G - Public Comments.pdf — Pleasant Hill City Council, March 16, 2026

From: Will Cefali
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: 2026 General Plan Land Use Study
Date: Saturday, February 21, 2026 7:57:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Ms. Croffoot,
While I can’t attend the upcoming meeting, I am writing in support of the upcoming comprehensive Zoning Ordinance amendment and to encourage the City to use this opportunity to advance three important priorities.

First, I urge the City to eliminate parking minimums. Parking minimums drive up housing costs, consume valuable land, and incentivize car-centric development that runs counter to the goals of the 2040 General Plan. Removing them would give developers flexibility to build more housing at lower cost, while letting actual demand, rather than outdated mandates, determine how much parking is needed. Cities like Sacramento and San Jose have already taken this step with positive results.

Second, I strongly encourage a more ambitious commitment to active transportation. Zoning standards should require or incentivize Class I separated bike lanes, improved pedestrian infrastructure, and safe connections to transit. These investments reduce vehicle miles traveled, support public health, and make Pleasant Hill more accessible for residents of all ages and abilities.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, I want to highlight the neighborhood business area around Oak Park Boulevard and Patterson Boulevard. This corridor, with its proximity to neighborhoods and two class-1 trails, is one of the most walkable areas in Pleasant Hill and has tremendous unrealized potential as a model pedestrian-oriented district. Unfortunately, its current FAR severely limits density, and large surface parking lots like the one at the Safeway dominate what could be vibrant, human-scaled streetscape. I urge the City to upzone this area into a true mixed-use zone with higher FARs, active ground-floor retail requirements, and eliminated parking minimums. Done right, this area could become a shining example of what walkable, neighborhood-scale commercial development looks like in Contra Costa County.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Will Cefali
2017 Hoover Ave. Pleasant Hill, CA
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 2:18:28 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18798 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill, CA
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: A Vision for Smart Growth in Districts 1 & 4
Question or Comment:: Dear Council,
Please include Districts 1 and 4 in the 2026 Land Use Study. We believe there is a "Smart Growth" path forward that works for everyone.

Instead of high-density apartment blocks on our ridgelines, let’s use this reopening to explore other types of housing that preserves the character of our hillsides and not overwhelm them.

We want to help you build a better Pleasant Hill, but our Districts need to be included in the study to do so.

Sincerely,
Frank Chan
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 2/2/2026 2:18:20 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.225.134.42
Referrer Page: https://foonn-woiars-scheeff.yolasite.com/ Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Sunday, February 1, 2026 7:20:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18796 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill, CA
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Fairness in the General Plan Reopening Process Question or Comment:: Dear Pleasant Hill City Council,
I am writing to express my disappointment that Districts 1 and 4 have been unmentioned and omitted from the scope of the 2026 Land Use Study.

The Council decided to reopen the General Plan because of a "disconnect" between the city's plan and the community's reality. That disconnect is nowhere more apparent than on our hillsides. It is inconsistent to grant a seat at the table to Districts 2, 3 and 5 while denying the same to the residents of Districts 1 and 4 who have been equally vocal.

We are asking for the same transparency and the same "remedy" offered to our neighbors in other districts. Please include us.

Thank you,
BL
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 2/1/2026 7:20:05 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.225.134.42
Referrer Page: https://us01.z.antigena.com/l/FGzA7qEmnyyiMEPMwlMnYNZibnMkTa4exgLBDF8qqJffWZHHJidJB4hF~ZTLxsjhttnjXZh__Y0A4vSW6BdFieFw32Arxd7Ng6GNLIc_NLBGNYcV20cPkpo_PAEEbUXxXja9lqwAy9PmpAgG4gED0ueELqzHFl_XRsp33YqOilCm92FvxpdbjzAasTs28~yl Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 9, 2026 11:04:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18862 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: General Plan Study Session
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing ahead of the March 16th General Plan Study Session to express my appreciation for the Council’s willingness to revisit and correct zoning inconsistencies in Districts 2, 3, and 5. It's appropriate for the Council to recognize that protecting the character of established single-family neighborhoods is a goal of the City in general, but should also be a commitment that is extended to every resident, no matter where they live.

However, a "mistake" corrected in one district must be addressed in all. If the Council is willing to considering rolling back higher density mandated in Program F of the Housing Element, to be fair and equitable, the Council must apply this same lens of scrutiny to the high-density designations that were forced onto certain parcels in Districts 1 and 4.

Specifically, the 196 units at Morello Terraces and 102 units at Paso Nogal are slated for environmentally sensitive hillsides that cannot support high-intensity development. These designations are as much a "mistake" as the ones being corrected in other Districts.

Instead, we are proposing that the Council consider maximizing density in areas already slated for high density. In our own Districts, the DVC Overflow Parking lot was designated as 70-100 du/acre and even if you take 70% of the 10 acres that the parking lot covers, that would calculate to 490 dwelling units, which is hundreds of units above any estimates in the Housing Element. Moving just 50% of the units from Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill to the DVC Overflow lot will keep the density manageable on those hillside parcels, while slightly increasing density on flat parking lots that will more than meet the RHNA mandates, keep housing within the Districts in which housing was planned, and optimize density that was already designated in the General Plan.

I support amending the General Plan to transfer these hillside units to infill sites like the DVC overflow lot. If the City is willing to prioritize neighborhood character in Districts 2, 3, and 5, it is only fair to do the same for the residents of Districts 1 and 4.

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

Form submitted on: 3/9/2026 11:04:40 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 37.19.205.209
Referrer Page: https://www.google.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Lyone Conner
To: Zac Shess; Andrei Obolenskiy; Amanda Szakats; Belle La; Sue Noack Cc: Ethan Bindernagel; janet.coleson; Troy Fujimoto; Haley Croffoot Subject: FW: Collaboration for a Safer Pleasant Hill: Extending the Land Use Study Date: Thursday, February 5, 2026 5:29:59 PM
Hello Mayor Shess and Councilmembers,
The below email related to zoning was submitted for your consideration.

Lyone
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 5:27 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street
Address:

City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Collaboration for a Safer Pleasant Hill: Extending the Land Use Study Question
or
Comment:

Dear Mayor Shess and Pleasant Hill City Councilmembers, As we approach critical decisions regarding the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study, I wanted to reach out with a spirit of collaboration. We all share the same goal: a vibrant, growing Pleasant Hill that remains safe and livable for every family who calls this city home.

I truly appreciate the work the Council has done to listen to residents in Gregory Gardens, East Vivian, and Poet’s Corner. By offering a Focused Fix for those neighborhoods, you’ve shown a commitment to correcting land-use designations that simply don't fit the reality of the community. I am writing to ask you to extend that same thoughtful consideration to Districts 1 and 4. By moving from a "Focused Fix" to an expanded review, the Council has an opportunity to create a truly unified vision for our city. We recognize that Pleasant Hill must meet its housing goals, and we want to help the city find the best solutions for that density. We can adjust the densities on Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill and add some density elsewhere 'in our own Districts' that will exceed the RHNA mandate. We want to contribute to that housing mix just like everyone else, but shouldn't District 1 and 4 also be at the table to discuss what is appropriate or not? A comprehensive study allows us to:

Protect our Shared Safety: By reviewing the hillsides together, we can ensure that housing is built at an appropriate density that accounts for the very real fire and landslide risks on our steepest slopes. Ensure Fairness: An expanded or comprehensive study ensures that no neighborhood feels left behind. It signals that every district in Pleasant Hill is held to the same high standards of suitability and safety. Strengthen the General Plan: Program F is a city-wide engine. Evaluating it through a comprehensive lens ensures that the fixes you make today won't lead to inconsistencies tomorrow. We aren't asking for a predetermined outcome, only for the opportunity to be part of a transparent, city-wide conversation. We want to work with you to ensure that the 2026 Land Use Study is a success for every resident.

Thank you for your hard work and for your dedication to a fair process for all five districts. Sincerely, Jim Lehman
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=18804 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Collaboration for a Safer Pleasant Hill: Extending the Land Use Study Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Pleasant Hill City Councilmembers, As we approach critical decisions regarding the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study, I wanted to reach out with a spirit of collaboration. We all share the same goal: a vibrant, growing Pleasant Hill that remains safe and livable for every family who calls this city home.

I am writing to ask you to extend that same thoughtful consideration to Districts 1 and 4.

By moving from a "Focused Fix" to an expanded review, the Council has an opportunity to create a truly unified vision for our city. We recognize that Pleasant Hill must meet its housing goals, and we want to help the city find the best solutions for that density. We can adjust the densities on Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill and add some density elsewhere 'in our own Districts' that will exceed the RHNA mandate. We want to contribute to that housing mix just like everyone else, but shouldn't District 1 and 4 also be at the table to discuss what is appropriate or not?
A comprehensive study allows us to:

Ensure Fairness: An expanded or comprehensive study ensures that no neighborhood feels left behind. It signals that every district in Pleasant Hill is held to the same high standards of suitability and safety.

Strengthen the General Plan: Program F is a city-wide engine. Evaluating it through a comprehensive lens ensures that the fixes you make today won't lead to inconsistencies tomorrow.

We aren't asking for a predetermined outcome, only for the opportunity to be part of a transparent, city-wide conversation. We want to work with you to ensure that the 2026 Land Use Study is a success for every resident.

Thank you for your hard work and for your dedication to a fair process for all five districts.

Sincerely,
Jim Lehman
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 2/5/2026 5:26:29 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.225.134.42
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Lyone Conner
To: Zac Shess; Andrei Obolenskiy; Amanda Szakats; Belle La; Sue Noack Cc: Ethan Bindernagel; janet.coleson; Troy Fujimoto; Haley Croffoot Subject: FW: Fairness Isn"t "Selective"—Districts 1 & 4 Demand Parity Date: Friday, February 6, 2026 10:41:06 AM
Hello Mayor Shess and Councilmembers,
The below email related to the General Plan and Land Use was submitted for your consideration.

Lyone
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 8:08 AM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street
Address:

City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

Email:* Carl Noble
Subject:* Fairness Isn't "Selective"—Districts 1 & 4 Demand Parity Question
or
Comment:

Dear Mayor and Pleasant Hill Councilmembers, I am writing today because the current proposal for the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study feels less like a planning exercise and more like a map of who the City is willing to listen to. By proposing a “Focused Fix” that only addresses Districts 2, 3, and 5, the Council is drawing a line through our city. You are essentially telling the residents of Districts 1 and 4 that our safety concerns regarding 35% slopes and high fire risks aren't worth the same attention you’re giving our neighbors. Why is one neighborhood's "mistake" worth fixing, while our neighborhood's "risk" is ignored? The issues with Program F are widespread. It is the same policy "engine" causing headaches in Gregory Gardens, East Vivian and Poet's Corner as it is on the hillsides of Morello and Paso Nogal.

Trying to fix a city-wide policy with a Focused Fix is logically inconsistent and, frankly, unfair. It treats the General Plan like a list of favorites where the Council picks and chooses which residents get protection and which are left to deal with the consequences of over-density. We are demanding a Comprehensive Approach. We are asking for: Procedural Parity: The same seat at the table you’ve already granted to other districts. Consistency: Acknowledging that if Program F is flawed for one area, it is flawed for other areas. A Unified City: Admitting that the city has the a robust RHNA mix to fix these errors for everyone without triggering state penalties.

We aren't asking for a favor. We are asking you to represent all five districts, not just a select few. Include Districts 1 and 4 in the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study scope. Sincerely, Carl Noble
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=18805 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: Carl Noble
Subject:: Fairness Isn't "Selective"—Districts 1 & 4 Demand Parity Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor and Pleasant Hill Councilmembers, I am writing today because the current proposal for the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study feels less like a planning exercise and more like a map of who the City is willing to listen to.

By proposing a “Focused Fix” that only addresses Districts 2, 3, and 5, the Council is drawing a line through our city. You are essentially telling the residents of Districts 1 and 4 that our safety concerns regarding 35% slopes and high fire risks aren't worth the same attention you’re giving our neighbors.

Why is one neighborhood's "mistake" worth fixing, while our neighborhood's "risk" is ignored? The issues with Program F are widespread. It is the same policy "engine" causing headaches in Gregory Gardens, East Vivian and Poet's Corner as it is on the hillsides of Morello and Paso Nogal. Trying to fix a city-wide policy with a Focused Fix is logically inconsistent and, frankly, unfair. It treats the General Plan like a list of favorites where the Council picks and chooses which residents get protection and which are left to deal with the consequences of overdensity.

We are demanding a Comprehensive Approach. We are asking for:

Procedural Parity: The same seat at the table you’ve already granted to other districts.

Consistency: Acknowledging that if Program F is flawed for one area, it is flawed for other areas.

A Unified City: Admitting that the city has the a robust RHNA mix to fix these errors for everyone without triggering state penalties.

We aren't asking for a favor. We are asking you to represent all five districts, not just a select few. Include Districts 1 and 4 in the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study scope.

Sincerely,
Carl Noble
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 2/6/2026 8:08:12 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.225.134.42
Referrer Page: https://preview11f10375c358c35199b9519217a3e8de.sitebuilderhostsite.net/ Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Lyone Conner
To: Zac Shess; Andrei Obolenskiy; Amanda Szakats; Belle La; Sue Noack Cc: Ethan Bindernagel; janet.coleson; Troy Fujimoto; Haley Croffoot Subject: FW: Include districts 1 and 4 in the 2026 land use survey Date: Monday, February 9, 2026 11:40:40 AM
Hello Mayor Shess and Councilmembers,
Please see the below email, which was submitted for your consideration.

Lyone
From: Victoria Menear <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 1:47 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Planning <[email protected]>; Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]> Subject: Include districts 1 and 4 in the 2026 land use survey CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am writing as a resident of District 1 to formally request that the scope of the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study looking at rezoning be expanded to include our neighborhood as well as District 4. Currently, several other districts are receiving focused attention regarding land-use amendments, yet Districts 1 and 4 face some of the most challenging developments in the city. Specifically, the highdensity designations for Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill must be re-evaluated.

These sites were added under significant pressure, but the 2026 Study Session provides the "second look" our community was promised. Please ensure Districts 1 and 4 are treated with the same priority as the rest of the city. Sincerely, Victoria Menear
From: Lyone Conner
To: Zac Shess; Andrei Obolenskiy; Amanda Szakats; Belle La; Sue Noack Cc: Ethan Bindernagel; janet.coleson; Troy Fujimoto; Haley Croffoot; Geoff Gillette Subject: FW: Inclusion of Districts 1 & 4 in the 2026 Land Use Study Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 9:27:44 AM
Hello Mayor Shess and Councilmembers,
The below email was submitted for your consideration.

Lyone
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2026 6:31 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street
Address:

City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Inclusion of Districts 1 & 4 in the 2026 Land Use Study Question
or
Comment:

Dear City Council, I am writing to formally request that Districts 1 and 4 be included in the upcoming 2026 General Plan Land Use Study. It is unacceptable that while other districts are being granted a "second look" at rezoning, the high-density designations for Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill are being ignored. We were not properly notified of these hillside changes originally, and we deserve the same opportunity for remedy as Districts 2, 3, and 5. Please ensure our safety and neighborhood character are prioritized this time around. Sincerely, JD 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=18793 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Inclusion of Districts 1 & 4 in the 2026 Land Use Study Question or Comment:: Dear City Council,
I am writing to formally request that Districts 1 and 4 be included in the upcoming 2026 General Plan Land Use Study. It is unacceptable that while other districts are being granted a "second look" at rezoning, the high-density designations for Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill are being ignored.

We were not properly notified of these hillside changes originally, and we deserve the same opportunity for remedy as Districts 2, 3, and 5. Please ensure our safety and neighborhood character are prioritized this time around.

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

Form submitted on: 1/31/2026 6:31:22 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.225.134.42
Referrer Page: https://foonn-woiars-scheeff.yolasite.com/ Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Zac Shess
Subject: General Plan 2040 - 2026 Revisions
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:32:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
Have to start by stating that I, like many other concerned citizens in the City of Pleasant Hill, am extremely disappointed to find that we should expect to hear nothing about the potential revisions to the General Plan documents in the first two months of the six month timeframe for the 2026 revisions to the General Plan 2040 Map & related Ordinances to be completed.

Furthermore, I have yet to see any indication WHEN there will be an opportunity for PUBLIC DISCUSSION of the merits of any existing or revised requirements !! You were copied on my email dated November 18th to then Vice-Mayor Shess. I want to make a couple of additions to that document as follows:

Item # 2: the rezoning of the residential properties on the East side of Shirley Drive to Mixeduse was inadvertently omitted from this group. A much better option for this would be to rezone the residences fronting on CCB between Viking & Allen Drives to mixed use.

Item # 3: the rezoning of the commercial / office properties on the North side of Gregory between Kahns & Helen could also include the first five residential properties on the East side of Helen. This would allow for a mega-block development of all these sites combined. But a new set of special regulations would be needed to maximize the development potential here.

Please include all of these documents in the Public Comments for the proposed revisions.

Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Saturday, January 31, 2026 9:46:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18795 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill, CA
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: General Plan Reopening - Districts 1 and 4 - 2026 Land Use Study Question or Comment:: Honorable Mayor and Council,
I am submitting this comment to urge the inclusion of the Morello Terraces (District 1) and Paso Nogal Hill (District 4) sites in the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study. The recent Comprehensive Zoning Update has "locked in" densities that are incompatible with the actual topography of these parcels.

Many of these areas exceed a 35% slope grade. Standard engineering and wildfire safety protocols suggest that high-density residential is inappropriate for such terrain. By omitting Districts 1 and 4 from the current General Plan reopening, the City is ignoring the "Zoning Gap" that exists between your map and the physical reality of the land.

We request a formal re-evaluation of these sites to ensure the General Plan is both safe and legally sound.

Respectfully,
Mike Lee
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 1/31/2026 9:46:07 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.225.134.42
Referrer Page: https://foonn-woiars-scheeff.yolasite.com/ Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Belle La
Subject: Housing Element Sites
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2026 3:20:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
There seems to be a great deal of confusion whether the eleven Housing Element Sites will be reopened as part of the 2026 General Plan & Zoning Map update currently underway. It would be well for the City Council to clarify whether that was their intent at their next meeting if not beforehand !
Two new sites that might be considered for Mixed-Use are the Wells Fargo Bank property (Add to the original Site "B") and the SF home sites facing CCB between Allen & Viking Drives. Are these being considered ?
Also, I still have unanswered questions regarding HE Site "A" - the North / Overflow Parking Lot at DVC. I believe that 7 of this 10 acre site are now zoned for 70 to 100 du / acre, yet the count of 350 was not increased when the coverage was (originally 5 acres). These numbers cannot all be true unless you are using some New Math that I am unfamiliar with !! In addition, as I read the applicable City Ordinances, they prohibit the use of this site for nonresident / commuter parking facilities when the housing is constructed. Please clarify both of these points ASAP !!
Please advise on all issues above !
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Sunday, February 1, 2026 7:30:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18797 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill, CA
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Include Districts 1 & 4 in the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study Question or Comment:: As residents of Pleasant Hill, we would like to formally request that the City Council expand the scope of the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study to include the hillside sites in Districts 1 and 4. As currently proposed, the study excludes the very areas that face the most significant environmental and safety hazards under the 2040 General Plan.

Our community is united behind the principle of Smart Growth. We are not anti-housing; we are pro-safety and pro-transparency. The current "Zoning Gap" between the high-density designations in the General Plan and the physical reality of these neighborhoods has created a dangerous situation that must be addressed during this rare "reopening" of the General Plan.

1. The Omission of Districts 1 and 4 is a Matter of Inequity The Council has rightly acknowledged that a "second look" is needed for neighborhoods in Districts 2, 3, and 5 due to concerns over high-density rezoning. However, Districts 1 and 4—specifically the areas around Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill—have been excluded. These neighborhoods were not properly notified of the initial up-zoning, and to deny us the same remedy granted to other districts is a failure of civic fairness.

2. The Danger of Program EEE (Sloped Site Incentives)
Our most urgent concern lies with Program EEE. The City’s own Housing Element admits these sites are topographically constrained, with slopes exceeding 35% grade. Rather than designating these areas for low-impact housing, Program EEE perversely offers "incentives" to developers—such as increased height and density—to make these high-risk projects "feasible."
Landslide Risk: Building high-density structures on 35% slopes creates severe geotechnical risks for the entire surrounding area.

Fire Safety: These sites are located in High Fire Severity Zones. Program EEE encourages the placement of hundreds of residents on narrow, winding roads that are already insufficient for emergency evacuation.

3. The Impacts of Program F and Mixed-Use Designations
Like our neighbors in Gregory Gardens, East Vivian and Poet’s Corner, we are deeply concerned by the mandates in Program F. When combined with new Mixed-Use designations, these policies threaten to irrevocably change the character of single-family neighborhoods and overwhelm local infrastructure that was never designed for this level of intensity.

4. The 2026 Study is an Opportunity for All
This Land Use Study represents the only legal window to align our zoning with the actual realities of our neighborhoods. This is an opportunity for open discussion and to involve the entirety of the City. Don't limit it to a select few areas.

Our Request:

We ask that you include Districts 1 and 4 in the 2026 Land Use Study. Pleasant Hill deserves a plan that works for all five districts, not just three. We look forward to seeing the Council demonstrate its commitment to safety and equity at the upcoming City Council meetings.

Residents of Pleasant Hill in Districts 1 and 4
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 2/1/2026 7:30:30 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.225.134.42
Referrer Page: https://foonn-woiars-scheeff.yolasite.com/ Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 9, 2026 11:14:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18863 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Zoning and Land Use Study 3/16/26
Question or Comment:: Dear Pleasant Hill City Council,
As you prepare for the March 16th General Plan Study Session, I am encouraged by recent discussions regarding the correction of zoning errors in Gregory Gardens, Poet's Corner and East Vivian. This demonstrates that the 2040 General Plan is a living document that can be improved with generous community input.

In the same vein, I also urge you to use this session to address the critical "mismatches" in Districts 1 and 4. We do not have to choose between State RHNA compliance and protecting our natural resources. We can achieve both by:

Correcting the Hillside "Mistake": Consider altering the high-density Program F requirements from the Morello and Paso Nogal hillsides in District 4. These sites are environmentally constrained and unsuited for the high density mandated in that Program. Reduce the dwelling units and encourage building at the scale of nearby neighborhoods, like multifamily town homes, and 4-plexes.

The "Infill Swap": Because State law requires no net loss when making General Plan or Housing Element amendments, the Council can easily consider transferring that density to the DVC Overflow Lot and the Black Angus site. These are 100% paved, transit-adjacent, and better suited for the high-density housing the State requires. We would prefer the swap to be within our Districts, but the Black Angus site was mentioned merely because so many have mentioned it to be an ideal site for housing.

Let’s ensure the March 16th session results in a plan that is fair to all five districts. Please follow the precedent set in Districts 2, 3, and 5 and fix the density blueprints for Districts 1 and 4.

Best regards,
Mary Amber
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/9/2026 11:14:34 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 185.165.243.59
Referrer Page: https://www.google.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Saturday, January 31, 2026 9:13:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18794 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Protecting our Hillsides: Please Include Districts 1 & 4 Question or Comment:: Dear Council Members,
As a long-time resident of Pleasant Hill, I was heartened to hear the Council is reopening the General Plan to fix overly aggressive zoning. However, I am deeply concerned to see that Districts 1 and 4 have been left out of this study.

Building high-density housing on steep slopes like Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill isn't just a land-use issue; it’s a safety issue. Our narrow roads cannot handle the traffic, the hills are prone to landslides, and our fire evacuation routes will be compromised.

Please don't leave us behind while you address concerns in other parts of the city. We ask for parity and a seat at the table to discuss a smarter vision for our hills.

Best regards,
Jen C.

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

Form submitted on: 1/31/2026 9:13:30 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.225.134.42
Referrer Page: https://foonn-woiars-scheeff.yolasite.com/ Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: tom branch
To: Andrei Obolenskiy; Haley Croffoot
Subject: Public Comment: Priority Workplan Goals for City Goal #3 (Meeting Feb 9th) Date: Sunday, February 8, 2026 9:45:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
As a resident invested in the future of our community, I am writing to provide input on the City’s Priority Workplan for the next two years. Specifically, I am requesting that the Council add or revise the priorities under City Goal #3: A City that is attractive, wellplanned, and well-maintained to include the following two critical objectives:

Objective: Community-Centered Review of the General Plan and Zoning Updates • Suggested Goal Text: "Conduct a community-centered review of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance updates to identify potential changes that better reflect resident input and community priorities."
• Why This Matters: Meaningful community outreach should be a prerequisite for change, not an afterthought. By making this a priority, the City commits to engaging residents early in the process rather than limiting public input to formal hearings where plans are often already finalized.

Objective: Direct Notification for All Affected Property Owners • Suggested Goal Text: "Adopt a City policy requiring direct notification to all property owners affected by proposed zoning changes during the General Plan process, in addition to any zoning update notifications, to ensure transparency and meaningful public participation."
• Why This Matters: Transparency is the foundation of public trust. All property owners deserve to be notified directly when their properties are proposed for rezoning during the General Plan process, ensuring they have the opportunity to participate before decisions reach the final ordinance stage.

Our General Plan should reflect the people who live here. Incorporating these goals into the Workplan will ensure that the development process is transparent, inclusive, and truly community driven.

I urge you to adopt these revisions during this Monday’s Special Council Meeting.

Sincerely,
Tom Branch
Resident, Pleasant Hill
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: Deana Rabbach
To: Andrei Obolenskiy; [email protected] Cc: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Public Comment: Priority Workplan Goals for City Goal #3 (Meeting Feb 9th) Date: Sunday, February 8, 2026 9:37:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

A City that is attractive, well-planned, and well-maintained to include the following two critical objectives:

Objective: Community-Centered Review of the General Plan and Zoning Updates • Suggested Goal Text: "Conduct a community-centered review of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance updates to identify potential changes that better reflect resident input and community priorities." • Why This Matters: Meaningful community outreach should be a prerequisite for change, not an afterthought. By making this a priority, the City commits to engaging residents early in the process rather than limiting public input to formal hearings where plans are often already finalized.

Our General Plan should reflect the people who live here. Incorporating these goals into the Workplan will ensure that the development process is transparent, inclusive, and truly community driven.

I urge you to adopt these revisions during this Monday’s Special Council Meeting.

Sincerely,
Deana Rabbach
Resident, Pleasant Hill
From: Sara Kelley
To: Andrei Obolenskiy; Haley Croffoot
Subject: Questions Regarding Rezoning Decisions & Alternative Housing Opportunity Locations that Would Save the East Vivian Neighborhoods
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 10:32:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hi Andrei,
I look forward to your support helping the East Vivian residents amend the Housing Element. As requested, I have put together a list of questions and alternative housing opportunity locations that I would like you, your fellow council members and the planning commission to consider and provide insight on.

Targeting of the East Vivian Neighborhood
We would like the Planning Department to explain why the East Vivian neighborhood was specifically targeted for rezoning. More broadly, why is the City targeting areas with existing homes for rezoning—particularly in one of the most affordable neighborhoods in Pleasant Hill—rather than focusing on vacant or underutilized commercial parcels?
If it is inevitable that the East Vivian neighborhood be rezoned, is it possible to just include the houses directly on Contra Costa and not the entire neighborhood? If the East Vivian neighborhood is rezoned, is it possible to amend the mixed-use guidelines to eliminate certain uses that would increase traffic (narrow streets with no sidewalks), and potentially risk the safety of all the young children that live in the area? (Remove options like low barrier navigation centers, mobile home parks, theaters, transitional housing, banks, and live entertainment inside of a building). If the goal is really more housing then why allow these options; why not change zoning to high-density multifamily residential?
Alternative Housing Opportunity Locations:

Black Angus Lot
The Black Angus site has been vacant for several years, and the property owner has previously brought housing development concepts to the Planning Commission.

Why were those proposals denied?
Additionally, while the site is currently zoned for hotel use, given the City’s stated housing needs, why was the zoning not changed to allow residential development as part of the recent zoning update?
Turning the empty Black Angus lot into mixed-use will create housing + the commercial element will support the city's needs from a revenue perspective.

This location has been vacant for multiple years, thus generating ZERO revenue for the city. We do not need another hotel in Pleasant Hill. The city's residents should be first and foremost in how the General Plan and Housing Element is determined, how much money the city can make should be secondary and not the deciding factor in what gets built where.

This location is in walking distance to public transportation and neighborhood shops.

I know you brought up that the state will not allow a housing unit to be built at that site because of the proximity to the freeway, but East Vivian is adjacent to the freeway. Why was that same concern not a concern when the East Vivian neighborhood was rezoned?
Can you please confirm why this location was not considered in the initial housing plan and why it cannot be considered now? If a petition from Pleasant Hill residents supporting a mixed-use development in this location is needed, I would be happy to initiate one.

Old Rite Aid Location
This is the perfect location for a mixed use development. This is in a prime location to downtown Pleasant Hill and can provide multiple housing units and commercial spaces.

If this location is not being considered, I would like to understand why.

Old Bed, Bath & Beyond Location
This is the perfect location for a mixed use development as well. This is in a prime location and can provide multiple housing units and commercial spaces.

If this location is not being considered, I would like to understand why.

Pleasant Hill Executive Park on Taylor Blvd.

There are multiple office and business sites along Taylor Boulevard and Gregory Lane with large surface parking lots that appear suitable for mixeduse development (office or commercial on the ground floor with housing above), the Pleasant Hill Executive Park on Taylor Blvd. being one of them.

Why were these opportunities not pursued in the zoning update? Is it possible to rezone these areas for mixed use and, in turn, reduce the amount of mixeduse zoning applied to East Vivian? This is another prime location for a mixed use development. This site would provide multiple housing units and commercial spaces.

This location is within walking distance to public transportation, shops, and traffic would benefit from the newly designed intersection at Taylor and Contra Costa Blvd.

Why wasn't this site initially considered?
If this location is not being considered, I would like to understand why.

Mangini Delu Property
There is a reason why the Mangini site has been on the list as a housing opportunity for the last 16 years.

There's no reason why this property should not be included in the housing element and designated as mixed-use.

This location is currently vacant.

This location resides in a central location of the city with the proper thoroughfare to support the additional traffic additional housing would create, unlike the East Vivian neighborhood.

This location is in walking distance to other commercial and retail locations.

It honestly makes ZERO sense why this property was not included in the housing plan.

Why was a vacant lot such as the Mangini Delu property zoned for less dense housing compared to areas like East Vivian/West Sherman Acres, which contain existing homes?
Fair Oaks Neighborhood
This neighborhood is adjacent to the Kohl's/Dick's commercial site.

This is the perfect location for mixed-use.

This location is near public transportation and accessible to the freeway.

Why was this neighborhood not included in the housing plan? Vacant Parcels on Geary Road
There are vacant or underutilized parcels along Geary Road. Why were these areas not zoned for higher-density housing options such as condos or townhomes, instead of maintaining single-family zoning on larger parcels?
I appreciate your support and any insight City Council and/or the Planning Staff and/or City Manager can provide on these questions. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,
Sara Kelley
From: Jack Prosek
To: Zac Shess
Cc: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Re: PH 2040 General Plan
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2025 10:11:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Mayor Shess -
Having listened to most of both the December 1st & 15th City council meetings, I have to say that I am disappointed to realize that I heard absolutely nothing about your plans to get off to a quick start on the process to revise the General Plan 2040 & Zoning Maps & related City Ordinances. I do expect that it will be challenging to complete this work, including all the desired Public Meetings & the required Public Hearings by the promised date of June 30, 2026. This effort is further compounded by the need to prepare the City Budget for the next two FY's during the very same timeframe.

Hope to hear much more very soon . . . . .

Jack Prosek
zz
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 8:13 AM Zac Shess <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Prosek -
Thank you for providing your input in these two correspondences. I appreciate you taking the time to let me know your thoughts. I will review and consider it.

Best,
Zac Shess
Vice Mayor, City of Pleasant Hill
On Nov 18, 2025, at 4:26 AM, Jack Prosek <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Vice Mayor Shess -
Further as to my email to you dated October 21st regarding the PH 2040 General Plan . . . . .
1- In order to achieve a better outcome than the last effort received, it is my recommendation that the next Mayor appoint a NINE Member GPAC for the 2026 revisions to the 2040 General Plan as follows:

City Officials: Sue Noack, Amanda Szakats, Chad Wyler & Will Nelson
Public Members: one from each of the five Election District who are NOT residents / owners of the recently rezoned properties 2- Based on the reaction from residents of these areas, the General Plan & Zoning Maps for four areas of the City deserve additional study as follows:
- the area that the City Officials now refer to as "East Vivian" - I believe that this was originally known as West Sherman Acres.
- the home sites on the north side of Gregory Lane starting just east of Helen Road & ending at the CC Canal.
- the home sites on the south side of Gregory Lane just east of Kahrs Ave - known as part of the Julian Woods PUD / HOA.
- the portion of PUD 410 that is west of Grayson Creek.

It is my understanding that any potential housing units that are removed from these locations will have to be added in other areas of the City in order to achieve a Net Zero impact on the number of housing units that could be developed under the 2040 General Plan.
3- To that list I would add four others:
- rezone the residential properties on the east side of Susan Lane to allow for the redevelopment of the GG Shopping Center as a single mega-block project. - the potential housing development of the Smith Family properties addressed as 239 thru 247 Gregory Lane.
- the potential benefits for the Rec & Park District's Winslow Center property to allow residential buildings at the same or a higher density as the farm properties.
- the two commercial / office properties on the north side of Gregory between Kahrs & Helen.
4- The related City Ordinances also need further study - these include the following:
a. the requirement for commercial spaces to face the main street frontage is the same "old school" thinking that gave us the typical suburban strip mall with the parking lot out in front of the building - see Section 18.20.040-O on page 86.

That was a good idea in the decades before we all had the Map Apps & Google search features that allow anyone to easily find any business they are looking for. This Restriction should be entirely deleted.
b. the 25% requirement severely limits the size & shape of any residential development above because the ground floor level has to accommodate two fire exit stairs, an elevator & a mailbox / lobby in addition to the commercial uses - see Table 18.20-C on page 82. Recommend that this be reduced to 20% or less as appropriate.
c. the revised height limits have repeatedly been challenged, yet the Public has never received any explanation as to how these numbers were established - see Tables 18.15-B & 18.20-B. Here are my recommendations for changes to the various Zoning / General Plan designations:

MFL / MFLD - from 35' to 40' - unchanged in the 2040 GP MFM / MFMD - from 40' to 50' - ditto
MFH / MFHD - from 50' to 60' - ditto
MX-NB / MUD - from 35' to 40' - ditto
MX / MD - from 50' to 60' - increased from 40' to 50' in the current GP
MX-HD / MUHD - from 60' to 70' - increased from 50' to 60' in the current GP
These heights are based on my belief that four levels of residential units is the most economical way to build wood framed multi-family housing. Either 3 or 5 stories are less economical; two stories will never pencil out today because of the ADA access requirements for an elevator. These limits are especially critical for all of the City that is east of Grayson Creek due to the relatively high water table which severely limits the practicality of having two-level parking garages entirely below grade. We may also want to investigate a reduction in the Building Code / ADA requirements for an elevator & a second stair for the MX-NB / MUD Zoning / Planning designations.
d. in addition to the above height increases, I believe that the height limits for the Mangini-Delu properties west of the creek should be increased to 60' - taller buildings will allow for an increased amount of open space surrounding those buildings without overshadowing the nearby residences. e. the Signage Ordinances will also need to be revised as appropriate for the main street frontage to accommodate the new building layouts. f. the Parking requirements in Section 18.80 need to be thoroughly reviewed for compliance with the City Council Goal to "insulate surrounding land uses from adverse impacts". The related issues include: assigned spaces for individual businesses for more than 20% of the spaces in commercial lots is inefficient; two car garages for smaller single family homes is excessive, but spaces in driveways are needed, especially as lot sizes shrink; & compliance with the latest State Laws for all Residential Occupancies. Every occupancy should have sufficient parking to meet its needs at least 90% of the time. g. the requirements to underground existing utility services along property boundaries need to be totally revised to provide a more reasonable & equitable approach towards achieving this Goal. It is inordinately costly to accomplish this where there is a net reduction of less than six poles & inequitable to burden a property based on decisions that were made decades ago ! See 18.55.090.

I am unaware of any actual DISCUSSION of these Ordinance revisions with the Public once the Staff put their conclusions into an actual DRAFT document.

Please let me know where I can review the documentation of any such DISCUSSIONS that I may have missed. They certainly did NOT occur in any meaningful measure at any of the various Study Sessions & Public Hearings of either the Planning Commission or the City Council.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding any of these items ! Jack Prosek aka
John R. Prosek, Jr PE
48-year PH Resident / Homeowner
Creator of Map # 5 for PH District Elections
zz
On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 12:25 PM Jack Prosek <[email protected]> wrote:

Vice Mayor Shess -
Assuming that the three new Council Members don't decide to gang up and "Weir" you like happened here in 2013, you will be the new Mayor of PH come December 1st. For that reason, I want to pass along my first thoughts regarding the proposed update to the 2040 General Plan Map. The related City Ordinances should be reviewed as well.

Early on I found it difficult to exactly see where some of the locations were at. I requested that Staff break the City-wide maps such that anyone could easily print them out on letter-size paper using their home computer. That never happened, but for the most recent Public Hearings, Staff did break the City into four rather awkward quadrants. Now that we have five relatively compact Election Districts, I would suggest that the detailed maps correspond to those boundaries !
I am unaware of any actual back & forth discussions with the Public having taken place once the Staff put their ideas down on the DRAFT Maps. Yes - there was lots of Public input beforehand, and Yes - there were lots of Public Hearings afterwards, but only the City Officials get to have responses there to their questions at those times. It is extremely frustrating NOT being able to get any information on the basis for the Staff recommendations.

Almost all of the attention was focused on the Housing Element Sites A thru L plus MT & PN while little was being said, much less highlighted, for all the other changes that Staff was making on the General Plan Map. That drained all of the energy away from the places that are now at issue.

The lack of significant new projects going thru the Planning & Approval process during the last two years is alarming - it demonstrates that the Restrictions in the Pleasant Hill Ordinances do not encourage development - this is in stark contrast to all the new construction we see going on right next door in Concord. My favorite one is the building height limits, especially for Medium & High Density Residential & Mixed-Use developments, but there are many more !!
The attached "RHNA Histogram" revised 3/20/2025 that I prepared earlier this year clearly depicts the shortfall and based on Planning activity so far during this year, I expect to see the RED zone to expand ever larger when the new annual numbers are available in February . . . . . THIS is the REAL ISSUE - not the two-year deadline for matching the Maps ! I would suggest that widely-publicized separate Public meetings be held for each Election District - open to all concerned Residents & Property Owners.

These should be done between Wednesday January 7th & Thursday February 5th so that the City Council does not get backed into a corner once again.

Jack Prosek
48-year Resident
zz
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:29:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18865 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Formal Comment for March 16 Study Session: A Proposed Framework for Equitable Housing Distribution, Environmental Protection, and Procedural Transparency Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, As the City Council convenes for the March 16th Study Session, I am writing to propose a comprehensive path forward for our General Plan Amendments. While I appreciate the Council’s recent willingness to address zoning inconsistencies in some Districts, I believe this session is the critical moment to apply that same standard of corrective excellence for all Districts.

We are no longer operating under the initial deadline pressures of the Housing Element cycle. This allows the City to transition from a reactive "compliance at all costs" model to a more forward thinking and deliberative "Community-Centered Planning" model. I respectfully urge the Council to direct Staff to evaluate the following city-wide framework:

1. Equitable Density Distribution (The "Infill Swap")
The current Plan places high-density "Program F" blueprints on topographically challenged and environmentally sensitive lands as well as well-established single family neighborhoods. I propose a strategic transfer of density:

Protect Natural Assets and Single Family Designations: Revert some of the Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill sites to a gentler density more in-line with neighboring developments and better suited for steep hillsides. These hillsides are ecological assets, not high-density housing corridors.

Utilize Underutilized Infill: Offset these unit losses by maximizing the DVC Overflow Lot and the Black Angus site. These 100% paved, "High Resource" sites can support the "Very High Density" required for RHNA without degrading ridgelines or existing residential character.

2. Protecting District 2, 3 and 5 Neighborhood Character Growth must be compatible with the unique "Pleasant Hill" feel of the City. Maximize usage of Missing Middle Housing rather than Mixed Use or High Density housing.

3. Correcting "Mistakes"
I support the Council's intent to fix errors in some areas. To be fair, all errors in all Districts identified should be fixed. Then these corrections must be codified through a formal General Plan Amendment that ensures these areas are protected from incompatible high-density and mixed-use encroachment, maintaining the "Missing Middle" scale that defines these areas.

4. A Framework for Radical Transparency and Notification Trust in the General Plan is built on communication. I ask the Council to establish a formal Direct Notification Policy:

Mandatory Notice: Direct mailers to all property owners within 500 feet of a proposed General Plan amendment or rezoning, using plain language to explain the impact.

Expert-Led Engagement: Facilitate three community workshops featuring City Staff and planning consultants to allow for a deep-dive into the rationale behind land-use decisions.

Public Review Period: A mandatory 30-day window for public comment on all recommended changes prior to any final vote.

Our community is not a collection of parcels; it is a tapestry of neighborhoods where families have built their lives.

We can meet our housing obligations while honoring our environment and our residents. I ask that you hold 3/16/26's study session with the courage to improve this plan for all five districts.

Respectfully,
Andrew Dock
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/10/2026 11:29:24 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 149.34.244.132
Referrer Page: https://www.bing.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:03:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18864 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Public Comment for March 16 Study Session: A Request for Transparency and a Better Path for Districts 1 & 4
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to share my sincere hope for the March 16th Study Session. As a resident who cares deeply about the future of our neighborhoods, I see this session as a critical opportunity to move toward a more collaborative process, one that fixes the acknowledged flaws in our current General Plan while still meeting our housing obligations.

I appreciate the Council’s willingness to review mistakes in Districts 2, 3, and 5. However, for this process to be truly successful, it must be applied equitably to the "Program F" density blueprints in Districts 1 and 4. We can meet our RHNA goals without forcing high-density projects on the sensitive hillsides of Morello Terraces or Paso Nogal Hill, but it requires an honest look at better alternatives.

To ensure this session marks the beginning of a thoughtful, expert-led process, I respectfully request that the Council adopt the following framework:

A "Density Swap" Study: Direct staff to evaluate the feasibility of partially moving some of the 298 units currently slated for District 4 hillsides to high-resource, 100% paved sites like the DVC Overflow Lot and the Black Angus site.

Community-Led Workshops: I suggest a series of three staff- and consultant- facilitated meetings where residents can engage directly with the planning experts and consultants who built this plan. We need to understand the "why" behind these designations to offer constructive alternatives.

Direct Notification Policy: The Council has acknowledged that past outreach fell short. I ask that you establish a formal policy requiring direct, plain-language mailers to any property owner within 500 feet of a proposed General Plan amendment or rezoning.

A 30-Day Review Period: Any proposed changes should be published and made available for public review for at least 30 days prior to adoption.

We are no longer under the same immediate deadline pressures that rushed the initial plan. This is our chance to pause and ensure that the path forward is the best one for Pleasant Hill, not just the easiest one. Our community and our sensitive natural landscapes are worth the extra effort it takes to get this right.

Respectfully,
Chan Yan-King
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/10/2026 11:03:18 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 159.26.99.228
Referrer Page: https://www.bing.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137

Pleasant Hill City CouncilMarch 16, 2026

Pleasant Hill City Council
March 16, 2026