W- Public Comments for October 20 2025 Council Hearing.pdf — Pleasant Hill City Council, October 20, 2025

Dr. Aiden Martin
605 Maureen Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
951-396-8099
September 15, 2025
City Council
Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Maureen Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express my concern and strong opposition to the recent action taken by the Planning Commission during the September 9th meeting, which approved the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map. Specifically, I am referring to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family parcels at the end of Maureen Lane to Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential.

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

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

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

The outreach conducted by the City was limited to directly impacted parcels, leaving the broader neighborhood entirely out of the process. This is not adequate community engagement—it is procedural minimalism that disregards the very people most affected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please confirm receipt of this communication and attachment.

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

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

Please confirm receipt of this communication and attachment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Areas of Concern

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

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

2. Misleading statements regarding PUD zoning
• Commissioners claimed all PUD land was already effectively zoned multifamily—this is false. The Pleasant Hill Library lot (formerly PUD) and the future park at 1700 Oak Park prove otherwise.
• Not all PUD parcels were addressed in the new zoning map, undermining the stated goal of consistency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Phil & Leslie Altman
September 29, 2025
To Ms. Croffoot and the City Council:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Formal letter attached & written copy mailed.

Thank you for your time & consideration on this matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Formal letter attached & written copy mailed.

Thank you for your time & consideration on this matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I originally supported many of the recent initiatives aimed at improving our town, including the promotion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), enhanced walkability with upgraded intersections, sidewalks, and crosswalks, and the general move toward making our neighborhoods more livable for all generations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Lisa Gruen
(Gregory Gardens Resident)
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here City of Pleasant Hill letter.pdf * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18543 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Ken O'Keefe
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning Opposition - Gregory Gardens
Question or Comment:: Hi,
I'm writing to oppose the rezoning of Gregory Gardens and Pleasant Hill neighborhoods. Please see attached letter.

Thank you.

Upload File Attachment here: City of Pleasant Hill letter.pdf Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/29/2025 6:54:47 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.245.96.231
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Monday, September 29, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane—from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way, Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods. They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business MixedUse Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

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

Sincerely,
Ken O’Keefe
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
k.okeefe177@ gmail.com
925-691-4855
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 7:54:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here City of Pleasant Hill Letter Sept 29.docx.pdf * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18544 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Natalie O'Keefe
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment Question or Comment:: Hello,
Please see attached letter. The proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment in no way benefits the current residents of Pleasant Hill. Please consider the impact this will have on the established taxpayers, voters, and residents of Pleasant Hill.

Upload File Attachment here: City of Pleasant Hill Letter Sept 29.docx.pdf Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/29/2025 7:53:52 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.245.96.231
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Monday, September 29, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, Pleasant Hill has always prided itself on being a family-oriented community, with families spanning generations. As a family who have been residents for over 71 years, I strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Pleasant Hill cannot absorb more traffic and urban sprawl. Our community must keep the current structure to keep it attractive to current and future residents.

I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

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

Sincerely,
Natalie O’Keefe
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
925-691-4855
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:27:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18545 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Samantha Roberts
Street Address:: 635 Maureen lane
City: Pleasant hill
Phone Number:: 9257837012
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to rezoning of single family home
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Noack,
My name is Samantha and I live on Maureen Lane. I am writing as one of four parcels whose homes—630, 631, 634, and 635 Maureen Lane—are targeted for rezoning to Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business under the proposed ordinance.

I want to begin by saying that I understand the rationale behind the City’s 2040 General Plan, and that the State of California has placed aggressive mandates on Pleasant Hill to expand housing opportunities. I fully appreciate the need to plan responsibly for future growth.

However, Maureen Lane is a true cul-de-sac. Our homes face internally within the Gregory Gardens neighborhood, and it is neither realistic nor reasonable to disrupt an established court with a commercial or mixeduse designation. Unless there are long-term plans for Gregory Lane access that have not yet been disclosed (which senior planning staff have denied), this proposed change feels wholly inconsistent with both the physical layout and intent of our neighborhood.

I urge you to personally drive down Maureen Lane and ask yourself if a Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business designation makes sense in this context. I believe you will find it does not. I am aware of how familiar you are with my neighborhood. I have two babies that will become students at Strandwood Elementary. I too intend to become involved in their PTA. I chose this neighborhood with intent. My dad grew up on Eloise, and he too was a student at Strandwood. This is a true community with deep roots. We bought here for the single family, ride your bike to school, know your neighbors feel. I beg you to consider what these sweeping rezonings would do to the fabric of these inner neighborhood streets.

I purchased my home at the end of a quiet court on Maureen Lane while eight months pregnant because our first home purchase was on Elinora Drive, which as you are aware, is a busy cut-through street in Gregory Gardens. It took us 11 strong offers on homes in the area before we landed on Elinora. I tell you this because I know just how hard it is to buy in this market. It was a sacrifice to make this a reality - and I do not disagree that more housing opportunity is greatly needed. However, I chose to buy a single family parcel, and changing that from underneath me feels like a bait and switch; The move to Maureen Lane came at a premium for the safety, stability, and character that a cul-de-sac provides. Changing the zoning now undermines that investment and the very qualities that drew us here.

The 2040 General Plan itself emphasizes preserving established neighborhoods and protecting the character of single-family areas. For example:
• In its “Land Use” and “Community Design” chapters, there is language about guiding infill and higher-density development to places that already have infrastructure and are appropriate for transition, rather than destabilizing intact single-family courts.
•The plan seeks to balance growth with “neighborhood integrity” so that residential areas with unique features (such as cul-de-sacs, courts) are not harmed by abrupt or incompatible changes. •While our parcels may technically touch Gregory Lane along the rear lot line, they are internally oriented and accessed exclusively via Maureen Lane. They have no frontage, driveways, or visibility on Gregory Lane. Treating them as if they were Gregory-facing is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning and with the 2040 Plan’s policies about compatible transitions
In light of this, I respectfully ask that you and the City Council consider amending the ordinance to remove the four internal-facing Maureen Lane parcels from the Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business rezoning. Doing so would both respect the spirit of the 2040 Plan and honor the lived reality of our court.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and leadership. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further.

Sincerely,
Samantha Roberts
635 Maureen Lane
(925)783-7012
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/29/2025 8:26:58 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 104.28.123.69
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1036/Sue-Noack-Mayor Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:53:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment
here
Pleasant Hill City Council - Opposition Letter - Protect our Single Family Homes - Aiden Martin.pdf
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18546 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Aiden Martin
Street Address:: 605 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9513968099
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Pleasant Hill City Council - Opposition Letter - Protect our Single Family Homes - Aiden Martin Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: Pleasant Hill City Council - Opposition Letter - Protect our Single Family Homes - Aiden Martin.pdf
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/29/2025 9:53:34 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.130.76
Referrer Page: https://www.google.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Dr. Aiden Martin
605 Maureen Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
951-396-8099
September 29, 2025
Mayor Sue Noack
City Council Members
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Dear Mayor Noack and Honorable Members of the City Council, Re: Opposition to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map
I am writing as a concerned resident and homeowner in Pleasant Hill to express my strong opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map— specifically, the proposed rezoning of internal neighborhood single-family homes (SFH) to Mixed-Use or Neighborhood Business Mixed Use.

During recent Planning Commission meetings, statements were made that gave residents the impression that this sweeping rezoning effort was necessary to meet the State’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) mandates. However, after reviewing the Housing Element of the General Plan, it has become clear that no single-family homes were included in the RHNA strategy. This raises a deeply concerning question: If these SFH areas were not required to fulfill RHNA goals, why is the City proposing to eliminate over 200 single-family homes—one of the most needed and scarce types of housing in the Bay Area? This proposal would fundamentally alter the character of our established neighborhoods and undermine the very foundation of Pleasant Hill's community identity. Many residents, myself included, feel blindsided by this process. We are confused, alarmed, and disheartened that such transformative changes are being pursued without clear necessity or sufficient community engagement.

I respectfully urge you to take a step back and fully consider the long-term consequences of this proposal—not only in terms of land use but also in terms of community trust and cohesion. I strongly encourage you to proactively reach out to your constituents before the October 20th meeting to hear their concerns, perspectives, and hopes for the future of our city.

The decision before you is critical, and I trust you will weigh it with the seriousness and thoughtfulness it deserves. Please protect the neighborhoods and families that have invested their lives in Pleasant Hill.

Thank you for your service and attention to this vital issue.

Sincerely,
Aiden Martin
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 5:59:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18547 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Andrea Boone
Street Address:: 107 Sylvia Drive
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 6509240189
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Re-zoning
Question or Comment:: Hi there - I’m very worried about the re-zoning efforts underway in GG, East Vivian, and Poet’s Corner. While I love the idea of more walkable and accessible shops and public spaces, people live in these neighborhoods. They’re what makes pleasant hill unique - families, communities together in modest yet lovely homes. Please don’t strip this away from our community.

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

Form submitted on: 9/30/2025 5:59:42 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 104.2.26.84
Referrer Page: http://m.facebook.com
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 7:35:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18548 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Tina Fitzsimmons
Street Address:: 619 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9252127476
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Maureen Lane
Question or Comment:: I am very concerned about the removal of four homes at the end of our street to make room for high density housing or for businesses. We live in a court and this would change the whole dynamics of our court. Can you please reconsider. Thank you for your time.

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

Form submitted on: 9/30/2025 7:35:29 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.15.139.229
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 1:42:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18549 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Samantha Roberts
Street Address:: 635 Maureen lane
City: Pleasant hill
Phone Number:: 9257837012
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition of rezoning of my single family home Question or Comment:: Hello Mayor Noack, this is my second email attempt - I would like this email to be considered for the October 20 public hearing regarding the city council vote for the rezoning ordinance:

Dear Mayor Noack,
My name is Samantha and I live on Maureen Lane. I am writing as one of four parcels whose homes—630, 631, 634, and 635 Maureen Lane—are targeted for rezoning to Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business under the proposed ordinance. I want to begin by saying that I understand the rationale behind the City’s 2040 General Plan, and that the State of California has placed aggressive mandates on Pleasant Hill to expand housing opportunities. I fully appreciate the need to plan responsibly for future growth. However, Maureen Lane is a true cul-de-sac. Our homes face internally within the Gregory Gardens neighborhood, and it is neither realistic nor reasonable to disrupt an established court with a commercial or mixed-use designation. Unless there are long-term plans for Gregory Lane access that have not yet been disclosed (which senior planning staff have denied), this proposed change feels wholly inconsistent with both the physical layout and intent of our neighborhood. I urge you to personally drive down Maureen Lane and ask yourself if a Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business designation makes sense in this context. I believe you will find it does not. I am aware of how familiar you are with my neighborhood. I have two babies that will become students at Strandwood Elementary. I too intend to become involved in their PTA. I chose this neighborhood with intent. My dad grew up on Eloise, and he too was a student at Strandwood. This is a true community with deep roots. We bought here for the single family, ride your bike to school, know your neighbors feel. I beg you to consider what these sweeping rezonings would do to the fabric of these inner neighborhood streets. I purchased my home at the end of a quiet court on Maureen Lane while eight months pregnant because our first home purchase was on Elinora Drive, which as you are aware, is a busy cut-through street in Gregory Gardens. It took us 11 strong offers on homes in the area before we landed on Elinora. I tell you this because I know just how hard it is to buy in this market. It was a sacrifice to make this a reality - and I do not disagree that more housing opportunity is greatly needed. However, I chose to buy a single family parcel, and changing that from underneath me feels like a bait and switch; The move to Maureen Lane came at a premium for the safety, stability, and character that a cul-de-sac provides. Changing the zoning now undermines that investment and the very qualities that drew us here. The 2040 General Plan itself emphasizes preserving established neighborhoods and protecting the character of single-family areas. For example: • In its “Land Use” and “Community Design” chapters, there is language about guiding infill and higher-density development to places that already have infrastructure and are appropriate for transition, rather than destabilizing intact single-family courts. •The plan seeks to balance growth with “neighborhood integrity” so that residential areas with unique features (such as culde-sacs, courts) are not harmed by abrupt or incompatible changes. •While our parcels may technically touch Gregory Lane along the rear lot line, they are internally oriented and accessed exclusively via Maureen Lane. They have no frontage, driveways, or visibility on Gregory Lane. Treating them as if they were Gregory-facing is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning and with the 2040 Plan’s policies about compatible transitions In light of this, I respectfully ask that you and the City Council consider amending the ordinance to remove the four internalfacing Maureen Lane parcels from the Mixed-Use Neighborhood/Business rezoning. Doing so would both respect the spirit of the 2040 Plan and honor the lived reality of our court. Thank you for your time, consideration, and leadership. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further.

Sincerely,
Samantha Roberts
635 Maureen Lane
(925)783-7012
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/30/2025 1:39:51 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 104.28.124.69
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 1:54:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18550 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Mac and Lynda Abbey
Street Address:: 413 Roberta Ave
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9253480490
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: No to Rezoning Proposal
Question or Comment:: We are very disturbed by the Rezoning Proposal of the area between Beatrice Rd and the canal, a flood zone. The process of the Planning Commission was highly flawed with no apparent outreach to those of us most greatly affected. Medium density housing could double the traffic in an otherwise quiet neighborhood. The streets are narrow, without sidewalks and often full of walkers and children. We agree that single family houses in the proposed area could be assimilated in an expanded neighborhood, but there was no opportunity to discuss. We urge the City Council to reject the present proposal and initiate a process that includes participation of members of our neighborhood.

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

Form submitted on: 9/30/2025 1:54:26 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.3.186.42
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 12:09:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here Pleasasnt Hill City Council - Opposition Letter - General Community - [NAME].doc * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18552 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Bruce Badash
Street Address:: 618 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Concerns on rezoning Gregory Lane
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: Pleasasnt Hill City Council - Opposition Letter - General Community - [NAME].doc
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/1/2025 12:08:57 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.241.77.81
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 October 1, 2025
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map.

Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 single-family residential parcels from our community is a step in the wrong direction. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the community without public benefit, and with no clear plan, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties—including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill’s planning process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
• Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without this unnecessary change
• Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higherdensity housing • Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress—it is about planning responsibly, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Bruce Badash
618 Maureen Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
From: Jeremy Poggio
To: Sue Noack
Cc: Ethan Bindernagel; Troy Fujimoto; Lyone Conner
Subject: Call from Deanna DeNura Re: Rezoning Matters
Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 9:32:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Good Morning, Mayor Noack:

Deanna DeNura, who resides at 735 Slater Avenue, called this past Monday 9/29, and initially requested to speak to you, however, by the end of the call determined that she did not need a call back. She noted she does not use email and so called with her concerns, which included:
1) During her visit with the Planning Division on Friday 9/26, she was told her parcel was listed as a “cleanup.” She did not appreciate this terminology going on the State report and questioned why her residence was being rezoned.
2) She has been monitoring Orinda’s rezoning matters and felt that their public notice was clearer and more detailed, including a more detailed rezoning map. She wanted to make it known that she will be watching the upcoming Orinda City Council meetings in comparison to how Pleasant Hill handles the rezoning matter. 3) She stated she also owns the property of 731 Slater Avenue, but it was not listed on the report.

This information will be shared with the Planning Division and will be included as public comment regarding the referenced rezoning matter.

Thank you,
Jeremy
Jeremy Poggio - Office of the City Manager
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
p.925-671-5292
Om'OF PLEAS'AMr'llllL
October 1, 2025
Attention:

Pleasant Hill City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 singlefamily residential parcels from our community is a step in the wrong direction. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand-which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes. At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the community without public benefit, and with no clear plan, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties-including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, wou1d violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill's planning-process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
• Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without this unnecessary change • Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing • Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide
Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress-it is about planning responsibly, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill. (f JJ Maureen Lane
October 1, 2025
Attention:

Pleasant Hill City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523
RE: Opposition to Removal of Single-family homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Dear Mayor and City Council members,
Today I signed a letter proposed by the families of my community on Maureen Lane. I agree with the letter (attached) and support its reasoning. However, I feel compelled to write a personal response to learning that zoning changes would affect my home and character of my neighborhood as well as the property vaf ues of our homes.

The proposal removes four single family court homes that closes us into a complete neighborhood with great walking, safe sidewalks and street access without fear to monitor strangers, parking problems or noise at late hours. Rezoning these beautiful homes for multiple use completely destroys the special feeling I have about living in Pleasant Hill. I am greatly annoyed that the council only gave notice to the 4 properties and considering the impact it will have on our community, the very least should have been all properties within a reasonable radius. Two days notice ... come on! That doesn't sound very ethical or demonstrate that the council is supporting its constituents.

I love Pleasant Hill as many do. Use your open space to build housing. Don't destroy well maintained single family homes to develop multi business/housing. Improve the core of our city with a good department store. Changing the atmosphere of our neighborhood will ignite such anger and more residents will join in to stop your plans with their votes.

This is my personal opinion of how feel about the zoning. I will continue to support the neighborhood's efforts to remove the proposed zoning in question from the proposed map, and will vote for council persons who agree.

Sincerely,
~ 'fr;~ ~27 M~ureen Lane -
Pleasant Hill. {15 year resident)
October 1, 2025
Attention:

Pieasant Hill City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 singlefamily residentialparcels from our community is a step in the wrong direction. These homes are essenti~t to rriaintaining a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill 'already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA}wifhout needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand-which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes. At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what Is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the community without pubUc benefit, and with no dear plan, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties-including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill's planning process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods . ..
• Honotthe current H6using Elerrient, which already sa-tisfies State requirements without this unnec·essary change • Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing • Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide
Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress-it is- about plarmi'ng responsibly, honoring tommunity character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Th~nk you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
t;tPuJ i(J:i/j/
$ Maureen Lane
October 1, 2025
Attention:

Pleasa"l"1t HiH City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 singlefamily residential partelSfrom our commu'nity is a step in the wrong direction. Thes'e homes are essential to maintai·ning a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal ofthese homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand-which de·arJy shows a continued need for single-family homes. At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fund-a mentally alter the community without pubtic benefit, and with no clear pian, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density; and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties-including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill's planning process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
• Honor the current Housing -Elerhent, which already satisfies St~te reqiuireme6ts without this unn~cessary change • Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing • Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide
Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress-it is about planning responsibly, honoring co"1'.munity character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Jtmb~
lp/3_ Maureen Lane
October 1, 2025
Attention:

Pleasant Hill Cit\l Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill e!.A 94~13
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. Pleasant Hill is already facing a shortage of single-family homes, and removing more than 200 singlefamily resrdenti'alparcels from our community is a step in the wrong directi·on. These ·homes are essential to maintaining a balanced housing stock and preserving the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable city for generations.

There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fuUy meets California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA}without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand--which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes. At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundarnentaHy aiter the communitywH:hout pubHc benefit, and with no dear p~an, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not _designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code {PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties-incfuding increasedtraffic, noise, and density. This proposal", if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the inte~rity of Pleasant Hill's planning process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
• Honot the current Hou'singEl-ement~ which alre~dy satisfies State requirements without this unnecessary change • Prioritize the deve!opment of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing • Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide
Preservirtg single-family homes ls not about resisting progress-it is about pJanntng responsibly, honortng cemmunity character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
,27 Maureen Lane
From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Date: Friday, October 3, 2025 2:00:17 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 6:00 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name: Stephanie & Eric Schoen
Street
Address:
407 Maureen Lane
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:
510-290-4502
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Question
or
Comment:

Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map. Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internalfacing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane—from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way, Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods.

They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value. While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them? In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement.

Under PHMC §18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quite cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned? If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail. Many residents moved to this neighborhood specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement. The outreach efforts associated with this proposal were limited in scope, focusing primarily on directly affected parcels and excluding the broader neighborhood. This level of engagement does not meet the standard of meaningful public input—it amounts to the bare minimum required and overlooks the concerns of the larger community that will be impacted. I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residentialdesignation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued service to our city. Sincerely, Stephanie & Eric Schoen 407 Maureen Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 [email protected]; 510-290-4502 Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18555 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Stephanie & Eric Schoen
Street Address:: 407 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 510-290-4502
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Question or Comment:: Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them?
In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quite cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned? If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residentialdesignation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

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

Sincerely,
Stephanie & Eric Schoen
407 Maureen Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]; 510-290-4502
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/2/2025 6:00:16 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 66.234.201.229
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: Request for clarification on Rezoning of East Vivian Neighborhoods Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 8:55:06 AM
From: Deana Rabbach <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2025 1:01 PM
To: Sue Noack <[email protected]>; Haley Croffoot <[email protected]> Cc: Todd Rabbach <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for clarification on Rezoning of East Vivian Neighborhoods CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor Noack,
I’m a resident of 23 Celia Drive in the East Vivian Neighborhood, and recently learned that our home and neighborhood was rezoned from single family residential to mixed-use as part of the 2040 General Plan and is planned to be rezoned as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Could you please share:
• The specific goals this rezoning advances for the City (e.g., housing, transportation, economic development).
• How the City expects the change to positively impact residents—short and long term (safety, traffic, schools, small businesses, tax base, city services). • Any supporting analyses or metrics used to evaluate benefits (infrastructure capacity, fiscal impact, traffic studies, environmental review).
• How resident input was incorporated and what opportunities remain for feedback or refinement.

If helpful, I’m happy to meet or attend the next session where this topic will be discussed. Thank you for your time and for helping residents understand the rationale and expected community benefits.

Regards,
Deana, Todd, Paolina (13) and Roman (13) Rabbach
23 Celia Drive, Pleasant Hill in the East Vivian Neighborhood 510.367.6987
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Sunday, October 5, 2025 9:43:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18557 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Stacey Pawsey
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes Question or Comment:: 10/5/2025
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map.

At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable singlefamily areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the community without public benefit, and with no clear plan, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

We urge the City Council to:

Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without this unnecessary change Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide
Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress—it is about planning responsibly, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Stacey Pawsey
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/5/2025 9:43:40 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.170.16.235
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Saturday, October 4, 2025 6:39:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18556 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Tina Fitzsimmons
Street Address:: 619 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning
Question or Comment:: I am asking you to rethink about rezoning the end of Maureen Lane. This would greatly affect our sweet neighborhood. We are a court and to take away four homes would not only affect them it would affect all of us. These are custom homes that were built with the promise of always being a court. I want to thank you for your time and consideration in this.

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

Form submitted on: 10/4/2025 6:39:50 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.15.139.229
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Lyone Conner
To: Jeremy Poggio
Subject: FW: Request for clarification on rezoning of Poets Corner Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 9:08:08 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Asal Bidokhti <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 8:25 PM
To: Sue Noack <[email protected]>; Haley Croffoot <[email protected]> Subject: Request for clarification on rezoning of Poets Corner CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor Noack,
I’m a resident of Poets Corner and recently learned that our area was rezoned from single family residential to 4 story apartments as part of the 2040 General Plan and is planned to be rezoned as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Could you please share:
• The specific goals this rezoning advances for the City (e.g., housing, transportation, economic development). • How the City expects the change to positively impact residents—short and long term (safety, traffic, schools, small businesses, tax base, city services).
• Any supporting analyses or metrics used to evaluate benefits (infrastructure capacity, fiscal impact, traffic studies, environmental review).
• How resident input was/ will be incorporated and what opportunities remain for feedback or refinement.

Sincerely,
Asal Doyle
Poets Corner
[email protected]
From: Haley Croffoot
To: Lyone Conner
Subject: FW: Rezoning
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 9:21:43 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Fitzsimmons <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 9:02 AM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

First let me start by saying thank you for coming to our meeting Saturday on Maureen Lane. We are very concerned about the rezoning of the four houses on our street. We kindly ask that you take these four houses OFF the general plan. This would change our whole neighborhood. We love PH and the homey feel of it. We have plenty to walk to from our trail. PLEASE take our street if of your plan. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tina Fitzsimmons 619 Maureen Lane
Sent from my iPhone
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:46:07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here ph-citycouncil.docx
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18559 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Kari Balderston
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: ph-citycouncil.docx
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/6/2025 10:46:00 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 [DATE]
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

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

Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address in Gregory Gardens]
[Your Email or Phone Number, if desired]
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:49:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here ph-rezone.docx
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18561 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: ph-rezone.docx
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/6/2025 10:49:46 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 October 6, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

We bought in this neighborhood, as did my inlaws specifically because of its single-family character and low traffic—a defining quality now threatened by this change, which has been advanced with minimal community engagement.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

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

Sincerely,
Trippe Roloff
124 Beverly Drive
[email protected]
From: Haley Croffoot
To: Lyone Conner
Cc: Troy Fujimoto; Ethan Bindernagel
Subject: FW: Subject: Request for Clarification on rezoning of Sherman Acres II Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 12:03:34 PM
From: Cindy Walker-sayles <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:55 PM
To: Sue Noack <[email protected]>; Haley Croffoot <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Request for Clarification on rezoning of Sherman Acres II CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor Noack,
I am a resident @ 1925 Marta Drive and recently learned that our area is being rezoned from single family residential to Mixed Use (MU) as part of the 2040 General Plan and is planned to be rezoned as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Could you please share:
* The specific goals this rezoning advances the city (e.g., housing, transportation, economic development).
* Why the designation of Mixed Use (MU) was used rather than Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUD)?
* How the City expects the change to positively impact residents, short and long term? (safety, traffic, schools,
small businesses, tax base, city services).
* Any supporting analysis or metrics used to evaluate benefits (infrastructure capacity, fiscal impact, traffic
studies, environmental review).
* How resident input was gathered and incorporated? What opportunities remain for feedback or refinement?
If helpful I and my neighbors are happy to meet or attend the next session where this topic will be DISCUSSED. (Not just resident comments sessions.)
Thank you for your time and for helping residents understand the rationale and expected community benefits.

Cindy & Ken Sayles
1925 Marta Drive,
Pleasant Hill
Sherman Acres II / East Vivian Neighborhood
cell (925)368-6355
[email protected]
From: Liz Tichenor
To: City Council
Subject: In support of Rezoning
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 10:21:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to voice my support of the proposed plans for rezoning in Pleasant Hill. As one of your local clergy members, and one leading a congregation that would be directly impacted by this change given our location on Gregory Lane, I am delighted to see the vision cast for a more walkable, bikeable, mixed-use community. Even more so, I want to commend the framers of the plan for their commitment to making more affordable housing possible in our community. So many of the people who serve in our community — teachers, nurses, caregivers, civil servants, and more — cannot afford to live here, and I am eager to see that change. Further, my hope is that having more affordable housing would help Pleasant Hill to become a more diverse community, which would be a strength, an asset, and a blessing to us all. While I recognize that this plan may be experienced as an inconvenience to some, and that some neighbors are expressing fear about these changes, I want to offer my gratitude for the courage and vision it takes to help our community be more welcoming, accessible and healthy.

I wholeheartedly support this proposed rezoning.

Thanks and peace,
Liz+
--
The Rev. Liz Tichenor
Rector, Episcopal Church of the Resurrection, Pleasant Hill she/her/hers
resurrectionph.org
My regular work week is Sunday through Thursday. If you have a pastoral emergency on Friday or Saturday, please call me on my cell phone.

Please beware of scammers! If you receive an email that appears to be from me but sounds odd, check if it is from [email protected]. Scammers create new email addresses and just attach my name to them, but they have not actually hacked my account. Know that I will NEVER ask you to send me gift cards or money electronically — if we collect them for those in need, we will always ask you to bring the physical gift card to church. When in doubt, send me a text or email me at this address (rather than responding to the questionable email) to double check.
1 Juanita Davalos
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 9:26 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name: Stephen Lubeck
Street
Address:
241 Twinview Dr
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* No to current rezoning plan
Question
or
Comment:

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my strong opposition to any proposal that would rezone or eliminate established internal-facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. Pleasant Hill is already experiencing a shortage of single-family housing. The proposed removal of over 200 single-family residential parcels would further erode this vital segment of our housing stock. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced and diverse housing supply, and they contribute significantly to the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable community for generations. Among the areas affected is Monti Circle—a neighborhood I grew up in. Destroying Monti Circle would be a heartbreaking loss, not only to me personally but to the fabric of our community. It is a quiet, stable, and cherished part of Pleasant Hill, and its removal would irreparably damage the neighborhood’s character and history. There has been no clear justification provided for this rezoning effort. Importantly, the City of Pleasant Hill’s State-certified Housing Element already meets California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements without the need to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. It's my understanding that this proposed change is not mandated by the state, is not necessary for RHNA compliance, and is not aligned with current housing demand, which continues to show a strong need for single-family homes. Moreover, many existing medium- and high-density housing units in Pleasant Hill remain underutilized. If these developments are not reaching capacity, what is the rationale for increasing density in stable single-family areas—especially in locations that are not suited for such development? This proposal risks fundamentally altering our community without delivering clear public benefits. It lacks transparency, a detailed plan, and meaningful community engagement. If enacted, it could displace long-time residents, degrade neighborhood character, increase traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and strain local infrastructure and schools. The cumulative impact of such changes would fragment long-standing neighborhoods and weaken the sense of community that Pleasant Hill residents deeply value. Additionally, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not result in 2 significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties—including increased traffic, noise, and density. As written, this proposal would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of the city’s planning process. I respectfully urge the City Council to: Reject any zoning changes that eliminate or rezone internal-facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods. Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without these unnecessary changes. Focus future development on underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing. Invest in revitalizing and improving existing commercial zones to better serve residents and attract sustainable growth. Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide. Preserving singlefamily homes is not about resisting progress—it is about responsible planning, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations. Thank you for your attention and for your continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill. Sincerely, Stephen and Stacey Lubeck 241 Twinview Dr Pleasant Hill, Ca Upload File
Attachment
here
[ ]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18567 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Stephen Lubeck
Street Address:: 241 Twinview Dr
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: No to current rezoning plan
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my strong opposition to any proposal that would rezone or eliminate established internal-facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map.

Pleasant Hill is already experiencing a shortage of single-family housing. The proposed removal of over 200 single-family residential parcels would further erode this vital segment of our housing stock. These homes are essential to maintaining a balanced and diverse housing supply, and they contribute significantly to the residential character that has made Pleasant Hill a desirable and livable community 3 for generations.

Among the areas affected is Monti Circle—a neighborhood I grew up in. Destroying Monti Circle would be a heartbreaking loss, not only to me personally but to the fabric of our community. It is a quiet, stable, and cherished part of Pleasant Hill, and its removal would irreparably damage the neighborhood’s character and history.

There has been no clear justification provided for this rezoning effort. Importantly, the City of Pleasant Hill’s State-certified Housing Element already meets California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements without the need to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. It's my understanding that this proposed change is not mandated by the state, is not necessary for RHNA compliance, and is not aligned with current housing demand, which continues to show a strong need for single-family homes.

Moreover, many existing medium- and high-density housing units in Pleasant Hill remain underutilized. If these developments are not reaching capacity, what is the rationale for increasing density in stable single-family areas—especially in locations that are not suited for such development? This proposal risks fundamentally altering our community without delivering clear public benefits. It lacks transparency, a detailed plan, and meaningful community engagement. If enacted, it could displace long-time residents, degrade neighborhood character, increase traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and strain local infrastructure and schools. The cumulative impact of such changes would fragment long-standing neighborhoods and weaken the sense of community that Pleasant Hill residents deeply value.

As written, this proposal would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of the city’s planning process.

I respectfully urge the City Council to:

Reject any zoning changes that eliminate or rezone internal-facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods.

Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without these unnecessary changes.

Focus future development on underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing.

Invest in revitalizing and improving existing commercial zones to better serve residents and attract sustainable growth.

Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide.

Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress—it is about responsible planning, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and for your continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Stephen and Stacey Lubeck
4 241 Twinview Dr
Pleasant Hill, Ca
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/7/2025 9:25:31 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 76.126.222.98
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

October 08, 2025
Subject: Opposition to the Removal of Single-Family Homes in Proposed Zoning Changes
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to any proposal that removes or rezones established internal-facing and entire neighborhoods of single-family homes as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map.

At the same time, many medium- and high-density housing units already built in the city remain underutilized. If-existing multifamily developments are not reaching capacity, then what is the rationale for rezoning stable single-family areas for even more density, especially in locations not suited for such development? The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the community without public benefit, and with no clear plan, analysis, or transparency provided to residents. It risks displacing long-time homeowners, degrading neighborhood character, increasing traffic on streets not designed for higher density, and straining local infrastructure and schools.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not cause significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties-including increased traffic, noise, and density. This proposal, if adopted as written, would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of Pleasant Hill's planning process.

We urge the City Council to:
• Reject any zoning change that eliminates or rezones existing internal facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods
• Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without this unnecessary change
• Prioritize the development of underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing
• Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress-it is about planning responsibly, honoring commu·nity character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Ardis Richards
1784 Ruth Drive Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
925-212-2524
October 08, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

Specifically, I object to the re-designation of internal-facing single-family residential parcels along Gregory Lane-from their current single-family zoning to "Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential." This change would impact established homes on Maureen Lane, Monti Circle, Julian Way: Jackson Way, and other nearby streets. These homes do not front Gregory Lane and are integral parts of our quiet, well-established residential neighborhoods. They are valued properties that contribute to the character, cohesion, and livability of our community. Reclassifying these parcels threatens to disrupt the neighborhood fabric and diminish the residential quality that current homeowners and residents deeply value.

While I understand and respect the pressure that local governments face in meeting California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them?
In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference-it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC § 18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no sign1ficant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quite cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned? If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

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

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

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

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

Sincerely,
Ardis B. Richards
1784 Ruth Drive, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected] 925.212.2524]
10/7/25
Re: Opposition to the Proposed Rezoning and Demolition of Homes in East Vivian Neighborhood Under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dear District 2 Councilmember Andrei Obolenskiy, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my deep concern and strong opposition to the City’s current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map as it pertains to the neighborhood specifically known as East Vivian, also called the Focus Area 5 in the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan.

Under the proposed plan, more than 150 existing single-family homes in East Vivian are targeted to be rezoned as Mixed-Use Residential. This is not a neighborhood upgrade; it is the eradication of a long-established residential community. Families who have lived in East Vivian now face uncertainty, and the potential loss of their neighborhood. It is difficult to see how such a drastic action aligns with the principles of responsible urban planning or community preservation.

While we understand the city’s obligation to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets, this area is not used to meet these requirements. There is no stated justification for why this rezoning is being proposed. In fact, the City of Pleasant Hill already has a State-certified Housing Element that fully meets California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without needing to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. The removal of these homes is not required by the state, not necessary for RHNA compliance, and not supported by the current housing demand—which clearly shows a continued need for single-family homes.

In addition, the current proposal fails to meet the legal and ethical standards required for zoning changes. Under municipal zoning code (PHMC §18.125.070), zoning ordinance amendments must not result in significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties — including impacts related to traffic, infrastructure, and neighborhood character. A rezoning effort that calls for eliminating hundreds of homes clearly fails this test.

The infrastructure in East Vivian including roads, schools, utilities, and public services was not designed to absorb the density increase that a Mixed-Use designation would bring.

Moreover, there has been little meaningful community engagement with affected residents.

The magnitude of this proposed change demands more than minimal public notice or check-the-box outreach. This process should be rooted in transparent communication, good faith dialogue, and genuine consideration of community-driven alternatives.

It is unacceptable that a stable, quiet, and diverse residential enclave would be effectively erased rather than incorporated into a more inclusive and sustainable housing solution.

This is not planning; it is displacement.

Therefore, I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove East Vivian from the Mixed-Use Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Pleasant Hill are not opposed to progress but we are opposed to careless planning that sacrifices families and homes. We ask you to uphold the principles of thoughtful, equitable, and community-focused development. The residents of East Vivian are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this critical issue and for your ongoing service to our city.

Sincerely,
Brandi Teverbaugh Crowley
1930 Marta Drive, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(925) 899-9115
1 Juanita Davalos
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 4:31 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name: Brandi Teverbaugh Crowley
Street Address: 1930 Marta Drive
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone Number: 9258999115
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Opposition of Rezoning
Question or Comment: Please see the attached letter opposing the rezoning plan for my neighborhood.

Thank you.

Upload File Attachment
here
Opposition Letter-Proposed Rezoning-East Vivian.docx
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18566 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Brandi Teverbaugh Crowley
Street Address:: 1930 Marta Drive
City: Pleasant Hill
2 Phone Number:: 9258999115
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition of Rezoning
Question or Comment:: Please see the attached letter opposing the rezoning plan for my neighborhood.

Thank you.

Upload File Attachment here: Opposition Letter-Proposed Rezoning-East Vivian.docx Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/7/2025 4:31:02 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 104.2.26.208
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Saturday, October 11, 2025 10:17:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here October 11 2025 letter.docx * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18575 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Mary Cole
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to Rezoning Gregory Gardens/E Vivian Question or Comment:: Please see attached letter in opposition to the changes.

Upload File Attachment here: October 11 2025 letter.docx Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/11/2025 10:17:51 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 12.75.243.102
Referrer Page: https://www.saveph.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 October 11, 2025
Re: Opposition to Rezoning of Internal-Facing Single-Family Parcels on Gregory Lane in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Dear District 5 Councilmember Amanda Szakats, Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition and deep concern regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the accompanying Rezoning Map.

While I understand the pressure that local governments face in meeting California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, none of these parcels were used to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA goals. So why is the city proposing to rezone them?
In addition, the General Plan framework clearly state that zoning amendments should not result in significant negative impacts on traffic flow or neighborhood noise levels in established residential areas. This is not just a policy preference—it is a legal requirement. Under PHMC §18.125.070, findings for zoning ordinance amendments must assure that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including those related to traffic and noise. Where is the study that shows there is no impact to the quiet cul-da-sacs and circles that have been rezoned? If the City Council reasonably believes that the proposed rezoning would violate these standards, the ordinance cannot be lawfully adopted without revision. An amendment must be made to ensure compliance with municipal code and to uphold the integrity of existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning of parcels located on a quiet, internal streets and cul-de-sacs is exactly the type of change that would have disproportionate localized impacts. The infrastructure in such areas was not designed to accommodate the increased traffic, density, or commercial interface that a mixed-use or higher-density residential designation would entail.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject the current zoning map as proposed and to remove internal facing single family homes from the Neighborhood Business Mixed-Use Residential designation. Any further consideration of zoning changes in this area must be subject to thorough environmental, infrastructure, and legal review, and must include robust community input from all impacted residents.

The residents of Gregory Gardens are engaged, informed, and prepared to advocate for planning decisions that reflect genuine community input and compliance with established guidelines.

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

Sincerely,
Mary Cole
I am not a Gregory Gardens/East Vivian resident but strongly oppose adverse changes to my city.
[email protected]
Maureen Rasmussen
1796 Rtf th Dr
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
s~illthe'f [email protected]
(925(381-0027 I
I
October 4, 2025
Mayor Sue Noack
City Council Members
City of Pleasant Hill I
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 ' ;/
Dear Mayor Noack and Honorable Members of the City Council, Re: Opposition to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map
I am writing as a concerned resident and homeowner in Pleasant Hill to express my strong opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map-specifically, the proposed rezoning of internal neighborhood single-family homes (SFH) to Mixed-Use or Neighborhood Business Mixed Use.

During recent Planning Commission meetings, statements were made that gave residents the impression that this sweeping rezoning effort was necessary to meet the State's RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) mandates. However, after reviewing the Housing Element of the General Plan, it has become clear that no single-family homes were included in the RHNA strategy. This raises a deeply concerq.ing question: If these SFH areas were not required to fulfill RHNA goals, why is the qty proposing to eliminate over 200 single-family homes-one of the most needed 'and scarce types of housing in the Bay Area?
Tpis proposal would fundamentally alter the character of our established n~ighborhoods and undermine the very foundation of Pleasant Hill's community iqentity./ Many residents, myself included, feel blindsided by this process. We are cpnfused, alarmed, and disheartened that such transformative changes are being pursued without clear necessity or sufficient community engagement.

I respec~fully urge you to take a step back and fully consider the long-term consequences of this proposal-not only in terms of land use but also in terms of commup.ity trust and cohesion. I strongly encourage you to proactively reach out to your copstituents before the October 20th meeting to hear their concerns, p~rspectives, and hopes for the future of our city.

The decision before you is critical, and I trust you will weigh it with the seriousness apd thoughtfulness it deserves. Please protect the neighborhoods and families that h~ve invested their lives in Pleasant Hill.

Thank you for your service and attention to this vital issue.

Sin(erel:Jt1~
Maureen flasmussen
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 8:41:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18582 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Samantha Roberts
Street Address:: 635 Maureen lane
City: Pleasant hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Noack,
I wanted to take a moment to sincerely thank you for meeting with me and taking the time to hear our concerns as the residents of Maureen Lane. It meant a great deal that you were willing to listen thoughtfully and engage with us about the proposed rezoning.

While I am deeply disappointed by the potential rezoning of my home from single-family to mixed-use, I also recognize that the City is operating under extraordinary pressure from state housing mandates. I appreciate the challenging balance you and the Council must maintain between meeting those requirements and preserving the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

Your willingness to hear directly from residents, to understand the unique character of our closed court, and to consider our perspective gives me hope that the City’s decision-making process remains rooted in fairness and community values.

Thank you again for your time, your attention, and your commitment to Pleasant Hill. We are grateful for your openness to dialogue during such a complex process.

Sincerely,
Samantha Roberts
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/15/2025 8:41:41 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 104.28.124.70
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Saturday, October 11, 2025 2:25:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18576 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Mac and Lynda Abbey
Street Address:: 413 ROBERTA AVE
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9253480490
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: REZONING PROTEST
Question or Comment:: THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ROBERTA AVE AND BEATRICE RD IS LIVING

UNDER A DARK CLOUD OF VASTLY INCREASED TRAFFIC DUE TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE END OF BEATRICE RD FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. THE TWO STREETS ARE NARROW, HAVE NO SIDEWALKS AND HAVE MANY CARS PARKED ON THE STREET. BECAUSE THERE IS

LITTLE TRAFFIC, THE STREETS ARE USED BY WALKERS, MANY FROM OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BICYCLES, AND CHILDREN PLAYING. THE NEW ZONING PROPOSAL COULD ADD 100-200 MORE VEHICLES THAT WOULD USE THE TWO STREETS, GREATLY INCREASING THE SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO MODIFY THE REZONING

TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHICH COULD BE ABSORBED, SAFELY AND CULTURALLY IN AN EXPANDED NEIGHBORHOOD.

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

Form submitted on: 10/11/2025 2:25:12 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.3.186.42
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 10:42:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here no file selected
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18584 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Dan Dempsey
Street Address:: 115 Hazeltine Circle
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9257652959
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Unfair and Counterproductive Rezoning Proposal Question or Comment:: I agree that new housing and commercial development is important and critical for Pleasant Hill. I just do not agree that the 6 houses on Julian Way, which the only access is a private road should be rezoned to Business Mixed-Use as the rezoning proposal(2040) is stating. There are many site and areas where multi-family and commercial development can occur, including the Mangini Farm property near Pleasant hill Rd and Taylor Blvd, Contra Costa Blvd, and the former site of Black Angus, which is current up for sale. Thanks for taking these points into consideration at your meeting on 10/20/2025. I believe the current plan for Julian Way does need to be reconsidered. Thank you for you time, Regards, Dan Dempsey Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/16/2025 10:42:47 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 165.225.243.117
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1650/Amanda-Szakats-Dist-5-Councilmember Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Gaston en Ariane Habets
To: Haley Croffoot; City Council
Subject: City Council Oct 20, comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment and rezoning opposition statement.

Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 6:20:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

City Council,
We want to log our opposition to the rezoning plan:

1. While the Planning Commission meeting approved the plan in the recent Sep 9th meeting the feedback from the public was massive and unanimously against. Although the Committee chair was happy to see us all and wanted to hear our input, none of the substantial written and verbal arguments
mattered. With only casual notetaking many of the points raised during the multi hour public comment period were not even addressed in the discussion that followed. Please review the feedback of your citizens. We did not feel the Planning committee did.

2. The main argument the Planning Commission used; the
rezoning just formalizes what was already in the general plan.

That’s a poor excuse and invalidates the function of a
Planning Committee. Why then insult our intelligence with a sham input process that wastes our time and ‘a priory’ does not matter. It would have spared us trying to read through the 1400+ pages document and many other records.

3. The whole process and timeline, approval and submission to the City Council and deadline to the State was such that any feedback, adjustment was anyhow impossible. This was even asked for clarification by a committee member. Again, a failure of a democratic process. Please do not pretend that our input could have any effect. No surprise that many lose confidence in government and the democratic process if
these public meetings are only is there to check off the minimum legal requirements.

4. Lastly, a remark from a committee member invalidated the whole rezoning plan arguing that, although she could not promise, but it was unlikely a developer would develop the proposed ‘Multiunit’ site because of the creek setback, floodzone and road access issues (Beatrice creekside CCFC properties). That does confirm this whole plan is useless in the committees view and a ruse to file for illusionary
developmental housing units such that the State ‘gets off the City’s back’. Shameful.

5. We want to make perfectly clear that we are NOT against development within the City limits but then use sites that have easy access without disrupting existing neighborhoods and home values. Multiple people suggested properties that were not included in the proposal and which even by casual
inspection have fewer issues. (e.g. former Black Angus, PHP&R north of library field). If rezoning of existing
neighborhoods is an option and we need to make the States HE numbers why not rezone also our downtown and have
mixed residential – business be an option?
Gaston and Ariane Habets, Beatrice Rd Pleasant Hill.

From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Citywide Rezoning
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 1:24:41 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 1:43 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name: Maureen Rasmussen
Street
Address:
1796 Ruth Dr
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:
9253810027
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Citywide Rezoning
Question
or
Comment:

I would like to know where you stand on this? You came to my home asking for my vote last year. You told me you stood for family and community and keeping our small town feel. I have lived here for 32 years and I am horrified and cannot believe this city is heading in this direction. What happened to keeping our town familycentered.... and now talking of losing more than 200 affordable small to mid-sized homes. We have tens of thousands of unoccupied commercial property in this town and much more in Concord. We don't need more massage parlors, nail salons, cigarette stores and the like. We have very few quality retailers here. Fill our currently open spaces. Redevelop those. Redevelop the Grocery Outlet shopping center or the other old ugly centers. We will be an unlovable, uninspiring town if these changes occur. Why no parking for these places, why no open space or places for families to bring their kids for healthy activities. What do we get Car Max, Starbucks and tons of fast food..... Move Goodwill and Salvation Army. So many other choices yet you all decide to spend 1.2 million to hire an outside source to come up with this. Very, very disappointing and I feel like I had the wool pulled over my eyes. So much secrecy within this City now. This is not what Pleasant Hill used to be like.

Upload File
Attachment
[]
here
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18564 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Maureen Rasmussen
Street Address:: 1796 Ruth Dr
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9253810027
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Citywide Rezoning
Question or Comment:: I would like to know where you stand on this? You came to my home asking for my vote last year. You told me you stood for family and community and keeping our small town feel. I have lived here for 32 years and I am horrified and cannot believe this city is heading in this direction. What happened to keeping our town familycentered.... and now talking of losing more than 200 affordable small to mid-sized homes. We have tens of thousands of unoccupied commercial property in this town and much more in Concord. We don't need more massage parlors, nail salons, cigarette stores and the like. We have very few quality retailers here. Fill our currently open spaces. Redevelop those. Redevelop the Grocery Outlet shopping center or the other old ugly centers. We will be an unlovable, uninspiring town if these changes occur. Why no parking for these places, why no open space or places for families to bring their kids for healthy activities. What do we get Car Max, Starbucks and tons of fast food..... Move Goodwill and Salvation Army. So many other choices yet you all decide to spend 1.2 million to hire an outside source to come up with this. Very, very disappointing and I feel like I had the wool pulled over my eyes. So much secrecy within this City now. This is not what Pleasant Hill used to be like.

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

Form submitted on: 10/7/2025 1:41:01 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.223.13.165
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1650/Amanda-Szakats-Dist-5-Councilmember Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of East Vivian Neighborhood Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 1:23:54 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:13 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name: David Lee
Street
Address:
1967 Marta Dr
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of East Vivian Neighborhood Question
or
Comment:

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, My name is David Lee, and I recently moved to Pleasant Hill, where I live at 1967 Marta Dr, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523. I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of the East Vivian neighborhood, identified as Focus Area 5 in the 2040 General Plan. The current plan would rezone more than 150 existing single-family homes into Mixed-Use Residential. That’s not revitalization—it’s the removal of an established community.

This change would threaten the stability of our neighborhood and undermine the character of a long-standing residential area. From what I’ve reviewed, this rezoning isn’t required to meet the State’s RHNA housing targets. Pleasant Hill already has a certified Housing Element that satisfies those requirements. There’s no practical or legal reason to target existing single-family homes to meet state housing goals.

Beyond that, the area’s infrastructure—roads, utilities, schools, and city services— was never built to handle the density a mixed-use designation would bring. The City’s own zoning code (PHMC §18.125.070) states that zoning changes shouldn’t create significant adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. This one clearly would. What’s even more frustrating is how little engagement there’s been with those directly affected. This process should include genuine transparency and dialogue with residents who will live with the consequences. We aren’t against progress—we’re against poor planning that disregards families and the stability of Pleasant Hill’s neighborhoods. I strongly urge the City Council to remove East Vivian from the Mixed-Use Residential designation and commit to a planning process that respects existing homeowners, infrastructure limits, and genuine community input. Thank you for your time and for listening to residents who truly care about the future of this city. Sincerely, David Lee 1967 Marta Dr Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18563 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: David Lee
Street Address:: 1967 Marta Dr
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of East Vivian Neighborhood Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, My name is David Lee, and I recently moved to Pleasant Hill, where I live at 1967 Marta Dr, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523. I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of the East Vivian neighborhood, identified as Focus Area 5 in the 2040 General Plan.

The current plan would rezone more than 150 existing single-family homes into MixedUse Residential. That’s not revitalization—it’s the removal of an established community.

This change would threaten the stability of our neighborhood and undermine the character of a long-standing residential area.

From what I’ve reviewed, this rezoning isn’t required to meet the State’s RHNA housing targets. Pleasant Hill already has a certified Housing Element that satisfies those requirements. There’s no practical or legal reason to target existing single-family homes to meet state housing goals.

What’s even more frustrating is how little engagement there’s been with those directly affected. This process should include genuine transparency and dialogue with residents who will live with the consequences. We aren’t against progress—we’re against poor planning that disregards families and the stability of Pleasant Hill’s neighborhoods.

I strongly urge the City Council to remove East Vivian from the Mixed-Use Residential designation and commit to a planning process that respects existing homeowners, infrastructure limits, and genuine community input.

Thank you for your time and for listening to residents who truly care about the future of this city.

Sincerely,
David Lee
1967 Marta Dr
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 10/6/2025 10:13:06 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.81.224.57
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1649/Andrei-Obolenskiy-Dist-2- Councilmember
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Steve and Stacey Lubeck
To: Sue Noack; Haley Croffoot
Subject: No to the Rezoning Plan
Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 5:40:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor, and City Planning staff
I am writing to express my strong opposition to any proposal that would rezone or eliminate established single-family homes and entire neighborhoods as part of the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map.

Among the areas affected is Monti Circle—a neighborhood I grew up in.

Destroying Monti Circle would be a heartbreaking loss, not only to me personally but to the fabric of our community. It is a quiet, stable, and cherished part of Pleasant Hill, and its removal would irreparably damage the neighborhood’s character and history.

There has been no clear justification provided for this rezoning effort.

Importantly, the City of Pleasant Hill’s State-certified Housing Element already meets California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements without the need to rezone existing single-family neighborhoods. It's my understanding that this proposed change is not mandated by the state, is not necessary for RHNA compliance, and is not aligned with current housing demand, which continues to show a strong need for single-family homes.

Additionally, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC §18.125.070) requires that zoning changes not result in significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties—including increased traffic, noise, and density. As written, this proposal would violate that standard and undermine the integrity of the city’s planning process.

I respectfully urge the City Council to:

Reject any zoning changes that eliminate or rezone internal-facing single-family homes and entire neighborhoods.

Honor the current Housing Element, which already satisfies State requirements without these unnecessary changes.

Focus future development on underutilized parcels already zoned for higher-density housing.

Invest in revitalizing and improving existing commercial zones to better serve residents and attract sustainable growth.

Engage the broader community in a transparent and inclusive dialogue before proposing major changes that affect neighborhoods citywide.

Preserving single-family homes is not about resisting progress—it is about responsible planning, honoring community character, and ensuring housing diversity for current and future generations.

Thank you for your attention and for your continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Stacey and Stephen Lubeck
241 Twinview Dr
Pleasant Hill, Ca
•
•
•
•
•
From: Asal Bidokhti
To: Sue Noack; Haley Croffoot
Subject: Request for clarification on rezoning of Poets Corner Date: Saturday, October 4, 2025 8:25:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Sincerely,
Asal Doyle
Poets Corner
[email protected]
From: Jack Prosek
To: Sue Noack
Cc: Haley Croffoot; quy tran; Belle La; Ann James
Subject: Zoning Map Update - City Council Meeting - 20 October 2025 Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 9:06:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Mayor Noack -
Here are my written comments regarding the proposed updates to the City's Zoning Map & the related City Ordinances. The Public Notices show this will be an Agenda Action Item for the 20 October 2025 meeting of the Pleasant Hill City Council.

There are four areas of the City where the property owners and/or nearby residents raised serious concerns during the Public Comment portion of the Public Hearing at the September 9th meeting of the City's Planning Commission about the proposed new Zoning which is intended to match the revised 2040 General Plan that was Approved by the City Council about two years ago. LISTENING to the various speakers, this is what I got out of their comments:
1- PUD-410 - the PH Schoolyard Redevelopment Project that was Approved on 2 October 1978. Focusing on the properties West of Grayson Creek roughly between Soule Road & Hawthorne/Monticello. Much of this land is owned by the County Flood Control District. At this time, this should be rezoned to Residential to match the Poets Corner area to the West (R10 ?). I did not hear any objections to leaving the MFM designation on the land East of the Creek. Some development will undoubtedly occur there eventually despite the difficulties that the Flood Plain imposes.

As a further point regarding this area, it would be highly desirable to have two new Bike/Ped ONLY bridges crossing the creek - one near the property line between our new Library & the new Park site and a second one near the north end of the PH Middle School property. 2- the area that the City now calls East Vivian - some think of this as being part of Gregory Gardens, but really Old Timers refer to it as West Sherman Acres, which I believe it may have been originally. (We did move here in time to see a few movies at the old Drive-In on the Plaza Shopping Center site). The residents / owners there might be willing to accept a MFL low density multi-family zoning, but it is clear that they do not want an intrusion of mixed use deep into their area during this Planning Cycle.
3- the area between Shirley Drive & CCB - this is a narrow strip of land where mixed -use development would impose significant negative impacts on the GG Residential neighborhood.

Revert back to the previous zoning.
4- the strip along the North side of Gregory Lane from just east of Helen Drive to the CCCanal. One speaker objected to the impact that this would have for the homes on Maureen Court. While their land is close to the elevation of Gregory Lane, going to the East. it drops off sharply down to Monti Circle & along Helen Drive. These home sites are too low & too shallow to be suitable for development as Neighborhood Businesses. Restore the previous zoning.

Based on the numerous objections raised, it is readily apparent that either the property owners and/or the nearby neighbors were never properly notified of the proposed changes in the updates for the 2040 General Plan Map. You certainly should recall that the main focus at that time was on the Housing Sites that were needed to gain acceptance of the Housing Element portion of the 2040 General Plan; there was little to no discussion at all about any of the above listed areas. And while there were a number of Public Meetings prior to the City Staff presenting their proposed new General Plan Map, I do not recall seeing any Public Notices for Public Meetings (NOT Hearings) where the pros & cons were actually DISCUSSED ! Over the past several years I have submitted written comments that suggested several other improvements to this visionary document. These are the following:
5- Winslow Center - if the RPD will accept this change, this property should be rezoned for NOT LESS THAN the 8.4+/- dwelling units per acre (210 du / 25 acres) that is being established for the Mangini-Delu farm properties. Higher density such as MFM (20.1-30) or even MFL (12.1-20) would make this property even more valuable in a sale or exchange by the PH Recreation & Park District in a move to provide funding for much needed Capital Improvements, including the development of what I call the "New Library Park". Two Bond Measures on recent Ballots have failed to pass by a narrow margin, and the costs to operate & maintain their existing facilities & programs consumes over 80% of their annual income, leaving little money for their CIP !
6- Gregory Gardens Shopping Center - rezoning of the current home sites on the east side of Susan Lane that back up to the existing antiquated shopping center would allow the possibility for the development of the whole mega-block as one unit without the need for further Zoning changes. This would encompass the whole area surrounded by Contra Costa Blvd., Doray, Susan & Doris. Unlike the proposed rezoning along Shirley Drive (#3 above), this would have minimal negative impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood ! 7- A new housing opportunity has arisen with the sale last June of the Smith family properties on the west side of the Grayson Creek channel addressed as 239-241-243-245-247 Gregory Lane. Including the RPD's parking lot at 237 Gregory Lane & allowing its unfettered sale is another attractive area where they could raise some much needed CIP funding. Changing the Zoning to MFVL would allow up to 12 du/acre to replace the dilapidated housing there now.

This is a WIN-WIN with more housing & more money for Paks ! In addition to the Zoning Map changes, as I have stated repeatedly in Public Comment emails, the height limits for many of the Residential & Mixed-Use Zoning Districts continue to be toooo low to truly encourage developers to propose worthy new projects.

Upon giving due consideration to all the improvements listed above, it is my recommendation that the City Council REJECT the proposed Zoning Map & the related City Ordinance modifications. Rather, the City Staff should be directed to go back & revisit the 2040 General Plan with regard to each & every one of the areas listed above. Then they should notify & hold separate Public Meetings to discuss their recommendations with the local residents / property owners & the nearby neighbors (say those within 300') before submitting a revised General Plan Map & a revised Zoning Map for Approval. Likewise, we need to have a Public discussion on the new building height limits !
Rest assured, I do have a great professional background on which to base my comments.

I do sincerely hope that you all will accept what I am volunteering here in the spirit in which it is being offered. As always, I am only looking for the best outcome that can be reasonably achieved from each situation !
Jack Prosek aka
John R. Prosek, Jr. PE
48 year Resident / Homeowner
Creator of District Election Map # 5
zz
From: Steve Weiss
To: Lyone Conner
Subject: Why this Bay Area suburb is the center of the next CA housing fight - CalMatters Date: Friday, October 10, 2025 12:15:13 PM
Attachments: Housing Element.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hi Lyone,
I really wish I can attend the October 20 Council hearing regarding the rezoning related to the Housing Element only. I am tending to a sick family member in San Diego. Can you please circulate this to all Council members as an addendum to my previous letter which is attached.

My letter that I sent to the Council should serve as what I truly believe is best for everyone. Please, let’s consider an overlay Specific Plan that addresses a well thought out land use plan as opposed to a take it or leave it concept that has little vision. The attached article is so sad. This will only result in “Lawyering Up” against the State and maybe some of your constituents which is so unnecessary.

Nobody wins.

Please read my letter. My reasonable solution is will do this correctly through enabling legislation and will get the community involved. It’s all about letting your kid and grandkids be safe and able to enjoy this wonderful community. We are not that small anymore. Let’s forget the past annd all of us work together, go to the State/HCD and tell our story before it is too late.

Sincerely,
Steve Weiss
270 Keats Circle
https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/10/los-altos-hills-housing-element-hcd/ Sent from my iPhone
September 18, 2025
Sue Noack, Mayor
Zac Shess, Vice Mayor
Belle La, District 1 Councilmember
Andrei Obolenskiy, District 2 Councilmember
Amanda Szakats, District 5 Councilmember
Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
Subject: September 9, 2025 Planning Commission
I write this with only good intention as a resident homeowner with no affiliation to a district or neighborhood. Now that one week has passed, I was really hoping the City would release a statement or draft minutes as to what occurred at last week’s Planning Commission hearing regarding the zoning code update. Hopefully something will be coming out soon but I cannot wait any longer as the public is feeling mistrusted and disenfranchised with how the rezoning at the hearing was handled, specifically, the 1,800+ zoning opportunity units. No need for throwing daggers, simply, a good number of your constituents felt minimized.

This letter is only about Housing Element compliance. Lumping this with a comprehensive update gave the perception it was a “done deal so people, don’t worry as it is only zoning opportunities as the state is making us.” My recommendation is to be careful especially since we are very late with State certification acceptance and we kind of do have a certified Housing Element for the 2023-2031 State Housing and Community Development (HCD) cycle BUT there might be a problem since our zoning and general plan are not consistent at least as of today. If this goes sideways, we could lose our certification through HCD which will jeopardize future funding. This isn't me talking, it's the Attorney General. Also, unlike many jurisdictions that have timely certification, we have also been dinged by losing our discretionary oversight by ministerially permitting “By Right” affordable housing through the Regional Needs Housing Assessment allocation (RHNA) without one single very low or low income building permit issued during this Housing Element cycle. This exasperates what will be coming in the next cycle which is a new RHNA allocation that will grow even more. The affordable site on Treadway in Gregory Gardens is an example.

I don't think Pleasant Hill residents do well when draconian measures are taken. My gut feeling is these future multi-use residential lots which HCD calls "zoning opportunity areas" need not be on mostly single family or special district property. If I owned one of these properties, especially since I have the ability to develop an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or, possibly subdivide my lot through SB 9 (Lot Split), the last thing I would want is to have is a deed restriction enforced on my property in perpetuity. You can support this plan but it puts you in an awkward position with your constituents unless you develop a bulletproof strategy. I believe a Specific Plan (SP) overlay which needs enabling legislation incorporating complete beautification through sound urban design principles with of course the correct housing integration makes most sense.

My sincere recommendation is identify the elephant in the room by truly focusing on the obvious vacant and underutilized land that for some reason was left out which is the entire swath, both sides, of Contra Costa Boulevards from North Main to Pacheco, also include in Gregory/Grayson to Taylor as it is a direct feeder from I-680, and Oak Park Boulevard. These properties will benefit and the process will be an open since an SP will identify future opportunities. Another elephant which is the Sun Valley Mall which of course is Concord will be staring at us with thousands of high density units that will greatly impact mostly us.

Concentrating on what is most important can be achieved with public collaboration. An overlay concept is flexible and can be considered an up zone especially for the effected properties.

There are a few more areas but a majority of them can be part of this public process.

Respectfully Submitted
Steve Weiss
270 Keats Circle

Pleasant Hill City CouncilOctober 20, 2025

Pleasant Hill City Council
October 20, 2025