X - Public Comments for September 9 2025 Hearing.pdf — Pleasant Hill City Council, October 20, 2025

From: Sara Kelley
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Date: Thursday, August 14, 2025 3:44:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Ms. Croffoot,
I am writing as a resident of Gregory Gardens in Pleasant Hill to express my concerns regarding the proposed zoning change to designate the East side of our neighborhood as mixed-use.

Gregory Gardens is a well-established residential community, home to many young families and long-term residents. The neighborhood streets are narrow and lack sidewalks, making it unsafe and impractical to accommodate higher traffic volumes or commercial developments such as apartments, retail, or businesses like “Rooted Coffee.” Introducing mixed-use zoning here threatens to disrupt the quiet residential character, negatively impact privacy, increase noise and traffic, and potentially decrease property values.

Furthermore, there are several underutilized commercial areas within Pleasant Hill that could better serve as locations for mixed-use development. For example, the vacant former Lucky’s/OSH Store in downtown, the old Deb’s Flower Mart, Minuteman Press and 3 Brother's From China sites. The shopping centers of Grocery Outlet, Carmelo Plaza, and the liquor store/laundromat strip on Contra Costa and Woodsworth all present opportunities for revitalization without compromising residential neighborhoods.

Given that there are already three nearby strip malls and a large Safeway shopping center adjacent to our neighborhood, expanding mixed-use zoning in Gregory Gardens seems unnecessary and inappropriate. I urge the city to reconsider this proposed change and focus efforts on revitalizing existing commercial zones better suited to mixed-use development.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope the city will prioritize the safety and wellbeing of Pleasant Hill’s residents in its planning decisions.

Sincerely,
Sara Kelley (E Vivian Drive, Pleasant Hill)
From: Yahoo! Mail
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Zoning in PH for September 9 hearing
Date: Friday, August 15, 2025 8:43:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

We, the residents of Pleasant Hill for over 35 years, are absolutely against the proposed zoning ordinance. We want to keep our area RESIDENTIAL ONLY!
Sincerely,
Residents on Maureen Lane, Pleasant Hill
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Levi Cody
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comment on Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment & Rezoning – 900 Golf Club Road Date: Sunday, August 17, 2025 9:46:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To: City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
c/o Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner – [email protected] Date: August 18, 2025
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am submitting this comment regarding the upcoming public hearing on September 9, 2025, for the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and associated citywide rezoning (PHMC Title 18).

As the owner of the property located at 900 Golf Club Road, Pleasant Hill, I respectfully request clarification and consideration regarding how the proposed rezoning will affect this parcel.

1. Current and Proposed Zoning
Please confirm both the current zoning designation and the proposed new zoning classification for 900 Golf Club Road. I would appreciate a summary of how allowable uses, density, and development standards may change under the draft ordinance.

2. Consistency with the General Plan
I understand the intent of this rezoning is to align with the City’s adopted 2040 General Plan and Housing Element. However, our property was currently zoned as open space with a variance to rebuild residence of equal square footage

3. Impact on Property Use and Value
As a property owner, I am concerned about potential impacts on the parcel’s long-term use flexibility and value as a property with an existing residence. I encourage the Commission to carefully evaluate whether the rezoning supports our residential use while being completely surrounded by Contra Costa Country Club property.

4. Transparency and Communication
As property owners, in order to participate meaningfully, I ask that the City provide clear, parcel-specific rezoning maps and summaries that illustrate exactly how our property will be affected. This will help ensure transparency and build confidence in the rezoning process.

In closing, I appreciate the City’s efforts to modernize the zoning ordinance and ensure compliance with State law. My request is simply for clarity, thoughtful consideration of property-specific impacts, and ongoing communication as these important changes move forward.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Respectfully,
Levi Cody, property owner
900 Golf Club Road
Pleasant Hill Ca 93423
Cell 925-586-0665
[email protected]
From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: quy tran
Subject: Fwd: CC 21 April Study Session - Attachment "Y" - Proposed Zoning Map Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 11:52:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
I am hereby resubmitting my email dated April 6, 2025, as my Public Comment on the proposed 2040 Rezoning Map revisions that are the subject of the Public Hearing at the City's Planning Commission at their meeting on September 9th, 2025.

Jack Prosek, PE
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 8:25 AM
Subject: CC 21 April Study Session - Attachment "Y" - Proposed Zoning Map To: haley croffoot <[email protected]>
Cc: troy fujimoto <[email protected]>, quy tran <[email protected]> Haley -
Please reconsider the proposed Zoning for the following areas shown in Attachment "Y" Proposed Zoning Map to be included in the 2040 Update to the City's General Plan:
1- The proposed rezoning of the properties on the East side of Shirley Drive between Harriett & Doray from single-family residential to Mixed Use is a very poor choice for the future of the residents immediately West of there. The depth of these properties is very shallow; allowing Mixed-Use will bring noise, parking issues, trash handling, site lighting & other problems that do not currently exist. Also, multiple new driveways would be needed from Contra Costa Blvd. for access.
2- On the other hand, the properties on the East side of Susan Lane (immediately West of the Gregory Gardens Shopping Center) already suffer from their neighbor's business activities.

These properties would be more valuable if they were rezoned the same as the shopping center such that they might be combined with a larger scale redevelopment. The increased negative impacts of doing this on the residences to the West would be minimal. 3- The City should reopen discussions with the Rec & Park District Board regarding the future use of their Winslow Center property. The existing building there is in poor condition & has been living on borrowed time for more than a decade now. This property would be much more valuable if it were combined with the Mangini-Delu farm properties in an overall development. A land swap is within the realm of possibilities, and it would be desirable to have the RPD maintain the creek riparian zone.

Furthermore, the best Master Plan for this site would be to have low density housing on the sloping land to the East of the creek & higher density housing to the West with a height limit there up to 65' (NOT 35' as previously shown) ! This would allow for more Open Space around the buildings without increasing the total density !! 4- The rezoning of the JC Penney Home Store (aka Site "B") to Mixed-Use is NOT noted in the Staff Report section on Quadrant "B" (page 9). Oddly, the Wells Fargo Bank building itself is not included, but the parking areas that serve this building are included. A comprehensive development for this entire Site could be attractive. Also, references to JFKU are obsolete in a forward-looking 2040 Update since they closed operations there at least five years ago . . . . .

It does appear that the 13 Sites included in the Housing Element portion of the 2040 General Plan have already been rezoned & therefore are not being restudied at this time.

Each of the issues listed above were raised verbally if not in my numerous Public Comment emails without having the benefit of a real discussion. Sometimes you will get better insights from the long-time residents than from the "professionals" who prepared these Maps but do not live in this environment on a daily basis . . . . . Please have an actual discussion for each of these points during the April 21st Study Session.

Jack Prosek
48 year Resident / Homeowner
zz

From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Sue Noack; quy tran; Ann James
Subject: 2040 Zoning Update - New Housing Opportunity
Date: Friday, August 22, 2025 6:59:07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
Please add this email to the Public Comments for the 2040 Zoning Update item on the Agenda of the September 9th meeting of the City's Planning Commission.

Commissioners -
A new housing opportunity has arisen with the sale two months ago of the Smith Family compound. These properties are addressed as 239-241-243-245-247 Gregory Lane. It is my understanding that these five lots total approximately one acre in area; rezoning them from "R7" to Very Low-Density Multi-Family Residential "MFVL" would allow 7 to 12 new dwelling units to replace the fewer than five aging homes now occupying these combined properties.

It is also noted that these properties are landlocked behind the Senior Center Overflow Parking Lot at 237 Gregory Lane. State Law requires a driveway across this property to access the rear properties. If the City were to also rezone that property to "MFVL" & allow the PH Recreation & Park District to sell this property with imposing new burdens, funding could be obtained for some long overdue Capital Improvements in their facilities and another couple more dwelling units might be added to the development. This would have the further advantage of allowing the entry road to be placed along the west edge of this property - thereby moving it further away from the stoplight at the Moiso Lane intersection which also serves the public access to the Senior Center Parking Lot.

Implementing both of these recommendations would be a HUGE WIN--WIN for both the Housing Advocates & RPD taxpayers !!
Jack Prosek, PE
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
Tara Legaspi
520 Beatrice Rd
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected] | 925.360.6269
August 20, 2025
To: City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
100 Gregory Ln
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Impacting Beatrice Rd and Surrounding Neighborhoods Dear Planning Commission,
As a long-time Pleasant Hill resident, homeowner, and community organizer, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of my home and neighboring properties from single-family to medium-density multi-family residential. My home at 520 Beatrice Rd sits in Poet’s Corner, one of the most desirable, established neighborhoods in the city. This proposal threatens not just the integrity of our homes, but the safety, trust, and character of our entire community.

1. Flooding and Environmental Risk
The plan to rezone and build 164 housing units across a 5-acre area that includes a creek known to flood annually is dangerously shortsighted. While the City’s documents refer to this as a “100-year flood zone,” they fail to acknowledge that the open land on Cleaveland Rd floods every year.

Since the library was constructed on Oak Park Blvd, on land that previously absorbed stormwater, flooding has significantly worsened. Promised rain basins have not performed, and as a result, Cleaveland Rd, our backyard, our neighbors' yards, and the culvert at the end of Beatrice Rd overflow annually.

After the library was built, the culvert at the end of Beatrice Rd began to clog after rainstorms with regular red dirt runoff, something we had never experienced before. The dirt originates from the baseball fields in Pleasant Oaks Park. During one storm, the culvert became so blocked that a neighbor had to physically dig it out to prevent flooding. This is not a rare occurrence, it has become a pattern. The City’s assumption that rain basins underneath the new Library development could effectively manage water has proven to be a failure, and the result is that homes continue to be endangered due to new development.

Without neighbors stepping in to clear blockages and redirect water, several properties would have already suffered serious flood damage.

I walk this creek daily, including after rainstorms. I have observed over time, and sometimes overnight, how the absence of concrete in this area has allowed the creek to naturally erode and expand in width, from as little as five feet to 20 feet in a short span. This allows it to accommodate water. The natural floodplain plays a critical role in protecting homes on Cleaveland Rd, Beatrice and Roberta Roads, and areas further downstream. Removing open land or disrupting this creek system with new construction could destabilize the delicate balance, resulting in greater runoff and increased flood damage to the surrounding neighborhoods.

If this development moves forward, grading the land to support construction will force floodwaters into surrounding streets and homes, including those on Beatrice Rd, Cleaveland Rd, and potentially further downstream toward Soule Ave. This is not theoretical. It’s happening already. Just two years ago, an elderly woman had to be rescued from her car on Cleaveland Rd during flooding. These are real risks with real consequences, including people’s homes, livelihood, and lives.

2. Lack of Transparency and Eminent Domain Concerns
The Housing Element plan does not fully align with the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. The rezoning encompasses homes that are not part of the current development proposal, raising significant concerns about future intentions. If the goal is simply to accommodate the number of units outlined in the Housing Element, why rezone additional, currently occupied single-family homes?
The inclusion of these properties on Beatrice Rd, Cleveland Rd, and Soule Ave without transparency suggests a broader plan that could involve eminent domain to displace homeowners for high-density construction. This approach would irreversibly alter the fabric of our neighborhood and undermine public trust in the Planning Commission. Our community has pushed back against similar proposals for decades, and we are prepared to do so again.

3. Traffic and Safety Impacts
The plan proposes 106 to 135 units, with the potential for more if the three homes at the end of Beatrice Rd, multiple houses on Cleaveland Rd, and two houses on Soule Ave are taken through eminent domain.

This would place a large residential development directly adjacent to a middle school. Increased traffic from such density would flow through narrow neighborhood roads, especially Beatrice Rd, Patterson Ave, Cleaveland Rd, and potentially Soule Ave. All are narrow streets which are already congested with three schools nearby during commute times. A bridge once existed over the creek but was washed away by flooding. Rebuilding it is not a safe or sustainable option.

This dramatic increase in traffic volume in a family-oriented, school-adjacent neighborhood is a threat to pedestrian safety, especially for children. The lack of public transportation exacerbates the risk of traffic to the neighborhood and the inability for proposed low-income housing residents to gain transportation to work and for errands to meet family’s basic needs.

As someone who has spent over 25 years working in child abuse prevention and treatment services, I am deeply concerned. High-density housing directly adjacent to schools is a recipe for increased risk to vulnerable populations.

4. Personal Investment and Financial Harm
My husband and I have invested $60,000 in the architectural design and development of an addition to our home that would raise it out of the flood zone. This plan was crafted in full compliance with current zoning and easement requirements of a single-family home. A zoning change now would invalidate our plans, financially harm us, and force a complete redesign. We are prepared to pursue all legal avenues to recover these damages if this rezoning is approved.

Our property evaluation during this process revealed a high water table, just feet below the surface—another clear sign that the area is not suited for dense development.

5. Better Alternatives Exist
This proposal prioritizes overdevelopment in one of Pleasant Hill’s most cherished communities instead of exploring smart, community-building alternatives. If the goal is truly to address housing needs, why not redirect development to underutilized spaces such as:
● The former Black Angus site (instead of a hotel)
● Empty lots on the outskirts of Gregory Gardens, including Woodworth Ln ● Underdeveloped, failing business sections of Contra Costa Blvd, including former OSH and Bed Bath & Beyond sites
● Open land behind the Pleasant Hill Library, land that was previously proposed for a public park but failed at a ballot measure, should now be reclassified and repurposed for dense housing These alternatives would bring new housing without displacing families, burdening schools, or jeopardizing flood-prone neighborhoods.

Final Thoughts
This proposal does not build community—it fractures it. Every few years, residents like myself are forced to defend our homes against ill-conceived plans or environmental hazards. Instead of working with us, the City continues to work around us. I urge you to reconsider this proposal not only for the safety and future of our homes but for the integrity of Pleasant Hill.

To the fullest extent of the law, I will oppose this rezoning. I will organize. I will speak out. And I will continue fighting for my home and this neighborhood.

Respectfully,
Tara Legaspi
Dom Legaspi
520 Beatrice Rd
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected] | 925.207.6480
August 28, 2025
To: City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Opposition to proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment I love living in Pleasant Hill—especially in Poet's Corner—and I love our home at 520 Beatrice Road.

The proposed rezoning of approximately 60 parcels in the Beatrice/Cleaveland area would lay the groundwork for the transformation of a long-established single-family neighborhood into a multifamily development zone. While I understand the growing need for additional housing across the region, the plan to rezone existing single-family parcels—many of which have occupied homes—is deeply flawed and ignores decades of community input, real environmental constraints, and basic planning realities.

Residents of Poet's Corner have consistently opposed redevelopment of the vacant land near Grayson Creek. The public record reflects years of opposition from neighbors and stakeholders. Our position has not changed: this area is not suitable for large-scale development, and the reasons why remain as valid today as ever.

From a distance, the Beatrice/Cleaveland area may appear to be an underutilized pocket of land ripe for infill housing. But the reality on the ground tells a different story. In our daily lives, we are constantly reminded of the reason this land has remained largely undeveloped since the 1970s-1980s: Grayson Creek.

This area lies squarely within a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain, a fact acknowledged in the City's own Housing Element. The creek overflows during the rainy season, and flooding has only worsened since the development of the new library and the Davidon project at Oak Park and Monticello. After those projects were completed, runoff flowing through our culvert was filled with the red infield dirt from the Pleasant Oaks baseball fields—clear evidence of the increased strain on local drainage.

On New Year’s Day 2023, flooding at Cleaveland Road and Astrid Drive was so severe that people had to rescue an elderly woman trapped in her car. The Housing Element’s assertion that flood risk can be "mitigated upon development" is overly simplistic and dangerously naive. Every new project pushes floodwaters further downstream. Development in this area will lead to flooding between here and Sequoia Middle School. Streets like Soule Avenue, Hardy Circle, Campbell Lane, Katie Court, and Babette Court will be next. Mitigation may reduce localized risk for new structures, but it does nothing to address cumulative impact, both downstream and in Pleasant Valley. This is a reality our area has already experienced firsthand.

Mitigating flood risk in this area would require major infrastructure investment across a broad area. That kind of expense only becomes feasible through dense, multifamily development that spreads the cost across a large number of units. This sets the stage for an intensive build-out of apartment blocks and condominiums stretching from Boyd Road to Astrid Drive on the east side of Grayson Creek. The west side, impacting Poet’s Corner, would require new access routes through narrow streets like Beatrice and Roberta Roads. Soule Avenue, which includes properties targeted for rezoning, is also too narrow to handle the inevitable traffic increase. Such a transformation would severely degrade the aesthetic and character of our community.

Every time redeveloping this land comes up, there's inevitably talk about reconnecting Beatrice Road over the creek. Any major redevelopment could easily incorporate such a plan, introducing a new through-traffic corridor from Cleaveland to Patterson. This would be disastrous for the quiet, residential nature of Roberta and Beatrice Roads.

Redevelopment would also bring years of noise, construction, and disruption to our neighborhood, robbing us of the peace and quiet that makes Poet’s Corner one of Pleasant Hill's most desirable communities. The impact on property values would be significant. Such intensive development threatens to displace current residents and diminish the value of homes that remain.

Beyond human concerns, this area supports a thriving riparian ecosystem. From our home, which sits closest to the creek's west bank, we observe a wide variety of birds, reptiles, and/or mammals every day.

The mature oak trees here are not only beautiful, they are part of the very identity of Pleasant Hill. It is deeply ironic that the city, whose logo features an oak tree, would consider a zoning change that would put so many of them at risk.

Most revealing of all is the inclusion of multiple occupied single-family homes, including ours, in the proposed rezoning. There is no discernible reason to rezone these parcels without opening the door for eventual redevelopment. Our home, and those like it, simply cannot coexist with the kind of dense multifamily development this plan would enable. We will not stand by while our neighborhood is sacrificed for a vision that ignores our history, geography, and community voice.

We respectfully urge the Council to reconsider this proposal, to protect the integrity of Poet’s Corner, and to honor the residents who have called this special part of Pleasant Hill home for decades.

Sincerely,
Dom Legaspi
From: Jeffery Dewlaney
To: Planning
Subject: Rezoning Beatrice Road and Cleaveland Road
Date: Sunday, August 31, 2025 12:19:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom it May Concern
I have been a resident of Pleasant Hill for 39 years, and more specifically a current resident of Beatrice Road for over 35 years. I have the last 61 years of my 66 years of life within 5 miles of where I currently live. Pleasant Hill has always been a small welcoming town; geographically or other otherwise it was always meant to be as such. My family and most of the residents moved here because of this. Pleasant Hill, in general and specifically Beatrice Road, was not meant to be a sprawling congested city. The infrastructure of Pleasant Hill including roads, schools, fire, police precludes the city of Pleasant Hill from this overgrowth. The property values of the current residents will decline sharply; homeowners do not want to be surrounded by all of this congestion. We moved into the area because of the suburban neighborhoods, not to be surrounded by unwelcomed housing. The streets are ill equipped to handle the increase in traffic and schools are already overwhelmed. You are taking value from the current Pleasant Hill residents and redistributing it to other people not here. I don’t need to tell you what this is and feels like to all of us current residing here. We have spent years building a life and home here and we don’t want to see it taken away with a stroke of a pen.

Sincerely,
Jeffery P. Dewlaney, MS, CFM, CMA, CPA
Virus-free.www.avast.com
From: David Muhlenkamp
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Proposed Zoning Changes in the Beatrice-Roberta Road Area of Pleasant Hill Date: Sunday, August 31, 2025 2:54:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am sending you this e-mail as I will be unable to attend the September 9, 2025 planning commission meeting due to a previous commitment but wanted my thoughts on the matter entered into the record. I am the owner and resident of 426 Beatrice Rd. and have lived here for approximately 28 years.

For your reference I have included a map of the planned rezoning so that we can speak exactly to the same areas. The areas I would like to address in this e-mail are labeled #45, 8, 51, 24, 21 and 7.

Additionally I would like to comment on the houses at the end of Beatrice Rd that are marked with a red X designating them to be rezoned. Before I start my comments I would like to make it perfectly clear that I am not against building new housing units in Pleasant Hill as I am fully aware that our area has a housing shortage. In other words you will not hear any NIMBY-ism from me. What you will hear is a plea for smart planning and development that is in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhoods.

My points are as follows:

1. The three red X houses at the end of Beatrice Rd. were built before the City of Pleasant Hill was incorporated. They have always been single family homes where kind and wonderful neighbors have lived in harmony with the surrounding area. It is the height of hypocrisy to change their zoning. I can't conceive of a reason for responsible planning commission members to change the zoning for these long standing houses that have been lovingly maintained for over 80 years. This is not good planning and is certainly not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. A perfect example of bad planning.

2. The Beatrice Rd - Roberta Rd. neighborhood is composed of single family houses. The vast majority of the houses are on 1/3 acre lots which has helped to create a diverse and in demand neighborhood that is the envy of many Pleasant Hill residents. For areas #45, 8 and those portions of 51 that are on the west side of the creek it would not be appropriate to rezone to multi family, high density development. In order to keep with the character of the neighborhood these areas need to be maintained as single family houses. If I recall correctly the total area of these parcels is approximately 3 acres. Assuming 1 acre for infrastructure and creek set back that would allow at most 2 acres for development. In keeping with the other lots in the neighborhood that would accommodate at most 6 new houses. This type of development would be acceptable to me as it keeps my neighborhood intact and would not put undue pressure on the existing infrastructure in the area. I would consider such a development, if done at all, good planning as it keeps neighborhood character intact.

3. In relation to item #2 above, any construction of high density housing (I understand there is a proposal for 163 units) in those areas would lead to unacceptable impacts to the Beatrice-Roberta neighborhood.

Currently the streets are not wide enough to accommodate the traffic caused by 163 units. I believe the suggested number above of 6 new houses could be accommodated with minimal disruption. The only way to make 163 new units feasible would be to significantly widen both Beatrice and Roberta by taking away large sections of the properties on those streets. The cost and disruption caused by this would make this totally unfeasible and would surely be challenged in court adding significantly to the cost. This is not smart planning and development.

4. If any development were conducted on the areas in question it is critical that Beatrice Rd. not be extended over the creek to connect to Cleaveland Rd as this would increase traffic in the corridor to such an extent that the current infrastructure would not be sufficient thus requiring the widening of the roads as stated in # 3 above. As you are well aware, during school hours traffic caused by Sequoia Elementary, Sequoia Middle and Pleasant Hill Middle is extremely heavy. If Beatrice Rd was allowed to go through directly to Cleaveland Rd., drivers would quickly learn to funnel their trips though this corridor over streets completely unable to handle the increase. Once again, not smart planning and development.

5. Areas #24, 21 and 51 east of the creek do make sense for higher density development. Cleaveland Rd. is a wide street with ample street parking and bike lanes. It is equipped to handle increased traffic loads. Additionally, across the street from these areas higher density housing already exists thus higher density in the parcels does keep with the overall character of the area. As long as Beatrice Rd does not cross the creek for reasons stated in point #4, this would be a good example of smart planning and development.

6. As stated in point #1 above, I would object to rezoning the single family housed located in area #7 and adjacent houses. Why does it make sense to change zoning on pre-existing houses? Is it the commissions desire to turn the whole area into apartments? That certainly does not maintain the existing character of the the neighborhoods and is once again an example of bad planning and development.

7. Lastly I would like to make my displeasure known about the way this whole effort has been communicated to the affected neighborhoods. Why weren't all households in and adjacent to the proposed areas notified about these changes? Is the Commission trying to make changes in the dead of the night without community input? Is it that the members know that what is being proposed is not in the interest of the majority of the residents of the affected areas and is just in the best interests of the City's tax revenue and possible development companies? Approximately 10 to 15 years ago the City Council made similar proposed changes and did not notify the residents in the affected areas of the changes. At that time many protests were lodged over the secrecy. The Council made a promise at that time to the residents that everyone within 1000 feet of the proposed changes would be notified going forward. Why has this pledge been abandoned? It is my understanding that members of the Planning Commission are public servants. How does this secrecy serve the Public? It doesn't and is one more example of bad planning and development.

Thank you for you time and consideration of my thoughts.

Sincerely,
David E. Muhlenkamp
426 Beatrice Rd.

Pleasant Hill CA 94523
(925)212-0148

From: Deana Rabbach
To: Haley Croffoot; Lyone Conner; Troy Fujimoto; Planning Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Impacting Celia Drive & Surrounding Communities Date: Sunday, August 31, 2025 7:15:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Pleasant Hill Planning Commission,
As long-time Pleasant Hill residents, homeowners, and community participants, we are writing to strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of our home and neighboring properties from single-family to a range mixed-use multi-family residential and commercial buildings. Our home at 23 Celia Drive sits in Sherman Oaks (also known as Gregory Gardens), one of the most desirable, established neighborhoods in the city. This proposal threatens not just the integrity of our homes and livelihood, but the safety, trust, and character of our entire community. We chose to buy our home in Pleasant Hill and raise our children in this neighborhood because of the safety, quaintness, location and charm.

The rezone proposal of our neighborhood threatens the following:

1. Traffic and Safety Impacts
The addition of multi-family residential and commercial units under the proposed rezoning would significantly increase traffic in our neighborhood. This surge in volume would be funneled through narrow residential streets that were never designed to handle such density. These roads are not just thoroughfares—they are where children play, families walk, and neighbors gather. Increasing traffic in this family-oriented, walk-toschool neighborhood would create unsafe conditions for current residents, particularly for young children and pedestrians. The resulting safety risks from higher traffic volumes are unacceptable and directly conflict with the character and livability of our community.

2. Personal Investment and Financial Impact
Over the past three years, my family has invested several hundred thousand dollars into the architectural redesign and improvement of our home. This addition was completed in full compliance with all current zoning regulations and easement requirements for a single-family residence. A zoning change at this point would impose significant financial harm on us. The introduction of multi-family residential or commercial developments on neighboring lots would substantially reduce the value of our property. The very qualities that made this neighborhood desirable for purchasing a single-family home—privacy, character, and residential stability—would be undermined by the proposed rezoning. As a result, our family's investment would be devalued, and we would face considerable financial loss.

3. Overcrowded Schools: Growing Concern
Overcrowding in public schools is a serious issue affecting the quality of education for millions of students across the country. As enrollment numbers rise without a matching increase in school infrastructure and resources, classrooms become packed, teachers are stretched thin, and students receive less individualized attention. Overcrowding makes it difficult for teachers to manage the classroom effectively, tailor instruction to different learning styles, or identify students who may be falling behind. As a result, academic performance often suffers, and both students and educators experience higher levels of stress and burnout. This rezoning proposal will only exasperate the current overcrowding in public schools which has been a growing concern over the last several years. The quality of education in overcrowded schools will continue to decline, widening educational gaps and limiting opportunities for future generations.

4. Community and Social Dynamic Impacts
One of the most profound concerns with the proposed rezoning is the disruption it would cause to the strong sense of community that has long defined our single-family neighborhood. Over the years, residents have built lasting relationships rooted in shared values, mutual respect, and a stable, familiar environment. Rezoning for multi-use, multi-family and commercial developments would alter this dynamic by introducing a transient population and fundamentally changing the neighborhood’s character. As a result, long-time residents may experience a loss of identity, diminished social cohesion, and a weakening of the very community fabric that makes this area unique and desirable. This erosion of neighborhood culture is a legitimate and deeply felt point of opposition.

5. Current Infrastructure and Environmental Risk
Our existing sewer infrastructure is not designed to support medium-density, multifamily developments. The proposed rezoning would place significant additional strain on already limited systems, requiring careful planning, engineering upgrades, and substantial investment to ensure adequate capacity. Without proactive infrastructure improvements, mixed-use developments risk overwhelming the local sewer system— leading to backups, service disruptions, and serious environmental hazards. These are not hypothetical concerns; they carry real consequences for public health, safety, and property. Moreover, it’s not just sewer systems at risk. Our community’s water supply, electrical grid, roads, and schools were all designed with single-family density in mind.

Increased population would mean more frequent maintenance, the need for costly upgrades, and potentially higher costs passed on to local taxpayers. This would sacrifice the well-being of current Pleasant Hill residents.

6. Environmental Considerations
A key point of opposition to the proposed rezoning is the significant environmental impact that mixed-use development would bring. Increasing housing density will inevitably reduce green space and tree cover, replacing natural areas with buildings, pavement, and other impervious surfaces. This not only contributes to the urban heat island effect but also increases stormwater runoff, which can overwhelm drainage systems and degrade water quality. Additionally, the displacement of urban wildlife and loss of habitat would further disrupt the local ecosystem. These environmental consequences are not just aesthetic—they affect the health, safety, and quality of life of current residents and must be considered before any zoning changes are approved.

7. Eminent Domain Concerns
If the primary goal is to meet the housing unit targets outlined in the Housing Element, why rezone currently occupied single-family properties? The quiet inclusion of these homes in the Sherman Acres area raises serious concerns about transparency and suggests the possibility of a broader plan—one that could ultimately involve the use of eminent domain to make way for high-density development. Such a move would displace hundreds of current homeowners and families—many of whom have been long-standing residents and taxpayers in Pleasant Hill. This kind of approach would not only irreversibly change the character of our neighborhood but also erode public trust in the Planning Commission. Our community has successfully opposed similar proposals in the past, and we are fully prepared to do so again.

8. Better Alternatives Exist
This proposal prioritizes overdevelopment in one of Pleasant Hill’s most cherished communities instead of exploring smart, community-building alternatives. If the goal is truly to address housing needs, why not redirect development to underutilized spaces such as:

The former Black Angus site (instead of a hotel)
Empty lots on the outskirts of Gregory Gardens, including Woodworth Ln Underdeveloped, failing business sections of Contra Costa Blvd, including former OSH, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Rite Aid sites
Open land behind the Pleasant Hill Library, land that was previously proposed for a public park but failed at a ballot measure, should now be reclassified and repurposed for dense housing
These alternatives would bring new housing without displacing families or burdening schools.

Final Thoughts
This proposal does not build community—it fractures it. Every few years, residents are forced to defend our homes against ill-conceived plans or environmental hazards. We urge the city to reconsider this proposal not only for the safety and future of our homes but for the integrity of Pleasant Hill. We will continue fighting for our home and this neighborhood.

Respectfully,
Deana & Todd Rabbach
From: Mac Abbey
To: Planning
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning between Beatrice Road and Grayson Creek Date: Monday, September 1, 2025 4:34:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Commission,
We strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of the land between Beatrice Road and Grayson Creek.

1. Foremost is the risk of flooding from Grayson Creek. I grew up on Roberta Avenue and remember flooding of the creek since the 1950s, and with climate change periodic heavy rains must be considered. Expanded protection of the flood zone should be first priority, before housing is planned.

2. The propsed multi-family housing units is disproportionate to the neighborhood, increasing immensely the amount of traffic and creating safety concerns.

We recommend that first priority be given to a flood control plan that addresses an expected "100 year flood". Mitigation would probably recommend that the creek protection be expanded into areas now designated for housing. Second, on the basis of the flood plan, we think a modified proposal with reduced housing would be considered within the limits of road access and safety of the neighborhood.

We look forward to participating in the decision making process of this proposal.

Sincerely,
Mac and Lynda Abbey
413 Roberta Ave
From: Steve Caudle
To: Planning; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: 9/9 Planning Commission meeting - rezone
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:00:51 AM
Attachments: Opposition to Rezoning.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Good morning. Our family will be at your meeting on the 9th. I am very confused on how our City would not communicate this to the neighborhoods being affected. I guess we will hear more next week, but rest assured that these decisions should not be made hastily. You are OUR planning department and supposed to be making decisions that benefit and protect our residents. Instead, this will forever change one of the true gem neighborhoods in Pleasant Hill not the mention the numerous other concerns that Tara has listed in her letter, which I've attached.

See you on the 9th.

Steve R. Caudle
427 Roberta Ave.
(925) 890-8958
Steve R. Caudle
(925) 890-8958
From: Janet Clark
To: Haley Croffoot; Planning; [email protected]
Subject: proposed rezoning for
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 12:11:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Ms Croffoot and Pleasant Hill City Planners:

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS EMAIL A LETTER FOR PUBLIC RECORD RE REZONING MEETING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
I own the house at 419 Roberta Ave--only a few homes away from the zoning change being proposed for the end of Beatrice Road and Cleaveland Road--and am stunned at the lack of attention paid to quality of life and potential tax dollars this proposal indicates.

I have served on another city's planning commission so I'm aware of how difficult it is to put a dollar value on "quality of life", but with regard to this proposal it seems moot point because the architect of the plan completely ignored the issue.

As for such an enormous increase in auto and foot traffic, existing flood issues that will need to be addressed, the huge negative environmental impact--not to mention the difficulty for emergency response--you will need to reduce the depth of our front yards to widen streets which on any given day are filled with school children, dog walkers, maintenance vehicles, etc.. I'm staggered by this proposal. To make this plan work you have to be planning to use eminent domain to meet your goal. I see your current proposal head for a courtroom.

Why don't you tell current residents what your goals/motives are and let us help you draw up a viable plan? Are you just looking for more tax dollars? We've got ideas and experience.

Janet Clark
419 Roberta Ave
(925) 934-3841
From: [email protected]
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to rezoning Beatrice Road and Cleaveland for multi-family housing.

Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:40:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I have lived at 418 Roberta Avenue for 47 years and love the Poet's Corner neighborhood. It has not changed significantly in 47 years. However I think the proposed rezoning of the Beatrice Road/Cleaveland area would be a disaster for people who are currently living on Roberta, Beatrice and possibly Soule. It is my oldfashioned idea that city government is supposed to protect the well-being of residents. A tremendous increase in the number of people living in the Beatrice/Cleaveland area would NO DOUBT increase the risk of dangerous flooding from the nearby creek as well as add a much greater number of cars driving through the Roberta/Beatrice area, something none of the residents want. I heartily oppose any change in the local zoning that would allow multi-family units in the neighborhood.

Carol Teitelman
418 Roberta Avenue
Pleasant Hill

From: Chris Sullivan
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 9:15:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I oppose the rezoning of Beatrice road . I am a local homeowner on Roberta ave . This will have a negative effect on property value and will increase traffic in Poets corner residential neighborhood . Chris Sullivan Sent from my iPhone

From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: ND Post
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 8:42:20 AM
Attachments: image005.png
Tara Legaspi
Poet's Corner·
6 hr ago
·
URGENT: Help Stop Harmful Rezoning in Poet’s Corner! Pleasant Hill is pushing a rezoning plan that would allow medium-density housing (100+ units) in our single-family neighborhood—including properties on Beatrice Rd, Cleaveland Rd, and Soule Ave. I’ve lived here for years and have seen firsthand the flooding, traffic, and safety issues already affecting our area. Adding dense development on flood-prone land, right next to a middle school, without proper infrastructure, puts homes, kids, and our community at risk. ⚠️ Here’s what’s at stake: •Annual flooding on Cleaveland Rd is getting worse.

The City’s "solutions" have failed. •The area’s creek naturally controls stormwater— building over it could cause devastating runoff. •Increased traffic near 3 schools will make streets more dangerous for our kids. •The rezoning includes occupied homes not even part of the development—raising fears of eminent domain. There are better alternatives: empty lots, old commercial sites, and land behind the new library. Why destroy a thriving neighborhood? We’ve stopped plans like this before—and we can do it again. Make your voice heard. Contact the Planning Commission and say NO to rezoning Poet’s Corner. Questions or want to get involved? DM me. Let’s protect our neighborhood—together. —Tara Legaspi #PleasantHill #PoetsCorner #StopRezoning #ProtectOurNeighborhood
16 Joshua Bello
6h · Edited·Poet's Corner
What Tara is referring to is outlined here: https://www.phillca.gov/1666/ComprehensiveZoning-Ordinance-Amendment If you scroll down, you can see the proposed map, and the areas proposed for rezoning in our neighborhood are outlined in brown. It's primarily the open space surrounding and adjacent to Grayson Creek, and straddling Cleaveland Rd between Boyd Rd and PHMS. I believe that much of this land was previously intended to be used as a flood retention basin in order to mitigate flooding in our area, but funding was never found to do so. We absolutely need to build more housing in our area, that is the only way to even come close to addressing the affordability issues in our area, but Tara's points about the need to mitigate flood risk is also extremely important. The City of Pleasant Hill does require a lot of study and analysis of stormwater flows and runoff before they issue any kind of development permit, but I believe it is usually projectspecific. So if this area is developed in a piecemeal fashion, the full scope may not actually be considered. I am not a planning professional or hydrologist, I'm just spitballing here. I do think that a balance can be found between addressing concerns around the flooding that plagues our neighborhood and still allowing Pleasant Hill to be a place where perhaps my children can one day afford to buy a home also.

Reply
2 Tara Legaspi
Author6h·Poet's Corner
Here are some of my initial thoughts about low-income housing areas: The former Black Angus site (instead of a hotel) Empty lots on the outskirts of Gregory Gardens, including Woodworth Ln Underdeveloped, failing business sections of Contra Costa Blvd, including former OSH and Bed Bath & Beyond sites Open land behind the Pleasant Hill Library, land that was previously proposed for a public park but failed at a ballot measure, should now be reclassified and repurposed for dense housing Reply
2 Mark B.
5h·El Dorado Park
So let's get this straight - it is NOT Poet's Corner, which lies west of Patterson. Beatrice and Cleaveland are not poet names.

Reply
Tara Legaspi
Author4h·Poet's Corner
Mark
hi! I’m going to correct you as Beatrice Rd is named after Dante Alighieri’s Beatrice Portinari. Beatrice Rd is only accessed through Poet’s Corner.

Reply
1 Dom L.
4h·Poet's Corner
Mark
That’s incorrect and unhelpful. Thanks for chiming in, neighbor. Get this straight… people are at risk of losing their homes.

Reply
Andy Byde
4h·Carriage Square
Dom
Speaking of incorrect and unhelpful, stating that people are going to loose their homes because of the rezoning is incorrect and unhelpful. The City is not going to use eminent domain (for many reasons, not the least of which it doesn't have the money). Get this straight: no homeowner is going to loose a home because of a rezoning, that is not how zoning works.

Reply
2 Peter Scriven
4h·Poet's Corner
Mark
, the map shows a small area of medium-density housing on the West side of the creek on Soule and Beatrice. I believe that this is Poet’s Corner (I live on Hardy, 100 yards away.) If I’m looking at this correctly, the planned rezoning appears to “bridge” the stream at the end of Soule and the spur road off Beatrice, onto and into the undeveloped flood plain areas. These streets are both cul-de-sacs at the moment. I’m in favor of higher density housing but am most concerned here with major traffic increases should vehicle access from Cleaveland onto either Soule or Beatrice be approved. This will make these roads (and a few others) in residential areas around the three nearby schools an alternative to the Boyd traffic, substantially changing the character of a currently quiet residential area. My hope is that higher density housing will be possible as infill on either side of the stream (provided flood plain issues can be addressed) but that no roads are built over the stream.

Reply
2 Dom L.
4h·Poet's Corner
Andy
why rezone existing single family homes as multi family if you didn’t want to leave the door open for redevelopment? My statement is that we’re at risk, which we are.

Reply
Tara Legaspi
Author4h·Poet's Corner
Andy
hi Andy. The plan also means building multi-floor complexes right next to single-family homes. Ask yourself, how would you feel about being surrounded by multi-level complexes and complexes that butt up against a school? There’s so much more that I could respond with, but let’s start with that.

Reply
Tara Legaspi
Author4h·Poet's Corner
Peter
I own the road in front of my house, so either they take my property which wouldn’t allow for a fire truck to be able to turn around or they go through Cleveland and over the creek.

Reply
Ed W.
2h·Woodlands
I suspect under state zoning that this will be allowed. Years of cities blocking development along with so much open space designation has lead to a shortage of land and housing such that infill housing is going to be the norm.

Reply
2 Erin C.
2h·Parkmead
It appears from the FAQs that since the general plan has already been adopted the zoning change (to meet what's in the plan) is a mere formality. (it also addresses the issue of eminent domain):
https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/23153/Rezoning-FAQs?bidId= "1. Why is the City rezoning my property? The City adopted a new 2040 General Plan in May 2023.

As a result, several areas of the City were re-designated to a different General Plan designation (e.g., some single-family properties were re-designated to mixed-use).

Therefore, the City is now rezoning those properties to ensure that underlying zoning districts are consistent with the overarching General Plan designations. " Reply
1 Ed W.
1h·Woodlands
Erin yep..this will go thru 100% if the developer follows through.

Reply
Erin C.
1h·Parkmead
Ed
There is no developer in this case. This is part of the City's housing element process, and applies to numerous areas of the city, not just this particular group of parcels.

Reply
1 Randy Cox
1h·Poet's Corner
The developer will follow through. there is money in it for them and it increases the tax base for the greedy little politicians. They will have more money for their new pet projects. It wouldn't be so bad if they would follow through with their last pet projects.

Increasing the tax base is what they are all about. I wonder why that is? Reply
David Kellogg
38m · Edited·Briarwood North Cherry Lane
It's good to have zoning that allows dense housing. Especially near schools. The eminent domain concerns are really a stretch. That's not on the table. The flooding concerns can be addressed through building codes. This rezoning was, I understand, already agreed to by the city as part of their housing element. I have no polite description of the outright opposition to denser housing near single family homes.

Reply
From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Rants and Raves Post
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 8:43:18 AM
Tara Bartholomew Legaspi
tpedooSnrs4hml07u978ui634l9125ah105ih63ha1h3fm1umtmu4u92fg9g · Rant: Here is my letter to the Planning Commission who is trying to rezone Cleaveland, Beatrice, and Soule. Please come to the meeting on Sep 9 and speak out for our community!
Re: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Impacting Beatrice Rd and Surrounding Neighborhoods
Dear Planning Commission,
As a long-time Pleasant Hill resident, homeowner, and community organizer, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of my home and neighboring properties from single-family to medium-density multi-family residential. My home on Beatrice Rd sits in Poet’s Corner, one of the most desirable, established neighborhoods in the city.

This proposal threatens not just the integrity of our homes, but the safety, trust, and character of our entire community.

This allows it to accommodate water. The natural floodplain plays a critical role in protecting homes on Cleaveland Rd, Beatrice and Roberta Roads, and areas further downstream. Removing open land or disrupting this creek system with new construction could destabilize the delicate balance, resulting in greater runoff and increased flood damage to the surrounding neighborhoods.

2. Lack of Transparency and Eminent Domain Concerns
The Housing Element plan does not fully align with the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Map. The rezoning encompasses homes that are not part of the current development proposal, raising significant concerns about future intentions. If the goal is simply to accommodate the number of units outlined in the Housing Element, why rezone additional, currently occupied single-family homes? The inclusion of these properties on Beatrice Rd, Cleveland Rd, and Soule Ave without transparency suggests a broader plan that could involve eminent domain to displace homeowners for high-density construction. This approach would irreversibly alter the fabric of our neighborhood and undermine public trust in the Planning Commission. Our community has pushed back against similar proposals for decades, and we are prepared to do so again.

This would place a large residential development directly adjacent to a middle school.

Increased traffic from such density would flow through narrow neighborhood roads, especially Beatrice Rd, Patterson Ave, Cleaveland Rd, and potentially Soule Ave. All are narrow streets which are already congested with three schools nearby during commute times. A bridge once existed over the creek but was washed away by flooding. Rebuilding it is not a safe or sustainable option.

Our property evaluation during this process revealed a high water table, just feet below the surface—another clear sign that the area is not suited for dense development.

The former Black Angus site (instead of a hotel)
Empty lots on the outskirts of Gregory Gardens, including Woodworth Ln Underdeveloped, failing business sections of Contra Costa Blvd, including former OSH and Bed Bath & Beyond sites
Open land behind the Pleasant Hill Library, land that was previously proposed for a public park but failed at a ballot measure, should now be reclassified and repurposed for dense housing
These alternatives would bring new housing without displacing families, burdening schools, or jeopardizing flood-prone neighborhoods.

To the fullest extent of the law, I will oppose this rezoning. I will organize. I will speak out.

And I will continue fighting for my home and this neighborhood.

Respectfully,
Tara Legaspi
Dana Kearney
Tara, I live right next to the Allwell 4 story apartment building on Cleaveland that opened up last December after 2 and a half years of construction.

The neighbors here fought it for over 4 years, we were not against building something, but just did not want 4 stories which is as tall as the movie theater behind it.

We went to all the Pleasant Hill planning commission meetings over the course of 3 years stating our concerns, we poured through the Environment Impact statement, composed many emails and had a petition with 90 signatures stating our opposition to a 4 story building.

The Pleasant Hill Planning commission voted down the 4 story proposal 5 to 1. But despite this, the proposal got routed up the the Pleasant Hill City Council that approved it 5 to 1.

At that final meeting, I could tell after 5 minutes that the City Council had decided to approve the 4 story project years ago despite what the neighbors said or the Planning Commission said.

Well I wish you luck ! I just wanted to give you feedback on my experience 7h
Reply
Edited
Tara Bartholomew Legaspi
Author
Dana Kearney I followed that. It was horrible.

Does anyone even live there? They look empty with no one going on and out. I wonder what the occupancy rate is?
7h
Reply
Dana Kearney
Tara Bartholomew Legaspi it started out with low occupancy but is now 2/3 full, 129 units occupied out of 190. Anyway, good luck
4h
Reply
Edited
Denise Plummer Johnsonbaugh
Great letter. Unfortunately we are located in Gregory Gardens and have already felt the impact of allowing medium density housing when our neighbor installed an ADU in her backyard. Overnight we lost all privacy we had in our backyard and with both the adu and front home being rentals we had about 6 additional cars parking on the street. There are no restrictions or requirements on having adequate parking. Also no restrictions on set backs, or light pollution. It’s been a long couple of years trying to figure out what to plant to get our privacy back. My understanding is that this is all being driven by the state.

Cities must comply or lose state funds.
6h
Reply
Tara Bartholomew Legaspi
Author
Denise Plummer Johnsonbaugh there are way better alternatives. Look at Lafayette.

They are building on Mt Diablo rather than impacting single-family neighborhoods.

This will impact GG as Grayson Creek runs straight down there. There have been reports that back this up for over thirty years.
6h
Reply
Stephanie Marin Keough
Best of luck. We dealt with something similar a few years back. Hundreds of showed up to the planning commission meetings for public commentary. The meeting went from 6 PM until past 11 PM due to so much commentary. Letters were sent. The Planning Commission does not care. They do not represent us.
2h
Reply
From: Richard Alcina
To: Haley Croffoot; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:27:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am a resident of the Roberta / Beatrice neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, writing in opposition to the proposed rezoning of the County property immediately to the east of our neighborhood. There are numerous negative impacts created by this proposal, but my greatest concern is the traffic impact on Roberta and Beatrice Avenues. Both of these streets are narrow and without sidewalks. The addition of many new units at the east end of our existing single family neighborhood would have severe negative and even dangerous consequences including pedestrian safety. Also please note there is a hill on Roberta Ave that blocks the view of oncoming cars and pedestrians. When cars parked at the curb at the top of the hill, it forces drivers to the center of the street. A significant increase in the traffic flow would greatly increase the risk of problems at this location.

Sincerely,
Richard Alcina
412 Roberta Ave., PH
[email protected]
From: Gavin Harmon
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Cc: Kim Harmon
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning at Beatrice Rd, Soule Ave and Cleveland Rd Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:29:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Members of the Pleasant Hill Planning Commission and City Council, We are writing as concerned residents of Pleasant Hill to oppose the proposed rezoning of land in our neighborhood. We respectfully ask that you consider the significant impacts this change would have on our community and uphold the protections afforded by the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code.

Rezoning the land at Beatrice Rd, Soule Ave and Cleveland Rd would undermine the safeguards established in Chapter 18 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, particularly:

Section 18.125.070, which requires that any rezoning must not create significant growthinducing impacts, nor increase traffic or noise for established residential districts.

Section 18.20, which sets clear standards for density, land use, lot size, height, and setbacks in residential areas; the proposed changes risk violating these standards and disrupting our neighborhood’s character.

Any potential use of Planned Unit Development (18.30.050) must clearly show how infrastructure, open spaces, and neighborhood harmony will be protected— requirements that have not been adequately addressed in the current proposal.

We are specifically concerned about:

Increased traffic congestion and greater risk to pedestrian safety Additional strain on public utilities, emergency response, and local schools Loss of green space and diminished quality of life for residents Negative economic impact on property values and community stability Threats to local wildlife and their habitat, as rezoning may lead to the destruction or fragmentation of ecological corridors, adversely affecting birds, small mammals, and other native species known to rely on these open spaces.

We also wish to remind the City that public comments and written objections, like this letter, must be collected and considered as part of any public hearing regarding rezoning (Gov. Code § 65009(B)).

We urge you to protect our community by rejecting this rezoning request. Pleasant Hill’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are designed to maintain safe, stable, and harmonious neighborhoods. Please enforce these local rules and prioritize the long-term well-being of our residents.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Sincerely,
Kim and Gavin Harmon
104 Soule Avenue, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
[email protected]
From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Rezoning & Development
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:09:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

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

Name: Tara Legaspi
Street
Address:
520 Beatrice Rd
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:
9253606269
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Rezoning & Development
Question
or
Comment:

Good morning, I first want to thank you for taking the time to speak with my neighbor, Linda. She has very nice things to say about you. I would like to speak to you about the rezoning, proposed Housing Element, and intercity council and commission communication practices. I do believe we can build a better, more robust Pleasant Hill with a bit more creativity than the Housing Element Plan currently outlines. Thank you in advance. Warmly, Tara
Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18487 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Tara Legaspi
Street Address:: 520 Beatrice Rd
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9253606269
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning & Development
Question or Comment:: Good morning,
I first want to thank you for taking the time to speak with my neighbor, Linda. She has very nice things to say about you.

I would like to speak to you about the rezoning, proposed Housing Element, and intercity council and commission communication practices.

I do believe we can build a better, more robust Pleasant Hill with a bit more creativity than the Housing Element Plan currently outlines.

Thank you in advance.

Warmly,
Tara
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 9/4/2025 10:45:44 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.3.186.121
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1552/Zac-Shess-Vice-Mayor Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: gene reffkin
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 3:21:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I live on Beatrice Rd.

My opposition is not about NIMBY.

For me it’s about safety - my safety. I moved here in 2006 with my family. I am now much older. I also am half deaf as I lost all hearing in one ear. Hearing aids are of no use. I have no sense of direction, no sense of location. My street has no sidewalks and there is no room to put them in. When I am walking down the streets here when cars approach I don’t always hear them. Often drivers honk at me to get out of the way. If I am walking with someone, they have to guide me when they hear a car coming. But on my own I cannot tell when a car is coming nor from where it is coming.

For me this is a very dangerous situation. Building here in this neighborhood or even nearby means more people driving up and down and through here. More cars mean more chances of getting hit by someone who is driving carelessly or assumes I can hear them coming.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Gene Reffkin
411 Beatrice Rd
From: Susan Rohlicek
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal
Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 8:39:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To All Members of the Pleasant Hill Planning Commission:

I strong oppose the proposed rezoning of Beatrice Rd., Soule Rd. and Cleaveland Rd. Grayson Creek is an important feeder into Pacheco Creek. Wildlife including many kinds of birds, turtles, otters (I’ve seen them!) will be permanently displaced is proposed developments are permitted to move forward.

I’ve lived in Poet’s Corner since 1983. My kids went to school here, my husband and I worked in Pleasant Hill, and we are dedicated to our neighbors and this wonderful community.

Traffic has increased beyond my ability to quantify in the past twenty years. We do not need more development and more traffic!
We have flood insurance, not because we “have to” due to a mortgage, but because we are realists and have seen local creeks burst their banks and reshape their flow path from time to time. Please do not force Grayson Creek into a channelized dead zone in order to eliminate flood risk so that multi-unit housing can be built. Let the existing new multi-unit housing fill up so we can assess traffic, commercial and residential needs, impacts to neighborhood schools, police and fire safety needs before we permit additional housing in the same area.

I strongly oppose the rezoning. I also question the process because the City of Pleasant Hill did not notify me directly about this proposed rezoning. Why? Are you rushing it through? It’s unfair to approve increased development on an accelerated timeline without due notice to the neighborhood.

Please do not approve this rezoning.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a response. Thank you in advance.

Sincerely, and with great concern,
Susan Rohlicek
15 Dudley Ct.

Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
From: kmuskrat
To: Planning
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:16:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I oppose the rezoning in Poets Corner!
Kathleen Muskopf
Sent from my Galaxy
From: Adam Malatesta
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:38:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

As a resident of Poets Corner, I don’t agree with the rezoning of our neighborhood. This would completely change what all of our residents have come to love and is the reason we all want to live in this neighborhood. We have received no notice for something that would reduce our quality of life and the property value of our home that we have worked so hard to acquire. You guys made us jump through hoops to remodel our home and now you’re going to ok massive apartment complexes right behind us? These projects will add to our flood risk and increase traffic.

We will be losing plant and animal biodiversity and our property values. This is total hypocrisy. See you guys on Tuesday.

Adam Malatesta
Malatesta Family Pool Co.
925-689-2311
From: Comcast
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:54:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I recently read about your planned rezoning proposal. We live on Hardy Cir and love the Poets Corner neighborhood because they are quiet walkable streets.

The rezoning of parcels on the west side of Grayson Creek makes me think that the city will want to connect the high density housing on Cleveland thru our neighborhood both on Soule and Beatrice. This will change the character of our neighborhood significantly by directing traffic thru our neighborhood.

I’m all for developing the Cleveland Rd area for higher density housing but to connect that development thru existing neighborhood is just wrong. The streets are too narrow and are really close to one lane roads when cars are parked along them. Adding through traffic to those streets would be a traffic nightmare. Soule from Patterson to Boyd is a perfect example of a residential street that too many people use as a connector when they should stay on the real connector streets like Patterson and Boyd.

Apparently the General Plan the city recently adopted indicated these parcels would change designation.

Unfortunately our neighborhood was not aware and did not notice this designation change then but that does not make it right to include these parcels and potentially change our neighborhood.

Please correct this mistake now before some developer gets ideas and ruins our neighborhood.

Thanks
Pattie McNamee
Hardy Cir
From: Lisa Brydon
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 7:54:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Stop the re-zoning of Beatrice Rd, Soule Rd & Cleavland Rd.

I highly oppose this!
Lisa Brydon
Brydon & Ives Team
925-285-8336
BI@ brydonivesteam.com
BrydonIvesTeam.com
BRE# 01408025

COMPASS
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dave Strong
To: Planning
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 8:55:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I think something is very odd about this rezoning proposal. It looks similar to the same thing that happened to Walnut Creek, with high density housing, more traffic, loss of property values and it smells of developers making enormous sums of .

I wonder out loud if any "Decison makers" live anywhere near the affected areas. What is done in the name of progress has a different meaning to those of us affected by it. Keep in mind that WE PUT YOU INTO OFFICE AND WE CAN TAKE YOU OUT.

I say No to rezoning.

From: Patrick
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 8:55:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello P. Hill City people,
I really appreciate all you do, and love living in Pleasant Hill.

But have you ever actually been to the neighborhood around Beatrice / Soule / Cleaveland? Building a large complex in this area is not a good idea.

We already get some pretty serious flooding every winter, to the point that I have multiple pumps set up and areas sandbagged for several months out of the year. If you build over the flood escape area near the creek, im not sure how we'll be able to deal with the excess water.

Also, there are a lot of young families raised here. Part of the charm of this neighbord is all the kids riding bikes and playing out in our quiet little streets. Adding a complex like this will roughly quadruple the traffic on our street, making it totally unsafe and completely ruining the character of this area.

I appreciate your time. I think everyone does know this project is an awful idea, and I hope our city has the fortitude to make the right decision for its loyal residents.

Best,
Patrick Dunton
From: Laura Fischer
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 10:11:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Commission,
I urge you to oppose the proposed rezoning in Poet’s Corner and Cleaveland Rd. The risks to families in this community are too great.

The open fields being considered for development are natural flood buffers. Removing them will send more stormwater into homes downstream on Beatrice, Cleaveland, and Soule. For families already living with rising insurance premiums, this rezoning will mean even higher costs and greater financial stress for years to come. Approving a plan that knowingly increases flood risk for the sake of profit puts developers ahead of residents, and that is unacceptable.

It is also important to note that the most recent FEMA flood map for this area was completed in 2009, which already indicates there is no mitigation for this floodplain. In the ten years I have lived here, I have seen the water shelf in my yard rise higher every year as storms have become more intense. There is already a clear increase in flood risk, yet as far as I can see, no surveys have been updated since 2009. Without new data, we cannot understand how severe the flooding could be for residents or how far downstream the creek and surrounding areas will be impacted. Moving forward without updated assessments is reckless.

On top of the flooding concerns, our neighborhood simply does not have the infrastructure to support dense housing. Roads are already congested and unsafe, and schools are overcrowded.

High-density development would make all of these problems worse, leaving residents with permanent safety and quality-of-life issues.

This rezoning is not a minor adjustment. It is a permanent change that puts profit over people, leaving families to shoulder the risk and the cost. Please put the safety and financial security of existing residents first.

Sincerely,
Laura Fischer
413 Soule Ave.
925-323-1325
From: [email protected]
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 10:05:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

We oppose this rezoning proposal.

We are residents on Soule ave in poets corner
-Igor Kipnis

From: Larissa Suhonos
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 2:55:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am strongly opposed to the rezoning proposal. We spent good money to buy a place in beautiful, coveted, poets corner because it was low density. Please don’t make us regret this decision and put more cars on this road where all of our children ride bikes and scooters freely.

Sincerely,
A concerned resident of Poets corner,
Larissa Suhonos
September 2, 2025
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
RE: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Impacting Dawn Drive & Surrounding Communities Dear Pleasant Hill Planning Committee & City Council:

As long-time residents, homeowners, and active members of the Pleasant Hill community for nearly 20 years, we are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of our home and neighboring properties from single-family residential to a mixed-use zoning district. Our home is located at 34 Dawn Drive in the West Sherman Acres neighborhood adjacent to Gregory Gardens, which is one of the most desirable and well-established neighborhoods in the city. The rezoning proposal threatens not just the integrity of our homes and livelihood, but also the safety, trust, and character of our entire community. We chose to buy our home in Pleasant Hill and raise a family in this neighborhood because of its relative safety, quaintness, central location, charm and strong sense of community.

The proposed mixed-use zoning would allow for higher intensity development, including high-density residential, commercial, hotel, office, entertainment, and personal service uses–often located within the same building or site. It encourages a variety of multi-family residential typologies such as live-work units, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums. While such developments are suited to urban centers known for dense structures, busy streets and high levels of activity, they are fundamentally incompatible with the suburban character of our neighborhood. We respectfully urge the city to explore alternative locations for mixed-use development that does not compromise the character, cohesiveness and livability of our close-knit, family-friendly community. Please reaffirm Pleasant Hill’s commitment to providing a high-quality suburban lifestyle to its residents.

We oppose the proposed rezoning of our neighborhood based on:

1. Increased traffic and safety risks
The addition of multi-family residential and commercial developments under the proposed rezoning would significantly increase traffic in our neighborhood. This surge in volume would be funneled through narrow residential streets that were never designed to handle such density. These roads are not just thoroughfares—they are where children play, families walk, and neighbors gather. There are no sidewalks in our neighborhood. Increasing traffic in this family-oriented, walk-to-school neighborhood would create unsafe conditions for current residents, particularly for young children, 1 of 3
pedestrians and pets. The resulting safety risks from higher traffic volumes are unacceptable and directly conflict with the character and livability of our community.

2. Reduced property value and financial impacts
The introduction of multi-family residential and commercial developments in our neighborhood would significantly diminish property values. The proposed rezoning undermines the very qualities that made this neighborhood desirable for purchasing a single-family home—privacy, character, and residential stability. These elements are not only essential to our quality of life, but they also represent the foundation of our financial investment. For many of us, our homes are our most significant asset; our investments are not limited to our original purchase but also include the costs of home improvements and renovations completed over time. Devaluing that investment through incompatible zoning changes would result in substantial financial loss, both in terms of immediate property value and long-term equity. This is not just a matter of market perception—it reflects a real and measurable impact on the financial well-being of families who have lived, contributed to, and cared for this community for years.

3. Disrupted community and social dynamics
Over the years, our neighborhood has cultivated lasting relationships grounded in shared values, mutual trust, and a stable, familiar environment. This neighborhood isn’t just a place to live—it’s a tight-knit community where neighbors know one another, children grow up together, and families feel connected and supported. Rezoning to allow multi-use, multi-family, and commercial developments would dramatically alter this dynamic. The introduction of higher-density housing and transient populations associated with rental units and commercial activity would fundamentally change the neighborhood’s identity. The predictable rhythms of suburban life—quiet evenings, walkable streets, friendly faces—could be replaced by increased turnover, noise, and a lack of long-term resident investment in the community. This transformation threatens to erode the social fabric that makes our neighborhood unique and desirable. Long-time residents may experience a loss of belonging and the overall sense of community could weaken. This is not a hypothetical concern—it is a deeply felt and legitimate objection to a proposal that puts long-established neighborhood values at risk.

4. Overburdened infrastructure and environmental considerations The proposed rezoning would place significant stress on infrastructure systems that were never designed to support mixed-use developments. For example, our existing sewer system and the neighborhood drainage lack the capacity to handle increased demand. We already experience backups and pooling of water under current conditions. In addition, essential services like water supply, electricity, roads and schools were all built for single-family use. Increased population density would accelerate wear, require more frequent maintenance, and lead to expensive infrastructure improvements; all of these costs could ultimately fall on local taxpayers and degrade the quality of life for current residents. Higher density development also reduces green space and tree cover, contributing to the urban heat island effect and increased stormwater runoff, which could further overwhelm drainage systems and harm water quality. In addition, habitat loss and wildlife displacement could also disrupt the local ecosystem. These considerations all pose real, tangible risks to public health, safety, and the well-being of our community.

5. Better alternatives exist
This proposal prioritizes overdevelopment in one of Pleasant Hill’s most cherished communities instead of exploring smart, community-building alternatives. If the goal is truly to address housing needs, then we suggest focusing on underutilized spaces that would not displace families or negatively impact existing neighborhoods, such as:
● The former Black Angus site (instead of a hotel)
● Underdeveloped, failing business sections of Contra Costa Boulevard, including former OSH, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Rite Aid sites
2 of 3
● Open land behind the Pleasant Hill Library (which was previously proposed for a public park but failed at a ballot measure)
The proposed rezoning does not build community; instead, it threatens to fracture it. This part of the general plan risks undermining the very qualities that make Pleasant Hill a desirable city to live in.

As the city continues to grow, neighborhoods like ours should be protected–not compromised–so that Pleasant Hill can uphold its promise of a high-quality, family-friendly suburban lifestyle for generations to come. More than just a place to live, West Sherman Acres and Gregory Gardens foster a sense of belonging, where neighbors know each other, families grow together, and community pride runs deep. We enjoy the unique balance of small-town charm and city convenience, with quiet, tree-lined streets, good schools, and easy access to shops, parks, and local amenities. We urge the city to reconsider the proposed rezoning—not only to protect the safety, value, and future of our homes, but to preserve the integrity and identity of Pleasant Hill itself.

We are committed to standing up for our neighborhood, for our community, and for the place we proudly call home.

Sincerely,
ShaneWSmiley CrystalAnneSmiley
Shane Smiley Crystal Smiley
3 of 3
From: Alexander Suhonos
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 4:08:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom It Concern,
I am deeply opposed to the rezoning proposal in poets corner. The flood risk and wildlife should not be in peril to make this area higher density. Poets corner is a beautiful place to live and this proposal will alter its beauty. -Alec Suhonos
From: Joe Velez
To: Planning
Subject: Rezoning Pleasant Hill
Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 5:35:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Are we looking to change the fabric of our city for more taxes, more people, why ? Sent from my iPhone
From: Joe Velez
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Rezoning Pleasant Hill
Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 5:41:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Are we at the crossroad, changing the character of a small neighborhood. Change isn’t always a good thing.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Matt Regan
To: Planning
Subject: Fwd: Item 6.1 Planning Commission September 9th Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 5:54:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Commissioners,
My name is Matt Regan and I am a long standing homeowner and parent in Pleasant Hill.

Over the years that I have been pleased to call Pleasant Hill home I have tried to contribute back to my community and have served on the Iron Horse Trail CAC, I Chaired the Redevelopment Successor Agency, and for over a decade I represented Pleasant Hill on the Contra Costa First Five Children and Families Commission. I also served on the Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Planning Committee for close to a decade and sat on the ABAG/MTC Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology Committee that created the metrics and standards by which our region's housing obligations were distributed to our 9 counties and 101 cities. (For the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle, the Bay Area must plan for 441,176 new homes and of that total Pleasant Hill is responsible for 1,803) I am writing to you today in support of the staff report on Item 6.1 to amend the Municipal Code in order to allow Pleasant Hill to comply with State law in regards to its General Plan and Housing Element obligations.

Context is important. There is a very simple reason why California and the Bay Area in particular is becoming less and less affordable for working families. There is a good reason why our schools are unable to hire teachers, why our small businesses cannot find employees, and why over 120,000 people every day drive into this region to work, from their homes in the far flung exurbs of Patterson, Manteca or Stockton. We simply have not built enough housing at all levels of affordability for many decades. As recently as the mid 1980s California built over 300,000 homes in a single year. For the past decade we have been averaging less than 80,000 new homes. Many of the people opposing this item probably purchased their homes in the 80s or 90s when the level of new construction made buying a home here affordable, yet they refuse to allow the next generation that same opportunity. It should also be pointed out that since 1990 PLeasant Hill's population has grown at a far slower pace than either Contra Costa County or the Bay Area region, so we are more to blame than most for this housing crisis.

It is also important to know that every community in California is going through this exact same process; finally having an honest conversation about how much housing we need and where it should go. This challenge is not unique to Pleasant Hill.

I believe that City staff have done an incredibly thorough job in the updating of our General Plan and Housing Element and in the preparation of Item 6.1 before you tonight. I believe the vision for Pleasant Hill's future is a good one and if we succeed we will pass on a better and more affordable place to our children and grandchildren.

It is very important that you are also aware of what happens if you fail to comply with State law and create a plan with sufficient viable sites, zoned at appropriate density to meet our mandated RHNA obligation. First, a decertified Housing Element means that for developers, zoning no longer applies. In what is known as the "builders remedy" a developer can acquire any site zoned for housing in a city without a certified Housing Element and build as tall as they choose, and the City has no recourse. Second, the State of California can (and already has done elsewhere) withheld funds for roads and other civic needs if a city does not comply with State housing law. Finally, the courts can intervene and punish cities that refuse to comply with State Law. Just last week the City of Norwalk California agreed to a $250,000 settlement with the State over its past refusal to comply with affordable housing requirements. Should Pleasant Hill decide not to amend its Zoning Map to comply with its Housing Element, it risks decertification and all the ramifications that come with that eventuality.

Sincerely
Matt Regan
Pleasant Hill, CA
From: Peter
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 6:28:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I live on Hardy Circle, with Soule as our cross street. Although I am in favor of additional medium density housing in Pleasant Hill, parts of the proposed rezoning will significantly change the character of our neighborhood and the traffic flows to and from Patterson.

Traffic from both Soule and Beatrice at school drop-off and pick-up time is already heavy. Soule and Patterson are used as waiting streets at pick-up times, leading to egress issues and restricted sight lines. I am concerned that any increase will create safety issues, particularly for the children on foot.

My suggestion would be to avoid rezoning the 5 properties on Soule and Beatrice, instead providing access to future developments to the West of the stream from Monticello Avenue and possibly from Babette Court and Cleaveland.

Monticello has no exiting homes in the vicinity of the rezoning although additional traffic management measures would be necessary around school areas.

I am also concerned about environmental issues close to the stream and would need convincing that the flood zones in the rezoning area are no longer necessary.

Clearly my preference would be to avoid adding extra traffic West of the stream. This would allow the additional traffic load to be absorbed at the existing traffic lights at Boyd and Cleaveland.

Finally, I would ask for clearer and direct communication with those residents who could be impacted by the planned rezoning.

Peter Scriven
(901) 229-0615
From: Natalya
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to Beatrice Rd Rezoning – Please Remove from MFM Map Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 6:50:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
(Please include this letter in the public record for the September 9 Planning Commission hearing.)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
My name is Natalya Kolyvayko, and I am a resident of Beatrice Road. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of our neighborhood from single-family to Medium-Density Multi-Family (MFM) residential as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update.

While I understand the City’s obligation to align zoning designations with the General Plan and Housing Element, I believe the decision to include Beatrice Rd and adjacent properties in the MFM rezoning map raises serious concerns in three key areas: floodplain, traffic and pedestrian safety, procedural, and available alternatives.

1. Floodplain Development Impact
Grayson Creek borders on our neighborhood and the proposed area to be rezoned.

The City has stated that any future development will require elevation above base flood levels.

This means that multi-story buildings will likely sit atop elevated pads, rising well above existing one-story homes in the neighborhood. This is not theoretical; it is the predictable consequence of rezoning for density in a floodplain.

We respectfully ask the Commission to request a supplemental hydrological review before finalizing this rezoning.

2. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety
Beatrice Road is approximately 24 feet wide. With vehicles parked on both sides, the remaining width is insufficient for two cars to pass each other in opposing directions (please see attached photograph). There are numerous families with children that own homes along Beatrice Road. Increased vehicle traffic due to development will result in a currently safe and quiet street becoming a much higher-density access road.

3. Zoning Process Transparency
The City has described the rezoning as a “cleanup” of PUD 410 — a shell designation lacking standards. However, for families like ours, this is not a minor technical adjustment. Rezoning grants significant entitlement rights to future developers and removes existing zoning ambiguity that previously offered some protection.

Many residents were not notified of this change, despite the fact that it affects occupied properties, creates uncertainty for families who have invested in remodels and additions under current zoning, and potentially exposes homeowners to displacement or eminent domain in the future.

This process requires greater transparency, neighborhood-specific engagement, and a carveout or delay in any action that has the potential to impact properties on Beatrice and Roberta parcels.

4. Better Alternatives Already Identified
Most notably, the City-owned parcel north of the Library (PUD 940) was designed for community amenities such as sports fields, restrooms, and parking, and is not located in a floodplain. This site, along with underutilized commercial lots on Contra Costa Blvd, could accommodate MFM housing without impacting existing homes or burdening narrow residential streets.

Final Request
For these reasons, we respectfully ask the Commission to:

Remove Beatrice Rd and Roberta Avenue from the MFM rezoning map, or Postpone rezoning of this area until further hydrologic and traffic studies are completed and alternatives are properly evaluated.

Please include this letter in the public record for the September 9 Planning Commission hearing.

Sincerely,
Natalya Kolyvayko
407 Beatrice, Pleasant HIll CA, 94523
925-663-5128

From: MILDRED MATEO
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 11:41:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I, Mildred Mateo, resident of 206 Astrid Drive Pleasant Hill California, strongly OPPOSED the REZONING PROPOSAL PLANNING OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL. This alter the beauty and charm of the Old Pleasant Hill we knew.

From: Nicole Skinner
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Saturday, September 6, 2025 11:01:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

We are opposed to the re-zoning.
- Nicole & Scott Skinner
510 Beatrice RD
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
415.699.5174 and 925.330.7598
[email protected]
September 6, 2025
(sent by email)
Planning Commission
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
RE: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Public Hearing – 09/09/2025 Dear Pleasant Hill Planning Commission:

We write this letter to oppose The City of Pleasant Hill’s (“the City”) proposal to rezone our property located at 510 Beatrice RD, APN 149-130-026 to a “multifamily, medium-density” designation. The City’s rezoning proposal includes our neighbors’ property at 520 Beatrice RD, APN 149-130-025 as well as the unoccupied lot to our immediate south - APN-149-130-020 (“empty lot - south”).

We have owned and resided in this property since 2002, having purchased from the original owners.

We have raised our son in Poets Corner and plan to retire here. We have served as PTA Board members for Strandwood Elementary and College Park High School and as ongoing Member, Umpire Leadership Team, PHBA. We provide this opposition in writing in our attempt to preserve our rights pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(B) as well as any other applicable laws and regulations.

We intend to significantly improve our property in the near future to enable us to age in place and we have NO intention of relocating. Our neighbors at 520 Beatrice RD (Tara and Dom Legaspi) have advised us that they as well have no intention of relocating. Without our cooperation, any attempt to develop the empty lot – south property will be next to impossible and your rezoning plan therefore, does nothing except cause us stress and financial hardship. This plan will lessen the value of our properties, the neighborhood generally, and simultaneously not solve for the housing crisis it attempts to address. We are currently planning on involving as many of the neighborhood homeowners as possible in this discussion and are confident there will be widespread opposition to any proposed development. Other means to solve the housing challenges faced by California exist. Our opposition includes but is not limited to the following points:

1. Insufficient notice was given to the affected property owners. We recently surveyed our neighborhood’s awareness of these proposed plans and discovered none (except those whom work for the City of Pleasant Hill) knew anything about the proposed rezoning. All were shocked and frustrated. In addition, contrary to recent public statements made by City officials, our homes have never been zoned “multifamily, medium-density”, never been “treated as multifamily, medium-density” nor has there ever been any expressed intention from the City to do anything regarding our property within at least the last 12 years.

Our home as well as the homes located at 520 Beatrice RD and 535 Beatrice RD, the empty lot – south, and the lot and homes on Soule Avenue immediately north of 535 Beatrice RD were not included as part of the focus/land to be rezoned pursuant to the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan adopted May 2023 as found on the City’s website. https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21502/2040-Pleasant-Hill-GeneralPlan_reduced (see pg. 58 “Development Focus Ares Within Pleasant Hill”). Had these properties been included, homeowners would have had the opportunity to be heard at the time the plan was debated and adopted. This new proposed zoning is NOT CONSISTNENT with the underlying General Plan. Any claim by the City (statements to local media, news report, resident inquiries) that the end of Beatrice RD rezoning is merely part of a “zoning clean-up” is inaccurate and deceptive. The City is trying to do an end around it’s adopted plan, any zoning “oversights” it has made in the past, and its citizens. The City should be estopped from taking this course of action.

2. The empty lots south and north of Beatrice Rd are largely inaccessible to through traffic and highly difficult to develop without the removal of our homes. The school property with a narrow access road borders the empty lot - south and the creek borders the empty lot to the east. Creek setback will be required to construct new roads and homes.

Case law, statues as well as litigation working its way through the Courts makes it increasingly difficult if not impossible for local governments to take property from private owners for economic benefit. Therefore, there is no benefit to the City to rezone these properties as any attempt at medium density development is futile. The City’s plan to rezone our property comes across as hostile in nature – and expression of an intention to remove our homes for some “bigger” financial gain at our expense.

3. Beatrice Road and Roberta Road provide access to our parcels and the empty lot south and north and both roads are currently too narrow to provide fire truck turn-around. Any new development would require taking of neighboring property front yards along Beatrice RD and/or Roberta RD in order to provide access to new construction. As well, development will create congestion and a change in character of our diverse single family home neighborhood – single family home lots are a major attraction of Poets Corner.

We would like to note a few years back the empty lot – south caught fire. A large firetruck attempted to respond to the fire, having to first slowly and gingerly navigate to the end of Beatrice Rd. Once it arrived the firefighters determined they had no ability to access the empty lot – south from their position as they could not maneuver around 520 Beatrice.

4. All properties discussed and others proposed to be rezoned in our adjacent areas are located in FEMA zone “AE” – “high flood area”. It will be extremely to develop for affordable housing or otherwise, if this is the City’s intention. Construction projects such as the Pleasant Hill Library and adjacent new home construction have increased water intrusion and flooding to our parcels and that of our neighbors. Any attempt to develop these properties will further exacerbate the flooding problem. Our property is adjacent to the culvert between the end of Beatrice RD. A number of years back the homeowner across the street was required to widen the pipe located on his property at his personal expense carrying water away from properties to lessen the flood pressure coming from Patterson as well as from the south baseball fields and school. Subsequent to that and the Pleasant Hill library development - flooding has worsened – we had to personally clear the Beatrice Road culvert approximately 20 months ago to prevent flooding to our home and our neighbors. The water coming through the culvert was red – from the baseball fields.

5. We are very concerned that the new zoning will require us to conform to “multiuse”/add extra housing to our lot when we remodel. Adding an ADU to our property, for example, is likely impossible and/or extremely burdensome – we have a 30,000 gallon swimming pool in the middle of our property running the length of the yard east to west with no room for sewer lines to either side. Any such requirement to construct additional housing on our property would be economically devastating.

6. In the future, if we are forced to or need to sell our property the City’s rezoning will cause us extreme economic loss. Any future buyer would be wary of the City’s intentions to take the property and/or develop around them.

It is unfair for the City to add another real threat to our ability to use our property and to our security. We have endured years of the City’s unsuccessful attempts to create a flood plan for Pleasant Hill which included direct threats of taking our property for that project. At the time flood plain planning was abandoned by the City, we were assured we were safe from losing our home. When Redevelopment Agencies were dissolved in 2012, we were assured and relieved our property was safe from taking. Now we face another threat to our financial security and our ability to plan for our future.

Please be advised we will strongly consider any and all legal action necessary to preserve our rights, including but not limited to forming a collective defense with neighboring property owners as well as involving various organizations such as the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Lesley S. Pope & Eric F. Pope
From: Katie Hindt
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comments re: Proposed 2040 Rezones
Date: Saturday, September 6, 2025 10:05:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Ms. Croffoot:

My name is Katie Hindt and my family resides in Gregory Gardens.

My husband and I and our young son moved here 4 years ago from San Jose.

We were drawn to this area based on the hometown feel, peaceful streets, good schools and family friendly atmosphere.

In reviewing the proposed 2040 Rezones, I became genuinely concerned regarding various areas to be rezoned.

I would like to respectfully present my concerns:
- MX-NB along Gregory (change from residential) - This stretch of Gregory should remain unspoiled, as inserting retail and/or higher density residential would change the feel of this area. It was in fact this drive from Contra Costa Blvd to our family's home along Gregory that I absolutely love driving. The change in zoning would increase traffic and decrease the overall visual appeal/consistency of this area.
- MX - E Vivian (change from residential) - Maintaining this area as SFR residential would maintain a more peaceful area. Inserting higher density housing/retail would potentially increase crime that already exists along Contra Costa Boulevard. Can the City explore options to change zoning of the vacant Rite Aid parcel on CCB to medium or high density residential/mixed use? That parking lot is laden with crime and drug use and converting that disused parcel would benefit that area and would be more appropriate than imposing that zoning to the E Vivian neighborhood.
- MX-HD - Walgreens site at PHR and Grayson (change from Neighborhood Business) - This change is unnecessary as having the current retail at the corner suits the surrounding residential needs. Adding high density housing would be unsuitable for this small area and would increase traffic down Gregory/Grayson/PHR. This intersection is already backed up during the 5pm hour. Such high density buildings are imposing and do not fit in with the fabric of this corner.

Our family moved to this area from San Jose. The South Bay has undergone a huge development boom with too many mixed use high rises being built. The buildings are not only visually unappealing, but the ground floor commercial/retail units are largely vacant. They are uninviting and I prefer to drive by such developments and I never feel compelled to stop at these establishments. There are many areas with such developments in San Jose, and Mountain View that have ruined the neighborhood feel of the area.

I respectfully request that the City of PH have a thoughtful approach to development/growth for the future. It should be not only sustainable but should be compatible with the look and feel of the city. I do not want to live around retail/high rises as the city will lose its charm that residents and visitors are drawn to.

I understand that some of these pressures to increase the density of housing in the City are mandated by the State, however it appears that there are certain jurisdictions that are exempt. I would like to request that the City explore its options to request a waiver and not comply with these mandates.

Thank you for reading my thoughts and concerns.

I trust that the City will fight to keep what makes PH special and not a cookie-cutter town.

Respectfully,
Katie Hindt
1955 Rose Ln, PH
831.295.9725
From: Melissa Doherty
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 9:06:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

City of Pleasant Hill:

My family and I vehemently oppose the rezoning proposal of Beatrice, Soule and Cleaveland Rd for many reasons.

We have recently purchased our home in this area and the addition of high rise, multi unit housing erodes the neighborhood character and will lower the value of the property we just paid top dollar to move into. Additionally, the safety concerns it brings to the area due to traffic overload is of huge concern. I have a small child and one of the reasons we purchased a house on this street is the low traffic and safety of the street and area. Fire trucks can’t safely turn around at the end of Beatrice and dense housing increases this risk.

This is an unfair process that the city has under taken in that they have failed to notify our neighborhood. Had we known, it likely would have impacted our decision and the price we offered on the house just purchased.

Please reconsider this rezoning effort.

Melissa
Sent from my iPhone
From: Kenan Pandza
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 9:11:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I live at 190 Cleaveland Rd #15, Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523 and would like to add my voice in oposition to the change in zone classification in this area.

I would like to see the area around the creek preserve as the open space. Better use of this space would only as a public park.

Respectfully,
Kenan Pandza
From: Lisa Smith
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 10:00:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

This area is already severely impacted with traffic during commute times and dangerous for kids trying to get to PHMS and sequoia in the mornings. The added traffic this will cause is going to increase this issue while devaluing the homes in Poets Corner.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Janet Spencer
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 10:08:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I live in Poet’s Corner . I bought my house 20 years ago and selected it because of the quiet nature of my neighborhood. In addition, I appreciate the charm of streets that do not encourage commuting. The rezoning that you are proposing will change traffic patterns and diminish the value of my home. Grayson creek is not only a viable wildlife corridor, but it also serves as flood control. I do not believe your planning has taken into consideration all of the risks, damages and permanent changes that this rezoning would cause.

Janet Spencer
925-639-9948
112 Hardy Circle
Sent from Janet's iPhone
From: Brian Dodge
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 11:41:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Here we go again. Someone at the City has dredged up the 50 year old School Yard Redevelopment Plan. Apparently no one has recently looked at the properties involved to see the improvements that have been made since that redevelopment plan was first created.

Indeed, our house and that of our neighbors have both been substantially upgraded and increased in size and are now each valued at well over one to one and a half million dollars. It makes no sense to consider tearing these houses down in order to build multifamily dwellings at the end of a quiet single family residential street (Soule Ave). So why is the current proposal to zone these as multi-family (MFMD)?!
We have lived in our house (501) at the east end of Soule Avenue since December 1982.

During that time span, we have had numerous interactions with City staff regarding the School Yard Redevelopment and Eminent Domain seizure as it affects our property. We were repeatedly promised by the City that our property and our adjacent neighbor (500 Soule Avenue) would be removed from the multi-family housing designation and be included in the neighboring adjacent single-family zoning. The City, despite several 10-Year Plan revisions, has consistently failed to do what was promised.

We are therefore opposed to the new Rezoning Plan which shows all the properties on the west side of Grayson Creek as Multi-family Medium Density. Indeed, a previous plan by the City showed any development on the west side of Grayson Creek to be zoned Single-family.

All the properties on the west side of Grayson creek are land-locked, have limited access and are subject to flooding. Any development of these parcels would be difficult and costly for a prospective developer. We think that the homes that are currently included in this west side part of the proposed plan should be rezoned as single family and that there should be a renewed and much more careful consideration of the zoning and future potential development of the vacant properties as well.

We ask that this correspondence be included in the public comments for the September 9, 2025 public meeting.

Sincerely,
Brian and Ellen Dodge
501 Soule Avenue
Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523
From: Caren Lucich
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 3:30:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hi, there:

I’m sure you’ve received many emails regarding the Rezoning Proposal, but it’s worth adding to what you’ve received. My home is on Beatrice Road, right where Beatrice and Roberta converge. Now, I’m in favor of progress and I do like what I’ve seen as far as the plans for developing Pleasant Hill, BUT at what cost to residents in the targeted areas?
- in the 30+ years my husband and I have lived in Poet’s Corner, I can recall a couple of times that new buildings have negatively impacted where I live. When the gorgeous Library and the condos on Cleveland were built, even though we were told it would not, we experienced flooding. Do you know how scary it is to see that water come for your home? Fortunately, for us, it reached our frontyard, but not our home. - Any traffic added to Beatrice and Roberta would be disastrous. As it is, if two vehicles are parked on opposite sides of the street, two cars cannot go in opposite directions. Don’t forget about pedestrians. - Forcing people out of their homes in the name of progress isn’t just heartbreaking, it’s plain old wrong. Whatever the city might offer to buy homes would not be as much as people could sell their homes for when they’re ready.

Please take this all into consideration. Progress is necessary and great, but it’s nothing compared to keeping the beauty and character of a much cherished neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Caren Lucich
Sent from my iPhone
From: Bobby Bell
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Support for Rezoning Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 5:13:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom It May Concern,
I received a flyer on my doorstep propagating the usual NIMBY nonsense about how building anything new is bad. Pleasant Hill is in dire need of more housing to bring down the insanely overpriced costs of both renting and buying.

The opposition’s statement that “High rise, multi-unit housing erodes our charm and lowers value” is an open admission that this type of opposition functions as a price-fixing cartel and is a not so subtle hint that some residents prefer de facto housing segregation. Their claimed concern for “wildlife loss” is severely misguided as denser development means more walking and shorter commutes with less driving, the best way to lower carbon emissions and protect the environment. The status quo NIMBYs defend is one of non-stop sprawl into exurban areas which require long commutes, contradicting their claimed concern about “traffic overload”.

I don’t know if I will be able to make it to the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday evening but now that I am alerted to this issue, I will be voting against anyone who opposes rezoning for more housing.

Bobby Bell
270 Cleaveland Rd, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(510) 225-8999
From: Daniel Guerra
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: 9/9/25 public hearing
Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 9:49:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Good evening,
Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend the meeting in person but I would like provide my thoughts on the proposed rezoning. We moved to Pleasant Hill 3 years ago on E Vivian after looking for and finding a quiet neighborhood. We were lucky enough to buy the house and even more lucky start a family with the birth of our son. We would like to keep the neighbor as is without 3 story town houses, large apartment complexes or tax payer buildings.

I know this isn't a vote, but for lack of better term we vote no on the rezoning.

Thank you,
Daniel Guerra
From: Roberto Garuti
To: Planning
Subject: Comment on Pleasant Hill Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment Date: Sunday, September 7, 2025 11:10:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Whom it May Concern,
I just want to express my full support for the rezoning proposal. The limits on housing that exist in the US are insane, the reasons they were initially created a century ago were blatantly elitist and racist and now they cause a housing shortage and unaffordability for most people.

No one gets hurt by some more dense housing in their neighborhood except for the ones that need to control other people's lives.

Regards,
Roberto Garuti
2597 Oak Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
h ello @ yimbylaw .org
9/8/2025
City of Pleasant Hill
Planning Commission
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Statutory Rezoning, Agenda Item 6.1
To the City of Pleasant Hill:

YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Element Law.

Pleasant Hill has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. Should the County fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced.

In accordance with both Pleasant Hill’s certified Housing Element and its 2040 General Plan, the City proposes to rezone 1,080 properties to facilitate residential development.

Both documents were finalized and adopted in May of 2023; even besides the numerous study sessions and community outreach events leading up to both plans, the community has had over two years to become familiarized with these proposals and provide input.

Regardless of those few public comments, generally fueled by exclusionary motives, we write to remind Pleasant Hill that its commitments are statutory requirements and not matters of preference. Housing Element programs are mandatory and enforceable, especially rezoning obligations. Government Code § 65583 requires each jurisdiction to identify specific programs in its housing element that will “implement the policies, goals, and objectives” of the plan. These programs must include timelines for implementation and are a core component of compliance.

Moreover, Government Code § 65583(c) requires programs to include “a schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake during the 1 planning period” that will “result in the accomplishment of the program’s objectives.” Once adopted, these programs are enforceable obligations. Government Code § 65587(a) confirms this enforceability by stating that the housing element “shall be implemented in accordance with its schedule of actions.” The City is therefore legally required to carry out the commitments it has made in its adopted housing element.

Government Code § 65860(c)(1)(A)(iii) requires zoning to be consistent with city general plans, and in the case of any contradiction, the general plan controls. More specifically, cities have a statutory obligation to complete Housing Element associated rezonings within (in the case of Pleasant Hill) three years. The City must follow through on all adopted housing element programs, as required by Government Code §§ 65583 and 65587. Failure to comply with housing element law exposes the City to potential enforcement actions under Government Code §§ 65585, 65587, and 65589.5, among others.

We urge the City to fulfill its legal commitments and ensure that its housing element is fully implemented in good faith. Should the City fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 2 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Rezoning Beatrice and Cleaveland Roads
Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 8:40:47 AM
From: Jeffery Dewlaney <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 4:48 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning Beatrice and Cleaveland Roads
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Troy Fujimoto
I have been a resident of Pleasant Hill for 39 years, and more specifically a current resident of Beatrice Road for over 35 years. I have the last 61 years of my 66 years of life within 5 miles of where I currently live. Pleasant Hill has always been a small welcoming town; geographically or other otherwise it was always meant to be as such. My family and most of the residents moved here because of this. Pleasant Hill, in general and specifically Beatrice Road, was not meant to be a sprawling congested city. The infrastructure of Pleasant Hill including roads, schools, fire, police precludes the city of Pleasant Hill from this overgrowth. The property values of the current residents will decline sharply; homeowners do not want to be surrounded by all of this congestion. We moved into the area because of the suburban neighborhoods, not to be surrounded by unwelcomed housing. The streets are ill equipped to handle the increase in traffic and schools are already overwhelmed. You are taking value from the current Pleasant Hill residents and redistributing it to other people not here. I don’t need to tell you what this is and feels like to all of us current residing here. We have spent years building a life and home here and we don’t want to see it taken away with a stroke of a pen.

Sincerely,
Jeffery P. Dewlaney, MS, CFM, CMA, CPA
Virus-free.www.avast.com
From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Proposed Zoning Changes in the Soule/Beatrice/Roberta Area of Pleasant Hill Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 9:23:22 AM
From: Ryan Guest <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2025 9:52 PM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning <[email protected]>; Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Zoning Changes in the Soule/Beatrice/Roberta Area of Pleasant Hill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

My name is Ryan Guest, and I strongly oppose the rezoning of Beatrice Rd, Soule Ave, and parts of Cleaveland Rd. I have lived in Poet’s Corner for 15 years and moved into my current residence at 423 Roberta Ave five years ago.

While I understand the city’s obligation to address its housing goals, this specific plan for 149 units is flawed. It is incompatible with our community’s long-term well-being and directly conflicts with the stated goals of both the Housing Plan and the Climate Action Plan currently being developed.

Floodplain Concerns
The most urgent and undeniable flaw with this proposal is location. These parcels sit within a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain, with a creek running directly through the site. Any development here would likely require a massive, prohibitively expensive stormwater retention system.

We have already seen the failures of Pleasant Hill’s drainage infrastructure in this area.

During recent “atmospheric river” events, storm drains overflowed, creeks swelled beyond capacity, and streets in our neighborhood were forced to close. During the 2023 floods, Patterson was closed for flooding and traffic from Beatrice and Soule had to be detoured. In previous years, my neighbors have literally kayaked down Beatrice Road.

The open floodplain behind our homes is not wasted space, it is a natural buffer that protects existing homes from serious flooding. If developed, that protection disappears, putting residents of Beatrice and Roberta directly in harm’s way.I know this risk firsthand. In just five years living here I have done over $100,000 worth of work to my homes. We have installed a 30-foot structural beam, poured foundation piers, repaired foundation cracks, added a foundation anchor, installed a French drain, and added a sump pump to prevent flooding. On parcels like the Cleaveland site, developers are advised to “build up”, but that would only slope more water onto existing homes on Beatrice, Soule, and Roberta.

Environmental Concerns
The site is home to mature oak trees and diverse wildlife, including acorn woodpeckers, turtles, foxes, snakes, and a group of red-tailed hawks that helps balance the local ecosystem. Clearing this land would permanently remove a rare natural habitat in Pleasant Hill.

Our creeks are among the last remaining open waterways in the city. Environmental groups have already called for 50-foot riparian buffers and public access protections. Ignoring those calls in order to build on a flood-prone, environmentally sensitive site is a sustainability concern.

Traffic
Traffic is already one of our community’s greatest challenges. Adding 149 new units would significantly worsen congestion, particularly in the mornings during school drop off.

This neighborhood is sandwiched between Pleasant Hill Middle School, Sequoia Middle, and Sequoia Elementary. The schools already funnel hundreds of cars into our area every day. Because the Sequoia schools are not neighborhood schools, the percentage of students driven to campus is much higher than elsewhere in the district. The intersection of Boyd and Patterson, which sits right in front of the Sequoia schools, has already been identified by the city as a high risk intersection. This intersection was one of the seven intersections included in Pleasant Hill's 2023 Intersection and Crosswalk Improvement Project (No. 05-23). The goal of the project was to increase pedestrian safety. The total cost of the project was $800,679.50, for all seven intersections. After construction, there has been little to no change in pedestrian safety. Intentionally funneling more cars directly toward this intersection does not make sense. The Roberta and Beatrice roads are narrow and in some places require one car to pull over so a car going the opposite direction can pass. These roads were never designed for this kind of volume. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

Diablo Vista Water Concerns
The access streets for these parcels are tied to the aging Diablo Vista Water System. The Diablo Vista Water system serves approximately 470 homes and has 27,000 linear feet of water transmission lines. Today, when a repair shuts down a street in this area, it inconveniences only a handful of homes. With 149 new units, those same outages would disrupt street access for hundreds of residents.

Rezoning Existing Homes
The city can meet its housing targets without rezoning established homes. Rezoning 510 Beatrice, 520 Beatrice, 535 Beatrice, 500 Soule, and 501 Soule allows developers to remove existing single-family homes in a desirable neighborhood. Removing these homes would permanently alter the character of the neighborhood. It is unfair that the city would choose to target these families when alternative sites exist.

Safety
Above all, this proposal endangers our children. I am the father of three boys (ages 7, 5, and 1). They are at the stage where every day means riding bikes, shooting hoops, or skateboarding in the driveway. Our neighborhood streets are already narrow and lined with cars. Adding the daily traffic of hundreds of new residents will turn what is now a safe and walkable neighborhood into something dangerous.

We have a rule in our house: the boys can ride their bikes down the street to “Dave’s House,” where I can still see them from the front porch. If this project goes through, that simple joy will be gone. In front of Dave’s house won’t be kids on bikes, it will be a line of cars cutting across our neighborhood to get to I-680.

Notification and Transparency
Finally, this process has lacked the transparency residents deserve. I live 99.02 feet away from one of the parcels included in the plan, but I never received the required notice by mail about this meeting or the proposed changes. There is no signage indicating a planning commission meeting at the rezoning sites, though I saw signs posted for rezoning on Oak Park Boulevard, where the rezoning of Oak Park Boulevard proposal is much more popular.

Had my neighbors not reached out nine days ago, I would not have known this rezoning was happening.

In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider the rezoning of the Beatrice, Soule, and Cleaveland parcels. The feedback from the 2021, 2023, and now 2025 discussions and feedback from the GPAC have been consistent against this rezoning in this area. There are more suitable locations in Pleasant Hill to meet our housing needs without sacrificing our city’s character, safety, and environment.

Please don’t destroy one of the greatest neighborhoods in the Bay Area.

Ryan Guest
423 Roberta Ave.

Pleasant Hill, CA
From: [email protected]
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to rezoning proposal
Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 12:24:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Planning Commission,
We have great concerns regarding your proposed zoning for the area between the Beatrice Road and Grayson Creek. This is presented in your plans as part of the Beatrice Road/Cleaveland parcels.

We live on Beatrice Road, a small 'cull the sac' neighborhood of 29 single family homes and have lived here for 28 years. This is where our kids grew up, where we walked to school and where we are now retired and still walking the neighborhood to stores and restaurants.

We sympathize with your efforts to comply with the States need and HE requirements, but the designed density here is misplaced.

The reasons are:

1. It does not fit the existing neighborhood and will decrease property values

2. It goes against your own rezoning stated goals, purposes and intent

3. It will cause traffic problems on streets that are not designed for more traffic, leading to unsafe streets

4. It does not consider the Grayson Creek natural environment

5. It does not consider the creek flooding issues that are already happening every winter and will only get worse with climate change
As for not fitting the neighborhood, right now Beatrice road has 29 single family homes with a density of between 3-4 houses per acre. You are proposing to add 78 units (and that is only on the Beatrice side of the creek) in a density of 20-30 units per acre. Most of the houses in on Beatrice Rd are single story old ranchers at about 15-20’ feet high and you are proposing MFM zoning with a height limit of 40' on top of the buildup needed for flood zone mitigation. This proposal will destroy the character of the neighborhood and the quality of live and will negatively impact the property values of the current residents of the area.

This is also not in line with your own guidelines and I quote:
2040 General Plan Guidelines Goals as stated in Chapter 4.4, Item H5.1: “High Quality Neighborhoods: Maintain and enhance the quality of Pleasant Hill’s neighborhoods, through highquality design, neighborhood compatibility and consideration of surrounding uses, and maintenance and improvement of public infrastructure, so they will retain their value as they mature” Purpose and Intent of Residential Zoning Districts 18.20.010.A.2.: “Protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, overcrowding, excessive traffic, excessive on-street parking, insufficient parking and other adverse environmental effects.

A5. “Minimize the out-of-scale appearance of large homes, parking areas, and other development relative to their lot size and to other homes in a neighborhood.” Nowhere else in the Poets Corner neighborhood is any building of this density. Even the most recently allowed housing development on McKissick is developing 4 2-story houses, with a density of

3.375 units per acre.

As for traffic problems, neither Beatrice Rd nor Roberta Ave can accommodate traffic from an extra 78 housing units. Often enough cars must wait to navigate single file down our street. This is typical in Poets Corner. People, kids, and elderly walk and bike these streets, we have no sidewalks. How you can triple the traffic down these streets without causing frustration, probably accidents and issues with response times for fire and medical services. And don’t think that building a bridge across Grayson Creek will be a solution, that will add to the local traffic from people that try to avoid school and other traffic to cut through our streets.

As for Grayson Creek, you know there are flooding issues every year in Poets Corner, during rain storms the creek is filled to the rim and that will only get worse with climate change and further build up in the flood plain. The area is needed to mitigate the flood issues, building and pavement here makes it worse. Also, the creek is a beautiful and unique part of our neighborhood that Pleasant Hill should not lose. We and many others enjoy the creek side habitat. There is the resident great egret, in winter hooded mergansers and even a flash of a kingfisher. We volunteered multiple times to fish out trash, a never-ending hobby. Many towns around us, Martinez, Concord, Walnut Creek have incorporated and revived their creeks into parks. It's an opportunity and an asset.

Instead, here is our personal proposed solution. Be creative and don't immediately focus on the obstacles.

Rezone the area west of Grayson (~ about 3.8 acres) to a density that fits the existing neighborhood, 3-5 houses per acre
Use the vacant lot north of the library for higher density development, with a nice bridge over the creek with access to the trail, library and wide streets for traffic. Trade that vacant PH Parks and Rec lot for a generous buffer around Grayson creek and have them develop a creek side park, a bike-walk trail, maybe a dog walk area, native plantings, some victory gardens.

The developers and current and future residents will be thankful if you double the width of the creek as creek levels will be lower and flooding is less likely. Such creek side park would give some high quality green space and separation for more higher density development along Cleaveland with easier traffic flows.

Also consider rezoning the former Black Angus site, the hotel never came, we need the land for housing, not more hotel space on top of the 7 hotels and motels we already have. That area has good highway access and could support higher density development Thank you for your attention.

Gaston and Ariane Habets, 410 Beatrice Rd

Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal – East Vivian Drive / Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Title 18)
To: [email protected]
CC: Email The City Council
Dear Ms. Croffoot, Members of the Planning Commission, and City Council, I am writing as a longtime resident of East Vivian Drive to express my strong opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Title 18) and the associated rezoning plans that would impact established residential neighborhoods like mine.

Why I Oppose This Rezoning
I purchased my home in 2011 because of the exact qualities that would be threatened by this proposal:
large lots, family-friendly front yards and backyards, easy access to Contra Costa Blvd, and a calm, livable residential environment.

Rezoning our neighborhood for higher density or commercial use would fundamentally alter the character of East Vivian Drive. Our streets are already difficult to navigate during peak hours, and adding retail, restaurants, or denser housing will only worsen traffic and strain local infrastructure.

Critical Questions to Address
● How does this rezoning support the 2040 General Plan’s goals around smart growth, livability, and neighborhood preservation?
● What findings justify this rezoning? Have there been documented “changed circumstances” or a demonstrated need?
● How will increased density affect traffic, infrastructure, public services, and adjacent properties?
● Has the Housing Accountability Act or Builder’s Remedy been considered? What role does it play in this decision?
● Why were residents not informed in 2020 that intact neighborhoods like East Vivian Drive would be rezoned?
● What specific maps, materials, or communications were provided to voters and public attendees during the 2020 rezoning vote, and why did they exclude these neighborhoods? ● Does the City believe the disclosure in 2020 met the standards for notice and transparency under PHMC Chapter 18.125? If so, can those original notices and reports be released for review?
Better Alternatives the City Should Consider
Instead of disrupting stable neighborhoods, I urge the City to pursue more thoughtful and sustainable approaches:

1. Infill on Underused Commercial Sites
○ Target vacant retail lots, hotel sites, strip malls, and oversized parking areas especially along Contra Costa Blvd, Gregory Lane, and near Sunvalley Mall for vertical mixed-use development, not existing neighborhoods.
○ These areas are already zoned for commercial use and could support housing above shops, without displacing families or altering established communities.

2. Phased, Context-Sensitive Zoning
○ If changes are necessary, implement phased or site-specific rezonings rather than sweeping, district-wide changes.
○ Use overlay zones or adaptive design standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding homes.

3. Preserve Intact Neighborhoods
○ Neighborhoods like East Vivian Drive are not the problem. These areas are livable, established, and in harmony with the City’s long-term goals. We should not break them up to meet goals that can be achieved elsewhere.

4. Revitalize Existing Retail Areas
○ Rather than replacing local shopping and community areas, improve what we already have. Make retail zones more functional and inviting instead of eroding the residential base that supports them. Think about the businesses that are there today or non-existent that can increase better foot traffic and attract good spending and quality time spent with families.

Concerns Regarding Legal and Policy Conflicts
Under PHMC Chapter 18.125, any residential rezoning must show that:
● It won’t cause significant growth impacts on neighboring residential areas. ● It won’t increase traffic congestion.
● It won’t raise noise or service strain in nearby zones.

I respectfully request the City provide findings that show these requirements are met.

Grounds for Opposition - Lack of Transparent Disclosure (2020 Outreach) When the rezoning initiative was first introduced and voted on in 2020, there was no clear disclosure that existing, stable residential neighborhoods—particularly areas like East Vivian Drive—would be rezoned.

Materials and public notices at the time emphasized alignment with the new General Plan and Housing Element, but omitted specific maps or mention of residential community impacts.

This omission denied residents fair opportunity to participate or raise questions at a formative stage, and raises concerns about the fairness and integrity of the process under PHMC Chapter 18.125, which requires careful, transparent notice for residential rezoning.

Final Request
The zoning proposal currently under review does not reflect the values or priorities of those who live in and care about this community. Please reconsider a more balanced, neighborhood-sensitive approach to growth. I urge the City to:
● Halt the rezoning of East Vivian Drive and similar intact neighborhoods. ● Refocus growth in commercial corridors and underutilized retail areas. ● Engage with residents before altering the places we’ve worked hard to call home.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,
Josephine Greer
Resident – East Vivian Drive, Pleasant Hill
(415)350-0114
Recyci<::d Daocr
�D EASTBAY
<._J_> MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
September 8, 2025
Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Re: Notice of Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Citywide, Pleasant Hill
Dear Ms. Croffoot:

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Citywide located in the City of Pleasant Hill (City). EBMUD has the following comments.

GENERAL
EBMUD owns seven parcels (APNs 127-190-002, 127-190-003, 127-190-004, 148-020-009, 149-320-002, 149-320-003, and 170-300-002) within the City which contain EBMUD's Mokelumne Aqueducts (see Attachment A- Map of EBMUD Aqueducts in Pleasant Hill).

EBMUD understands that these parcels have a land use designation of "Semi-Public and Institutional" and requests that these parcels be zoned to align with the land use designation.

Please note that the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan, Table 3-1 "General Plan Land Use Designations" does not include a "Misc." Land Use Designation, but "Misc." is included in the land use figures throughout Section 3.

MOKELUMNE AQUEDUCTS
Portions of EBMUD's Mokelumne Aqueducts are located within the City. Any projects being planned within or immediately adjacent to EBMUD property will need to follow EBMUD's Procedure 718 - Raw Water Aqueduct Right-of-Way Non-Aqueduct Uses (see Attachment B - EBMUD's Procedure 718). Design drawings for any project encroachment (roadway, utility, facility, etc.) or restoration projects crossing or within the Aqueduct right-of-way will need to be submitted to EBMUD for review of possible drainage, site grading, fencing, construction access, and other conditions that may impact EBMUD property. EBMUD requires a full set of drawings 375 ELEVENTH STREET . OAKLAND . CA 94607-4240 . TOLL FREE 1-866-40-EBMUD Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner
September 8, 2025

Page 2 ends

(full size or 11" x 17") as well as an electronic copy in PDF format. All submittals shall be sent to the attention of Douglas A. Hooper, Superintendent of Aqueduct Section, 1804 West Main Street, Stockton, CA 95203. Additional information and an encroachment package are included in EBMUD's Procedure 718. Applications for non-EBMUD uses will not be processed unless accompanied by the appropriate application fees outlined in the current applicable Water and Wastewater System Schedule of Rates and Charges and Fees. Contractors must secure an encroachment permit from EBMUD Aqueduct Section prior to mobilizing and starting construction work. A pre-construction meeting with EBMUD is mandatory.

When a project involves the construction of a retaining wall and fence along EBMUD's property line, these must be constructed completely outside of EBMUD property, including all footings.

The project sponsor for such a project shall contact EBMUD's Survey Section to coordinate identifying, locating and marking correct property lines.

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Sandra J. Mulhauser, Senior Civil Engineer, Major Facilities Planning Section at (510) 287-7032.

Sincerely,
1/ tv� c(!lc0vt�
David J. Rehnstrom
Manager of Water Distribution Planning
DJR:RT:kn
wdpd25 _ 149 _ Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map Response Letter Attachments: A -EB MUD Aqueducts in Pleasant Hill
B-Procedure 718-Raw Water Aqueduct Right-of-Way Non-Aqueduct Uses Attachment A
Procedure 718
EFFECTIVE 10 DEC 24

AUTHORIZED USES OF PIPELINE

RIGHTS-OF-WAY
SUPERSEDES 13 DEC 22

LEAD DEPARTMENT O&M
PURPOSE – To establish procedures and criteria for review and authorization of overhead, surface, and subsurface use of District-owned and easement established property containing raw and distribution water aqueducts and pipelines (“pipelines”) for purposes other than installation, maintenance, and operation of District pipelines.

Forms Used L-14 Limited Land Use Permit
K-47 Work Request Agreement
N-15 Certificate of Public Liability Insurance
N-17 Certificate of Workers’ Compensation Insurance
Application for Use of EBMUD Property or Request for Information General Fund Receipts for Miscellaneous Payments
Authority and
Responsibility
Use, development, and control of fee-owned and easement established rights-of-way for District and non-District uses must be consistent with the District’s operations, maintenance, security, and the rights and obligations of the District. District and nonDistrict uses of District-owned pipeline rights-of-way may be permitted, at the District’s sole discretion, only if the uses conform to Policy 7.01 - Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way Maintenance and the requirements of this Procedure. All use of District pipelines right-of-way should take into account and to the extent reasonably possible mitigate negative impacts on marginalized and underserved communities. • No use of District pipeline rights of way or property by others will be permitted as a condition to meet city/county zoning requirements or to obtain any land use permit, approval, or entitlement affecting properties not owned by the District. • No use of District properties by others will be permitted except under terms of a written agreement.
• Use of pipeline rights-of-way for District purposes shall have the concurrence of the Director of Operations and Maintenance and shall include all applicable protections required for similar third-party use.
• The Board of Directors has exclusive authority to approve any proposed right-of-way use requiring the adoption and implementation of one or more mitigation measures to minimize potentially significant environmental impacts. • The decision whether to authorize any party other than the District to use Districtowned property containing pipelines for any non-District purpose is a legislative act undertaken at the sole discretion of District staff. No notice or hearing is required to consider an application for use of such property, and staff’s decision is not subject to appeal.

Acceptable long-term uses of the pipeline rights-of-way include but are not necessarily limited to: utility crossings, road crossings, limited agriculture, equestrian and pedestrian trails, parks, oil and gas leases, and District-owned ground water wells. Acceptable long-term uses of rights-of-way and easements for future pipelines will be evaluated upon facility completion. Such uses will be authorized in writing. All approved uses will conform to the requirements and limitations described in the attached EBMUD Requirements for Entry or Use of Pipeline Rights-of-Way (Requirements for Entry or Use) and all other conditions as specified in the written approval.

Attachment B
Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
2 10 DEC 24
The Water Supply Division and the Water Treatment and Distribution Division are each primarily responsible to implement this Procedure with respect to proposed uses of rights-of-way containing a facility “owned” by that Division. Facility “ownership” for this purpose is determined based on which Division has “Overall Responsibility” for the facility according to Table 1 of Procedure 706 – Facilities: Inspection, Maintenance and Repair. Wherever this Procedure allocates responsibility to both Divisions in the alternative, the responsibility shall rest with the Division which owns the facility within the right-of-way which is proposed to be used.

The Water Supply or the Water Treatment and Distribution Divisions are responsible for monitoring permitted uses and detecting and preventing unauthorized uses of pipeline rights-of-way, respectively.

The Office of General Counsel and the Manager of Real Estate Services will be consulted when an unauthorized user will not voluntarily desist.

The Water Supply or the Water Treatment and Distribution Divisions are responsible for coordinating the development of recommendations with respect to the terms and conditions to be stipulated when a District or non-District use of a pipeline right-of-way is to be permitted.

The Director of Engineering and Construction shall be consulted as necessary to provide location analysis or to determine what structural, grading, drainage, corrosion protection or other engineering measures are required and to obtain estimates of engineering, design and inspection costs.

Inquiries and
Applications for
Use
Applications and inquiries for use of pipeline rights-of-way shall be processed by the Water Operations Department. Applications for non-District uses will not be processed unless accompanied by the appropriate application fees specified in the District’s “Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges, and Other Fees”.

The Water Operations Department is responsible for:
• Providing requirements for use of the District’s pipeline rights-of-way to applicants requesting use of the right-of-way. See the attached Requirements for Entry or Use. • Providing requirements to applicants for proposed work located adjacent to the District’s pipeline rights-of-way which has the potential to impact the District’s pipelines (e.g., proposed excavations that may include use of tiebacks that could result in a vertical encroachment and/or excavations that have the potential for ground movements that could damage District pipelines). • Checking for completeness of any permit (e.g., Encroachment Permit Application) to ensure compliance with the requirements for entry or use of pipeline rights-of-way contained in Requirements for Entry or Use plus any other conditions applicable to the proposed use.
• Collecting engineering, plan review and construction inspection costs and documentation of insurance coverage, if necessary.
• Monitoring existing encroachments and inspection of the construction of new approved encroachments.
• Providing information to the Engineering and Construction Department for technical input regarding additional permit requirements or special restrictions that may be applicable (in addition to those outlined in the Requirements for Entry or Use). • Assuring proper environmental documentation for proposed uses through consultation with the Water Distribution Planning Division, when appropriate. Policy

7.01 - Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way Maintenance, requires the District to ensure that any construction impacts from third-party use of District rights of way are mitigated to the level of “no significant impact.” Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
3 10 DEC 24
Real Estate Services is responsible for:
• Advising the Manager of Water Supply or the Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution of any real estate matters which relate to a specific proposed use. • Collecting application fees and charges, preparing and executing limited land use permits, leases, easements, and all other property-related agreements (except for revocable licenses and temporary entry permits) and recommending fees and charges appropriate to the property use allowed, and for securing payment. See the current applicable Water and Wastewater System Schedule of Rates and Charges and Fees.
• Maintaining records relating to rights-of-way crossings and use, and providing information to the Engineering and Construction Department for the update of District pipeline drawings and GIS applications.

Types of Permit
License or
Easement
The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution shall keep available the forms listing the general requirements set forth in Requirements for Entry or Use for each of the following:

Temporary Entry/Temporary Construction Permit
For temporary access to pipeline rights-of-way such as for surveying, potholing, construction, for temporary access via the District’s right-of-way to property adjacent to the right-of-way, and other similar short-term situations.

Revocable License and Revocable Landscape License
For pipelines, sewers, storm drains, overhead and underground cables, public trails, landscaping and other crossings or lateral encroachments.

Limited Land Use Permit
Provides for agricultural or other surface use of the right-of-way for a period not to exceed one year (vehicular parking is prohibited). These permits are renewable annually if inspection reveals satisfactory conformance to conditions of permit.

Easement
For streets, highways, large diameter pipelines, canals and railroads, and other permanent publicly-owned encroachments. Easements are officially recorded with the county having jurisdiction. The consideration for the easement (e.g., fee) will be based on the value of the property being encumbered.

The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution shall request review of any proposed revisions to application forms and lists of requirements from the Engineering and Construction Department, Real Estate Services Division, Office of General Counsel, and the District’s Pipe Committee.

Processing
Applications
Temporary Entry Permits and Temporary Construction Permits The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee) may issue temporary entry and construction permits including imposing standard and temporary conditions relating to the use. The Manager of Real Estate Services and the Office of General Counsel will be consulted regarding unusual circumstances.

Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
4 10 DEC 24
Revocable Licenses
The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee), if warranted, shall conduct a field investigation to determine pipeline protection requirements and in consultation with the Design Division or the Pipeline Infrastructure Division, will set forth the engineering and operating requirements.

The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee), shall then specify any and all requirements, including special conditions to the applicant, and discuss the terms and conditions of the license agreement as well as any processing, design and inspection costs and license fee. The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution may then enter into a standard license agreement with relevant special conditions on behalf of the District. The Manager of Real Estate Services and the Office of General Counsel shall be consulted regarding any unusual circumstances.

Copies of all revocable licenses issued by the Water Supply Division or the Water Treatment and Distribution Division shall be provided to the Manager of Real Estate Services.

Copies of all licenses or leases issued by the Manager of Real Estate Services on Pipeline Rights-of-Ways shall be provided to the Water Supply Division or the Water Treatment and Distribution Division.

Limited Land Use Permits
The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee), shall convey the District’s requirements to the applicant and investigate to determine any special conditions.

Real Estate Services shall prepare the Limited Land Use Permit (Form L-14) in duplicate, including special conditions or stipulations, accompanied by a Districtprepared location sketch that will refer to pipeline stationing and other appropriate location identifiers, including adjacent pipeline structures.

Engineering and Construction Department shall prepare the location sketch.

After payment of the stipulated consideration determined by Real Estate Services, the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee) shall review and execute the permit. These copies are then returned to the Manager of Real Estate Services, together with any stipulated consideration.

Forty-five days before expiration of a Limited Land Use Permit, the Manager of Real Estate Services shall notify the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution, who shall investigate the permittee’s operations. If renewal of the permit is recommended, the permit will be renewed by letter from the Manager of Real Estate Services.

Leases and Easements
The Water Supply or Water Treatment and Distribution Divisions shall conduct a field investigation to determine requirements for pipeline protection and, in consultation with the Design Division or Pipeline Infrastructure Division, if necessary, will set forth the engineering and operating requirements.

Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
5 10 DEC 24
If structural or corrosion protective facilities are required, the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee) shall request the Manager of Design Division or Pipeline Infrastructure Division to proceed with the required design or plan reviews. (During design, the designer will communicate with the applicant’s engineer.) Upon completion of design, the plans will be delivered to the applicant via the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee), who will arrange for inspection as required.

The Manager of Real Estate Services shall discuss with the applicant the terms of the agreement and the amount of the consideration, including any processing, design, and inspection costs. Real Estate Services shall obtain an appraisal and engineering estimates, if necessary.

Upon agreement with the applicant, the Manager of Real Estate Services, shall draft, for review and approval by the Manager of Water Supply Division or the Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution Division and Office of General Counsel, an agreement granting the applicant the property interest under the terms and for the consideration as approved. Real Estate Services shall assure that evidence of insurance is provided, if required. The lease or easement shall be submitted to the District’s Board of Directors for approval, if required by Procedure 108 - Real Estate Transactions. Two copies of the lease or easement shall be sent to the applicant with instructions to sign and return the copies, together with the consideration, to the Manager of Real Estate Services.

Easements shall be recorded and the applicant shall provide the Manager of Real Estate Services with the recording data.

Approvals District and non-District uses of pipeline rights-of-way shall be confirmed in writing, listing any special conditions which may apply to the proposed use to the requesting District departments or third parties by the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution (or designee).

Terminations Any third-party use of the District’s pipeline property may be terminated at the District’s sole discretion, so long as the termination is authorized by and done in a manner compliant with the terms and conditions of the permit, license, or lease that governs the use. If the Water Supply Division or the Water Treatment and Distribution Division terminates any permit or license, the Manager of Real Estate Services and the Design Division shall be so notified by memo. The Office of General Counsel may be consulted before undertaking a termination which may affect the District’s legal interests.

Terms and
Conditions
The final determination of generally applicable terms and conditions appropriate for District uses of pipeline properties rests with the Director of Operations and Maintenance.

A specific third-party applicant for use of pipeline property may be required, as a condition of approval of the application, to comply with the generally applicable terms and conditions, or with different or additional terms and conditions that are determined to be in the District’s best interest. The decision to approve or deny an application, and the selection of terms and conditions of any approval, shall rest with the Director of Operations and Maintenance. There is no right to an administrative appeal or hearing, and the decision of the Director or designee is final.

Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
6 10 DEC 24
Records The Manager of Real Estate Services shall maintain a file containing copies of all documents relating to right-of-way crossings or uses, except for temporary encroachment permits, and is responsible for the assignment of right-of-way crossing numbers to approved documents.

The Engineering and Construction Department shall maintain as-built and right-of-way drawings and other information of pipelines. Updates to these drawings shall be made following:

1. Grant of Revocable License or Easement. Notice to be supplied by the Manager of Real Estate Services.

2. Completion of crossing construction covered by license or easement. Notice, including “as built” location data, to be supplied by the applicant to the Water Supply Division or Water Treatment and Distribution Division for transmittal to the Engineering and Construction Department. This notice will be routed through the Engineering and Construction Department, as necessary, then to the Manager of Real Estate Services.

3. Termination of any pipeline right-of-way use. Notice to be supplied by the Manager of Real Estate Services.

Drawings of right-of-way crossings and uses within the service area will be updated in GIS applications by Mapping Services based on information provided from Real Estate Services.

Required Fees Pipeline right-of-way fees for the processing of applications and documents related to proposed uses are included in the “Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges, and Other Fees”. The Manager of Water Supply and Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution are responsible for periodic review and updating of Requirements for Entry or Use. The Manager of Real Estate Services is responsible for review and updating of Fees and Documentation Charges, Use of Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way by Others.

References Policy 7.01 – Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way Maintenance Procedure 108 – Real Estate Transactions
Procedure 436 – Miscellaneous Accounts Receivable and Cash Receipts Procedure 706 – Facilities: Inspection, Maintenance and Repair Requirements for Entry or Use of Pipeline Rights-of-Way (attached) Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges, and Other Fees (as updated periodically)
Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718
7 10 DEC 24

EBMUD REQUIREMENTS FOR

ENTRY OR USE OF PIPELINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY
East Bay Municipal Utility District

1. Requests for encroachment rights or for other uses of the District’s raw and distribution water aqueduct and pipeline (“pipeline”) properties shall be directed to the Manager of Water Supply, 1804 West Main Street, Stockton, California 95203. Property uses shall only be permitted subject to appropriate written permit, license, easement, or lease agreement.

2. Requests for property uses shall be in writing and accompanied by a completed application, application fees, plan and profile drawings of the area and work involved. District pipeline stationing and adjacent above-ground structures must be shown. Applicant’s horizontal and vertical control must be correlated to the District’s. Drawings and maps shall be ANSI D size (22x34 inch) or ANSI B size (11x17 inch) and must also be provided in electronic .pdf format.

Application must include complete insurance documentation.

3. The applicant must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the District and associated personnel from and against any claims, losses, and liability arising by reason of the applicant’s use of District’s property or the applicant’s acts or omissions pursuant to any permit or approval issued by the District, on such terms as the District may require. The applicant may be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage.

4. All requests for uses of District property must be consistent with requirements and limitations set forth by Procedure 718 and will be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis.

5. District land and facilities shall be restored to a condition as good as that which existed before applicant’s entry on the right-of-way.

6. Applicant’s use of property shall not increase District costs or interfere with District access, operations, maintenance, or repair of its facilities.

7. The applicant must pay the District the appraised value of the easement or lease, if appropriate, for the rights granted to the applicant. Appropriate environmental documentation must be completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act before the rights can be granted. The District may require the applicant to prepare the documentation at its expense before the application will be considered for approval. The District will review the environmental documentation to determine whether it (i) adequately describes the applicant’s project, (ii) contains a detailed disclosure and analysis of the project’s impacts, (iii) describes feasible measures to mitigate any construction impacts to the District’s right-of-way to a level of no significant impact, and (iv) is otherwise legally sufficient. The District may rely on any existing environmental documentation for the applicant’s project if the District determines that the existing documentation meets the above-described standards.

8. For any District-approved encroachment, the applicant must pay the District for any of the following measures, as determined necessary by the District:
a. Design of structural protective measures
b. Design of fences or other structures
c. Corrosion control protective measures
d. District engineering, plan review, and inspection of activities e. Environmental documentation
f. Application, permit or license fees.

9. The plan for the execution of the work must be approved by the District.

10. Use of District-owned property must consider the potential impacts on marginalized and underserved communities, and steps must be taken to mitigate any negative effects.

11. The type and weight of equipment working over the pipelines must be approved by the District.

12. The use of vibratory compaction equipment is prohibited on the pipeline right-of-way unless otherwise approved by EBMUD. Allowable compaction effort, allowable equipment, and maximum depth of each lift of fill shall be subject to District review and approval before start of construction.

Supplement No. 2 To Procedure 718

Page 2 of 4 ends

13. A minimum of 48 business hours’ notice must be given to the District before work commences on District pipeline right-of-way. Contact information will be provided in permit.

14. A preconstruction meeting is required prior to start of work.

15. No building or portions of buildings shall be constructed on the property. No other types of structures shall be constructed unless specific approval is given by the District.

16. No longitudinal encroachments such as drainage ditches; gas, phone, or electrical lines; pipelines, or roads will be permitted. All property line fences (including footings) must be located completely outside District property lines.

17. District staff shall monitor pile driving or other work which can result in vibration and occurs within 100 feet of the aqueducts. District staff shall also monitor other work located within 100 feet of the pipeline right-of-way, if such work has the potential to result in ground movements that could damage the District’s facilities (i.e., large excavations with potential for horizontal or vertical ground deformations within the District’s rights-of-way).

18. Railroad, freeway and highway crossings of the pipeline right-of-way shall be on permanent bridges with a minimum vertical clearance of 14 feet 6 inches between the finished ground surface and the underside of the bridge. Crossings of pipeline rights of way, on grade will be over structurally-encased aqueducts with a sleeve for a fourth aqueduct.

19. Street and road crossings constructed on grade shall incorporate protection of the pipelines.

Protective measures will be designed by applicant’s licensed engineer to District standards with specific District approval of each design.

20. Existing pipeline protective measures such as concrete slabs shall not be cut, penetrated, or otherwise disturbed. If a protective measure is cut, penetrated, or disturbed, it shall be replaced with a new protective measure, designed by applicant’s licensed engineer to District standards with specific District approval of design.

21. Traffic control fences or approved barriers shall be installed along each side of the street, road or trail before opening to the public.

22. Temporary construction fences and barricades shall be installed by contractor as directed by the District.

23. No geotechnical exploration such as drilling or boring shall be allowed on an pipeline right-of-way without prior written approval from the District.

24. Any changes in finished grade in the pipeline right-of-way must be approved by the Aqueduct Section. Earth fills or cuts on adjacent property shall not encroach onto District property except where authorized for vehicular crossings on grade and where the District determines that there will be no detrimental effect on or maintenance of the pipelines.

25. Crossings shall be perpendicular to the pipelines and on a constant grade across District property.

26. Sanitary sewers, water lines, petroleum product lines, or other lines crossing above the pipelines must be encased in a steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or reinforced concrete pipe conduit or be imbedded in reinforced concrete with a minimum vertical clearance of two (2) feet between the casing/embedment and the top of District pipelines. The casing shall extend the entire width of the pipelines right-of-way.

Supplement No. 2 To Procedure 718

Page 3 of 4 ends

27. All pipelines crossing below the pipelines must be encased in a steel or reinforced concrete conduit and provide a minimum of three (3) feet of clearance between the casing and the bottom of the District pipelines.

28. Trenchless construction methods such as horizontal directional drilling or jack-and-bore between the top of the pipelines and the bottom of the protective structure (slab) are prohibited.

29. On pressurized pipe crossings, shutoff valves shall be provided outside and adjacent to both sides of District property.

30. At the point of crossing, steel pipeline crossings and steel casings shall incorporate electrolysis test leads, bond leads, and leads necessary for interference testing. Corrosion control devices, when required, must be approved by the District.

31. Cathodic protection for steel encasements must be installed as follows:
• Provide a dielectric coating to the exterior surface of the steel casing within the District’s rightof-way, 16 mil epoxy or equivalent. • Provide galvanic protection to the portion of the steel casing within the District’s right-of-way in accordance with the National Association of Corrosion Engineers RP-01-69. • If the carrier pipe is constructed of ductile iron or steel, provide electrical isolation between the carrier and casing using casing insulators; redwood skids are not permitted. • Provide test results to the District demonstrating the adequacy of the cathodic protection system, and the adequacy of the electrical isolation of the carrier (if metallic) from the casing.

The District reserves the right to witness any such tests.

32. Gravity drainage of District property shall be maintained. Open channels constructed across the right-of-way shall be paved with reinforced concrete. Headwalls, inlets, and other appurtenances shall be located outside District property. Drainage facilities shall be provided outside the District’s property at the top and/or toe of fill slopes or cuts constructed adjacent to District property to assure adequate drainage.

33. Overhead electrical power conductors across the property shall be a minimum of 30 feet above ground. Communication and cable TV crossings shall be a minimum of 20 feet above the ground.

Supporting poles or towers shall be located outside the pipelines right-of-way.

34. Buried electrical cables passing over the pipelines shall be installed in PVC conduit and encased in red concrete across the entire width of the right-of-way. In some cases, PVC-coated steel conduit with a red concrete cap may be substituted. All other buried cables shall be installed in conduits and marked in the appropriate Underground Service Alert (USA) colored marking materials and with surface signs installed at 4-foot intervals that include the utility name, type, and emergency contact information across the entire width of the right-of-way. The minimum vertical clearance between the conduit and the top of the District’s pipelines is two (2) feet.

35. Electrical or telecommunications cables shall not be allowed to pass under the pipelines.

36. Vehicular parking and storage of equipment or material on aqueduct or distribution pipelines property are prohibited.

37. All District survey monuments and markers shall be undisturbed. If any District survey markers or monuments must be disturbed, they will be replaced or relocated by the District at applicant’s expense prior to the start of any ground disturbing work.

38. All pipeline crossings involving mechanical excavation on the right-of-way require potholing of all pipelines at the site of the proposed crossing. Visible reference markings showing the pipeline alignments and depths to top of pipe shall be maintained for the duration of any mechanical Supplement No. 2 To Procedure 718

Page 4 of 4 ends

excavation on District property. Excavations within two (2) feet of pipelines shall be made by hand.

Entry permits are required for pothole work.

39. All grading or excavating of the right-of-way requires USA notification and the maintenance of a current inquiry identification number.

40. Certified six-sack mix is the minimum acceptable concrete batch to be used on the pipelines rightof-way. Concrete compression strength shall be 3,000 per square inch (PSI) or better at 28 days.

If samples do not reach 3,000 PSI at 28 days, the entire section of slab or encasement related to that sample must be removed and replaced at applicant’s expense.

41. Each truckload of concrete to be placed on the right-of-way may be sampled by the District. No water may be added to the mix after sampling.

42. Maximum allowable slump is three inches. All concrete exceeding three inches will be rejected and cannot be used on the right-of-way.

43. No traffic will be allowed over protective slabs until 3,000 PSI is reached.

44. All work areas shall be inspected by the District for final approval. As-built drawing submittals are required for District approval.

45. No work is allowed on weekends or District-recognized holidays unless otherwise authorized in the required permit.

From: Nicole Field
To: Planning
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 8:41:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To the Planning Commission,
As a neighbor in the Soule/Beatrice/Cleaveland area, I am very concerned about the zoning changes. My main concerns are:
-lack of communication of this change to the residents affected -traffic congestion and flow. Have any traffic studies been done? This area is very congested in the mornings. -flood risk related to development drainage. Have any studies been done? -changes to the character of the neighborhood
With these concerns in mind, please recommend that the City Council not change the zoning in this area.

Thank you,
Nicole Field
105 Hardy Circle
From: Claude Bardin
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 7:00:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

NO and NO. We need more green spaces, not more concrete.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Todd Meier
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 9:22:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Department and City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning near Poet’s Corner. As a longtime resident, I am deeply concerned about the potential impact this change would have on the character, infrastructure, and livability of our neighborhood.

Poet’s Corner is a uniquely cherished part of Pleasant Hill, known for its tree-lined streets, single-family homes, and close-knit community. Rezoning to allow higher-density development—even if technically consistent with the General Plan—would fundamentally alter the fabric of this area. Increased traffic, parking strain, and loss of neighborhood identity are real and pressing concerns.

I understand the need for responsible growth, but this proposal feels misaligned with the values and expectations of the residents who have invested in this community. I urge the Council to reconsider or delay this action until a more inclusive and transparent dialogue can take place.

Please count this message as formal opposition to the rezoning proposal. I plan to attend the meeting on September 9 and encourage others to do the same.

Sincerely, Todd Meier
Pleasant Hill Resident
September 9, 2025
Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail ([email protected])
RE: Concerns About Proposed Rezoning of Grayson Creek Floodplain (Beatrice/Cleaveland); Implementation of General Plan Provisions for Creek and Flood Protection; Designation of Creek Protection Zone (General Plan Policy ENV-3.1); Development of Master Plan Dear Planning Commissioners:

Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks (FPHC) is a nonprofit community volunteer organization of Pleasant Hill residents who care about our creeks. We respectfully submit the following comments and recommendations on the proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance and Proposed Rezoning Map.

I. CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED REZONING
The Grayson Creek Floodplain at Beatrice / Cleaveland includes seven undeveloped parcels, six of which are owned by the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District and one of which is privately owned.
1 This multi-acre undeveloped site is an ecologically significant 100-year floodplain with a natural creek and seasonal wetlands. It has also been identified as a high priority restoration and enhancement opportunity site for the Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Plan. (Attachments AB) The proposed amendments would rezone this site from PUD to Multi-Family Medium Density and would also apparently allow parcel-by-parcel development. FPHC opposes this rezoning approach because developing this site parcel-by-parcel, without a comprehensive well-designed plan, would exacerbate flooding that would put both new housing and existing neighborhoods at risk, destroy wildlife habitat, and eliminate precious open space. Please note that FPHC does not object to new housing development on this site so long as it is part of a well-designed plan that (i) protects and restores the Grayson Creek riparian corridor, wildlife habitat, and adjacent open space / flood plain; and (ii) does not increase flood risk to surrounding neighborhoods.

II. SIGNIFICANCE OF SITE

1. Natural Creek & Floodplain: Grayson Creek is a natural creek that flows through Pleasant Hill. As noted in the Housing Element, the Grayson Creek at Beatrice/Cleaveland site is a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain. This area has repeatedly experienced significant flooding. For example, in October 2021, a strong storm led to Grayson Creek overtopping its banks and flooding this site. (Attachment A, Fig. 3-6; see also FEMA National Flood Hazard map, Fig. 7) The severity of flooding is expected to increase with climate change. (Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan, 9-14) For decades, the City, County, and community members have explored solutions to mitigate flood risk for the residents of southern Pleasant Hill. According to historical records, the parcels at this site were acquired by the County specifically for flood protection purposes. Studies concluded that “large regional flood protection systems don’t have enough benefits to be eligible for federal participation. The focus will now shift to smaller, local solutions that can be funded locally.”2 Restoring this site while enhancing its natural stormwater carrying capacity is a key “local solution.” Conversely, paving over this floodplain would not only repeat the errors of 20th century development, which resulted in the significant flooding issues that our community has experienced for decades, it would exacerbate them. 1 The county-owned parcels are: 149-130-020; 021; 022; 023; 024; and 030. Parcel 149-130-029 is privately owned. 2 Grayson / Murderer’s Creek 2013 Feasibility Study—Summary. 2 2. Ecological Significance: During a five-year wild bird survey conducted with Mt. Diablo Bird Alliance, FPHC documented more than 100 species of native and migratory California birds in the Grayson Creek riparian corridor as well as other native wildlife (Attachment C). Western pond turtles, a California Species of Special Concern, have been documented in Grayson Creek, and neighbors have observed nesting turtles at this site. Seasonal wetlands support wildlife, including migrating birds. Downstream, beavers and Chinook salmon have been observed.

3. High Priority Restoration and Enhancement Opportunity Site: FPHC is currently participating in the development of the Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Plan, a joint initiative of the Walnut Creek Watershed Council, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District. The Beatrice-Cleaveland site has been identified as a high priority restoration and enhancement opportunity site. (Attachment B)

4. Open Space: The site is one of the last remaining areas of publicly owned open space in southern Pleasant Hill. A well-designed plan should include preservation of public open space and publicly accessible amenities such as trails and equitable opportunities to connect with nature.

5. Community Engagement & Stewardship: The Pleasant Hill community is actively engaged with stewardship of this site. There are community creek cleanups twice a year at this site, involving volunteers, neighbors, and students from local schools. (Attachment D) Nearby trails are popular with walkers, joggers, bicyclists, dog-walkers and birdwatchers. Multiple neighbors have contacted us with concerns about the potential impact of development on the creek.

III. IMPLEMENTATION OF CITY AND COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS A. Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
As noted in our letters dated 6/25/24 and 10/08/24 (Attachment E), the proposed zoning amendments do not incorporate new creek setbacks and other provisions approved in the new Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan (General Plan). In a meeting with Planning Department staff in October 2024, we were informed that provisions of the General Plan that were not incorporated in this cycle of amendments could be incorporated into future amendments of the City’s zoning ordinance, which are expected to occur every five years. We hope to see this occur. It is important to note, however, that whether or not General Plan provisions are specifically enumerated in the zoning ordinance, they must still be applied to new development:
• “Development must not only meet the specific requirements of the zoning ordinance, but also the broader policies set forth in the General Plan.” (General Plan, 1-3). • “After the General Plan is adopted, the Planning Commission must ensure that all subsequent land use ordinances, policies, guidelines, and development applications are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs in the General Plan.” (General Plan, 1-4) (emphasis added).

Table 1 provides a compilation of key provisions of the General Plan directly applicable to this site.

Table 1: Key Provisions of the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Applicable to this Site ID# Goals and Supportive Policies/Programs
Goal HS-5 Minimize the potential for serious flooding and drainage problems including damage to property, loss of life, and economic displacement.

Policy HS-5.1 Flood Damage Potential Reduction: Reduce flood damage potential in areas known to be prone to flooding.

Policy HS-5.4 Development Stormwater Impacts: Require new development to manage stormwater runoff in a safe, responsible manner. Where possible, implement a zerodischarge policy. 3 Policy HS-5.5 Development in Floodplains: Minimize development in the 100-year floodplain and require projects in the 100- and 500-year floodplains to incorporate required stormwater management and flood-prevention design measures. (emphasis added) Policy HS-5.6 Low-Impact Development: Require low-impact development (LID) measures in new development, major remodeling projects, and public projects to limit the amount of impervious surface in new development and to increase retention, treatment, and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff.

Policy HS-5.7 Creek Clean-Up: Coordinate with regional agencies, underlying property owners of the creek, and local volunteer groups to clear debris from creeks within the City to allow water to flow uninterrupted minimizing the impact of flooding.

Goal ENV-2 Protect the quality of water resources in Pleasant Hill.

Policy ENV-2.6 Creek Preservation: Creek setbacks, where feasible, should exceed minimum regulatory setback guidelines to protect native vegetation and enhance creek environments.

Policy ENV-2.7 Watercourse Preservation: Preserve natural watercourses or provide naturalized drainage channels within the city. Where feasible, implement restoration and rehabilitation opportunities.

Policy ENV-2.8 Creek Clean-up: Collaborate with local and regional agencies, businesses, property owners, and organizations proactively to reduce litter, illegal dumping, and reestablish native vegetation along local creeks and waterways.

Goal ENV-3 Preserve and restore streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to function as open space and wildlife corridors.

Policy ENV-3.1 Creek Protection Zone Establishment for New Development: Establish creek protection zones for creeks that extend a minimum of 25 feet (measured from the top of a bank and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank), with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. (emphasis added) The City shall prohibit development within a creek protection zones, except as part of greenway enhancement, including habitat conservation, bike and walking paths, wildlife habitat, and native plant landscaping).

City approval is required for the following activities within the creek protection zones: 1. Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure; 2. Excavation, filling, or grading; 3. Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or 4. Alteration of any embankment.

Policy ENV-3.2 Creek Contamination and Sedimentation Prevention: Require new development to use site preparation, grading, and construction techniques that prevent contamination and sedimentation of creeks and streams.

Policy ENV-3.3 Creek Bank Stabilization: Require new development proposals to include appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, and any additional steps necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation but preserve natural creek channels and riparian vegetation.

Policy ENV-3.4 Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Reclamation: Reclaim degraded streams, wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife migration corridors, where possible, in cooperation with the Flood Control District, and other local and regional organizations.

Policy ENV-3.5 Reclamation with New Development: Require new development adjacent to creek protection zones to include the reclamation of adjacent creeks, wetlands, and riparian areas.

Policy ENV-3.6 Natural Stream Corridor Retention and Improvement: Actively support the use of natural waterways within the city. The City will actively work to avoid any new channelization of creeks and waterways within the city and shall work with regional agencies to restore channelized sections to a more natural channel, where feasible.

Policy ENV-3.7 Erosion Control Plans: Require erosion control plans for new development that require significant grading or are near streams, wetlands, and riparian areas. The plans shall include recommendations for grading practices that prevent erosion, loss 4 of topsoil, and scouring of drainageways, consistent with biological and aesthetic values.

Policy ENV-3.8 Educational and Research Access: Work with public and private landowners adjacent to creeks to allow access to creeks, waterways, and riparian areas for educational and research programs.

Policy ENV-3.9 Restoration and Creek Maintenance: Encourage all landowners in the city to remove invasive species, plant native plant species, and prevent pollution from entering local creeks and waterways.

Goal ENV-4 Protect and preserve natural habitat, plants, and wildlife Policy ENV-4.1 Minimize Development Impacts: Require new development and construction activities to minimize impacts and disturbances on plants and animals, including sensitive habitat and migration corridors, landforms, and trees.

Policy ENV-4.2 Natural Habitat Protection: Preserve, protect, and improve remaining natural habitats, sensitive habitats for special status species, waterways, and wetlands.

Policy ENV-4.3 Fish Bypass Facilities: Support efforts of the County to determine the feasibility of constructing fish bypass facilities for flood control drop structures in area creeks.

Policy ENV-4.4 Biological Resources Assessment: Require that applicants for development projects proposed within or adjacent to critical habitat areas complete a site-specific biological resources assessment as part of the development review process and modify designs or add mitigations to reduce potential impacts.

Policy ENV-4.5 Special Status Species Protection: Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to ensure that new development does not substantially affect any special status species on State or Federal rare, endangered, or threatened species lists.

Implementation Programs
Program H Creek Restoration Funding: Seek regional, State, and federal funding sources to reclaim, restore, and enhance local creeks and waterways in order to:
• Reduce embankment erosion and deterioration;
• Clearing debris to maintain free flowing waterways; and • Stabilize and restore stream banks through the planting of new vegetation.

B. Contra Costa County 2045 General Plan
Since six parcels at this site are currently owned by and under the jurisdiction of the County, we believe that the provisions of the Contra Costa County 2045 General Plan are also applicable.3 IV. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) COMPLIANCE The General Plan’s Environmental Impact Report findings of less than significant impact rely on specific General Plan provisions regarding creek protection, see, e.g., DEIR Impact BIO-2.4 Failure to comply with the relevant General Plan provisions could expose the City and future developers to litigation.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Master Plan: Given the complexity and unique features of this site, we request that the City develop a Master Plan through a multi-stakeholder community-engaged process, similar to the process envisioned for the Mangini-Delu Focus Area.
5 We believe that only a Master Plan can protect the unique values of this site while addressing flood risk.
3 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4732/General-Plan 4 https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21503/Draft-EIR (3.3-27-30). 5 https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21502/2040-Pleasant-Hill-General-Plan_reduced (3-23). 5 Specifically, the Master Plan should:
a) Engage the Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, other property owners, neighbors, community organizations, and other stakeholders in a comprehensive planning process prior to any development.
b) Designate this site as a Creek Protection Zone (see General Plan Policy ENV-3.1), with a significant buffer to optimize stormwater management and protect habitat value and seasonal wetlands. c) Establish a multi-benefit riparian restoration and enhancement plan focused on increasing stormwater management capacity, protecting/enhancing wildlife habitat, and providing public amenities (e.g., trails).
d) Identify appropriate locations and develop a plan for future housing that (i) protects and restores the Grayson Creek riparian corridor, wildlife habitat, and adjacent open space / flood plain; and (ii) does not increase flood risk to surrounding neighborhoods. e) Promote clustered development, especially at the eastern end near existing infrastructure with access to Downtown Pleasant Hill, to allow for preservation of open space. f) Implement relevant provisions from the City’s General Plan and County’s General Plan. g) Align with the Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Plan and the County’s 50 Year Plan, “From Channels to Creeks,” adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in 2009.6 h) Consider examples of multi-benefit site development plans that protect creeks and restore/enhance their natural flood plains. We would be happy to provide such examples. i) Engage restoration professionals with experience designing multi-benefit urban creek restoration and enhancement plans.

2. Chapter 18.70 (Creek Setbacks): Since the draft zoning ordinance does not yet include all of the creek-related goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan, including “Creek Protection Zones,” (Policy ENV 3.1) we respectfully request that the Planning Commission add the following crossreference to 18.70.040 Additional Regulations: “Applicable Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan.”

CONCLUSION
We look forward to working with the City and all stakeholders in planning for this unique riparian area of Pleasant Hill. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and thank you for considering our comments.

Sincerely,
Alan Bade, Wendy Gollop, and Heather Rosmarin
Co-Founders, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks | A Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs 25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | [email protected] cc: City Council of Pleasant Hill
Supervisor Ken Carlson
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District
Walnut Creek Watershed Council
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
6 The 50 Year Plan “From Channels to Creeks,” https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6853/50--- Year-Plan-3-20-09-BOS-compressed-PDF?bidId=.
6 Attachment A
Grayson Creek Floodplain at Beatrice / Cleaveland
Fig. 1: East Branch of Grayson Creek between Beatrice Rd. and Cleaveland Rd.

Fig. 2: Grayson Creek Floodplain: Undeveloped Parcels Proposed to be Rezoned Source: Contra Costa County (CCMap)
7 Fig. 3: 10/24/2021, Looking east from Beatrice Rd.

Fig. 4: 10/24/2021, Looking Northeast from southwest FCD parcel 8 Fig. 5: 10/24/2021, Looking north from Pleasant Hill ballfield Fig. 6: 10/24/2021, Looking north from east end of Pleasant Hill Middle School ballfield 9 Fig. 7
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer Map
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 9/6/2025 at 9:58 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
122°4'16"W 37°56'38"N
122°3'38"W 37°56'10"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
10 Attachment B
Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Planning Resources
• Walnut Creek Watershed Council: https://www.wcwatershed.org/watershed-restoration-plan.html • Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/10011/Walnut-Creek-Watershed-Restoration-Plan • Report: Envisioning a Healthier Walnut Creek Watershed: Initial Identification of High and Medium Priority Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities for the Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (Nov. 15, 2024): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o-J5GDV2h2PEb3NvhAKzZweUPSTQp-i/view?usp=sharing Fig. 8: Grayson Creek Watershed High or Medium Priority Projects Grayson Creek @ Beatrice is Shown as Project #25
11 Attachment C
Grayson Creek Bird Survey Species List
Grayson Creek Bird Survey Species List
Grayson Creek Riparian Corridor sections between Oak Park Blvd. and Chilpancingo Parkway, Pleasant Hill, CA November 2017—November 2022

1. Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons)

2. Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii)

3. Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)

4. Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)

5. American Wigeon (Mareca americana)

6. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)

7. Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)

8. Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus)

9. Common Merganser (Mergus merganser)

10. Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) *

11. Pie-billed grebe (Podilymbus Podiceps)

12. Rock Pigeon (Columba livia) *

13. Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) *

14. Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)

15. White-throated Swift (Aeronautes saxatalis)

16. Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri)

17. Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna)

18. Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)

19. American Coot (Fulica americana)

20. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous)

21. Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago delicata)

22. Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis)

23. California Gull (Larus californicus)

24. Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus)

25. Great Blue Heron (Ardea Herodias)

26. Great Egret (Ardea alba)

27. Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)

28. Green Heron (Butorides virescens)

29. Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)

30. Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)

31. Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius)

32. Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus)

33. Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)

34. Red Shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)

35. Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

36. Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon)

37. Red-breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber)

38. Acorn Woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus)

39. Downy Woodpecker (Dryobates pubescens)

40. Nuttall’s Woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii)

41. Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus)

42. American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)

43. Merlin (Falco columbarius)

44. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

45. Western Wood-Pewee (Contopus sordidulus)

46. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii)

47. Pacific-slope Flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis)

48. Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)

49. Say’s Phoebe (Sayornis saya)

50. Hutton’s Vireo (Vireo huttoni)

51. Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus)

52. Steller’s Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri)

53. California Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma californica)

54. American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)

55. Common Raven (Corvus corax)

56. Chestnut-backed Chicadee (Poecile rufescens)

57. Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus)

58. Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx
serripennis)

59. Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor)

60. Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina)

61. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)

62. Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)

63. Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)

64. Wrentit (Chamaea fasciata)

65. Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula)

66. Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis)

67. White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)

68. Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris)

69. Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii)

70. European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) *

71. Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)

72. Western Bluebird (Sialia Mexicana)

73. Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus)

74. American Robin (Turdus migratorius)

75. Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum)

76. House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) *

77. American Pipit (Anthus rubescens)

78. House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus)

79. Purple Finch (Haemorhous purpureus)

80. Pine Siskin (Spinus pinus)

81. Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria)

82. Lawrence’s Goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei)

83. American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis)

84. Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerine)

85. Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca)

86. Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis)

87. White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)

88. Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla)

89. White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)

90. Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)

91. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia)

92. Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii)

93. California Towhee (Melozone crissalis)

94. Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus)

95. Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)

96. Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus)

97. Bullock’s Oriole (Icterus bullockii)

98. Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)

99. Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater)
100.Brewer’s Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus)
101.Orange-crowned warbler (Leiothlypis celata)
102.Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)
103.Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia)
104.Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata)
105.Black-throated gray Warbler (Setophaga nigrescens)
106.Townsend’s Warbler (Setophaga townsendi)
107.Wilson’s warbler (Cardellina pusilla)
108.Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana)
Notes on other birds seen:
• One Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos): flyover.
• One Red-naped x Red-breasted Sapsucker
• * Introduced species.

Total Species: 108, Total Raptor Species: 9
Total Native and Migratory Species: 103
Data Source: Grayson Creek Bird Survey, a joint
community science project of Friends of Pleasant Hill
Creeks (a project of SEE) and Mt. Diablo Audubon
Society. Updated: 10/17/23.
12 Fig. 9 Hooded Mergansers in Grayson Creek near Beatrice Rd Fig. 10 Cooper’s hawk in Beatrice creek area
13 Fig. 11 Otter in Grayson Creek near Beatrice Rd
Fig. 12. Western Pond Turtle in Grayson Creek near Chilpancingo Park 14 Attachment D
Community Engagement and Stewardship
Fig. 13 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup (April 2024)
Fig. 14 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup (April 2024)
15 Fig. 15 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup (October 2024) Fig. 16 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup and Arundo Removal (May 2025) 16 Attachment E
Comment Letters on Proposed Zoning Amendments Submitted by Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks Dated 06/25/24 and 10/08/24
25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 | www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | @PHcreeks Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks is a Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

June 25, 2024
City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail: [email protected]
RE: Study Session #1—Zoning Ordinance Amendments—Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) Dear Commissioners:

We are writing to provide input and support for the process of updating Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) to be consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan. We are concerned that the current draft amendments include the same creek setbacks that were adopted in 2009, which are outdated, inadequate, and inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, we respectfully request revision of Chapter 18.60 to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan and with best practices for protecting our creeks and enhancing the community benefits they provide, including clean water, wildlife habitat, flood protection, and natural beauty. Below are (1) relevant sections of the 2040 General Plan, (2) specific comments and considerations, and (3) recommended next steps.

1. 2040 General Plan. Relevant goals of the 2040 General Plan include:
• ENV-2: Protect the quality of water resources in Pleasant Hill. • ENV-3: Preserve and restore streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to function as open space and wildlife corridors.
• PFS-3: Provide a resilient, sustainable stormwater management system that reduces runoff volume and minimizes flood potential from existing and future development.

Relevant policies include:

ENV-3.1 Creek Protection Zone Establishment for New Development. Establish creek protection zones for creeks that extend a minimum of 25 feet (measured from the top of a bank and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank), with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. The City shall prohibit development within a creek protection zones, except as part of greenway enhancement, including habitat conservation, bike and walking paths, wildlife habitat, and native plant landscaping). City approval is required for the following activities within the creek protection zones:

1. Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure;

2. Excavation, filling, or grading;

3. Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or

4. Alteration of any embankment.

ENV-3.2 Creek Contamination and Sedimentation Prevention. Require new development to use site preparation, grading, and construction techniques that prevent contamination and sedimentation of creeks and streams.

ENV-3.3 Creek Bank Stabilization. Require new development proposals to include appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, and any additional steps necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation but preserve natural creek channels and riparian vegetation.

ENV-3.4 Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Reclamation. Reclaim degraded streams, wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife migration corridors, where possible, in cooperation with the Flood Control District, and other local and regional organizations.

ENV-3.5 Reclamation with New Development. Require new development adjacent to creek protection zones to include the reclamation of adjacent creeks, wetlands, and riparian areas.

Please note that this is not a comprehensive list of all the provisions in the 2040 General Plan that should be considered.

2. Specific Comments and Considerations.

Below is a screenshot of the proposed creek setback requirements (Packet Pg. 147). Please note that these proposed requirements are a continuation of prior City creek setbacks adopted in 2009 and do not reflect any updates based on the 2040 General Plan. Pleasant Hill has an opportunity and obligation to review these standards and update them consistent with the 2040 General Plan.

The 2009 setbacks do not reflect current knowledge of the complexities and environmental values of the creeks of Pleasant Hill. Our hardworking creeks serve many functions. We have small upland tributaries, larger connector creeks and major stems that need to convey significant amounts of storm water. Our creeks serve as important habitat and corridors for wildlife. More than 100 species of native and migratory birds, Chinook salmon, river otters, beavers, and Western pond turtles have been documented in Pleasant Hill’s creeks. The creek system’s stormwater functions will be greatly impacted by climate change and greater urban density. We need to plan for much greater resiliency. Therefore, the current "one size fits all" approach is not consistent with our community’s needs or our new 2040 General Plan.

Updated creek setbacks should take a number of issues into account, including the following • The codes in nearby cities and Contra Costa County (“County”) take bank slope angles along with depth into effect and have larger setbacks. For instance, the County uses a line from the toe (bottom) of the creek bank sloping at a 2.5 to 1 ratio (horizontal to vertical) to intersect with the top of the bank to determine the starting point of the required setback (in their case a minimum of 30 feet).1 This is a much safer approach as it provides for a buffer in case of erosion and increases climate resiliency.
• At a minimum, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (“CCFCD”) should be consulted regarding safer, more environmentally friendly setbacks given our now better understanding of climate risks and the need for riparian restoration, consistent with the CCFCD's 50 Year Plan.2 1 See https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41701/Creek-Structure-SetbackPamphlet_March_2024-PDF?bidId= 2 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6853/50---Year-Plan-3-20-09-BOS-compressedPDF?bidId= • Orinda and Lafayette also have different setbacks for creeks with slopes of greater than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) than for lesser slopes. This means that on creeks with vertical banks the required setback does not start at the top edge of the bank as it can in Pleasant Hill. A buffer zone is added based on the slope angle and creek depth. Please note that vertical creek banks using a 1:1 ratio for depth/required setback are potentially unstable, according to CCCFCD. A vertical bank can easily erode at its base causing the top to collapse. For reference, we have included links to Orinda's guidelines3 and Lafayette's guidelines4 in the footnotes. • Pleasant Hill should consider stream channel types as do other municipalities. An ephemeral upstream channel may have different setback needs than much larger downstream channels. • It is possible to retain current exemptions for legally constructed but non-conforming structures should new setbacks be considered (keeping current requirements that non-conformity not be increased). Our city is mostly built-out and the standards should reflect that, but our new standards should also consider that there are large creek-side areas still undeveloped, on both private and public land.

3. Recommended Next Steps:
• We request that Pleasant Hill’s creek setback standards be updated to implement the goals, policies, and programs of the City’s recently adopted 2040 General Plan as well as current best practices for development adjacent to creeks and riparian areas.
• We encourage the Planning Commission and City staff to consult and collaborate with community stakeholders, adjacent cities, and the County (including the CCCFCD) regarding creek setbacks. • We also encourage collaboration on a watershed-wide basis to improve our riparian areas with flood conveyance and environmental values.
• We request that the City appoint a staff person to coordinate this revision process. • We request the opportunity for the public to review a copy of the “City of Pleasant Hill Creek System” map, as referenced in Section 18.60.010B.

We look forward to working with the City and other stakeholders to update the City’s Creek Setback standards. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,
Alan Bade
Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks / SEE
[email protected]
3 Chapter 17.4 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BASE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS | Code of Ordinances | Orinda, CA | Municode Library
4 635561390008430000 (lovelafayette.org)
Hours
Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Friday 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Closed 12:00-1:00 p.m.

Records Counter is closed on Fridays
Phone numbers:

Main number: (925) 313-2000
Fax number: 313-2333
Administrative Services: 313-2340
Buchanan Airport: 681-4200
Byron Airport: 608-8383
Capital Projects: 957-2471
County Clean Water Program: 313-2360
Custodial: 313-7096
Design/Construction Division: 313-2320
Engineering Services Division: 313-2170
Facilities Maintenance: 313-7052
Finance Division: 313-2344
Fleet Services: 313-7021
Flood Control District: 313-2270
Information Technology Division: 313-2261
Kids at Work: 313-2380
Maintenance Division: 313-7000
Materials Management: 313-2000
Print and Mail: 646-5521
Purchasing: 957-2499
Real Property Division: 957-2467
Records Section: 313-2356
Special Districts Section: 313-2170
Transportation Engineering: 313-2370
Traffic Section: 313-2370
Watershed Program: 313-2236
Public Works Website:
www.cccpublicworks.org
CREEK

STRUCTURE

SETBACK

REQUIREMENTS

FOR NATURAL
(UNIMPROVED)

CHANNELS
Contra Costa
County
Public Works
Department
255 Glacier Dr.

Martinez, CA
(925) 313-2000

CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
AREA
CREEK

PROPERTY

CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
LINE
Example aerial view of property traversed by
a natural (unimproved) channel.

Provide CSS line determinations (by the
method explained on the other side of this
pamphlet) for at least three locations of the
channel. The red stars ( ) show a few potential locations at which to calculate the setback distance.

Note: There may be other regulations that
need to be investigated before working near
natural (unimproved) channels, such as the
County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance.

An exception to the CSS may be granted
provided that the requirements outlined in
Section 92-6.002 are satisfied. You will need
to verify that the creek banks are stable and
not susceptible to erosion by submitting supporting technical data.

CREEK
Other Useful Information “FAQ for Property Owners Near Creeks” by Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
Warren Lai,
Director
Deputy Directors • Stephen Kowalewski, Chief • Allison Knapp • Carrie Ricci • Joe Yee March 2024
If your property is traversed by, or is adjacent to, a natural (unimproved) channel, you must determine the CSS area, as required by
the County Title 9 Ordinance Code and the
County General Plan. No permanent structures of any kind, other than drainage structures, may be constructed within, under, or over the structure setback area (Ordinance
Sections 914-14.010 and 74-6.010).

The CSS area will need to be shown on the
site plan for building permits.

If you are subdividing the property, you will
be conditioned to relinquish “development
rights” over the structure setback area of the
creek. When you “relinquish development
rights” over an area, it means that you are
forfeiting your right to construct buildings or
structures within that area. The CSS area will
need to be shown on the final/parcel map
and the improvement plans.
“Top of bank” is defined as the following:

I) The point where the water surface plus sufficient freeboard for the design average recurrence interval runoff (see Section 914-2.010 on how to determine the design average recurrence interval runoff) intersects
the existing ground, OR
II) The point where a line with slope of 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical, extending from the toe of the channel, intersects the existing ground.

Whichever point is the greatest vertical distance
above the channel invert will be the point used in
determining the setback line, per Section 914-

14.012.*
What is a creek structure setback?
How do I determine the CSS area?
You may wish to consult a registered Civil
Engineer and/or a licensed Land Surveyor for
assistance in determining the CSS area.

Chapter 914-14 of the County Title 9 Ordinance Code, entitled “Rights-of-Way and Setbacks,” outlines the procedure for defining
a structure setback area.

Per Section 914-14.012 of Title 9, the structure setback line is determined by measuring a horizontal distance from the top of bank on
each side of the watercourse. Section 914-

14.012 provides the following table:

Height of top of bank
above channel invert
Horizontal distance between top of bank and
setback line
Less than 20’ 30’
20’-29.99’ 35’
30’-39.99’ 40’
40’-49.99’ 45’
50’ and greater 50’
For examples on how to determine the CSS
line, see the two diagrams above, where
H = Height of top of bank above channel
invert
X = Horizontal distance between top of bank
and setback line
See the back for an aerial view of the CSS
area.
*Policy 8-89 of the County General Plan,
Chapter 8, “Conservation Element,” states
that the creek setback area shall be a minimum of 100 feet; 50 feet on each side of the centerline of the creek. The setback line will
need to meet this policy, in addition to meeting the Title 9 CSS requirements.

Case I. Design average recurrence interval Creek structure setback line* Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
Case II.

Creek structure setback line*
Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
\\pw-data\grpdata\engsvc\Forms\PUB\PUB-5 Creek Structure Setback pamphlet_2024 March_v4 Lafayette Municipal Code Ordinance No. 512
Article 5. Creek Setback Requirements
6-1841 Structure setback.
(a) As defined by Section 6-312 and Section 6-355, buildings and structures shall be set back from an unimproved creek channel as follows:
(1) Channel Depth of Zero through 21 Feet. If the side slopes of the channel are steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), the width of the structure setback is determined by a line measured from the toe of the slope a distance of twice the channel depth plus the appropriate top-of-bank setback as follows:

Channel Depth Top of Bank Setback
(Feet) Minimum Width (Feet)
0 — 6 12 each side
6 — 12 15 each side
12 — 18 18 each side
18 — 21 21 each side
If the side slopes of the channel are flatter than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) the structure setback is the appropriate setback indicated in the table above, measured from the top of the bank. (2) Channel Depth Exceeding 21 Feet. If the depth of a channel exceeds 21 feet, the width of the structure setback is determined by measuring from the toe of the slope a distance of three times the channel depth. (b) If a parcel is subject to subdivision easements or setback requirements under Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Sections 914-14.002 through 14.014 which are inconsistent with Section 6-1841(a), those subdivision requirements control.
(c) No permanent structure other than fences and drainage and erosion protection improvements may be constructed within the setback area. Landscaping (including trees and shrubs) is permitted within the setback area. (Ord. 512 § 1 (Appx. A (part)), 2000)
(Lafayette 4-00)
25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 | www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | @PHcreeks Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks is a Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

October 08, 2024
City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail: [email protected]
RE: Study Session—Zoning Ordinance Amendments—Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) and other amendments.

Dear Planning Commissioners,
We would like to submit the following comments regarding updates to Section 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) and other amendments. We submitted comments at the June 25, 2024 Study Session requesting that the proposed setbacks be made consistent with the goals and policies of the newly adopted General Plan 2040. Sadly, we note that inconsistencies remain.

Section 18.60: specifically, no provision for the following policy is made:

1. Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure;

2. Excavation, filling, or grading;

3. Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or

4. Alteration of any embankment.

Creek Setbacks: we note a continuation of the 2009 creek setbacks.

These setbacks are outdated in regards to expected increases in storm runoff with climate change. Updating the 2009 creek setbacks is a matter of public safety. They are substantially less protective than creek setbacks in our surrounding municipalities and those of Contra Costa County, as described in our 06/25/24 Study Session comments.

Many of our creek banks are near vertical and susceptible to undercutting. As urban densities increase, so will impervious coverage. The 2040 GP should modernize our creek setbacks to meet these new conditions. We have witnessed storms in recent years that severely tax our creek systems. Pleasant Hill narrowly avoided significant flooding, as evidenced by our attached photos.

Sections Env-3.1 through Env-3.9: We are pleased to note that the 2040 GP has many references to discouraging the use of invasive non-native plants in the Environment Element (Sections Env-3.1, Env-3.6, Env-3.9) as well as the Health and Safety Element (Sections 3.12 and 3.14 Wildfire Risk Reduction). In the wildfire risk reduction policies, the planting of fireprone non-native species is prohibited. We ask that similar prohibitions are implemented along our creeks. Species such as Arundo donax (Giant reed), Tree of Heaven, English ivy and others are creating significant, costly management issues for local agencies in our watershed and major efforts are underway for their removal. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains a list of highly invasive and sometimes illegal invasive plants separated by geographic area1. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has a similar list for wetland and riparian areas2.

New Park and Recreation Zoning District:

We note that many of our creeks are located on Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District lands.

We are concerned about changes to the public review process included in the new Park and Recreation Zoning District. Review at the Staff Level only with no appeals does not provide for adequate public input on potentially major projects as envisioned by the Park District’s “Big Picture”. Properly noticed projects with greater public input lead to better projects overall. The Rec and Park District currently does traffic studies, noise analysis, and public noticing through the City’s review process. There are no provisions to require the new zoning district to include the same review processes that Pleasant Hill residents are currently accustomed to. If the District chooses not to, projects will be built with little public review other than voting on a bond measure. We work collaboratively with our current Rec and Park Board but these zoning changes will extend far into the future.

Many of the City’s heritage trees are on land owned by the Rec and Park District. It is counter to the tree preservation goals in the 2040 General Plan to allow protected tree removals without City and public review. This is a weakening of the tree protection goals adopted in the 2040 General Plan.

While we think the new zoning district is a good idea, we feel the new zoning district should be subject to the same restrictions and review process as all other entities in the City of Pleasant Hill.

Recommendations:
• Env-3.1: A “creek protection zone” as detailed in our adopted GP needs to be included in the zoning ordinance.
1 https://www.cal-ipc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/InvasivePlantChecklistforCaliforniaLandscaping.pdf 2 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stream_wetland/app1in clrefs.pdf
• 18.60-A: More protective, greater creek setbacks are a matter of public safety as we increase urban density and will improve environmental values and increase climate resilience.
• Env-3.1, Env-3.6, Env-3.9: We ask that prohibitions against invasive non-native plants be adopted. Resources such as Cal-IPC, the RWQCB, the California Native Plant Society, the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District have specific guidance. • Park and Recreation District: We ask that this be subject to standard City review as all other entities in Pleasant Hill.
• Creek Setbacks: Our current setbacks are inadequate. We encourage the Planning Commission and City staff to consult and collaborate with community stakeholders, adjacent cities, and the County (including the CCCFCD) regarding creek setbacks. We request that the City appoint a staff person to coordinate this revision process. • We again request the opportunity for the public to review a copy of the “City of Pleasant Hill Creek System” map, as referenced in Section 18.60.010B.

Thank you for consideration of these comments. We hope these issues will be discussed in this Study Session and look forward to collaborating with the City and other stakeholders.

Thank you,
Alan Bade
Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks / SEE
[email protected]
Murderer’s creek 10/24/2021:

Murderer’s Creek 10/24/21:

Beatrice Road area 10/24/21:

Invasive Plant Checklist for
California Landscaping
2018.05.08
California’s Model Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance and the CALGreen Building Standards strongly discourage the use of invasive plants in landscaping. This checklist is designed to serve as a reference to help landscape designers in California avoid the use of invasive plants. Three sources are referenced: the California Dept. of Food & Agriculture (CDFA), which regulates plants in the state; the PlantRight initiative, which brings together a diverse range of stakeholders, including the nursery and landscaping industry, to prevent the use of invasive plants in horticulture; and the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), which assesses the environmental impact of invasive plants.

The California Dept. of Food & Agriculture has authority to designate noxious weeds in California. These plants are illegal. See www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/IPC.

In general, CDFA is restricted from listing horticultural plants as noxious weeds.

PlantRight is a collaborative, science-based, and voluntary program led by the nonprofit Sustainable Conservation, with a steering committee representing the green industry, agencies, universities and environmental groups. PlantRight’s list is entirely voluntary. It includes plants from the CalIPC Inventory that all stakeholders agree should not be used in landscaping in regions where they cause environmental damage. See www.plantright.org.

The California Invasive Plant Council is a nonprofit organization that maintains a list of environmentally harmful plants based on a transparent science-based criteria system. Cal-IPC supports land managers working to stop the spread of invasive plants, but also supports landscape professionals in preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants. Cal-IPC listing is for informational purposes and carries no any regulatory authority. See www.cal-ipc.org.

The following checklist includes all plants from each list that are known from horticulture. Plants from the CDFA Noxious Weed List are illegal and marked with a red X. Plants for which PlantRight has reached consensus with all partners including the nursery industry are marked with a green X. All other species are only listed by Cal-IPC.

Regions based on Sunset Climate Zones were developed by PlantRight (see source online).

Notes
E Edible This plant species has edible fruit and is grown for human consumption. Though birds may spread seeds, these plants can be grown relatively safely if fruit is harvested.

Particular care should be taken near riparian areas. Fruitless varieties may be available for landscaping, and can be grown safely.

F Forage This plant species is used for forage and is already widespread in California. Additional use is unlikely to increase the plant’s spread.

T Turfgrass This plant species is used for turfgrass and may be used safely for sports fields and landscaping if properly tended within borders.

Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Checklist of Invasive Plants
Regions
Acacia dealbata silver wattle
Acacia melanoxylon blackwood acacia
Agrostis stoloniferaT creeping bentgrassT
Ailanthus altissima tree-of-heaven X
Arctotheca calendula fertile capeweed X
Arctotheca prostrate South African capeweed
Arundo donax giant reed X
Asparagus asparagoides bridal creeper
Asphodelus fistulosus onionweed X
Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush
Briza maxima big quakinggrass
Carpobrotus chilensis iceplant
Carpobrotus edulis highway iceplant X
Centaurea debeauxii meadow knapweed X
Chrysanthemum coronarium garland chrysanthemum
Cordyline australis giant draceaena
Cortaderia jubata jubatagrass X
Cortaderia selloana pampasgrass X
Cotoneaster franchetii cotoneaster
Cotoneaster lacteus Parney's cotoneaster
Cotoneaster pannosa silverleaf cotoneaster
Cotula coronopifolia common brassbuttons
Crataegus monogyna English hawthorn
Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora montbretia
Cynara cardunculus artichoke thistle X
Cynodon dactylonT Bermuda grassT
Cynoglossum officinale beggar's-lice

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom X
Cytisus striatus Portuguese broom
Dactylis glomerataF orchard grassF
Delairea odorata Cape-ivy X
Digitalis purpurea foxglove
Dipsacus fullonum common teasel
Echium candicans pride-of-Madeira
Egeria densa Brazilian egeria
X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth X
Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive
Erica lusitanica Spanish heath
Erodium cicutarium filaree
Eucalyptus camaldulensis red gum
Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian bluegum
Euphorbia esula leafy spurge X
Euphorbia oblongata oblong spurge X
Festuca arundinaceaT alta fescueT
Ficus caricaE edible figE
Foeniculum vulgareE fennelE
Gazania linearis gazania
Genista monspessulana French broom X
Hedera canariensis Algerian ivy
Hedera helix English ivy
Helichrysum petiolare licorice plant
Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean mustard
Holcus lanatus common velvet grass
Hypericum canariense Canary Island St.

Johnswort
X
Hypericum perforatum klamathweed X
Ilex aquifolium English holly
Iris pseudacorus yellowflag iris X
Isatis tinctoria dyer's woad X
Kochia scopariaF kochiaF
Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy
Linaria genistifolia ssp. Dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax X Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax
Lobularia maritime sweet alyssum
Lolium multiflorumF Italian ryegrassF
Ludwigia hexapetala creeping waterprimrose X
Ludwigia peploides creeping waterprimrose
Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife X
Marrubium vulgare horehound
Mentha pulegium pennyroyal
Mesembryanthemum crystallinum crystalline iceplant Myoporum laetum ngaio tree
Myosotis latifolia common forget-me-not
Myriophyllum aquaticum parrotfeather
Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco
X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Olea europaeaE European oliveE
Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle X
Pennisetum setaceum green fountain grass X
Phalaris aquatic hardinggrass
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm
Phytolacca Americana common pokeweed
Plantago lanceolata buckhorn plantain
Poa pratensisT Kentucky bluegrassT
Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed X
Prunus cerasifera cherry plum
Pyracantha angustifolia, P. crenulata, P.
coccinea
firethorn
Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup
Retama monosperma bridal veil broom X
Ricinus communis castor bean
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel
Saccharum ravennae ravennagrass X
Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean sage X
Saponaria officinalis bouncing-bet
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree
Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree
Sesbania punicea scarlet wisteria X
Silybum marianum milk thistle
Spartium junceum Spanish broom X
Stipa tenuissima Mexican feathergrass X
Tamarix parviflora smallflower tamarisk X
Tamarix aphylla athel
Tamarix ramosissima, T. gallica, T. chinensis saltcedar X Tanacetum vulgare common tansy
Triadica sebifera Chinese tallow tree X
Verbascum thapsus wooly mullein
Vinca major bigleaf periwinkle X
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm
Watsonia meriana watsonia
Zantedeschia aethiopica calla lily
X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Record of Changes
2017.09.07 – Corrected Cordyline australis regions. Updated Cal-IPC description and logo. 2018 05.08 – Corrected Crocosmia regions.

From: Regie Ronquillo
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Friday, September 5, 2025 9:40:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Sent from my iPhone
From: anthony toribio
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 11:05:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello,
My name is Anthony Toribio. My family and I have lived in poet’ corner since the early 2000s.

I am writing to share my opposition to the rezoning of Beatrice Rd, Soule Rd, and Cleaveland Rd.

There are several reasons why I am against the rezoning. These included traffic overload, safety concerns, flood risk, etc.

As a voting community member, I urge you to stop rezoning this area.

Thank you,
Anthony.

From: Wendy Gollop
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: 9/9/25 Planning Commission agenda item 6.1 Correction of map Attachment Q Ellinwood Creek name Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 12:15:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Commission,
Please correct the name of Ellinwood Creek on the City map. This creek is labeled Ellinwood creek when it is actually the cut off formerly main channel of Walnut Creek. When the 680 freeway was built, it cut off Walnut Creek at the bend. Culverts were put under the new roadway to connect the cut off channel from the main channel. You can still see the connections that were established at both ends back when the freeway was built. The original Walnut Creek that runs through Ellinwood has never been desilted or maintained so the culverts are now mostly buried in dirt. The Walnut Creek channel that runs through Ellinwood is listed on the National Database of Wetlands. I can find no official documents that refer to this creek as Ellinwood creek. Please change the name on the map from Ellenwood Creek to its correct designation as Walnut Creek. See attached screenshot in Google Maps with creek and correct name.

Thank You.

Wendy Gollop and Alan Bade
Co founders of Pleasant Hill Creeks
Resilient Landscape Vision for Lower Walnut Creek:
https://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/biblio_files/Resilient%20Landscape%20Vision%20for%20Lower%20Walnut%20Creek.pdf

From: Wendy Gollop
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Alan Bade
Subject: 9/9/25 Planning Commsion meeting agenda item 6.1 : Rezone of Beatrice Rd focus area Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 12:17:04 PM
Attachments: SPH ADHOC TF 2004002.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Commission
I am writing to comment on the Planning Commission's Public Hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment on Sept 9th 2025. Please make this letter part of the public record. These comments specifically address the Beatrice Rd site zoning change from PUD to medium density multi-family residential. I do not think that this is an optimal zoning designation for this parcel. Please consider an RMD zone,similar to Mangini/Delu.

The vacant land next to Beatrice Rd is scheduled for rezoning to medium density multi-family.

Presently it is a vacant collection of
lots that are largely owned by the Contra Costa County Flood Control district. The land was purchased by the Flood Control District to mitigate persistent flooding issues in Southern Pleasant Hill that have been well documented by others.

Currently Grayson Creek does not have the capacity to contain a 100 year flood. " Along the lower reaches of Grayson Creek, the principal flood problems are caused by a lack of channel capacity and constriction of the floodplain by inadequate levees. Beginning with the Center Avenue Bridge, located in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, and proceeding upstream, numerous undersized or poorly maintained bridge crossings cause overbank flooding. In the upper portion of Grayson Creek, south of Viking Drive and continuing on to East Fork Grayson Creek, a concrete box channel constructed in the late 1950s causes overbank flooding". Source:
https://map1.msc.fema.gov/data/06/S/PDF/06013CV001C.pdf? LOC=b67bda4e24d4967b7250cd83380d4dc3
Due to the persistent and unmitigated flooding issues, dense development would only worsen current flooding. Previous studies on how to address flooding in Southern Pleasant Hill focused on the old high schoolyard parcels on Oak Park Blvd combined with the Beatrice Rd area. But now housing, and a library are built on the old schoolyard site with recreational fields scheduled for development on the open space that is left. This does not leave enough space to contain flood water from the surrounding development. Astrid and Cleveland Rd are often shut down due to this flooding. This situation needs to be taken into account when designating this area for new development.

Climate change and global warming is producing heavier and more frequent storms which will result in a greater need for areas where flood waters can accumulate and more slowly enter the local creek system. The Contra Costa County Flood Control district has adapted a 50 year plan called "From Channels to Creeks" to address upcoming needed changes to local creeks and flood control channels. The FCD states:
"The Flood Control District’s mission is consistent with current public policy and the mandate from the regulatory agencies to provide flood protection while preserving riparian and maintaining water quality. The “flood control” issues of today are different from the flood control issues of the past. The issues of today are, for lack of a better term, “creek issues”. Creek issues combine the concerns for flood protection, ecosystem preservation, and water quality. To resolve the issues we face today, we must approach them from a multi-objective perspective. We must identify the stakeholders involved in the issue, determine their interests and needs, and then provide alternatives that meet those needs and interests. The alternatives must be based on sound science to ensure that the creek system will provide all the functions necessary for the watershed. Planning for creek issues requires community-based planning. This type of community planning will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries. Resolution of today’s issues must go beyond the traditional focus of the “plumbing” of the watershed (i.e., the creeks), and extend to the watershed as a whole. The solutions of tomorrow must be watershed-based and multi-objective, or more accurately, the solutions of tomorrow must evolve from community-based watershed planning." Source:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6853/50---Year-Plan-3-20-09-BOScompressed-PDF?bidId= During the many public outreach meetings that the City held for input into the new General Plan, natural creek and flood control projects and creek restoration were very high on communities interest list. Hopefully the City will continue to reach out to its citizens in developing these plans.

In light of the above discussion, these issues need to be considered in designating the zoning changes to this area.

1. Sections from the 2040 General Plan Environmental Element that concern riparian and creek settings need to be incorporated into the zoning plan.These include:

ENV 2.5-2.8 Creek preservation, Watercourse preservation, and creek clean up.

ENV 3.1 -3.9) Preserving and restoring streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to function as open space.

ENV 4.1-4.6 Protect and preserve natural habitat, plants, and wildlife https://pleasanthill2040.com/images/docs/PHGPU_08_Final_Environment_2023%2006%2030.pdf

2. Consider placing multi family housing along Cleveland Rd where access to streets, public transit and utilities are located. Also, if multi-family housing is developed along Cleveland Rd, there will need to be water containment onsite from this development. The FCD land could serve that purpose as well as mitigate already existing flooding issues to the surrounding neighborhoods.

3. Since this collection of lots is mostly FCD property, the Counties 50 Year Plan needs to be incorporated into the zoning consideration. Therefore, keep Flood Control property vacant to address flooding issues in the future. According to the Technical Advisory Committee report of The Southern Pleasant Hill Ad Hoc Task Force on April 4, 2002, 6.5 acres of land were acquired in the Beatrice Road area by the Contra Costa Flood Control District specifically for this purpose (see attachment, page 2). Even though larger flood basins on the school yard and old library site did not meet federal matching criteria, this smaller parcel can and should be used in a way that contributes to a solution or mitigation of flooding issues in the area, as intended. It was determined by FEMA and local authorities that smaller local solutions should be employed instead of large FEMA funded projects. Once this property is developed, there will be no land left to develop local solutions to the flooding issues of Southern Pleasant Hill.

4. Open space dedication for new development will be required per the General Plan. Goal (OSP

2.6) is for 3 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents. The South Pleasant Hill area may not be in compliance already. Any new development will need to contribute to parkland acquisition. Source:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/PleasantHill/html/PleasantHill17/PleasantHill1740.html#17.40 This money is required to be spent only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhoods or community parks or
recreational facilities to serve this subdivision. (Govt. Code § 66477(a)(3)). Land can also be dedicated for this purpose but
projects larger than 50 units must do both. Perhaps some of this land could be retained for flood mitigation, riparian restoration and
open space.

5. The General Plan (ENV 3.1) states that a creek protection zone should be created for new developments with setbacks that extend a minimum of 25 ft or more. The new creek protection zones in ENV 3.5 require new development, where feasible, to reclaim adjacent creek, wetlands and riparian areas.

As stated above, this is a very complex development site. Perhaps the City should consider the RMD special zoning district designation for this focus area similar to the Mangini-Delu property. It seems like a better fit than the multi-family medium density residential description. Many of the same development challenges apply here too.

As stated in the General Plan, the Mangini-Delu special district zoning (RMD) would allow for more development options and a more coordinated project that takes into account the flooding issues, and the juxtaposition of single family houses next to higher density multi-family housing. At the Mangini focus area, there is a need for creek preservation, flood control, open space and transition to existing single family housing too. The special planned district for the Mangini-Delu site (LU 6.7) states: " It shall be subject to a comprehensive planning process that assures the site is planned and developed in a coordinated, integrated manner. A plan for the site shall, at a minimum, include a traffic study and parking analysis, review of site orientation and clustering of development, preservation of natural habitat, inclusion of open space and onsite amenities, and review of compatibility and consistency with surrounding development." This zoning designation is well suited for the Beatrice site and should be considered instead of multi-family medium density residential. Please see the entire Mangini -Delu Land use Element in the references below, specifically LU 6.7 -6.13. (pg 23 General Plan 2040).

I hope that the Planning Commision will consider these issues in rezoning of this parcel and keep the residents and neighbors informed
of future plans .

Sincerely
Wendy Gollop
References:

Focus Area 2:
https://pleasanthill2040.com/images/docs/PHGPU_03_Final_Land%20Use_2023%2006%2030.pdf Mangini-Delu Mangini-Delu is one of the largest underutilized sites left within Pleasant Hill. The Mangini-Delu property is located in the
far western portion of the city at the intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road.

Located adjacent to the property and
directly at the intersection is the Winslow Center, which is owned by the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District. The Mangini-Delu
property has a rich history within the city. The property is currently open space and used to be an active farm. The property is presently
designated for Single-Family Medium Density residential development, with a corresponding R-10 zoning designation. Over the years there
have been several proposals for future development of the site. Those proposals have been met with community concerns about converting the farm to residential development. The 2040 General Plan assumes the Mangini-Delu property will be developed and includes land use changes that meet the needs of the property owners and community. The 2040 General Plan envisions the Mangini—Delu property being developed into a vibrant neighborhood driven by a Master Plan process that allows the community to weigh in on important factors for the site’s development. The master planned development at a minimum will address open space preservation, recognize creek restoration, and focus on the transition between new and existing development. Development is envisioned to include a range of housing types, expanding the opportunity for home ownership within Pleasant Hill. New development proposed within the ManginiDelu focus area is subject to the policies in this section, as well as other relevant sections of the General Plan.

LU-6.7 Comprehensive Planning Process Prior to any development of the Mangini-Delu site shall be subject to a comprehensive planning process that assures the site is planned and developed in a coordinated, integrated manner shall be completed. A plan for the site shall, at a minimum, include a traffic study and parking analysis, review of site orientation and clustering of development, preservation of natural
habitat, inclusion of open space and onsite amenities, and review of compatibility and consistency with surrounding development.

LU-6.8 Housing Diversity Require future development of the Mangini-Delu site to include a variety of housing types.

LU-6.9 Transition between Surrounding Development Require development of the Mangini-Delu site to incorporate design and development
techniques meant to implement a seamless transition between existing residential neighborhoods and proposed development.

LU-6.10 Cluster Development Promote clustered development on the Mangini-Delu site to allow for enhanced opportunities to preserve
and/or create open space and resident amenities.

LU-6.11 Limited Access Limit access points for the Mangini-Delu site from Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, if appropriate, to ease
congestion and mitigate traffic impacts. Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan | Policy Document 3-24 Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Adopted
May 2023
LU-6.12 Creek Access Requires new development of the Mangini-Delu site to provide publicly accessible walking trails that provide access to the creek.

LU-6.13 Creek Preservation and Incorporation Coordinate with Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCFCD) to support creek preservation on the Mangini-Delu site and the incorporation of environmentally friendly flood control measures.

NOTE: For additional goals and policies pertaining to creek preservation, restoration, and biological resources, please see Section 8.2 (Biological Resources) in the Environment and Sustainability Element.

From: Wendy Gollop
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Agenda Item 6.1 Public Hearing on the Draft Comprehensive Zoning Ammendment. Rec and Park District zone Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 12:29:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Commision
I am greatly concerned about the new zoning designation for the Pleasant Hill Rec and Park District land. This new zoning ordinance will completely remove any guidance for the development of these parcels from the design guidelines of the new City of Pleasant Hills 2040 General Plan. The Rec and Park district encompases about 275 acres of land within the City of Pleasant Hills sphere of influence.

The Rec and Park District is more than just ball fields and open space. They own and maintain many buildings for Community use by people young and old that live both in and out of the City itself.

They have a General Plan that is a guideline for future development of buildings and facilities. Some of these new facilities, sports fields and courts will come into close contact with the residences of Pleasant Hill. By rezoning the Rec and Park Land and removing them from Pleasant Hills design guidelines there will no longer be any oversight of development by the City. I am concerned that the Rec and Park district does not have an adequate structure to address large community developments. There is no Planning commision to look at traffic flows around new construction of gyms, pools, pickle ball courts, bike parks, or community buildings that are in their general Plan. There is no ARC committee to comment on design or lighting (or guidelines for that matter). There are no height limits on buildings next to residential development. Heritage trees could be removed without notice and there are no standards for creek setbacks or riparian protection in parks with wetlands and creeks of which there are many on park district land.

Questions:
1 Will there be adequate notice of development of new buildings and sport facilities. Guidelines of public notice for development needs to be publicized in a timely manner to allow residents to comment.

Perhaps the Rec and Park district should adopt the public notice guidelines of the City.

2. Will Rec and Park create development standards for building and infrastructure heights, setbacks for buildings and creeks, lighting, noise, landscaping, etc? Parking and traffic flow around facilities that hold tournaments could be problematic too. Hopefully, Rec and Park will encourage public input into these standards. I can think of several areas where inadequate planning could be quite contentious.

Lighting and noise from recreational facilities adjacent to residential areas could pose problems that will bring residents to City Chambers with complaints. Most residents of Pleasant Hill don't realize that the Pleasant Hill Rec and Park is a separate district from the City.

Please consider how this new zoning ordinance will be implemented in light of these issues.

Sincerely
Wendy Gollop
Pleasant Hill Rec and Park district "Big Picture Master Concept Plan" https://www.pleasanthillrec.com/DocumentCenter/View/4474/The-Big-Picture-Master-Plan-Final-PDF?bidId= To the members of the City Council and Planning Commission, City of Pleasant Hill, California I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed re-zoning of my house on Marta Drive, and the surrounding houses in my neighborhood, to mixed-use zoning. While I understand the city's mandates for housing, this proposed change raises numerous questions and potential negative impacts that require thorough consideration and transparent community engagement before such a change should be enacted. My concerns are multi-faceted, encompassing the fundamental character of our neighborhood, negative effects on home value, potential impacts on traffic and infrastructure, environmental considerations, crime, and the overall planning process.

1. Impacts on Neighborhood Character and Quality of Life:
• Incompatibility With Existing Homes: The re-designation to mixed-use represents a fundamental shift in the fabric of Pleasant Hill and could significantly alter the character of our individual neighborhood. The prior general plan encouraged the aesthetic enhancement of residential areas while retaining their "charm and character." Introducing mixed-use, especially higher-density housing, may be "out of character with the adjoining neighborhoods" and disrupt this established balance.
• Increased Density and Building Height: Mixed-use designations in Pleasant Hill can range widely, from lower intensity to much higher densities. Residents are concerned about the introduction of three-story units (and higher) and other taller structures that could be "out of scale" or "out of place" with the surrounding single-family homes. This could impact sight lines, solar energy production and surrounding views. New buildings may require objective design standards for transitioning appropriately in building scale, height, and massing to mitigate impacts on adjacent single-family properties.
• Loss of Open Space and Privacy: Higher density can lead to a reduction in private and shared open spaces, and increased "massing" could reduce sunlight and privacy for existing homes.

Our community has consistently valued the preservation of green spaces for which we have limited access to.
• Property Values: There is a significant concern among residents that such re-zoning and subsequent development could negatively impact the property values of existing single-family homes.
• Discourage the maintenance of existing homes: Most of the homes in our neighborhood have had or need significant repairs or improvements. Current and future residents could be discouraged in making necessary shorter-term investments to re-model and modernize existing homes given the possibility of future larger development in the area and perceived loss of that investment when those developments occur.
• Property Taxes: It’s not clear how this change could impact property taxes in our area. • Family Relocation: If the re-zoning leads to redevelopment that displaces existing single-family homes, it could require "family relocation," causing significant disruption to the community.

Those needing to relocate for many potential reasons, such as roadway adjustments, parcel consolidation efforts or simply changes to overall housing development can find themselves facing additional financial burdens that would have been otherwise avoided by not changing the designated purpose/zoning of our neighborhood.
• Affordability and housing availability: Our neighborhood is already home to some of the most affordable starter-homes in the area. Residents come to Pleasant Hill for a suburban lifestyle not densified city living. In recent months, there have been many houses available in nearby areas with increasing days-on-market (MLS). Simplify the building processes for future and existing residents, create re-usable or adaptable plans for current structures to increase density throughout the city. Encourage newer generations to buy, build and live in this community.

2. Traffic and Circulation Impacts:
• Increased Traffic Congestion: Mixed-use developments typically combine residential, retail, commercial, and office uses, which inevitably generate more traffic. There are widespread concerns about increased traffic congestion, particularly on our already narrow local streets not designed for higher volumes.
• Parking Deficiencies: Increased density will inevitably strain existing parking resources.

Residents are concerned about a lack of sufficient parking for new residents and their guests. In addition, many of our residents have RVs and it is unclear how the new zoning could impact parking of different types of vehicles on the street and residences designated parking spots. • Egress and Ingress: The design of entry and exit points for new developments is crucial. Right now our neighborhood has two ways in and out. Your 2040 plan intends to change that which has significant implications for traffic in front of my house and throughout the neighborhood. • Increased crime: We have witnessed multiple police chases outside of our residences in our neighborhood coming from the nearby freeway exit. Criminal activity is generally discouraged by the lack of egress options and changes to that could easily increase criminal activity. • Roadway Infrastructure: Significant re-zoning and development will require substantial investment in sewers and drainage, electrical infrastructure, and roadway improvements. All of which are currently unknown to residents as to how the city would accomplish this and the implications of those changes on our parcels.

3. Environmental Considerations:
• Noise and Air Quality: Intensification of land use raises concerns about increased noise and air quality impacts on our existing residential neighborhoods. • Tree Preservation: The importance of "increased urban forestation" and the use of native trees for reducing ambient air temperature and improving air quality should be emphasized.

4. Planning Process and Transparency:
• Need for a Comprehensive Plan: Residents prefer a specific plan that allows for a holistic approach to development, addresses traffic, circulation, parking, and architectural character, and genuinely incorporates "community input" and interaction. Our neighborhood has not had sufficient representation in these processes given the proposed changes and we’re left in the dark with how these changes would progress in the coming years to a final vision. • Clarity on Design Guidelines: There is a need for design guidelines and development standards that are appropriate for new mixed-use typologies and reflect current realities, rather than outdated codes.
• Maintaining Consistency: The General Plan is required to be "internally consistent,” and re-zoning single-family neighborhoods without careful consideration could create policy conflicts.
• Balancing Housing Needs with Community Concerns: While the City faces significant mandates to meet Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) numbers, this must be balanced with the goal of creating desirable and sustainable communities. There are concerns that the process is moving too quickly, leading to "radical changes" without adequate deliberation.
• Accessibility of Information: Most of our residents were unaware of any rezoning planned in our neighborhood from the 2040 general plan. We were not notified that our neighborhood was changing until receiving a notice of public hearing Saturday, August 9th. The city is attempting to rush this change through in a deceptive manner. Residents do not feel properly notified given the significance of the change going back many years to 2023 or earlier where this change was initially proposed.

We urge you to thoroughly consider these points regarding the proposed re-zoning of Marta Drive and similar single-family houses to mixed-use. A thoughtful, transparent, and truly collaborative approach that prioritizes community character, environmental protection, and robust infrastructure planning is essential for the future of Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Scott Loyd and Jessica Loyd
From: Bonnie stephens
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Cc: Gerald Stephens
Subject: Proposed re-zoning of Beatrice Rd, Soule Ave, and Cleaveland Rd Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:02:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

We own the house at 423 Soule Ave. We moved here from Lafayette 10 years ago. We knew of the coveted Poets’ Corner area and set our sights here. Through the decade, we have spent a significant amount of time and money improving our property. We feel extremely fortunate to have been able to purchase this house…. our “forever” home.

Not only is the street very quiet because it is a dead end, there is an amazing piece of land (identified as 45 in green on your map) behind us that is home to much wildlife and adds greatly to the serenity and uniqueness of our neighborhood .

We have learned in just the past 5 days, that you are considering changing the zoning on that property to allow medium density housing.

First of all, as owners of the directly adjacent property, we were not notified by you! That is totally unacceptable! We only found out due to a neighborhood flyer.

We have a drainage creek that flows through the back of our property. This creek is fed from Beatrice/Roberta neighborhoods and other streets that flow into there. We are the low point.

We have seen that “flood
control” lot covered in a few inches of standing water during the rainy season. In addition, there have been times that water has spilled over onto our property. Sandbags become a necessity.

What are your plans for studying the environmental impacts of building on this land? To say we are concerned is a huge understatement!
Unfortunately because we are travelling and the short notice of this meeting, we are unable to attend. We strongly disagree with the zoning proposal without seeing intensive studies on impacts to the environment and how they could be resolved.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Gerald and Bonnie Stephens
423 Soule Ave
Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523
Sent from Bonnie’s phone
From: john phelps
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2:25:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am a Pleasant Hill resident for 40 years.I oppose your rezoning proposal because it will lower the quality of life for all of us.I live at 422 Beatrice rd .and have an open field behind my house.

Your zoning proposal is too extreme for this neighborhood.You need to scale back your plan to a low density single family units.Your plan is a threat to our property values.The open fields provide flood protection that no flood mitigation can equal.Over the decades,I have seen some close calls.Our homes did not flood out for one simple reason.The soil soaked up thousands of gallons of water. Regards, J Phelps
From: Tara Legaspi
To: Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto; Planning; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment for this Evening’s Planning Commission Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:09:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I would like to formally put on the record that social media posts and comments made by individuals who do not live in Pleasant Hill were placed in this evening's public comments record and should be redacted. The City went onto social media and included these outside comments in the official packet because several of them favored rezoning. But these individuals do not live here. Their homes and community will not be directly impacted by the proposed rezoning, and their opinions should not carry weight in this decision.

Leaving these comments in the public record gives undue weight to outside voices and misrepresents the perspective of Pleasant Hill residents who will be most affected by this decision. I respectfully ask that only the comments of current Pleasant Hill residents be included for consideration in the packet.

When non-resident comments are removed, the record clearly shows that Pleasant Hill residents overwhelmingly oppose the rezoning plan.

It did not go unnoticed that the Committee’s Meeting Packet buried our voices in a 1,451 page document. This showed how little value you place on our concerns, our homes, and our community. Instead of elevating our voices, the packet was used to advance an agenda, regardless of how residents feel. It was belittling, dehumanizing, and stripped us of our voice. And it showed us that the vote for rezoning was a yes before we all walked into this door.

We are not asking for much. We simply want to be heard, respected, and for our lives and homes to be valued. We are asking for basic decency.

I urge the Planning Commission to vote against any plan that rezones single-family properties, or properties that hold—or once held—single-family homes. We strongly oppose the building of multi-unit, multi-level housing adjacent to our creeks. Instead, I ask that you vote to fix any zoning issues by restoring these lots to R-20 and R-15 single-family low-density zoning.

The City Council already approved a multi-story project—the Alwell Apartments at 85 Cleaveland Road. It includes 210 multi-family units. And yet, the property managers are struggling to fill them. They are offering two months of free rent and a $1,000 rent credit just to attract tenants.

This multi-million dollar project has not been successful, and it proves a point—these are not the kinds of homes people move to Pleasant Hill for. Our city does not attract residents seeking large, multi-level housing complexes. We lack the public transportation, nightlife, restaurants, and shopping that typically support such developments.

Finally, let me remind you of the Duty of Care. A city council’s duty of care involves managing public assets competently, using due diligence, and acting with reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to the public. The fiduciary responsibility means council members must act faithfully, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure decisions are made with informed consideration for the public’s benefit rather than personal gain.

Leaving constituents living in fear of losing their homes, being swallowed up by developers, or harmed financially by this commission or the city council's decisions does not meet that duty of care.

Look at what residents have accomplished in just one week. Imagine what we can do during election season. California will see high voter turnout in 2025 with the special election, and again in 2026 with the midterms. We may not elect Planning Commission members, but we do elect our City Council. And we will remember these votes at the polls.

Sincerely,
Tara Legaspi
From: Daniel Franke
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:24:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council,
I’m writing to urge you to reject the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Proposed Rezoning Map as currently drafted. Poet’s Corner is one of Pleasant Hill’s most intact, livable, and community-oriented neighborhoods—the crown jewel of the city—and the proposal puts it, and our shared watershed, at risk.
1) Flooding history and the role of our creeks
Poet’s Corner sits within the Grayson Creek sub-watershed, with tributaries historically overtopping banks and flooding homes—including events in 1997, 2005, 2008, and 2017 (e.g., Sequoia Elementary). These are not hypothetical concerns; they are documented flood events. Building up intensity and hardscape near these waterways or within their contributing drainage areas invites unnecessary risk.

The City’s own capital pages confirm how dependent our neighborhoods are on aging storm infrastructure that discharges into Grayson Creek and the County flood control channels; even mid-century systems (e.g., Gregory Gardens #6) are at end of life and require rehabilitation to maintain capacity. Large rezonings that induce redevelopment without commensurate drainage upgrades could exacerbate downstream flooding.

Contra Costa Flood Control and the U.S. Army Corps have repeatedly undertaken channel desilting and capacity maintenance on Grayson Creek precisely because sedimentation and storm intensity threaten to overwhelm conveyance. Any plan that densifies near these facilities should proceed cautiously and only after site-specific hydrology and capacity analysis, not through blanket entitlement.

Even the City’s 2040 General Plan EIR recognizes that Pleasant Hill’s waterways (Grayson Creek and the Contra Costa Canal) remain part of an extensive drainage system—with the Flood Control District expressly asking to be involved in review of drainage facilities before final entitlements. That underscores the need for case-by-case scrutiny rather than streamlining.
2) Creek corridors are functioning wildlife habitat and movement links City environmental documents describe riparian corridors supporting species and movement—western pond turtle, beaver, river otter, and more—and acknowledge these corridors as habitat and wildlife linkages. Intensifying development along these waterways fragments remaining habitat, adds night lighting and human activity, and narrows setbacks.

This is a poor trade for a community that values open space, biodiversity, and environmental education for our kids.
3) Traffic and circulation impacts are already significant The General Plan EIR states that, even with mitigation, transportation impacts measured by VMT are “significant and unavoidable” under Impact TRA-2. Adding more mixed-use and higher-intensity entitlement in and around Poet’s Corner—where neighborhood streets are narrow and used by families walking and biking—will predictably worsen cut-through traffic, congestion at Gregory/Oak Park/PH Road, and parking spillover. Approving upzoning before corridor-level transportation fixes and safety investments is putting the cart before the horse. 4) Neighborhood character, privacy, and views
Poet’s Corner is prized for its single-story character, open yards, tree canopy, and modest rooflines—qualities that create sunlight, privacy, and sightlines to the hills. Injecting taller massing and mixed-use envelopes adjacent to back fences in a flood-prone riparian neighborhood will block views, shade yards, and permanently alter the neighborhood’s scale and feel. The City’s own public-facing materials bill Poet’s Corner and similar areas as key to livability; the zoning should reflect that.
5) The proposal “streamlines processes” while diminishing meaningful public review
The City advertises that this overhaul is meant to “clarify and streamline existing processes.” While administrative clarity is welcome, streamlining often shifts projects from discretionary review (with noticed public hearings and robust appeal rights) toward ministerial or reduced-discretion pathways, limiting the public’s ability to be heard before approvals get locked in. Given our flood history and environmental sensitivity, Poet’s Corner projects should not be fast-tracked. The City’s own Part 4 (Permit & Entitlement Procedures) emphasizes timelines and consolidated hearings; residents deserve stronger—not weaker— opportunities for comment and appeal when creeks and drainage infrastructure are at stake. 6) Mixed-use “flexibility” is being aimed at stable single-family areas The City’s Rezoning FAQ confirms that some single-family areas (e.g., East Vivian area) were re-designated to mixed-use to accommodate long-term growth and RHNA. That “flexibility” might be suitable along transit corridors and commercial strips, but it is misapplied to flood-adjacent, creek-dependent neighborhoods like Poet’s Corner. The FAQ also concedes there are no specific mixed-use projects in review today—proof that we are not reacting to an actual project, but rather pre-entitling sensitive blocks without site-specific environmental checks.
7) Reasonable alternatives exist—focus growth away from the floodplain Pleasant Hill has ample underutilized commercial land and oversized parking fields along Contra Costa Boulevard, Buskirk Avenue, and within specific plan areas (Downtown Pleasant Hill, Contra Costa Center). If the City seeks capacity, it should prioritize intensification there—where transit access, commercial services, and existing height/mass transitions already exist—before upzoning creek-adjacent, low-impact single-family blocks. (See City pages for Downtown and Contra Costa Center as examples of appropriate growth areas.)
8) What a defensible path forward looks like
Please remove Poet’s Corner and other flood-adjacent, riparian blocks from the rezoning map and commit to:

Site-specific hydrology and drainage capacity studies (with Flood Control District participation) before any intensification near Grayson Creek or its tributaries.

Enhanced creek setbacks, dark-sky lighting, and riparian habitat protections beyond the citywide minimums recognized in the EIR.

Discretionary review with noticed public hearings and intact appeal rights for any project within the watershed influence area—not streamlined or ministerial approvals.

Transportation safety fixes and VMT mitigation first, acknowledging the EIR’s “significant and unavoidable” transportation finding, before adding units that will increase local trips.

Shift growth to commercial corridors and specific plan areas with fewer hydrology constraints and better transit.

Pleasant Hill’s planning vision should be resilience-first. Poet’s Corner has repeatedly borne the brunt of flooding; our creeks serve as both critical drainage infrastructure and living habitat. Protecting that dual function is good planning, good environmental stewardship, and good governance.

As a lifelong resident, I strongly reject the plan for rezoning and zoning code overhaul as proposed, and direct staff to return with exclusions for Poet’s Corner and other floodadjacent areas, plus the safeguards outlined above.

Respectfully,
Daniel Franke
500 Soule Ave
Pleasant Hill, CA
925-381-1070
From: Lesley Pope
To: Tara Legaspi
Cc: Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto; Planning; [email protected] Subject: Re: Public Comment for this Evening’s Planning Commission Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:51:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Thank you Tara for including me on this thread. In the interest of efficiency and preserving the record, and assuming the meeting tonight will be contentious, I submit these additional comments for the planning commission hearing.
510 Beatrice RD:

We have put detailed comments in writing to the Planning Commission and we won’t repeat them here because we are sure a lot of people want to be heard tonight.

More than 15 years back PH was threatening to take our property for a flood basin. When the Federal Govt would not fund the plan we were relieved. When the State of CA dissolved Redevelopment Agencies in 2012 - again we were relieved. For over 13 years we have been told nothing about PH intending to develop our property and the surrounding properties. End of Beatrice Road properties were not even mentioned in the May 2023 approved 2040 General plan. It is inaccurate to say we have been treated as a multi density property and this plan is just a “zoning cleanup". We are a single family, single story home in a neighborhood of mostly single story, all single family lots.

When we received the City’s notice last month of the rezoning plan we were shocked and very angry. Then we realized the adjacent neighbors were not being notified and we felt like something very deceptive was happening.

In addition to all the arguements about how the end of Beatrice road rezoning and multifamily development is inappropriate for the character of the neighborhood, adjacent wildlife, dangerous with regard to flooding, traffic, lack of fire truck turnaround and that there are other options available, we believe it is unfair and damaging to us personally.

Rezoning our property damages us - it damages our property value and it puts a giant flag above our property inviting a developer to come over and try to bully us out. As well the city can say it will not use eminent domain now, but we all know if the price is right, that plan may change. We all know developers have deep pockets.

We oppose the rezoning of our property and we are adamantly asking the Planning Commission and City Council to not move forward with this plan. Thank you Lesley & Eric Pope Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2025, at 3:09 PM, Tara Legaspi <[email protected]> wrote:

The City went onto social media and included these outside comments in the official packet because several of them favored rezoning. But these individuals do not live here. Their homes and community will not be directly impacted by the proposed rezoning, and their opinions should not carry weight in this decision.

When non-resident comments are removed, the record clearly shows that Pleasant Hill residents overwhelmingly oppose the rezoning plan.

And it showed us that the vote for rezoning was a yes before we all walked into this door.

We are not asking for much. We simply want to be heard, respected, and for our lives and homes to be valued. We are asking for basic decency.

I urge the Planning Commission to vote against any plan that rezones single-family properties, or properties that hold—or once held—singlefamily homes. We strongly oppose the building of multi-unit, multi-level housing adjacent to our creeks. Instead, I ask that you vote to fix any zoning issues by restoring these lots to R-20 and R-15 single-family lowdensity zoning.

This multi-million dollar project has not been successful, and it proves a point—these are not the kinds of homes people move to Pleasant Hill for.

Our city does not attract residents seeking large, multi-level housing complexes. We lack the public transportation, nightlife, restaurants, and shopping that typically support such developments.

Leaving constituents living in fear of losing their homes, being swallowed up by developers, or harmed financially by this commission or the city council's decisions does not meet that duty of care.

Sincerely,
Tara Legaspi
From: Laura Cutilletta
To: [email protected]; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4:24:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
402 Beatrice RD
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
September 9, 2025
(Via email)
Planning Commission
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
RE: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning Public Hearing – 09/09/2025 Dear Pleasant Hill Planning Commission:

I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposed rezoning of properties at the end of my street from single-family to medium-density, multi-family residential.

This rezoning would significantly increase housing density in a small, difficult-to-access area.

Our street infrastructure is not designed to support such development, and traffic congestion would likely become a serious issue. I am particularly concerned about safety. The street is narrow, and in past instances, fire trucks have been unable to turn around easily. Adding more units would only worsen this problem and put residents at risk.

In addition, the proposed properties lie within a high-flood zone. The natural floodplain currently absorbs overflow from the creek, allowing it to expand and contract without causing damage. If development were permitted in this area, that natural buffer would be lost, increasing the likelihood of flooding. Such flooding would create unnecessary financial and environmental burdens for neighboring homeowners, developers, and the City itself.

For these reasons, I urge the Commission to deny this rezoning request in order to preserve safety, protect the community, and maintain responsible land use planning.

Thank you for your consideration,
Laura Cutilletta
510-220-5342
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal – East Vivian Drive / Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Title 18)
To: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Croffoot, Members of the Planning Commission, and City Council, I am writing as a longtime resident, and homeowner, of East Vivian Drive to express my strong opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Title 18) and the associated rezoning plans that would impact established residential neighborhoods like ours. We are a family of four and our children have grown up in this neighborhood since 1-2 yrs old.

In addition to the purchase of the home, we have invested in an addition, remodel and other improvements. We expected to live here with the knowledge that our neighborhood, and ultimately our property value, would improve as other neighbors improved.

Our family has lived in Pleasant Hill for almost 20 years and have contributed to our community.

One objection I have is that we were not informed in 2020. We did not receive a notice as we did for the re-zoning, which was 5 years after the original re-districting plan meeting.

Grounds for Opposition - Lack of Transparent Disclosure (2020 Outreach) Why were residents not informed in 2020 that intact neighborhoods like East Vivian Drive would be rezoned? When the rezoning initiative was first introduced and voted on in 2020, there was no clear disclosure that existing, stable residential neighborhoods—particularly areas like East Vivian Drive—would be rezoned. Materials and public notices at the time emphasized alignment with the new General Plan and Housing Element, but omitted specific maps or mention of residential community impacts.

Infrastructure
Rezoning our neighborhood for higher density or commercial use might lead to construction that would fundamentally alter the character of East Vivian Drive. Narrow streets are already difficult to navigate during peak hours, and adding retail, restaurants, or denser housing will only worsen traffic and strain local infrastructure.

I understand our neighborhood may not develop in the near future, however my concern is that if outlying areas are developed, the city may choose to add streets through our neighborhood, thereby straining the already congested traffic and noise in the area.

Under PHMC Chapter 18.125, any residential rezoning must show that:
● It won’t cause significant growth impacts on neighboring residential areas. ● It won’t increase traffic congestion.
● It won’t raise noise or service strain in nearby zones.

I respectfully request the City provide findings that show these requirements are met.

Critical Questions to Address
● How does this rezoning support the 2040 General Plan’s goals around smart growth, livability, and neighborhood preservation?
● What findings justify this rezoning? Have there been documented “changed circumstances” or a demonstrated need?
● How will increased density affect traffic, infrastructure, public services, and adjacent properties? ● Has the Housing Accountability Act or Builder’s Remedy been considered? What role does it play in this decision?
● Why were residents not informed in 2020 that intact neighborhoods like East Vivian Drive would be rezoned?
● What specific maps, materials, or communications were provided to voters and public attendees during the 2020 rezoning vote, and why did they exclude these neighborhoods? ● Does the City believe the disclosure in 2020 met the standards for notice and transparency under PHMC Chapter 18.125? If so, can those original notices and reports be released for review? Alternatives the City Should Consider
Instead of disrupting stable neighborhoods, I urge the City to pursue more thoughtful and sustainable approaches:

1. Down-zoning instead of up-zoning.
○ Sensitive zoning that reflects the neighborhood character.

2. Flexible Phased, Context-Sensitive Zoning
○ If changes are necessary, implement phased or site-specific rezonings rather than sweeping, district-wide changes.
○ Use overlay zones or adaptive design standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding homes.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,
Scott Greer
Resident – East Vivian Drive, Pleasant Hill
(415)370-9602
From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Rezoning for 1657 Oak Park Bl.

Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:06:23 AM
From: Peterson Construction <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 7:11 PM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Rezoning for 1657 Oak Park Bl.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley,
Thank you for your email.

Currently, I'm sitting in one of the overflow rooms since there isn't enough room in the main city council chamber.

In case there isn't enough time for everyone to address the planning commission, I wanted to provide you with notice that as I understand the rezoning plan I am not in support of it.

The reason I do not support the rezoning plan is it seems like the affected single family zoned property owners will lose the economic benefits provided by SB 9.

I look forward to hearing from you and if you can explain anything I might be missing.

Thank you for your time.

Jeffrey Peterson
1657 Oak Park Blvd, Pleasant Hill, CA

From: [email protected]
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 5:58:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am opposed to any rezoning plans in the Cleaveland area. There is too much traffic and will be a further problem with construction. Why can't you concentrate on what needs fixing before creating more problems to fix. For example, flooding, traffic, loss of wildlife, quiet enjoyment of nature. Please help maintain Pleasant Hill's beauty instead of making it look like college dorms where there's no college.

Diane Skillman
55 Katie Court
Pleasant Hill
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
From: don rushton
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 1:56:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I want to give my whole hearted support to all the Poets Corner property owner commenters at the September 9, 2025 planning commission meeting who were opposed to the specific rezoning in our neighborhood. The proposed multi-family zoning off Soule and Beatrice are potentially disruptive to our neighborhood as well as detrimental the environment and to the whole feeling and charm of this part of Poets Corner. My wife and I have lived on Hardy Circle for the past 50 years and sincerely hope that you do whatever you can to change this detrimental rezoning proposal.

Thank you,
Don Rushton
113 Hardy Circle
Pleasant Hill
Sent from my iPad
From: Diane Skillman
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 5:45:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am against any rezoning of the Cleaveland Rd. We have enough issues with parking on Cleaveland and traffic jams. We need to maintain what we have before creating more. Where is the rain supposed to go when you have so much construction going on and we know flooding will be much worse with the proposed zoning.

Please help us preserve Pleasant Hill.

Diane Skillman
55 Katie Court
Pleasant Hill
Sent from my iPhone
From: Gina Cutaia
To: Planning; Haley Croffoot; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Public Comment -Opposition to Rezoning Proposal Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 9:25:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Gina and Richard Cutaia
241 Campbell Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
September 9, 2025
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Rezoning of Beatrice Rd., Soule Rd and Cleaveland Rd. near my property at 241 Campbell Lane .

For over 30 years, my family and I have endured repeated flooding on our property. Each major rainfall event has carried the risk of significant damage, financial loss, and emotional stress. The proposed rezoning, which would allow [more development/higher density/commercial use], will almost certainly increase stormwater runoff and worsen the flooding issues that already affect this neighborhood.

Rezoning this area without adequate infrastructure improvements would place residents like myself at even greater risk. Approving this change could compromise property values, public safety, and the long-term sustainability of our community.

I respectfully urge you to reconsider this proposal. Any development in this flood-prone area should be carefully studied through an updated hydrological impact assessment, with flood mitigation measures required before rezoning is approved.

Our community deserves protection from further hardship caused by flooding. I ask that you prioritize the safety and well-being of residents over short-term development interests.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Gina Cutaia
Sent from my iPhone

Pleasant Hill City CouncilOctober 20, 2025

Pleasant Hill City Council
October 20, 2025