jack Prosek
48 year Resident / Homeowner
zz
On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 8:25 AM Jack Prosek <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2317 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 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 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 2318 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Updated 10/10/2025
City of Pleasant Hill Rezoning
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
In response to the number of inquiries that the City has received related to the proposed rezoning of various properties throughout the City, the following FAQs have been prepared to provide responses to some of the more frequently asked questions.
1. What role does the General Plan and Housing Element have in the proposed rezonings?
The City adopted a new General Plan in 2023 which outlines a long-term, visionary framework to guide future growth within the City through 2040. As part of the General Plan, the City also adopted a new Housing Element. As mandated by the State, the Housing Element follows an eight-year cycle (2023-2031) and establishes a comprehensive plan to address housing needs in Pleasant Hill over those eight years.
The General Plan map associated with the 2040 General Plan reflects the required changes in the approved Housing Element.
As a General Law City, the City is required by law to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map so that the underlying zoning of all properties aligns with the overarching General Plan designations. This is the final phase in the process to ensure that the General Plan, including the Housing Element, and the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map are consistent.
2. 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.
3. Why is the City rezoning properties above-and-beyond what is required to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) mandates from the State of California?
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2319 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Updated 10/10/2025
The Housing Element establishes a comprehensive plan to address housing needs in Pleasant Hill between 2023-2031. Part of this includes locating “housing opportunity sites” to meet the City’s RHNA mandate of 1,803 total units. However, the Housing Element includes citywide programs and policies that go above and beyond the RHNA.
For example, Program F in the Housing Element requires the rezoning of almost 105 acres of existing, low-density, high-resource areas of the City to higher density mixeduse or multi-family designations to promote housing mobility and increased housing choice in some of the existing low-density areas through the rezoning. The required rezonings must occur within two years of the certification of the Housing Element, or no later than November 22, 2025. Further, Program R of the Housing Element requires the City to add new mixed-use zones and revise development standards to allow for missing middle housing types by 2026.
All the programs in the Housing Element are required to be implemented in the given timeframe to maintain compliance.
4. Why did the City change some single-family residential areas to mixed-use? As part of the General Plan process, there was extensive discussion about changing the designations for certain existing single-family areas, such as the East Vivian residential area east of Contra Costa Boulevard, to allow for future mixed-use development.
Because the General Plan is a long-range document, the City anticipated areas where those potential changes could occur over the next few decades. Accordingly, the City considered areas as appropriate for increased flexibility of uses based on, among other factors, their connectivity and proximity to nearby commercial uses. Further, the changes would provide opportunities for varied and increased housing opportunities that would partially address anticipated long-term growth needs, as well as any Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) mandates from the State of California.
5. What does a “mixed-use” zoning designation mean?
Mixed-use zoning districts allow for a range of commercial and residential uses that provide flexibility to property owners. For example, a mixed-use development could include a ground floor coffee shop, grocery store, or retail component with residential units on the floors above (“vertical mixed-use”). Alternatively, a mixed-use development could contain a stand-alone commercial use that shares the same site as a townhome or compact single-family residential use (“horizontal mixed-use”).
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2320 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Updated 10/10/2025
6. What will happen to my single-family home if my property is rezoned to a mixeduse zoning district (Mixed-Use, Mixed-Use Neighborhood Business, etc.)? Nothing will happen to existing single-family residences, as single-family residential uses are permitted within all mixed-use zones, nor will those existing homes become nonconforming due to the zoning change. Additionally, the mixed-use zone includes language allowing existing properties to remain as a single-family use. If property owners wish to make improvements to their existing single-family properties within mixed-use zones, the City will not compel them to comply with the commercial component requirements of the mixed-use zones.
7. Is this effort to rezone properties, including the change to a mixed-use zoning district, related to a development project?
No, none of the proposed zoning changes have any relation to a development project(s).
Presently, the City does not have any new mixed-use development applications under review.
8. Were traffic impacts analyzed with the proposed rezonings? The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) considered potential traffic of increased density as it relates to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
If a development application is submitted, based on the scope of the project, the City may require a traffic study as part of the individual development review to determine any potential impacts of the project. There are established thresholds, based on project types, that determine what constitutes a traffic impact. If a project’s impacts fall below these thresholds, no additional traffic analysis will be required; however, if a project exceeds the thresholds, an analysis must determine potential mitigations for those impacts, if possible.
9. Will my property taxes increase?
No, the County Assessor confirmed for City staff that properties are reassessed for tax purposes when there is a change in ownership, or when physical improvements are made to the property that add value. A rezoning does not trigger a reassessment.
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2321 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025 Updated 10/10/2025
10. Is the City taking control of my property through this rezoning (i.e., eminent domain)?
No, the City neither has ownership control of any property proposed to be rezoned nor does the City intend to use eminent domain to acquire any properties for the purposes of rezoning.
11. Where can I find out more information?
To review a copy of the proposed Rezoning Map, visit the City’s website: https://www.phillca.gov/1666/Comprehensive-Zoning-Ordinance-Amendment You can also contact Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner at [email protected] or (925)671-5297
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2322 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Parcels Proposed for Rezoning
CITY COUNCIL
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT & REZONING
Citywide, City of Pleasant Hill
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Pleasant Hill that the City Council will hold a public hearing 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
• Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications.
The proposed zoning ordinance amendment will also include rezoning of certain properties throughout the City of Pleasant Hill. The proposed comprehensive update and replacement of the Zoning Ordinance & Rezoning is 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.
A copy of the Public Review Draft of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update and the proposed Rezoning Map can be found on the City’s website at: https://www.phillca.gov/1666/Comprehensive-Zoning-Ordinance-Amendment 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 with 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 are needed to the certified 2040 General Plan Final EIR. 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).
The PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the CITY COUNCIL starting at 7:00 p.m. on MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2025, in the CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill. Interested persons will be heard at this time at the meeting. More information on how to participate, including providing live comments during the meeting, will be provided on the posted City Council Agenda.
NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(B) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at a Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Pleasant Hill at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.
For information on this matter, please call or email Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner, at (925) 671-5297 or [email protected].
Troy Fujimoto, Secretary to the Planning Commission
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2323 of 2323 - Monday, October 20, 2025