Pleasant Hill City Council
April 6, 2026

Less than significant impact. Consistent with the
findings of the General Plan EIR, development
facilitated by the CAP would be required to be
built to current seismic standards established by
the CBC that could better withstand the adverse
effects of strong ground shaking. The depth to
which ground disturbance would occur would
be insignificant and would be highly unlikely to
directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving the rupture of a known earthquake
fault, strong ground shaking, seismic related
ground failure, and landslides. adherence to the
regulations such as those established by the
State Water Resources Control Board as well as
local regulations would ensure projects under
the CAP would not result in substantial soil
erosion and loss of topsoil. Development under
the CAP would adhere to CBC standards to
ensure that impacts from development on
potentially expansive soils would be less than
significant. Additionally, the City is served by
existing sewer infrastructure and no septic tanks
are proposed as a part of the Project. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant,
consistent with the findings of the General Plan
EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 307 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 53 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Impact General Plan EIR Level of
Significance Proposed Project
Future seismic events could result in
liquefaction and lateral spreading of soils
within the city. Development in the
General Plan area could be subject to
liquefaction hazards. Compliance with
the CBC would reduce liquefaction
hazards. Proposed Health, Safety, and
HazMat goals and policies apply to
development facilitated by the proposed
plan in hazard zones for liquefaction or
lateral spreading of soils. Impacts would
be less than significant.

Development facilitated by the 2040
General Plan would occur on urbanized
sites that are served by existing sanitation
infrastructure. New development would
not include septic systems. There would
be no impact.

Paleontological Resources. Less than significant with mitigation.

Development facilitated by the 2040
General Plan has the potential to impact
paleontological resources. Impacts would
be less than significant with adherence to
Mitigation Measure GEO-1.

Less than significant with mitigation. Although the
discovery of paleontological resources is
unlikely, these ground disturbing activities have
potential to encounter previously undiscovered
unique paleontological resources. Adherence to
the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure GEO1 is required to ensure development does not destroy a unique paleontological resource.

Consistent with the analysis and conclusions of
the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure GEO1 would continue to reduce impacts related to the destruction of unique paleontological
resources or unique geologic features below the
level of significance; there would be no new or
greater impacts than those identified in the
General Plan EIR.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Generate emissions that would
exceed a threshold; consistency
with applicable plans.

Significant and unavoidable impact. Pleasant
Hill does not have a Climate Action Plan.

Therefore, implementation of the 2040
General Plan would not meet State 2030
and 2045 goals. Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 and GHG-2 would result in
adoption of CEQA GHG thresholds and a
Climate Action Plan; however,
development facilitated by the 2040
General Plan would not meet the 2030
and 2045 goals until the CAP is adopted.

This impact would be significant and
unavoidable.

Less than significant impact. Implementation of
the Project would introduce a CAP to the City
that would serve as a guiding document toward
GHG reductions in municipal operations and
throughout the community. As a result,
implementation of the CAP would not conflict
with any applicable GHG reduction plan and
would guide the City in reducing
communitywide GHG emissions. These efforts
would not conflict with an existing plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHGs. Rather, the CAP would be
consistent with and support Statewide plans,
policies, and regulations pertaining to the
reduction of GHG emissions. Adoption of the
CAP would ensure that projects facilitated by
the 2040 General Plan would meet statewide
GHG reduction goals, making this impact no
longer significant and unavoidable. Therefore,
there would be no new or greater impacts than
those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 308 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 54 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Impact General Plan EIR Level of
Significance Proposed Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Routine transport, use or
disposal. Hazardous materials
within ¼ mile of a school, upset
and accident. Hazardous
material site Government Code
Section 65962.5.

Less than significant impact. Development
facilitated by the 2040 General Plan could
result in the release of potentially
hazardous materials, which may occur
within 0.25 mile of a school. However,
compliance with local, regional, State,
and federal regulations related to
hazardous materials would minimize the
risk of releases and exposure to these
materials. Development facilitated by the
2040 General Plan could result in
development on sites contaminated with
hazardous materials. However,
compliance with applicable regulations
relating to site remediation.

Less than significant impact. With compliance to
applicable standards and regulations and
adherence to manufacturer’s instructions related
to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials, the CAP would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials, including within 0.25 mile
of a school. While there is potential for a
proposed action to be located on a site included
on a list of hazardous materials compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5,
any such action would be required to follow all
applicable state and local regulations related to
activities conducted on hazardous materials
sties. Furthermore, none of the actions proposed
in the CAP would encourage the new or
increased use of, or concentration of, hazardous
materials, more than these chemicals or
materials might currently be used or
concentrated. Therefore, consistent with the
findings of the General Plan EIR, compliance
with local, regional, State, and Federal
regulations related to hazardous materials
would ensure that impacts would be less than
significant; there would be no new or greater
impacts than those identified in the General Plan
EIR.

Proximity to aviation facilities Less than significant impact. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan
would not result in significantly
increased airport and airstrip activity.

Compliance with State and federal
regulations, Contra Costa Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan, and proposed
2040 General Plan policies would
minimize safety hazards and disturbance
to people residing or working within
proximity of the Buchanan Field Airport.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than significant impact. Consistent with the
findings of the General Plan EIR,
implementation of actions proposed in the CAP
would be required to comply with Federal and
State regulations, regulations the Contra Costa
ALUCP, and General Plan goals and policies
pertaining to airport operations to ensure that
the implementation of actions proposed in the
CAP would not result in a safety hazard for
people working or residing in a future project
area under the CAP. Thus, the proposed Project
would have less than significant impacts related
to airport land use. Therefore, there would be no
new or greater impacts than those identified in
the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 309 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 55 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Impact General Plan EIR Level of
Significance Proposed Project
Interfere with emergency
response
Significant and unavoidable impact.

Development facilitated by the 2040
General Plan would result in additional
population and vehicle miles traveled in
the city. However, the proposed plan
would not result in changes to emergency
evacuation routes nor would
substantially increase roadway
congestion such that the use of an
evacuation route would be hindered.
construction impacts related to
emergency response and evacuation
would be less than significant. However,
Although the 2040 General Plan includes
policies and programs that would
address emergency response and
emergency evacuation, guidance
resulting from compliance with AB 747
and SB 99 is not currently available. As
such, the 2040 General Plan operational
impacts related to impairment of an
adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan would be
significant and unavoidable and even
adherence to Mitigation Measures HAZ1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3 would not reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Construction and operational activities
associated with future CAP actions would be
subject to the City’s policies and regulations
related to the emergency response, including
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ3. Thus, the proposed Project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan and there would be
no new or greater impacts than those identified
in the General Plan EIR
Hydrology and Water Quality
Violate water quality standards,
impact groundwater,
substantially degrade
groundwater.

Less than significant impact.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan
would involve ground-disturbing
activities during construction that could
temporarily increase the potential for
water quality to be affected by
sedimentation or an accidental spill or
release of hazardous materials. However,
with adherence to applicable water
quality standards, waste discharge
requirements, and proposed General Plan
policies, impacts would be less than
significant.

Development facilitated by the 2040
General Plan would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan. Impacts
would be less than significant.

Development facilitated by the 2040
General Plan would not pump water
from the local groundwater basin and
would not introduce substantial new
areas of impermeable surfaces such that
the rates or patterns of groundwater
recharge from infiltration would be
Less than significant impact. Future CAP actions
would be required to comply with all applicable
SFBRWQCB requirements to ensure
implementation of the CAP would not violate
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or degrade surface or ground
water quality. The CAP would not substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge in a manner that may
impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin. There would be no new or greater
impacts than those identified in the General Plan
EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 310 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 56 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Impact General Plan EIR Level of
Significance Proposed Project
affected. Impacts would be less than
significant.

Alter drainage patterns, create
runoff that exceeds capacity of
stormwater drainage. Alter the
course of a stream or river.

Less than significant impact. Development
facilitated by the 2040 General Plan
would not alter the course of a stream or
river or substantially alter existing
drainage patterns, including through
new impervious surfaces, and regulatory
requirements as well as policies to protect
and improve drainage patterns would
minimize erosion, flooding, and runoff.

Less than significant impact. Development
facilitated by the CAP would not alter the course
of a stream or river or substantially alter existing
drainage patterns, including through new
impervious surfaces, and adherence to
regulatory requirements established to protect
and improve drainage patterns would ensure
that impacts from runoff, erosion, and flooding
are minimized. There would be no new or
greater impacts than those identified in the
General Plan EIR.

Impacted by flooding, seiche,
tsunami; risk of release of
pollutants.

Less than significant impact. Development
facilitated by the 2040 General Plan
would not increase existing potential for
inundation within flood hazard areas to
occur and would not introduce
substantial new pollutant sources that
could potentially be released due to
inundation. Impacts would be less than
significant.

Less than significant impact. Development
facilitated by the CAP would not increase
existing potential for inundation within flood
hazard areas to occur and would not introduce
substantial new pollutant sources that could
potentially be released due to inundation. There
would be no new or greater impacts than those
identified in the General Plan EIR.

Land Use and Planning
Physically divide a community. Less than significant impact.

Implementation of the proposed 2040
General Plan would maintain orderly
development in Pleasant Hill and would
not physically divide an established
community.

No impact. The CAP would not have the
potential to physically divide established
communities and no impact would occur;
therefore, there would be no new or greater
impacts than those identified in the General Plan
EIR.

Consistency with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation
Less than significant impact.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan
would be generally consistent with
applicable land use plans, policies, or
regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate
environmental effects, such as
ABAG/MTC Plan Bay Area 2050.

Less than significant impact. Implementation of
the CAP would not facilitate growth or
population growth beyond what was
anticipated in the General Plan. As such, the
CAP would not conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect;
there would be no new or greater impacts than
those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Mineral Resources
Loss of mineral resources. No impact. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not have the
potential to impact mineral resources.

There would be no impact.

No impact. The proposed Project would not
preclude recovery of mineral resources or result
in the loss of mineral resources. There would be
no new or greater impacts than those identified
in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 311 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 57 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Impact General Plan EIR Level of
Significance Proposed Project
Noise
Construction and operational
noise.

Significant and Unavoidable. Construction
of individual projects facilitated by the
2040 General Plan would temporarily
increase noise levels, potentially affecting
nearby noise sensitive land uses.

Development facilitated by the 2040
General Plan would also introduce new
noise sources and contribute to increases
in operational noise. The continued
regulation of noise, consistent with the
City Code and implementation of
proposed 2040 General Plan policies
would minimize disturbance to adjacent
land uses. However, construction and
operational mobile noise could exceed
standards. This impact would be
significant and unavoidable even with
adherence to Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

Less than significant with mitigation. Long-term
implementation of the CAP actions would not
result in exposure of persons to noise in excess
of established standards or ground borne noise
or vibration, nor would it result in a temporary,
periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels above existing levels. Operationally,
implementation of the actions described above
would not introduce stationary or
transportation-related sources of groundborne
vibration or noise. Implementation of the CAP
would not result in substantial temporary
increases in noise levels that would adversely
affect human health or well-being in the
community and would not generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels with adherence to Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 and NOI-2. Therefore, no additional
mitigation would be required and there would
be no new or greater impacts than those
identified in the certified General Plan EIR. Construction and operational groundborne vibration.

Less than significant with mitigation.

Construction of individual projects
facilitated by the 2040 General Plan
would temporarily generate
groundborne vibration and noise,
potentially affecting nearby land uses.

Adherence to Mitigation Measure NOI2, would reduce this impact to less than significant. Operation of development
facilitated by the 2040 General Plan
would not result in substantial
groundborne vibration and noise.

Located near airport or airstrip. Less than significant impact. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan near
major transportation-noise sources may
experience noise levels that exceed noise
land use compatibility standards but
would not result in a direct increase in
airport and airstrip activity. Proposed
General Plan policies require analysis of
projects that may exceed contours for
exterior noise compliance. The continued
regulation of airport noise consistent with
State and federal regulations and
implementation of proposed General
Plan policies and the Contra Costa
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
would also minimize disturbance to
people residing or working in proximity
of the Buchanan Field Airport. Impacts
would be less than significant.

Less than significant impact. Consistent with the
findings of the General Plan EIR,
implementation of actions proposed in the CAP
would be required to comply with Federal and
State regulations, regulations the Contra Costa
ALUCP, and General Plan goals and policies
pertaining to airport operations to ensure that
the implementation of actions proposed in the
CAP would not expose people residing or
working in a project area to excessive noise
levels from airport activity. Impacts would be
less than significant. Therefore, there would be
no new or greater impacts than those identified
in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 312 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 58 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Impact General Plan EIR Level of
Significance Proposed Project
Population and Housing
Induce population growth
displace housing or people.

Less than significant impact.

Implementation of the proposed plan
would facilitate the construction of new
housing in Pleasant Hill. Proposed
development could result in an increase
in population that would exceed ABAG
population forecasts by 122 percent by
2040. However, the proposed plan is
intended to accommodate and plan for
population growth. Development
facilitated by the proposed plan would
not result in the displacement of
substantial numbers of housing or
people. The proposed plan would
facilitate the development of new
housing in accordance with State and
local housing requirements, while
preserving existing residential
neighborhoods. Impacts would be less
than significant.

Less than significant impact. The CAP does not
propose any goals, strategies, or actions that
directly or indirectly result in an increase in
population and would not generate growth
beyond that anticipated by the City's adopted
General Plan or induce additional population
growth. The CAP does not propose any goals,
strategies, or actions that have the potential to
displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there
would be no new or greater impacts than those
identified in the General Plan EIR.

Public Services
Impacts to emergency services,
police services, schools, parks
and other public
services/libraries.

Less than significant impact (police, fire,
parks, other public services); Significant and
unavoidable (schools). The 2040 General
Plan would not significantly increase the
demands for emergency services, police
services, parks and other public
services/libraries. However, development
facilitated by the 2040 General Plan
would result in an increase in population
of school-aged children in Pleasant Hill.

This would increase demand for school
services and potentially create the need
for new school facilities. Operational
impacts of new school facilities would be
less than significant with payment of
school impact fees. However, even with
compliance with 2040 General Plan
policies, impacts related to the
construction of new or altered school
facilities would be significant and
unavoidable due to the large amount of
new school land uses facilitated by the
2040 General Plan. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-3, CR-1,
CR-2, CR-3, CR-4, GEO-1, NOI-1, and
NOI-2 would not reduce impacts to less
than significant.

Less than significant impact with mitigation. The
proposed Project would not significantly
increase the demands for emergency services,
police services, parks and other public
services/libraries. Unlike the findings of the
General Plan EIR, implementation of the CAP
would not call for additional school facilities nor
would it require any new or redeveloped school
facilities. The CAP would not increase demand
for public services or facilities or generate a need
for new physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which would result
in significant impacts to the environment.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 313 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 59 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Impact General Plan EIR Level of
Significance Proposed Project
Recreation
Impact on existing recreational
facilities, requiring construction
of new facilities
Less than significant impact. Development
facilitated by the 2040 General Plan
would result in an increase in Pleasant
Hill population. This would increase
demand for and use of parks and
potentially create the need for new or
altered park and recreational facilities.

However, compliance with 2040 General
Plan policies would result in less than
significant impacts related to increased
use or the need for new or altered parks
or recreational facilities.

Less than significant impact. The proposed Project
would not require the expansion of regional
parks or recreational facilities. Further, the
proposed Project does not include the
construction of recreational facilities. Consistent
with the evaluation in the General Plan EIR, the
proposed Project therefore would have a less
than significant impact on recreational facilities.

Therefore, there would be no new or greater
impacts than those identified in the General Plan
EIR.

Transportation and Traffic
Conflict with plan addressing
circulation, including transit,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Less than significant impact.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan
would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities;
construction impacts would not conflict
with the circulation system.

Less than significant impact.

While the implementation of strategies and
actions from the CAP could temporarily increase
VMT to subsequent CAP action sites, the VMT
and emissions generated would be temporary
and negligible. Ultimately, the CAP would
improve the operation of the circulation system
in several ways through fewer vehicle trips on
roadways and highways, and higher numbers of
transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The
CAP would not conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation
system, and no impact would occur. Therefore,
there would be no new or greater impacts than
those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Conflict with or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b).

Significant and unavoidable impact.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan
would conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b). impacts would be
significant and unavoidable even with
adherence to Mitigation Measure TRA-1.

Less than significant impact with mitigation. The
CAP would not conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The GHG
reduction measures proposed in the CAP would
improve the operations of the circulation system
in several ways, such as reducing vehicle trips
on roadways and highways, and increasing
numbers of public transit riders, bicyclists, and
pedestrians. Any temporary VMT increases
associated with construction activities would be
offset by the overall net benefit of reducing the
long-term rate of VMT and associated
reductions in GHG emissions. Projects under the
CAP would still adhere to Mitigation Measure
TRA-1. Therefore, there would be no new or
greater impacts than those identified in the
General Plan EIR.

Increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Less than significant impact.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan
would not substantially increase hazards
because of a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment). Impacts would be less
than significant.

Less than significant impact. The CAP does not
propose any physical improvements or future
development that would increase geometric
design hazards and incompatible uses. As such,
impacts related to increasing hazards due to
design or incompatible uses would be less than
significant. Therefore, there would be no new or
greater impacts than those identified in the
certified General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 314 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 60 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Impact General Plan EIR Level of
Significance Proposed Project
Emergency access. Less than significant impact.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan
would not have the potential to result in
inadequate emergency access.

Less than significant impact. The CAP would
improve the operation of the circulation system
in several ways through fewer vehicle trips on
roadways and highways and higher numbers of
transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians. As
such, impacts related to emergency access
would be less than significant. Therefore, there
would be no new or greater impacts than those
identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Result in a substantial adverse
impact to a tribal cultural
resource
Less than significant with mitigation.

Development facilitated by the 2040
General Plan has the potential to impact
unidentified tribal cultural resources.

Impacts would be less than significant
with adherence to Mitigation Measure
CR-4.

Less than significant with mitigation. Because
implementation of the CAP includes the
potential for activities at previously undisturbed
depths, the potential for discovery of previously
unidentified tribal cultural resources exists.

Adherence to Mitigation Measure CR-4 would
ensure that tribal cultural resources would be
protected during construction. Therefore, there
would be no new or greater impacts than those
identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts to wastewater, water,
storm water, electrical, natural
gas facilities and solid waste,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects
Significant and unavoidable. Development
under the 2040 General Plan would
increase demand for water, wastewater,
stormwater, and telecommunications
services. While utility facilities and
infrastructure development and
relocation facilitated by the proposed
plan would occur in developed areas of
Pleasant Hill where such facilities exist,
construction-related impacts would be
significant and unavoidable even with
adherence to Mitigation Measures AQ-1,
AQ-3, CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, CR-4, GEO-1,
NOI-1, and NOI-2.

Less than significant. Development facilitated by
the CAP would comply with all applicable
Federal, State, and local regulations governing
the provision of utility infrastructure and
utilities, as described above. The CAP would
result in less than significant impacts related to
the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities. Impacts would be
less than what was analyzed in the General Plan
EIR.

Sufficient water supplies
available to serve the currently
proposed Project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal,
dry, and multiple dry years
Less than significant impact. Development
facilitated by the 2040 General Plan
would increase demand for water supply.

However, with adherence to the 2040
General Plan goals and policies, water
supplies would be adequate to support
future development.

Less than significant impact. The Project would not
result in an increase in demand for water.

Rather, multiple actions proposed in the CAP
would conserve water and increase water
efficiency. As such, consistent with the findings
of the General Plan EIR, impacts would be less
than significant. Therefore, there would be no
new or greater impacts than those identified in
the certified General Plan EIR.

A determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
Project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the Project’s
projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments
Less than significant impact. Development
projected by the proposed plan would
increase demand for wastewater
treatment. However, the existing
wastewater treatment plant has sufficient
capacity for future development, and the
2040 General Plan contains policies to
ensure treatment is adequate.

Less than significant impact. The CAP does not
propose any physical development or
improvements that would result in an increase
in demand for utility services and/or result in
the need for new wastewater facilities as the
CAP would not induce unplanned population
growth. The CAP would not result in a
determination by the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District that the Central San WWTP
would not be able to accommodate the CAP in
addition to its existing commitments.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 315 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 61 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Impact General Plan EIR Level of
Significance Proposed Project
Generating solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste
reduction goals; Compliance
with federal, state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations related
to solid waste
Less than significant impact. Development
facilitated under the 2040 General Plan
would increase the volume of solid waste
generated in Pleasant Hill. However,
existing infrastructure that serves the
city, as well as policies within the 2040
General Plan, would ensure that the City
has adequate capacity to accept the
increase in solid waste and comply with
federal, State, and local management
reduction regulations.

Less than significant impact. Consistent with the
findings of the General Plan EIR, development
facilitated by the CAP would not generate solid
waste in excess of the capacity of local solid
waste infrastructure. All CAP actions would be
required to adhere to federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste, such as AB
939. The Project would result in less than
significant impacts regarding solid waste.

Wildfire
Impair emergency response,
exacerbate risks, require
installation of infrastructure,
expose people or structures to
risks including downslope
flooding or landslides as a
result of post-wildfire
conditions
Significant and unavoidable impact.

Emergency response and evacuation
procedures would not be affected by the
2040 General Plan. Pleasant Hill is not
located within or near a Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone or State
Responsibility area; however, portions of
Pleasant Hill are located in and near a
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a Local
Responsibility area, and areas of
vegetated open space. compliance with
applicable codes and regulations would
not fully reduce the risk of loss, injury, or
death from wildfire associated with 2040
General Plan development. This impact
would be significant and unavoidable
even with adherence to Mitigation
Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3.

Less than significant impact. Development
facilitated by the CAP would be subject to
California Fire Code and any future projects
under the CAP would be subject to the City’s
design guidelines and standards and the final
design must be approved by the City to ensure
that a project located in an area at risk of
wildland fires would not substantially impair an
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan, exacerbate wildfire risks,
necessitate the installation or maintenance of
infrastructure, or expose people or structures to
significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes. The
Project would have a less than significant impact
regarding wildfire. Therefore, there would be no
new or greater impacts than those identified in
the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 316 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 62 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
A. AESTHETICS
The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to aesthetics was evaluated in relation to the General Plan EIR and four questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.
(a) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to impacts on scenic vistas?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Development implemented under the 2040 General Plan would be located along commercial corridors and/or consist of infill development. These areas are highly urbanized with retail, restaurant, commercial, and residential uses no taller than three stories. Publicly available views throughout the General Plan area are largely limited by intervening development, mature landscaping, and large street or median trees.

Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would largely be infill, some of which could exceed baseline (2022) building heights. From streets and public places (e.g., parks and trails) in Pleasant Hill, intervening development prevents expansive views of the hills to the west. Views in most of the General Plan area are of the built environment. Views of the natural environment are obscured by development, although views down the streets of the built environment and street trees are intact and create a sense of place. Since scenic vistas of the hills west of Pleasant Hill are not widely available from public viewing areas and new development would be limited by development standards dictated by Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Title 18, Planning and Land Use, scenic vistas would continue to be available where they currently exist. Therefore, impacts of development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan related to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Impacts to scenic vistas under CEQA occur when a project impacts a scenic vista from a publicly available viewing location, such as a roadway, designated scenic viewing spot, etc. According to the 2040 General Plan EIR, Pleasant Hill includes longer range views from public streets from the western neighborhoods westward towards Briones Regional Park across the urbanized landscape of Pleasant Hill; however, none of these views are designated as “vistas” or “scenic corridors.” Since scenic vistas of the hills west of Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 317 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 63 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Pleasant Hill are not widely available from public viewing areas and new development would be limited by development standards dictated by Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC) Title 18, Planning and Land Use, scenic vistas would continue to be available where they currently exist. The CAP does not include any strategies or action items that directly involve any scenic vistas or scenic routes, nor would they have the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Strategies and actions proposing building energy efficiency improvements (Strategies EN 1.2, EN 3.3), building retrofits (Strategies EN 2.4, EN 3.1; Actions EN 2.4.1, TR 1.1.2), circulation infrastructure improvements (Strategies TR 2..1, TR 2.3; Actions TR 2.3.1, TR 2.3.3, TR 2.4.4), and landscaping/recreational improvements (Strategies WS 3.2, AM 1.2, GC

1.1) would involve minor changes to the exteriors of buildings, existing roadways, or recreational areas.

These physical changes would be relatively minor, and these actions would undergo appropriate review and approval by the City before being implemented. As such, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
(b) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to substantially damaging scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR identifies the closest designated State scenic highways to the City are a segment of I680 and a segment of SR-24, both located outside of the City within the nearby city of Walnut Creek. These segments are both located over two miles away from the General Plan area’s southern border. No development would be facilitated by the 2040 General Plan near this State-designated Scenic Highway, and views from such designated State scenic highways do not include the General Plan area. Furthermore, there are no City-designated scenic resources within the General Plan area. The General Plan EIR concluded that no impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway would occur.

Proposed Project
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, no actions proposed in the CAP would be facilitated near the segments of State-designated scenic highways I-680 and SR-24 that are located over two miles outside of the City. Due to the distance between these scenic routes and the City, implementation of the CAP would not have an impact on scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 318 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 64 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway within City limits or in the vicinity of the City.

Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR. (c) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to: In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrading the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). In an urbanized area, project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Individual projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would allow for increased intensity of development on underutilized sites. Scenic quality would be protected through implementation of goals and policies in the 2040 General Plan that address visual quality. Implementation of these goals and policies would ensure that development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be visually compatible with Pleasant Hill’s overall form and would improve underutilized parcels through excellent architectural and landscape design. As such, the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with Pleasant Hill regulations governing visual character or quality. Therefore, impacts related to visual quality and character were found to be less than significant.

Proposed Project
According to the General Plan EIR, Pleasant Hill is largely built out with a mix of single-family residences and commercial uses along corridors such as Gregory Lane and Contra Costa Boulevard. The City is largely urbanized; vacant parcels comprise approximately only two percent of all land within the General Plan area. The CAP does not include any site-specific development, designs, or proposals that would conflict with the existing zoning for the City or regulations governing scenic quality. Further, future actions would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements outlined in Title 18 (Planning and Land Use) in the PHMC pertaining to aesthetic quality and associated review. These actions would be required to comply with state and local goals and would be considered minor changes to the visual environment.

Thus, implementation of the CAP would not conflict with the existing zoning for the City nor would the Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 319 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 65 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
CAP conflict with regulations governing scenic quality. As such, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
(d) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to creating a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that the Approved Project would introduce nighttime lighting to the vicinity and would be expected to slightly increase ambient lighting in the area. However, Mitigation Measure AES-1 would require the adoption and implementation of lighting standards to maintain ambient lighting levels. Glare would be reduced from commercial condominium development through compliance with Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Chapter 17.52.040 (D), which dictates that lighting on commercial condominiums be shielded to eliminate off-site glare, and Chapter 18.55.140 (B), which dictates that outdoor parking lot lighting shall be designed to prevent light pollution. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan operational light and glare impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Proposed Project
Sources of lighting or glare are typical in highly developed, urban environments (e.g., sunlight reflecting off building materials and glass windows). The City is developed with established existing sources of light and glare, such as streetlights and parking lights, walkway lights, lighted recreational facilities, and light emitted from residential and nonresidential buildings. The City is surrounded by similarly urbanized and developed cities. The CAP does not include any site-specific development, designs, or proposals that would introduce significant sources of light and glare. Although strategies included in the CAP, such as EN 1.1, EN 1.3, and EN 1.4, could result in the installation of new solar panels, solar photovoltaic panels are specifically designed to absorb, not reflect sunlight; and therefore, would not introduce a new source of substantial light or glare. Furthermore, future actions following the adoption of the CAP would be implemented in already urbanized areas, as the City is predominantly built out and commonly includes existing light sources. As such, the CAP would not create a new source of substantial light or glare.

Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 320 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 66 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to agricultural and forest resources was evaluated in relation to the General Plan EIR and five questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to any of the following:
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
The General Plan area is almost entirely designated as Urban and Built-Up Land area. While a small parcel along Taylor Boulevard in the western portion of the City is designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Grazing Land, this parcel is not planned for any zoning changes or land use changes under the General Plan. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not be located on agricultural land. Additionally, no land within the General Plan area is currently under a Williamson Act contract. As such, implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts for preservation of agricultural use. Therefore, development construction facilitated by the 2040 General Plan and operational implementation of General Plan policies would result in no impacts related to conversion of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses or Williamson Act zoning consistency.

Pleasant Hill does not contain land identified as a forested or timbered area. As such, development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not result in or promote the conversion of land used for forestry or timber purposes. In addition, no land within the General Plan area is currently zoned as Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 321 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 67 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
forest/timberland. As such, implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with forest/timberland zoning for preservation of forestry use. Therefore, development construction facilitated by the 2040 General Plan and operational implementation of General Plan policies would result in no impacts related to conversion of forestry uses to non-forestry uses or forest/timberland zoning consistency.

Proposed Project
No actions proposed in the CAP would be located on agricultural land. Additionally, as the City does not have land under a Williamson Act Contract and no land in the City is identified as forested or timber area, implementation of the CAP would result in no impacts related to conversion of agricultural uses to nonagricultural uses or Williamson Act zoning consistency, nor would the CAP result in impacts related to the conversion of forestry uses to non-forestry uses or forest/timberland zoning consistency. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 322 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 68 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
C. AIR QUALITY
The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to air quality than analyzed in the General Plan EIR was evaluated in relation to four questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.
(a) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to conflict with or the potential to obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be consistent with the BAAD 2017 Clean Air Plan. As such, the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Therefore, the impact related to air quality management plan consistency would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The proposed Project would be within the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR and would not contribute to a significant impact with respect to the AQMP. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under state law, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air quality standards.

The City is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the BAAD. The BAAD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SFBAAB is in nonattainment. The most recent clean air plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan that was adopted by BAAD in April 2017. The Plan includes control measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or indirectly. Projects that are consistent with Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 323 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 69 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
the development of a regional or local air quality plan are considered not to conflict with the attainment of air quality standards identified in the plan.

Consistency with the air quality plan can be determined through evaluation of project-related air quality impacts and demonstration that project-related emissions would not increase the frequency or severity of existing violations or contribute to a new violation of the national ambient air quality standards. The BAAD 2022 CEQA Guidelines include thresholds of significance that are applied to evaluate regional impacts of project-specific emissions of air pollutants and their impact on BAAD’s ability to reach attainment.15 Emissions that are above these thresholds have not been accommodated in the air quality plans and would not be consistent with the air quality plans. Consistent with the conclusion of the General Plan EIR, the Project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan since emissions would not exceed BAAD thresholds and the Project would support the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

The CAP does not include any site-specific land-use development projects, designs, or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlement for land-use development projects. The Project would not change the General Plan Land Use Element or base zoning designations. The CAP serves as a guide to reduce community-wide GHG emissions, consistent with State GHG emission reduction goals, and prepares the City for the effects of climate change. The CAP neither encourages nor discourages development; rather, the CAP serves to inform future development that has been anticipated and analyzed in the City’s General Plan to incorporate the actions proposed in the CAP to optimize existing and future development projects for the effects of climate change. Area air quality planning, such as the 2017 Clean Air Plan, assumes that there will be emissions from new growth, but that such emissions may not impede the attainment and may actually contribute to the attainment of applicable air quality standards within the Basin. While the implementation of strategies and actions from the CAP has the potential to result in temporary air quality impacts during their installation, these future actions would be required to adhere to regulations established at the regional and local level (such as the BAAD and General Plan EIR, respectively), and these actions would undergo appropriate review and approval by the City before being implemented.

Fundamentally, the CAP is aligned with the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan; it is designed as a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions (including those associated with Vehicle Miles Traveled [VMT]) in a manner consistent with state guidelines and regulations, and identifies cost-effective opportunities for existing and future residents, businesses, and development projects to forge a more sustainable community. Impacts associated with the implementation of the CAP are negligible when compared to the air quality improvements and GHG emission reductions that come from the 15 BAAD, 2022 CEQA Guidelines, April 20, 2022. Available online at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/plans-andclimate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 22, 2025.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 324 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 70 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
implementation of the CAP’s actions. As a result, implementation of the CAP would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan, and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
(b) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region air basin is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, construction of development envisioned under the General Plan would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, possibly creating localized areas of unhealthy air pollution concentrations or air quality nuisances. To promote clean air quality to protect public health and safety and to mitigate adverse air quality impacts, the 2040 General Plan includes Policies ENV-7.1 through ENV-7.4 and Policy ENV-7.6 in the Environment Element, which support implementation of feasible measures to reduce construction emissions, cumulative construction criteria pollutant impacts related to fugitive dust, and consistency with associated air quality standards.

The Bay Area Air District (BAAD) identifies screening sizes of development projects in the BAAD CEQA Guidelines that apply to development projects in Pleasant Hill and throughout BAAD’s jurisdiction. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAD CEQA Guidelines, project applicants would be required to incorporate project-specific mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below thresholds. Without the preparation of project-specific analysis on a project-by-project basis for development proposals that exceed the BAAD screening sizes, construction criteria pollutant emission impacts at the program level are potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, would require that projects that exceed the BAAD screening sizes to evaluate project-specific construction emissions in conformance with the BAAD methodology and to mitigate the impacts to a less-than-significant level if construction-related criteria air pollutants exceed Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 325 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 71 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
the BAAD thresholds of significance. Therefore, 2040 General Plan cumulative construction criteria pollutant impacts related to air pollutant emissions and consistency with associated air quality standards would be less than significant with mitigation.

Operation
The greatest source of criteria pollutants in Pleasant Hill is and would continue to be from transportation sources, specifically mobile emissions from roadway vehicle volumes. The 2040 General Plan emphasizes reducing VMT on area roadways through emphasizing greater residential density, proximity of residents to jobs and commercial services, and implementation of alternative modes of transportation. The 2040 General Plan addresses this through the inclusion of goals and policies that support a VMT reduction, and thus a reduction in mobile criteria pollutant emissions.

According to the BAAD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors requires an assessment of the rate of increase of plan VMT and population. The 2040 General Plan emphasizes changing land uses to concentrate growth and residences near jobs and services to reduce singular vehicle trips and encourage alternative models of travel. The City’s population increase under the General Plan would be proportionately greater than the VMT increase. As such, development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in an increase in VMT that is less than the increase in service population. If a plan’s VMT increase is less than or equal to the plan’s projected population increase, impacts related to operational criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant. However, since the General Plan is evaluated at a program level, individual development projects under the General Plan could generate potentially significant operational criteria air pollutant unless analyzed and mitigated.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires projects that exceed the BAAD screening sizes to evaluate projectspecific operation emissions and to mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level if operational-related air pollutants exceed the BAAD-adopted thresholds of significance. Therefore, 2040 General Plan cumulative operational criteria pollutant impacts related to air pollutant emissions and consistency with associated air quality standards would be less than significant with mitigation.

Proposed Project
The CAP includes goals, strategies, and actions that would reduce air quality and GHG emissions generated in the City to help reduce the effects of climate change. The strategies and actions proposed with the CAP would improve air quality by pushing for expanded infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation to single passenger vehicles (i.e., Strategies TR 1.6, TR 2.3; Action TR 2.1.2, TR 2.3.1, TR

2.3.3, TR 2.5.1), promoting the adoption of more EVs with more EV supportive infrastructure (i.e., Strategies TR 1.2, TR 1.3, TR 1.5), and improving energy efficiency/renewable energy sources in building Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 326 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 72 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
construction and in building operations (i.e., Strategies EN 1.2, EN 3.3, GC 1.3; Action TR 1.3.2). As previously discussed, indirect impacts could occur from improvements due to the implementation of strategies and actions contained in the Project. For instance, Strategies EN 2.4 and EN 3.1 encourage the retrofitting of existing buildings with rooftop solar and energy-efficient fixtures and improvements.

However, while temporary emissions would be generated during the installation of these improvements and from the travel by workers to the sites receiving these retrofit improvements, retrofitting buildings for environmental sustainability would ultimately support more energy-efficient practices, negating the emissions generated in their implementation. Similarly, under Strategies TR 1.6, TR 2.3, while temporary emissions would be generated during the implementation of these circulation improvements, the reduction in VMT and emissions eliminated through the procurement of safe alternatives to private transportation is invaluable in the efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the City and would be consistent with State GHG reduction goals. Future actions would conform with all applicable standards and regulations regarding any potential increases in an existing or projected air quality violation, such as those established by the BAAD or applicable mitigation measures pertaining to Air Quality identified in the City’s General Plan FIER. Implementation of the CAP would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment; there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
(c) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment associated with site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, clearing), building construction, and other miscellaneous construction activities. Construction of development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would occur over approximately 18 years but use of diesel-powered construction equipment in any one area would likely occur for no more than a few years for an individual project and would cease when construction is completed in that area. The 2040 General Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 327 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 73 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Plan includes Goal ENV-7 and Policy ENV-7.6 to minimize the effect of construction toxic air contaminants (TACs) from future projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan. Additionally, future projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would also be required to comply with the 2017 Clean Air Plan, BAAD regulatory requirements and control strategies, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, and Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

According to the OEHHA, construction of individual projects lasting longer than two months or placed within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition, these future projects could exceed BAAD thresholds of an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million and an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute). As such, construction impacts from TAC emissions would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would require coordination with the City to determine if a construction HRA would need to be performed for future projects with construction timelines greater than two months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, in order to identify and reduce potential risk exposure to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction-related TACs exposure impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Operation
Potential future uses could generate an increase in DPM that would contribute to cancer and noncancer health risks at nearby sensitive receptors. Without project-specific analysis, health risk impacts from nonpermitted sources associated with development of industrial and commercial land uses under the General Plan are considered potentially significant. Localized operational emissions were not discussed in the General Plan EIR; and operational emissions on a regional level were determined to be less than significant. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4, which requires new applicants for land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel to determine the appropriate level of operational health risk assessment required, operational 2040 General Plan impacts related to TAC emissions would be less than significant with mitigation.

Proposed Project
The CAP contains goals and policies that support cleaner air for the community, as shown above. As discussed in Section 3.C (a-b), above, while implementation of the CAP would result in temporary emissions generated during the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP, the long-term benefits from the implementation of these actions will reduce air quality pollutants and GHG emissions within the community and align with state GHG reduction goals. As a result, the Project would not expose sensitive Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 328 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 74 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. These efforts would also reduce criteria pollutant emissions, help meet air quality goals, and reduce sensitive receptor exposure to pollutant concentrations.

No actions proposed in the CAP would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. Impacts on local receptors from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
(d) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to creating objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would generate oil and diesel fuel odors during construction from equipment use, as well as odors related to asphalt paving. The odors would be limited to the construction period and would be temporary. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. Therefore, odors emitted from the construction of individual future projects under the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant.

Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would include uses that typically do not produce objectionable odors, such as residential, commercial and retail, office, semi-public, and institutional, and light industrial uses. Certain commercial and industrial uses would have the potential to generate nuisance odors. Therefore, individual projects under the plan could generate potentially significant objectionable odors unless analyzed and mitigated. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-5, which requires the evaluation of land uses and development projects near land uses that typically generate odors, Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 329 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 75 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
would reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan impacts related to operational odor impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Proposed Project
The BAAD 2022 CEQA Guidelines identify certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include wastewater treatment plants, food processing facilities, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing, landfills, confined animal facility/feed lot/dairies, and fiberglass manufacturing.16 The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the BAAD as odor sources. The CAP contains strategies and actions that support cleaner air for the community.

Any indirect impacts from actions in accordance with the Project are not anticipated to create objectionable odors or other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people. For example, Strategies WS

1.3 and WE 1.5 seek to expand outreach and education to citizens regarding waste reduction and diversion and through the continued provision of composting equipment at City facilities and events to encourage public and commercial; these strategies will reduce emissions generated from food waste, diverting trips to composting facilities, while also containing the odors associated with the anaerobic decomposition of food waste. As such, emissions from the implementation of the Project, such as those leading to odors, would be less than significant, and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
16 BAAD, 2022 CEQA Guidelines, April 20, 2022. Available online at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/plans-andclimate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 22, 2025.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 330 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 76 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to biological resources than analyzed in the General Plan EIR was evaluated in relation to the six questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Most of the General Plan area is developed and does not provide suitable habitat for the special-status species reported or known to occur in or near Pleasant Hill. The 2040 General Plan would facilitate infill development and development within Pleasant Hill. These areas are currently developed with residential and non-residential uses and do not provide habitat suitable for special-status species described in the General Plan EIR. However, the 2040 General Plan increases the allowable density that could be constructed on some infill and development sites within the General Plan area, which could require upgraded utilities. The construction of these upgraded facilities could require work within riparian vegetation along creeks and drainages in the General Plan area, resulting in potential temporary riparian and aquatic habitat impacts. The development facilitated under the 2040 General Plan would be subject to the provisions of the various Federal and State natural resources regulations and their respective permitting processes. Additionally, the 2040 General Plan contains goals and policies that call for the preservation and protection of natural resources and the managed production of natural resources.

Construction-related activities such as vegetation removal, building demolition and/or relocation, grading, materials laydown, access, and infrastructure improvements, and building construction, could result in the disturbance of nesting migratory birds. The most identifiable potential direct impact to migratory bird Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 331 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 77 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
species would involve the removal of vegetation, particularly trees and landscaping shrubs that may serve as perching or nesting sites for migratory birds. These adverse effects on listed or special-status bird species would represent a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (conduct pre-construction bird surveys and implement avoidance measures prior to removal) would be required for future projects where mature trees and other habitats are present, and construction activities are scheduled from early spring to late summer.

Although the General Plan area is primarily developed, large trees, abandoned structures, and buildings in Pleasant Hill provide suitable roosting habitat for special-status bat species. Disturbance of maternity roosts by construction activities resulting in roost destruction or abandonment would be a potentially significant impact on bat species and would potentially constitute violations of the California Fish and Game Code. Such adverse effects on special-status bats would have a potentially significant impact.

However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (conduct pre-construction roosting bat surveys and implement avoidance measures prior to removal) would be required for future 2040 General Plan projects where trees, abandoned structures, or other habitat for roosting bats are present, and construction activities may occur during seasonal periods of bat activity. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan construction impacts related to special-status species would be less than significant with mitigation.

Operation
Given that potential impacts to special-status species would occur solely during construction, either directly or indirectly related to habitat modification, there would be no 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to biological resources.

Proposed Project
A significant impact would occur if the Project were to lead to adverse effects on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species according to any adopted plan, policy, or regulation. This includes effects caused by habitat modification. The City of Pleasant Hill is a highly urbanized environment, and the majority of the City is currently developed; undeveloped land is limited to scattered vacant parcels. Consistent with what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, most of the City is developed and does not provide suitable habitat for the special-status species reported or known to occur in or near to Pleasant Hill.

Implementation of the CAP would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, special status species or wildlife movement. Rather, the actions listed above would enhance and expand green space (Strategies AM 1.2, GC 1.1) and plant more native, drought-tolerant vegetation throughout the City (Strategy WS 3.2; Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 332 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 78 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Action WE 3.2.1). Although the City is urbanized, with the majority of the City being developed and is a typically unsuitable habitat for special status species known to occur in or near the City, trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, and parklands in the City could serve as temporary habitats for nesting migratory birds.

Additionally, large trees, abandoned structures, and buildings in Pleasant Hill may provide suitable habitat for special-status bat species that have been identified in the City. As such, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, development under the CAP would be subject to the provisions of the various Federal, State, and local natural resources regulations and their respective permitting processes as well as applicable mitigation measures (MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2) established in the General Plan EIR to ensure that implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Most of the development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be located on infill sites that are already developed with structures and/or parking and are not proximate to wetlands or waterways. Because these areas are urbanized and currently developed, they are unlikely to contain jurisdictional wetlands or other surface waters and associated riparian vegetation zones. However, the infill development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would increase density in some areas, which could require upgraded utilities or stormwater drainage. The construction of these upgraded facilities could require work, including dredge or fill, within jurisdictional wetlands and streams, and could require ground disturbance in riparian habitat associated with these wetlands and streams. For development that would occur in these areas, an aquatic Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 333 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 79 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
resources delineation would be required to identify the limits and potential jurisdiction of protected waters, wetlands, and sensitive natural communities. Therefore, any proposed development in areas identified as jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands, streambed/banks, or riparian vegetation would be subject to the permit requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), pursuant to Section 404 and 401 of Clean Water Act (CWA), the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. Additionally, the 2040 General Plan contains goals and policies that would further reduce impacts to riparian habitats. Implementation of these goals and policies, as well as Policy ENV-4.1 and ENV-4.2, would reduce direct impacts to riparian areas during construction and operation by reducing direct and indirect modifications to creeks, embankments, and other waterways in the General Plan area. Furthermore, if potentially jurisdictional waters occur on any site identified by the 2040 General Plan for development, an aquatic resources delineation and permits issued by the relevant State and/or Federal authorities (USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW) would be required, which would address potential impacts to those waters.

Operation
Given that potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands would solely occur during construction, either directly via fill or indirectly related to habitat modification, there would be no 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to sensitive natural communities.

Proposed Project
Implementation of the CAP would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. According to the General Plan EIR, riparian habitats have been recorded in and around the General Plan area; areas of freshwater forested/shrub wetland occur in the eastern part of the General Plan area along Walnut Creek. Additionally, several riverine features occur throughout the General Plan area, including Grayson Creek, Murderers Creek, and drainage canals running throughout Pleasant Hill.

Consistent with the General Plan EIR, the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would generally be located on infill sites that are already developed with structures and/or parking, and these actions would not take place proximate to wetlands or waterways. Although strategies such as TR 2.3 (implementation of the 2024 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) have potential for temporary impacts with their implementation, due to the scale of the actions and the overall benefit that comes from the implementation of the CAP, impacts would be negligible. Additionally, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, any proposed development in areas identified as jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands, Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 334 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 80 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
streambed/banks, or riparian vegetation would be subject to the permit requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), pursuant to Section 404 and 401 of Clean Water Act (CWA), the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.

Additionally, projects under the CAP would adhere to policies established in the City’s General Plan, such as Policy ENV-4.1 and ENV-4.2, to reduce direct impacts to riparian areas during construction and operation by reducing direct and indirect modifications to creeks, embankments, and other waterways within the City. The actions proposed in the CAP enhance existing green space and improve biodiversity while adhering to City codes and regulations. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian or sensitive natural communities identified by regional plans, policies, regulations, or the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

There would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Reasonably foreseeable development within or adjacent to sensitive habitats could result in potential direct impacts through removal of vegetation, filling of wetland habitat, runoff of pollutants into riparian habitats or wetlands, compaction of soils, and/or indirectly through dust and vegetation thinning. The issuance of a grading permit by the Director of Public Works and Community Development for ministerial and discretionary projects requires obtaining other permits required by State or Federal agencies. These include, but are not limited to, streambed alteration permits from the CDFW and permits for grading in the vicinity of wetlands and certain watercourses from the USACE and RWQCB. These permit clearances may also be required as conditions of approval for grading work to commence. Approval of permits also requires Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 335 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 81 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
findings that the proposed grading will not result in erosion, stream sediment, or other adverse off-site effects to riparian habitat. Implementation of these goals and policies, as well as Policy ENV-4.1 and ENV4.2 described under Impact BIO-1, would reduce direct impacts to waters, wetlands, and riparian areas during construction and operation by reducing direct and indirect modifications to creeks, embankments, and other waterways in the General Plan area. Furthermore, if potentially jurisdictional waters occur on any site identified by the 2040 General Plan for development, an aquatic resources delineation and permits issued by the relevant State and/or Federal authorities (USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW) would be required, which would address potential impacts to those waters. Additionally, future project sites one acre or larger trigger the implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would reduce the potential for eroded soil and any contaminants attached to that soil to contaminate a waterbody following a storm event. Additionally, projects would comply with Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC) Section 15.10.280, which provides design standards to address erosion and sedimentation, and PHMC Section 15.05, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, to protect and enhance the water quality in the City’s watercourses pursuant to, and consistent with, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the CWA. Adherence to State and Federal regulations, the PHMC, and implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan goals and polices would result in a 2040 General Plan sensitive natural community construction impact that is less than significant.

Operation
Given that potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands would occur solely during construction, either directly via fill or indirectly related to habitat modification, there would be no 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to sensitive natural communities.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, areas of freshwater forested/shrub wetland occur in the eastern part of the General Plan area along Walnut Creek. Despite the presence of wetlands in the City, the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would generally be located on infill sites that are already developed with structures and/or parking, and these actions would likely not take place proximate to wetlands or waterways.

Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, any proposed development in areas identified as jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands, streambed/banks, or riparian vegetation would be subject to the permit requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), pursuant to Section 404 and 401 of Clean Water Act (CWA), the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. Additionally, projects under the CAP would adhere to policies established in the City’s General Plan, such as Policy ENV-4.1 and ENV-4.2, to reduce direct impacts to Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 336 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 82 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
riparian areas during construction and operation by reducing direct and indirect modifications to creeks, embankments, and other waterways within the City. Adherence to these regulations would ensure that the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Most of the General Plan area is developed and urbanized, and does not provide for wildlife movement corridors. Considering that the 2040 General Plan would not facilitate development in open space areas, including stream corridors, and that it contains policies to reduce impacts to stream corridors and protect wildlife movement corridors and open space, the 2040 General Plan construction impacts related to wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant.

Operation
Given that potential impacts to wildlife movement corridors would occur solely during construction, either directly via fill or indirectly related to open space development, there would be no 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to wildlife movement corridors.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the City is an urbanized environment, and the majority of the City is currently developed; undeveloped land is limited to scattered vacant parcels. Wildlife movement corridors in the Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 337 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 83 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
General Plan area are generally limited to riparian corridors and creeks and areas of open space in local and regional parks. These creeks may be used by migratory fish, and riparian corridors and other undeveloped areas in the City may provide corridors for wildlife movement, including migratory birds and Alameda whipsnake, California tiger salamander, and California red-legged frog when migrating to aquatic breeding habitat and during juvenile dispersal. Consistent with the implementation of the General Plan, the CAP would focus on infill development along corridors and on parcels with structures and/or parking lots. The CAP does not include changes to existing Parks and Open Space land use designations, including along creeks and waterways in the General Plan area; the CAP would not facilitate permanent and impactful development within these identified wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife movement within areas of open space would not be affected by the CAP, because the CAP facilitates development in the urbanized areas of Pleasant Hill. Actions implemented from the CAP would adhere to goals and policies established in the General Plan that address the preservation and restoration of habitats that may serve as open space and wildlife corridors, such as Goal ENV-3. Under this goal, development is required to establish setbacks along creek protection zones, riparian areas, wetlands, and other areas that function as fish and wildlife movement corridors. Adherence to these policies would help to preserve important local wildlife corridors, as the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP is permitted throughout the General Plan area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to interfere with the movement of wildlife or impact wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(e) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
The General Plan EIR determined the Approved Project would adhere to all local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, such as the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance codified in PHMC section Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 338 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 84 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026

18.50.110. Additionally, the 2040 General Plan contains policies and implementation programs that would help protect trees and other vegetation in the General Plan area. Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Operation
Given that potential impacts to trees would occur solely during construction, there would be no 2040 General Plan operational impact related to consistency with local biological resources policies and ordinances.

Proposed Project
Projects under the CAP would be required to comply with PHMC Section 18.50.110 for the preservation of heritage and protected trees throughout the community, as well as policies and the implementation program included in the General Plan that help protect trees and other vegetation in the General Plan area.

Additionally, strategies and actions proposed in the CAP, such as Strategies AM 1.2, WS 3.2, and GC 1.1, as well as Action 3.2.1, promote the planting of more native, drought-tolerant trees and increasing the City’s canopy cover. These actions improve biodiversity, offset the urban heat island effect, and improve air quality. As such, the CAP would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(f) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) within Pleasant Hill. As such, there are no HCPs or NCCPs applicable to the 2040 General Plan.

Therefore, development construction facilitated by the 2040 General Plan and operational implementation Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 339 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 85 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
of General Plan policies would result in no impacts related to consistency with an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

Proposed Project
As there are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans HCPs or NCCPs within Pleasant Hill, there are no HCPs or NCCPs applicable to the CAP. Therefore, implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would result in no impacts related to consistency with an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Additionally, as discussed, the actions proposed in the CAP would enhance and expand existing green space and improve biodiversity throughout the City. As such, implementation of the Project would not conflict with any conservation plans. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 340 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 86 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The potential for the CAP to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to cultural resources was evaluated in relation to the General Plan EIR and three questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.
(a) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
The 2040 General Plan would facilitate development of residential, commercial, office, institutional, and industrial land uses that could, in turn, result in the conversion of existing properties and structures to new uses. Construction associated with such potential future development may include site preparation, demolition, and other construction activities. Demolition or other structural alteration associated with development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan has the potential to impair historical built-environment resources. Consequently, damage to or destruction of historical resources could occur as a result of development under the 2040 General Plan. In order to ensure that development within the General Plan area does not have a detrimental effect on historical resources, each project would need to be assessed as it is proposed. Goals, policies, and implementation programs proposed in the General Plan related to historical resources would reduce the potential for historical resources to be adversely impacted by the development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan, but there would still be potential for development to impact historical resources. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, which would reduce impacts to historical resources by identifying and evaluating significant historical resources and managing relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration in compliance with the Standards as applicable, existing and eligible historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development that would be carried out under the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, construction 2040 General Plan impacts related to historical resources would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 341 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 87 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Operation
Given that impacts to historical resources occur solely during construction, there would be no 2040 General Plan operational impact related to historical resources.

Proposed Project
Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines historic resources as those that are listed on, or determined to be eligible for listing on, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or a local register or are otherwise determined to be historical pursuant to Section 21084.1 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on National Register of Historical Places (NRHP) guidelines, generally, structures 50 years of age or older could be a historic resource. Properties that are listed in the National Register are automatically listed in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR).

According to the General Plan EIR, one known historical resource that is listed in the NRHP and CRHR and located within the City is the Patrick Rogers Farm. In addition to this known historical resource, there may be other yet unidentified resources within the General Plan area that are age-eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or locally. While the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would more than likely be occurring on sites that have already been developed, the effects on historical resources are only knowable once a specific project has been proposed, because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions, project activities that may alter the character of a built environment resource, and/or the characteristics of the proposed ground‐disturbing activity. In order to ensure that development within the City does not have a detrimental effect on historical resources, each project under the CAP would need to be assessed as it is proposed. Goals, policies, and implementation programs proposed in the General Plan related to historical resources would reduce the potential for historical resources to be adversely impacted by the development facilitated by the CAP, but there would still be potential for development to impact historical resources. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 from the General Plan EIR, which would reduce impacts to historical resources by identifying and evaluating significant historical resources and managing relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration in compliance with the Standards as applicable, existing and eligible historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development that would be carried out under the CAP. Therefore, construction impacts associated with the CAP related to historical resources would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation. While it is highly unlikely that the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, impacts remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 342 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 88 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
(b) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Ground-disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan, particularly in areas that have not been studied through a cultural resources investigation, or when excavation depths exceed those previously attained, have the potential to damage or destroy previously-unknown historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface. In order to ensure that development within the City does not have a detrimental effect on archaeological resources, each future project would need to be assessed once the project location and design concept is available. The goals, policies, and implementation programs established in the General Plan would help reduce the potential for archaeological resources to be adversely impacted by the ground-disturbing activities associated with the development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan. However, there would still be potential for development to impact archaeological resources, and those impacts would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-3 (evaluate and protect significant archaeological resources if encountered during construction associated with development under the 2040 General Plan), would reduce 2040 General Plan construction impacts related to archeological resources to less than significant with mitigation.

Operation
Given that potential impacts to archaeological resources would occur solely during construction, there would be no 2040 General Plan operational impact related to archaeological resources.

Proposed Project
Archaeological resources include material evidence of past human life and culture of previous ages. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subdivision (a) but does meet the definition of a unique archeological resource in PRC Section 21083.2, Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 343 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 89 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Consistent with the discussion above for Section 3.E(a), it is presumed that archaeological resources that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR may exist throughout the City. Effects on archaeological resources are only known once a specific development has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual development site conditions and the characteristics of the proposed ground‐ disturbing activity. Ground-disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the CAP, particularly in areas that have not been studied through a cultural resources investigation, or when excavation depths exceed those previously attained, have the potential to damage or destroy previously unknown historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface. In order to ensure that development within the City does not have a detrimental effect on archaeological resources, each project under the CAP would need to be assessed as it is proposed. Goals, policies, and implementation programs proposed in the General Plan related to archaeological resources, whether prehistoric or historic in nature, would reduce the potential for archaeological resources to be adversely impacted by the development facilitated by the CAP, but there would still be potential for development to impact these undiscovered resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2 from the General Plan EIR would reduce impacts to archaeological resources by requiring the preparation of an archaeological resources assessment prior to the approval of a project that involves ground disturbance activities on native or previously disturbed soils. Mitigation Measure CR-3 details that if archaeological/cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities for a project, work in the immediate area shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be summoned to evaluate the find.

Adherence to goals, policies, and implementation programs identified in the General Plan EIR pertaining to archaeological resources, as well as Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-3, would ensure that the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Impacts Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 344 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 90 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
remain less than significant with mitigation, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR. (c) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the potential disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Excavations during construction activities could have the potential to disturb these resources that could include Native American burial sites. As such, ground disturbing activities that may occur with Pleasant Hill (the General Plan area) during implementation of the 2040 General Plan have the potential to unearth previously unidentified human remains. As such, adherence to Program L from the General Plan as well as existing regulations established in PRC Section 5097, PRC Section 5097.98, and the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) would reduce the potential for human remains to be adversely impacted by ground-disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan.

Therefore, 2040 General Plan construction impacts related to human remains would be less than significant.

Operation
Given that potential impacts to human remains would occur solely during construction, there would be no 2040 General Plan operational impact related to human remains.

Proposed Project
Similar to the discussion in Section 3.E(b), above, although unlikely, ground disturbing activities associated with the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP may result in the accidental discovery of human remains. For example, minor grading, excavation, and other ground disturbance could occur during the construction of upgraded pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (Strategy TR 1.6, TR 2.3), installation of EV charging infrastructure (Strategies TR 1.2, TR 1.3, TR 1.5), and tree planting/landscaping (Strategies AM

1.2, GC 1.1, GC 1.2, WS 3.2; Action WE 3.2.1). In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, regulatory provisions such as California Health and Safety Code Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 345 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 91 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) that address the handling of human remains must be followed. Pursuant to these codes, in the event that human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall be suspended, and the City of Pleasant Hill and the Contra Costa County Coroner would be immediately notified. The coroner shall conduct an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC. The coroner is required to make a determination within two working days of notification of the discovery of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall consult with the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours, to designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) who shall recommend appropriate measures to the landowner regarding the treatment of the remains. If the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the MLD may request mediation by the NAHC. Compliance with applicable regulations would protect unknown and previously unidentified human remains. Additionally, adherence to existing regulations as well as Implementation Program L of the General Plan would reduce the potential for human remains to be adversely impacted by grounddisturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the CAP. Therefore, impacts related to human remains would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 346 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 92 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
F. ENERGY
The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts related to Energy were evaluated in relation to two questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

General Plan EIR
Construction
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would involve the use of energy during construction.

Energy use during construction would be primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would utilize construction contractors that comply with applicable CARB regulations, as well as the provisions of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, sections 2449 and 2485 and would be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard. Demolition and construction activities would utilize fuel-efficient equipment consistent with State and Federal regulations and would comply with State measures to reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, demolition and construction activities associated with the 2040 General Plan would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and construction energy impacts would be less than significant.

Operational
Implementation of the 2040 General Plan policies and programs, as well as other policies and implementation programs contained in the 2040 General Plan that would result in indirect energy conservation, such as the promotion of alternative transportation, water conservation, and waste reduction, would promote greater transportation and building energy efficiency in municipal and community (a) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 347 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 93 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
operations and development. Furthermore, the 2040 General Plan contains a land-use strategy that actively promotes infill mixed-use and transit- and pedestrian-oriented development, which would result in greater transportation energy efficiency overall for Pleasant Hill residents, businesses, and municipal operations.

Therefore, operation of the 2040 General Plan would not result in potentially significant environmental effects from wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and operational energy impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The CAP contains goals and policies to guide the City in reducing energy demand and associated GHG emissions. As a result, the Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. While the implementation of the strategies and actions proposed in the CAP would consume energy resources such as electricity, fuels, and non-renewable resources during their initial implementation, these actions will improve energy efficiency (Strategies EN 1.2, EN 3.3), install EV charging infrastructure and promote the use of EVs (Strategies TR

1.2, TR 1.3, TR 1.5), and promote renewable energy sources such as solar (Strategies EN 1.1, EN 1.3 and EN 1.4). Future new development in the City would be required to comply with the state’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, Part 6), as they may be amended from time to time, to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and to enhance the outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These standards provide regulations for new buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years to accommodate new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies. Given the nature of the actions, implementation of the CAP would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. As a result, impacts related to energy conservation and resources would be less than significant and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
(b) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to conflicting with or obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 348 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 94 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
General Plan EIR
Construction
2040 General Plan policies related to energy or energy efficiency plans were limited to operational energy use; thus no 2040 General Plan construction impacts related to consistency with an applicable energy or energy efficiency plan would occur.

Operation
The 2040 General Plan contains policies that seek to decrease non-renewable (i.e., natural gas) consumption and overall energy consumption in new and existing buildings by encouraging the production and storage of local renewable energy as well as requiring energy efficient improvement, incentivizing energy-efficient retrofits, and providing energy conservation education programs. These actions are consistent with the goals and policies established by SB 100, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), and the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. As such, the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with adopted renewable energy or energy conservation plans, and impacts related to consistency with State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As discussed in Section 3.F(a), above, the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP will improve energy efficiency (Strategies EN 1.2, EN 3.3), install EV charging infrastructure (Strategies TR 1.2, TR 1.3, TR 1.5), and promote renewable energy sources such as solar (Strategies EN 1.1, EN 1.3 and EN 1.4). The Project would not adversely change any energy efficiency policies and would comply with all State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. The CAP will comply with all state and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency while also promoting new strategies in energy efficiency and renewable energy that work to reduce the City’s GHG emissions and effects of climate change. As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct any State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Adoption of the CAP would have no impact with regard to a conflict with a State or local renewable energy or energy efficiency plan and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 349 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 95 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impacts with respect to geology and soils of the CAP were evaluated with regard to the General Plan EIR and adopted mitigation measures. The potential for the CAP to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to geology and soils was evaluated in relation to eight questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(a) Exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) The rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
(b) A project being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Pleasant Hill does not contain Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Therefore, persons and property associated with development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not be directly or indirectly subject to effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, and no impact would occur.

Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in additional residential, commercial, and retail development that would be potentially exposed to the effects of strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides resulting from local and regional earthquakes. Development within Pleasant Hill would be required to be built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking. In addition to compliance with mandatory California Building Code (CBC) development requirements that address safe building development, including requirements to seismically upgrade existing structures, the 2040 General Plan includes goals and policies Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 350 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 96 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
that further minimize potential adverse effects related to strong ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides. Compliance with all General Plan policies and requirements for both proposed and existing structures would minimize the potential for loss, injury, or death related to strong ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides caused by a seismic event. Therefore, 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure risk, and landslide hazard would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
While the City is not located in the Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Northern California is an active seismic region, and moderate to strong earthquakes can occur on numerous faults. As such, measures must be taken to preserve the safety of persons and structures during local and/or regional seismic events.

Implementation of actions proposed in the CAP could involve minor ground-disturbing activities, including grading and excavation. For example, minor grading, excavation, and other ground disturbance could occur during the construction of upgraded pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (Strategy TR 1.6, TR 2.3), installation of EV charging infrastructure (Strategies TR 1.2, TR 1.3, TR 1.5), and tree planting/landscaping (Strategies AM 1.2, GC 1.1, GC 1.2, WS 3.2; Action WE 3.2.1). The depth to which this ground disturbance would occur would be insignificant and would be highly unlikely to directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides.

Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, development facilitated by the CAP would be required to be built to current seismic standards established by the CBC that could better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking. Potential structural damage and the exposure of people to the risk of injury or death from structural failure would be minimized by compliance with CBC engineering design and construction measures. Foundations and other structural support features would be required to be designed to resist or absorb damaging forces from strong ground shaking and liquefaction.

Additionally, actions under the CAP would be developed to comply with goals and policies established in the General Plan, such as Goal HS-2 to reduce potential harm to people and property from geologic and seismic hazards. Implementation of these General Plan goals and policies aimed at minimizing the impacts from a seismic event, in addition to compliance with applicable laws and regulations such as CBC requirements, would minimize the potential for loss, injury, or death related to strong ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides caused by a seismic event within the General Plan area. Thus, overall, compliance with all aforementioned policies and requirements for both proposed and existing structures would minimize the potential for loss, injury, or death related to strong ground shaking, seismicrelated ground failure, and landslides caused by a seismic event to a less than significant level; there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 351 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 97 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
(c) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would involve construction activities such as stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving, and other earth-disturbing activities. Loose and disturbed soils are more prone to erosion and loss of topsoil by wind and water. Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ)17 adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Compliance with the permit requires each qualifying development project to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Permit conditions require preparation of a SWPPP, which must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment, and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Development within the City must also comply with the Construction General Permit, which requires measures to reduce and eliminate stormwater pollutants, installation of appropriate BMPs to control stormwater runoff from construction sites, and that grading and drainage permits be obtained prior to construction. Adherence to these regulations, as well as local regulations, such as PHMC Chapter 15.10 and PHMC BMPs, would ensure that impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. 17 At the time that the General Plan EIR was prepared, the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) was the active General Permit. For clarity, future development under the General Plan would be compliant with the most current SWRCB General Permit. At the time of this analysis, the current NPDES General Permit adopted by the SWRCB is Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 352 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 98 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Operation
Impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil are limited to construction impacts. No respective operational impacts would occur.

Proposed Project
Although ground disturbance would be minimal, implementation of the CAP would be required to comply with the requirements outlined in the NPDES Program, where applicable. In compliance with the NPDES program, construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) adopted by the SWRCB and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the Construction General Permit during grading and construction. Construction general permits are issued by the City of Pleasant Hill Building Division. Typical BMPs include erosion prevention mats or geofabrics, silt fencing, sandbags, plastic sheeting, temporary drainage devices, and positive surface drainage to allow surface runoff to flow away from site improvements or areas susceptible to erosion. Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from grading and construction activities. The Building Division is responsible for the enforcement of City and State codes, including SWPPP and BMP requirements. Additionally, the PHMC requirements for erosion prevention and sediment control would apply to construction facilitated by the CAP. These include erosion prevention and sediment control in accordance with Chapter 15.10 of the PHMC, conformance of plans to erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs, grading restrictions during the winter rain period, potential need for water sprinkling equipment on site during grading, and regulations of cut and fill slopes.

Construction activities associated with the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would primarily occur on already disturbed, developed areas such as roadways and parking lots. As such, actions proposed in the CAP may involve minor ground-disturbing activities that could cause soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, adherence to the regulations detailed above would ensure projects under the CAP would not result in substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 353 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 99 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Construction of development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would comply with the CBC and applicable Federal, State, and local regulations that would ensure construction activities (e.g., excavation of subterranean space) would not cause direct or indirect impacts to nearby properties in areas where expansive soils could potentially exist. No respective construction impacts would occur.

Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan on expansive soils, as defined by Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), within the eastern portion of Pleasant Hill could be subject to damage or could become unstable when the underlying soil shrinks or swells. The adverse effects of expansive soils can be avoided through proper subsoil preparation, drainage, and foundation design. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC, as well as relevant General Plan policies, would reduce risks related to expansive soils. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors, and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade.

Depending on the extent and location below finish subgrade, expansive soils can have a detrimental effect on structures. According to the General Plan EIR, the eastern portion of the City contains expansive soils; expansive soils are identified through expansion tests of samples of soil or rock, or by means of the Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 354 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 100 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
interpretation of Atterberg limit tests, a standard soil testing procedure. The CBC includes requirements to address soil-related hazards, including testing to identify expansive soils and design specifications where structures are to be constructed on expansive soils. Typical measures to treat expansive soil conditions involve removal, proper fill selection, and compaction. In cases where soil remediation is not feasible, the CBC requires structural enforcement of foundations to resist the forces of expansive soils. While implementation of actions proposed in the CAP could involve some ground disturbance, the depth to which any excavation would occur would be insignificant and would be highly unlikely to directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects from development located on expansive soils. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC, as well as relevant General Plan goals and policies, such as Goal HS-2, would reduce risks related to expansive soils. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would occur on urbanized sites that are served by existing sanitation infrastructure. New development would not include septic systems. There would be no impact.

Proposed Project
The City is served by existing sewer infrastructure. The CAP does not propose any actions that would directly impact or be impacted by new physical development involving the installation or use of septic tanks. Therefore, the CAP would result in no impacts to soils supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 355 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 101 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(f) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Ground-disturbing construction activities that impact previously geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity may result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Ground-disturbing activities associated with construction facilitated by the 2040 General Plan, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses, have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface in areas of high paleontological sensitivity.

Consequently, damage to or destruction of fossils could occur due to development under the proposed 2040 General Plan. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce the 2040 General Plan construction impacts related to the destruction of paleontological resources or unique geological features to less than significant with mitigation.

Operation
Impacts with the potential to cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature are limited solely to construction. No respective operational paleontological resources impacts would occur.

Proposed Project
Implementation of actions proposed in the CAP could involve minor ground-disturbing activities, including grading and excavation. For example, minor grading, excavation, and other ground disturbance could occur during the construction of upgraded pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, the installation of EV charging infrastructure, and tree planting/landscaping. Construction activities associated with the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would primarily occur on already disturbed, developed areas such as roadways and parking lots. However, potentially significant impacts to paleontological Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 356 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 102 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
resources can only be determined once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions (e.g., presence of previously disturbed sediments or artificial fill) and the characteristics of the proposed ground disturbance (e.g., depth, total volume, type of construction). Although the discovery of paleontological resources is unlikely, these ground-disturbing activities have the potential to encounter previously undiscovered, unique paleontological resources.

Adherence to the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is required to ensure development does not destroy a unique paleontological resource. Consistent with the analysis and conclusions of the General Plan EIR, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would continue to reduce impacts related to the destruction of unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features below the level of significance; there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 357 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 103 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the CAP were evaluated based on a review of the General Plan EIR.

The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions was evaluated in relation to two questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that since the City did not have a CAP, implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not be able to meet the 2030 and 2045 GHG reduction goals established by SB 32 and AB 1279, respectively. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would result in the adoption of CEQA GHG thresholds and a CAP; however, development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not meet the 2030 and 2045 goals until the CAP is adopted. This impact was deemed significant and unavoidable.

Proposed Project
The CAP includes GHG emission reduction strategies for the City. The CAP contains a series of actions to support Statewide reduction of GHG emissions by reaching 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045, and achieving net-zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, consistent with Executive Order B-55 and Senate Bill 100, respectively. The goals and strategies in the CAP center around 5 focus areas: Energy, Transportation, Resource Conservation, Adaptive Management, and Green Community.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 358 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 104 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Implementation of the CAP would result in the temporary generation of GHG emissions during construction activities associated with its actions. However, these actions would not require a large labor force, nor would they require extensive use of construction equipment. While worker trips generated as a result of implementing actions proposed in the CAP would result in the short-term consumption of diesel fuel and gasoline, it is reasonably foreseeable that this workforce would be local to the region/serving the City, and would not require extended commutes to reach CAP action sites. Construction equipment may also be utilized for the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP, but it is likely that this equipment would be used intermittently and for short periods of time when in use. Implementation of the actions may require operational maintenance activities; however, these activities and trips would be infrequent and minimal. Thus, operational fuel consumption and GHG emissions would be negligible when compared to the CAP’s long-term GHG emission reductions. As a result, implementation of the CAP would not generate GHG emissions either directly or indirectly, which would have a significant impact on the environment.

Rather, implementation of the CAP would help the City achieve its GHG emission reduction targets and prepare the City for the effects of climate change. Additionally, the adoption of the CAP is the realization of Implementation Programs Q, R, and S from the 2040 General Plan’s Environment Element to adopt a Climate Action Plan with measurable targets, guided by SB 32, to reduce GHG emissions 40 percent below 2025 levels and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The Project would adopt and implement a CAP that meets the requirements for a qualified GHG Reduction Plan as set forth in Section 15183.5(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines and is therefore consistent with BAAD operational GHG threshold B established in the BAAD CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project would introduce a CAP to the City that would serve as a guiding document toward GHG reductions in municipal operations and throughout the community. As a result, implementation of the CAP would not conflict with any applicable GHG reduction plan and would guide the City in reducing community-wide GHG emissions. These efforts would not conflict with an existing plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs. Rather, the CAP would be consistent with and support Statewide plans, policies, and regulations pertaining to the reduction of GHG emissions. Adoption of the CAP would ensure that projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would meet statewide GHG reduction goals. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 359 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 105 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials was evaluated in relation to seven questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Construction associated with the 2040 General Plan would primarily consist of infill and development construction throughout Pleasant Hill. Infill and development construction can involve demolition of existing structures. Demolition could result in the emission of lead and asbestos if building materials contain these substances. However, lead-based materials and asbestos exposure are regulated by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA). CCR Section 1532.1 requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials such that exposure levels do not exceed CalOSHA standards. Similarly, CCR Section 1529 sets requirements for asbestos exposure assessments and monitoring, methods of complying with exposure requirements, safety wear, communication of hazards, and medical examination of workers.

Friable asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As a construction worker safety hazard, they are also regulated under the authority of CalOSHA and by the BAAD (formerly BAAQMD). In structures that would be demolished, any ACMs would be abated in accordance with State and Federal regulations prior to the start of demolition or renovation Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 360 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 106 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
activities and in compliance with all applicable existing rules and regulations, including the Bay Area Air District.

Fluorescent lighting ballasts manufactured prior to 1978, and electrical transformers, capacitors, and generators manufactured prior to 1977, may contain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs). In accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act and other Federal and State regulations, individual projects would be required to properly handle and dispose of electrical equipment and lighting ballasts that contain PCBs during demolition of older buildings.

The use of construction machinery would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking. These types of hazardous materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by County, State, and Federal regulations and compliance with applicable standards.

Compliance with existing applicable regulations and policies would minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials during construction. Oversight by the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and compliance by new development with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these substances. Four out of the ten schools located within the General Plan Area are located near an identified hazardous materials transportation route. Transport of hazardous materials along the I-680 and Contra Costa Boulevard routes would be subject to Federal, State, and local regulations that would reduce potential impacts of hazardous materials releases proximate to schools.

Therefore, 2040 General Plan construction impacts related to a hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accidental release of hazardous materials, including within 0.25 miles of a school, would be less than significant.

Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in the addition of residential units and commercial, office, school, semi-public, and industrial development throughout Pleasant Hill. Commercial, office, and semi-public development would be subject to compliance with CCR, CalOSHA, and other agencies to ensure hazardous materials risks to the public are minimized during operational use and transport as well.

Compliance with existing applicable regulations and policies would minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials. Oversight by the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and compliance by new development with applicable regulations related Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 361 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 107 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these substances. While I-680 and Contra Costa Boulevard are located near four schools, transport of hazardous materials along these routes would be subject to Federal, State, and local regulations that would reduce potential impacts of releases proximate to schools. Therefore, 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to a hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accidental release of hazardous materials, including within 0.25 miles of a school, would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials typically occurs due to the improper mishandling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes. Particularly, this could occur due to untrained personnel, a transportation accident, environmentally inappropriate methods of disposal, fire, explosion, or other emergencies. The severity of potential effects varies with the activity conducted, the concentration and type of hazardous material or wastes present, and the proximity of sensitive receptors.

Limited amounts of some hazardous materials could be used in the short-term construction activities under the CAP and could expose construction workers and the general public to hazardous materials, including standard construction materials (e.g., paints and solvents), vehicle fuel, and other hazardous materials.

None of the actions proposed in the CAP would encourage the new or increased use of, or concentration of, hazardous materials, more than these chemicals or materials might currently be used or concentrated.

These actions would be required to comply with multiple State, regional, and local regulatory programs and requirements involving the handling, transport, and disposal of any hazardous materials that may be used. Additionally, some actions may require consultation with the Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Highway Patrol, Contra Costa County Fire Department, and Contra Costa County Department of Public Health to ensure compliance with the applicable state and regional regulatory programs. With compliance with applicable standards and regulations and adherence to the manufacturer’s instructions related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, the CAP would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, including within 0.25 miles of a school. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, compliance with local, regional, State, and Federal regulations related to hazardous materials would ensure that impacts would be less than significant; there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 362 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 108 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(d) Would the proposed plan be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Given that potential construction sites are required by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the RWQCB to be remediated and/or capped in a manner deemed appropriate by the responsible agency prior to construction activities occurring, construction impacts would be reduced through federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would not create a hazard to the public or environment during construction, and impacts related to locating buildings within the General Plan area on a hazardous materials site per Government Code Section 65962.5 would be less than significant.

Operation
Existing sites that use or have previously used hazardous materials or that may contain contaminants in soils or groundwater in Pleasant Hill include large- and small-quantity generators of hazardous waste, such as gas stations, dry cleaners, and industrial uses. Specifically, there are 10 sites containing or potentially containing hazardous materials contamination located in Pleasant Hill. Potential development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan on identified hazard sites would be preceded by investigation, remediation, and cleanup under the supervision of the RWQCB, the Contra Costa Health Services, or DTSC, before any development activities could begin, as currently required by federal, State, and local regulations.

It is also possible that underground storage tanks (USTs) in use prior to permitting and record-keeping requirements may be present in the General Plan area. Potential risks, if any, posed by USTs would be minimized by managing the tank according to existing standards contained in Division 20, Chapters 6.7 and 6.75 (UST Program) of the California Health and Safety Code, as enforced and monitored by the Environmental Programs Division. Compliance with existing State and local regulations would result in Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 363 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 109 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
the 2040 General Plan not increasing the likelihood for development of identified hazard sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would not create a hazard to the public or environment during operation, and impacts related to locating buildings within the General Plan area on a hazardous materials site per Government Code Section 65962.5 would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
While there is potential for a proposed action to be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, any such action would be required to follow all applicable state and local regulations related to activities conducted on hazardous materials sites.

Furthermore, none of the actions proposed in the CAP would encourage the new or increased use of, or concentration of, hazardous materials, more than these chemicals or materials might currently be used or concentrated. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation would be required, and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Construction equipment would be required to comply with all Contra Costa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) height limits and other safety requirements. Impacts related to safety hazards and excessive noise for people residing or working in the plan areas are limited to operational impacts. No respective construction impacts would occur.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 364 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 110 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not result in significantly increased airport and airstrip activity. Compliance with state and federal regulations, Contra Costa ALUCP, and proposed 2040 General Plan policies would minimize safety hazards and disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Buchanan Field Airport, located at 181 John Glenn Drive. Impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the only airport located within the City’s boundaries is the Buchanan Field Airport. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would be required to comply with Federal and State regulations, regulations the Contra Costa ALUCP, and General Plan goals and policies pertaining to airport operations to ensure that the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would not result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in a future project area under the CAP. Thus, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts related to airport land use. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(f) Impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Potential construction related to implementation of the 2040 General Plan is expected to entail construction equipment and vehicles that would access and leave the plan area, which in turn could potentially temporarily impede evacuation or emergency vehicle access. The 2040 General Plan would comply with the Contra Costa County Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) and Contra Costa County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, ensuring efficient response to emergency incidents associated with emergencies affecting Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 365 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 111 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Pleasant Hill. In addition, future projects that would undergo project-level CEQA review would prepare a construction management plan to ensure adequate transportation circulation and access throughout the construction period. Therefore, construction impacts related to emergency response and evacuation would be less than significant.

Operation
Contra Costa County implements the Contra Costa County EOP, which addresses the response to emergency incidents associated with emergencies affecting Contra Costa County, including Pleasant Hill.

Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would provide two vehicle access points and adequate fire truck and apparatus turning radii and clearance for purposes of adequate emergency access and response within Pleasant Hill. As such, implementation of emergency response and evacuation procedures would not be affected as a result of development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan.

The 2040 General Plan does not propose physical changes such as realigned or closed-off roadways or changes in general transportation circulation and access that would interfere with or impair emergency response or evacuation within or through the plan areas. As such, the 2040 General Plan would also not result in changes to emergency evacuation routes such that the use of an evacuation route, including I-680 and SR-24, would be hindered. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would accommodate future population growth and would increase vehicle miles traveled in the City. This could lead to increased roadway congestion during emergency evacuations. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would also comply with road standards and would be reviewed by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to ensure development would not interfere with evacuation routes and would not impede the effectiveness of evacuation plans.

Although the 2040 General Plan includes policies and programs that would address emergency response and emergency evacuation, guidance resulting from compliance with AB 747 and SB 99 is not currently available. As such, the 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be significant and unavoidable, and no feasible mitigation would reduce this impact.

Proposed Project
The proposed Project would not impede existing emergency and evacuation plans. Projects under the CAP would be required to comply with the Contra Costa County EOP and Contra Costa County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. No actions proposed in the CAP would result in changes to identified emergency evacuation routes (such as I-680 and SR-24) or hinder their accessibility. Development facilitated by the CAP would also comply with road standards and are reviewed by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 366 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 112 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
District to ensure development would not interfere with evacuation routes and would not impede the effectiveness of evacuation plans. Additionally, the CAP includes strategies and actions that would enhance public safety and promote healthy and equitable outcomes; for example, the CAP supports these emergency response plans through strategies aimed at disaster preparedness such as Strategy AM 1.1, which would identify, fund, and prepare existing and new public facilities to serve as resilience hubs (i.e. locations which are able to generate power in the event of a power outage, distribute emergency supplies, and coordinate communication. Construction and operational activities associated with future CAP actions would be subject to the City’s policies and regulations related to the emergency response. Thus, the proposed Project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Impacts related to wildfire hazard risks affecting people, structures, or emergency response and evacuation plans are limited to operational impacts. No construction impacts would occur.

Operation
Pleasant Hill is not located in or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in or near a State Responsibility Area (VHFHSZ); the nearest VHFHSZ in a State Responsibility Area is located approximately four miles west of the General Plan area. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be subject to the California Fire Code. Fire sprinklers would also be required in residential developments pursuant to the Contra Costa County Code and Chapter 14.05 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code. Construction would also be required to meet CBC requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 367 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 113 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. In addition, compliance with 2040 General Plan Hazards and Safety Element policies would also help reduce potential wildfire risk to people and structures and wildfire exacerbation. Further, impacts related to wildfire that would result from specific project development characteristics would be considered when the City reviews those specific development proposals. Despite this, the General Plan area’s steep terrain is surrounded by or contains vegetation that could be prone to wildfires. Existing codes and regulations cannot guarantee that wildfires would not occur or damage structures and harm occupants. This represents a significant wildfire exposure and exacerbation risk impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3, the risk of loss of structures and the risk of injury or death due to wildfires would be reduced. These measures would make structures more fire-resistant and less vulnerable to loss in the event of a wildfire, as well as reduce the potential for construction to inadvertently ignite a wildfire. Even with mitigation, it is not possible to prevent a significant risk of wildfires or fully protect people and structures from the risks of wildfires. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan operational impact related to wildfire exposure and exacerbation risk would be significant and unavoidable.

Proposed Project
While Pleasant Hill is not located within or near a VHFHSZ or a State Responsibility Area, portions of Pleasant Hill are located in or near a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a Local Responsibility Area, and areas of vegetated open space. The CAP establishes goals, strategies, and actions to reduce GHG emissions and transition the City into a more climate-resilient community, and would not directly result in the approval of any physical improvements or future development that would expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Actions proposed under the CAP would comply with General Plan goals, policies, and mitigation measures aimed at reducing potential wildfire risk to people and structures. Although it is unlikely that actions proposed under the CAP would occur in areas at risk of wildland fires, development facilitated by the CAP would be subject to California Fire Code and any future projects under the CAP would be subject to City review to ensure that a project located in an area at risk of wildland fires would not exacerbate a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and that the project would not substantially impair an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 368 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 114 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated in relation to the General Plan EIR. The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality was evaluated in relation to 8 questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Construction activities would involve ground-disturbing activities, which include the use of heavy equipment and machinery that could increase the potential for water quality degradation to occur as a result of soil erosion or sedimentation, or an accidental spill or release of hazardous materials such as oils, fuels, paints, and solvents. Earth-moving activities during construction could include excavation and trenching, soil compaction and moving, cut and fill activities, and grading. Individual construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land surface would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) adopted by the SWRCB and implemented in the General Plan area by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be subject to the requirements of the City of Pleasant Hill-specific components of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP), including Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implementation for development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan, which would reduce the potential for the 2040 General Plan to cause water quality standards to be exceeded.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 369 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 115 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Operation
Potential impacts related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or the potential for activities to “otherwise substantially degrade water quality,” would largely be limited to construction activities. Operation and maintenance activities would not involve the ground-disturbing activities or use of heavy construction equipment and machinery that introduce potential for an accidental spill or release of hazardous materials to occur, or erosion and sedimentation associated with disturbed soils. Operation of development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would occur in compliance with goals and policies for the protection of surface water and groundwater quality, such as Low Impact Development (LID) features on new developments. The implementation of LID features as part of both new development and retrofitting existing development, as applicable under the 2040 General Plan, could result in increased stormwater infiltration compared to existing conditions and thus enhance water quality by minimizing the conveyance of contaminants in stormwater. With implementation of 2040 General Plan policies and regionally consistent BMPs for water quality and NPDES compliance, operation would be consistent with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Therefore, 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to surface water quality and groundwater quality would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The City of Pleasant Hill is subject to SFBRWQCB water quality regulations. The SFBRWQCB is authorized to implement a municipal stormwater permitting program as part of the NPDES authority granted under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the NPDES program, development projects that disturb more than one acre of land must apply for a CGP prior to the initiation of construction activities. The CGP would require prospective applicants to prepare and implement a SWPPP that would minimize the incidence of construction-related pollutants entering the stormwater system. Among the items required in a SWPPP are pollution prevention Best Management Practices (BMP) that must be implemented in development projects.

Future CAP actions would be required to comply with all applicable SFBRWQCB requirements to ensure implementation of the CAP would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade surface or ground water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not pose any new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 370 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 116 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
During construction of individual projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan, ground-disturbing activities would temporarily alter site-specific drainage patterns; BMPs would be implemented through the SWPPP required for compliance with the Clean Water Act and the CCCWP. Construction-related impacts would be site-specific and temporary in nature, limited to the construction period for the respective development, and would not affect long-term groundwater recharge rates and patterns. Therefore, construction-related impacts related to groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant.

Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would connect to the existing Pleasant Hill water supply system and would not install groundwater supply wells or conduct on-site groundwater pumping to meet water demands. Therefore, development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not affect groundwater through direct pumping, and potential operational groundwater impacts would be limited to indirect means, such as through alteration of infiltration and recharge.

The General Plan EIR determined that once the Approved Project has been constructed, urban runoff could include the above-mentioned contaminants. Trace metals from road surface runoff and landscape maintenance debris may be mobilized in storm runoff and in dry-season in “nuisance flows” from landscape irrigation. Liquid product spills occurring at the Project Site could also enter the storm drain.

Dry product spills could enterthe storm drain via runoff in wet weather conditions or dry-season “nuisance flows. Goals and policies of the 2040 General Plan encourage the use of LID features and explicitly aim to increase areas of permeable surfaces, which would facilitate increased stormwater retention and infiltration to the subsurface. While development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan could increase impervious Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 371 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 117 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
surfaces throughout the General Plan area, LID features associated with development would minimize the potential to increase impervious surfaces and adversely affect infiltration and runoff; such features may include bioretention systems, swales, green roofs, infiltration systems, and permeable pavers. This would, in turn, facilitate infiltration of surface water to the subsurface and help filter contaminants out of surface runoff as it infiltrates soil to the underlying groundwater resources. Therefore, operational impacts related to groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The City is located within the Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin (YVGB). Walnut Creek and Grayson Creek flow through the Basin before draining into Pacheco Creek, then to the Suisun Bay; the Contra Costa Canal and Mokelumne Aqueduct also pass through the Basin. The Basin occupies a structural depression between the Berkeley Hills and the Mt. Diablo Range. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires High and Medium Priority groundwater basins are managed in accordance with a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or GSP Alternative under the direction of a designated Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA); SGMA does not yet require Low or Very Low Priority basins to be managed under a GSP, because they are not affected by overdraft. The YVGB is designated by the Department of Water Resources as Very Low Priority. As such, a GSP is not necessary for YVGB.

Presently, the majority of the land in Pleasant Hill is urbanized and developed with impervious surfaces.

However, implementation of the CAP would include landscaping improvements (i.e., trees and plantings) that could provide new pervious surfaces, which would be beneficial for groundwater recharge. Further, the CAP provides multiple strategies that support the conservation of water, such as those contained under Goal WS 3, which enforces water efficiency standards in new construction and remodeling at the time of permitting. As a result, the CAP would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

As such, no impact would occur. There would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 372 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 118 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not alter the course of any stream or river.

Additionally, the 2040 General Plan contains policies to reclaim degraded streams, maintain creek protection zones, and avoid any new channelization of creeks and waterways in the City, which would collectively reduce or avoid adverse construction-related impacts associated with drainage pattern alterations by protecting and improving existing drainage patterns. Potential for erosion can occur during construction; however, regulatory requirements include BMPs to minimize or avoid the potential for erosion to occur during construction activities. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not result in substantial drainage pattern alterations, and would not result in substantial erosion on- or offsite. Therefore, construction impacts related to flooding or alteration of flood flows would be less than significant.

Operation
While future development could result in site-specific drainage pattern alterations, due to the use of LID features and stormwater management in accordance with policies established in the 2040 General Plan, implementation of the General Plan would not result in increased runoff, and potential impacts would be less than significant.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 373 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 119 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
The 2040 General Plan would not create or contribute substantial new sources of polluted runoff. Although the 2040 General Plan would not alter drainage patterns such that exceedance of storm drain system capacity occurs, future development would connect to the existing storm drain system, with appropriate maintenance, as supported through the 2040 General Plan and the policies presented above, potential impacts would be less than significant.

Two classified flood zones are present within Pleasant Hill: a 100-year floodplain and a 500-year floodplain.

Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be concentrated as infill within previously developed areas and would not impede or redirect existing flood flows. The General Plan area is appropriately served by flood control facilities and programs, and development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not result in drainage pattern alterations that impede or redirect flood flows.

Proposed Project
Actions following the adoption of the CAP would likely take place on existing developed sites, with the amount of pervious surfaces unlikely to substantively change. However, implementation of the CAP would include landscaping improvements (i.e., trees and plantings) that could provide some new pervious surfaces throughout the City. Development facilitated by the CAP would not alter the course of a stream or river or substantially alter existing drainage patterns, including through new impervious surfaces, and adherence to regulatory requirements established to protect and improve drainage patterns would ensure that impacts from runoff, erosion, and flooding are minimized. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(d) For a project located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Proposed Project risk release of pollutants due to inundation?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 374 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 120 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
General Plan EIR
Construction
Potential construction-related impacts would be less than significant through regulatory compliance and through implementation of policies to protect and enhance water quality. The presence of construction activities within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated Flood Hazard Area would not alter the potential for water quality impacts to occur, including as related to the potential risk of release of pollutants. No construction impacts to water quality resulting from a Flood Hazard Area would occur.

Operation
The General Plan area is not located within the inundation area of any dams or within a tsunami hazard area, and no enclosed surface water bodies are present that could result in inundation due to seiche.

Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would not introduce a risk of pollutant release due to inundation from dam failure, tsunami, or seiche. However, the General Plan area contains both 100-year and 500-year floodplains. Goals and policies in the General Plan ensure that development within the General Plan area is appropriately served by flood control facilities and programs, which minimizes the potential for inundation from flooding to occur, and thereby reduces the potential for risk of pollutant release to occur.

Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not introduce new potential sources of polluted runoff, new hazardous materials, or the potential for pollutant releases to occur in the General Plan area.

Therefore, while portions of the General Plan area are within flood hazard areas, the proposed General Plan would not alter existing potential for inundation or pollutant release, and the 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to water quality resulting from a Flood Hazard Area would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As stated in the General Plan EIR, the City is not located within the inundation area of any dams or within a tsunami hazard area, and no enclosed surface water bodies are present that could result in inundation due to seiche. As previously discussed, two classified flood zones are present within Pleasant Hill: a 100- year floodplain and a 500-year floodplain. Actions facilitated by the CAP would be concentrated as infill within previously developed areas and would not impede or redirect existing flood flows. Additionally, actions proposed in the CAP focus on enhancing public transportation and pedestrian/bicycle access, energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements, water conservation, waste reduction and recycling, and green infrastructure. Given the nature and scale of these actions, the implementation of the CAP would not result in a risk of release of pollutants due to inundation, despite the City’s partial presence within a flood hazard zone. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, actions facilitated by the CAP Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 375 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 121 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
would not increase existing potential for inundation within flood hazard areas to occur and would not introduce substantial new pollutant sources that could potentially be released due to inundation; impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
The potential to result in impacts to groundwater management would be limited to operation, when groundwater supply and recharge could be affected by permanent land use changes. In addition, construction activities would be required to adhere to water quality control regulations, including BMPs, to be included in project-specific SWPPPs for any construction project disturbing more than one acre.

Therefore, construction of the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a surface water quality or groundwater quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be required to adhere to NPDES drainage control requirements as well as municipal requirements to manage surface water quality during operations. The General Plan area overlies the YVGB, which is designated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as Very Low Priority and, thus, not required to be managed under a GSP for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Water supply for development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be purchased from the Contra Costa Water Department (CCWD), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), and Martinez Water District and would not affect groundwater resources. Therefore, operation of the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a surface water or Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 376 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 122 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
groundwater quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would be required to meet NPDES drainage control requirements as well as municipal requirements to manage surface water quality. Additionally, the CAP contains multiple strategies associated with water conservation (i.e., Strategies WS 3.1, WS 3.3, WS 3.4) and actions that result in the addition of pervious surfaces through the planting of native, drought-resistant trees and vegetation (i.e., Strategies AM 1.2, GC 1.1, GS 1.2, WS 3.2; Action WE 3.2.1), which would improve water quality and support groundwater recharge. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, implementation of the CAP would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a surface water or groundwater quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 377 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 123 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
K. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Land use and planning impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated in light of the General Plan EIR.

The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts related to land use and planning was evaluated in relation to two questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.
(a) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the potential to physically divide an established community? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Impacts related to the physical division of an established community are limited to operational impacts. To the extent that construction activities obstruct roads, it would be temporary and would not constitute a division of an established community. No respective construction impacts would occur related to the potential division of a community.

Operation
Most of the land within the General Plan area is currently developed, with more than 70 percent of Pleasant Hill’s land occupied with residential uses. The potential growth associated with the 2040 General Plan is based on development assumptions/projections for residential and non-residential development for all land within the General Plan area through the year 2040. The 2040 General Plan includes policies and establishes land use designations that identify the type and intensity of uses permissible in the General Plan area. The intent of the land use designations is to adequately classify and distinguish the various land uses needed within the General Plan area. The 2040 General Plan also aims to direct growth within the Pleasant Hill Sphere of Influence to ensure orderly buildout in density and intensity while maintaining existing neighborhood characteristics and encouraging economic development that is compatible with existing uses to reinforce and create a cohesive community. The 2040 General Plan Land Use Element contains goals and policies that would maintain existing communities within Pleasant Hill and ensure that Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 378 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 124 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
established communities would not be divided by development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan.

Overall, the 2040 General Plan would promote orderly development in Pleasant Hill by encouraging growth in designated development focus areas and at infill sites near transit and other amenities while promoting the enhancement of the Pleasant Hill multimodal circulation system, maximizing connections, and minimizing barriers to connectivity. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would not physically divide Pleasant Hill, and development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in a less than significant impact.

Proposed Project
Projects with the potential to divide a community include highways, railways, and large buildings or infrastructure projects that change the street grid. The CAP does not propose these features but would implement measures that expand pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, such as Strategy TR 2.3 and TR

2.4, which would encourage more pedestrian and bicycle trips, thus reducing vehicle congestion/dependence and improving community connectivity. The CAP would not have the potential to physically divide established communities, and no impact would occur; therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR. (b) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to causing a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Impacts related to consistency with applicable land use plans and policies are limited to operational impacts. No respective construction impacts would occur from development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 379 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 125 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Operation
The General Plan EIR analyzes the General Plan’s consistency with the Pleasant Hill Downtown Specific Plan, the Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG/MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050, as well as the Contra Costa County ALUCP. Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be consistent with applicable, adopted land use plans, regulations, and policies. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to land use plans and policies consistency would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The CAP was prepared to be consistent with and support the General Plan and other relevant local planning documents. Implementation of the CAP would not facilitate growth or population growth beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan. As such, the CAP would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 380 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 126 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
L. MINERAL RESOURCES
The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to mineral resources than what was evaluated in relation to the General Plan EIR, and two questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction and Operation
There are no significant mineral deposits or active mining operations within or in the vicinity of the General Plan area. In addition, implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not affect a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated by an applicable land use plan. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource recovery site during construction or operational activities. No construction or operational mineral resources impacts would occur.

Proposed Project
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, there are no significant mineral deposits or active mining operations within or in the vicinity of the City. Implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would not affect a locally important mineral resource site delineated by an applicable land use plan.

Therefore, the CAP would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource recovery site during construction or operational activities. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 381 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 127 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
M. NOISE
The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts related to noise was evaluated in relation to the General Plan EIR and six questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.
(a) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
(b) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Noise
Construction
Noise from individual construction projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would temporarily increase noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Construction activities would generate noise from phases such as demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving activities. Neither the PHMC nor the 2040 General Plan contains quantitative limits for construction noise. In lieu of Cityspecific standards, the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) criteria for assessing construction noise impacts are used. For residential uses, the FTA daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA Leq (8 hour) for an 8-hour period.

Project-level details are not available for future projects that would be facilitated by the 2040 General Plan, so it is not possible to determine exact noise levels, locations, or time periods for construction of such projects, or construction noise at adjacent properties. Therefore, construction noise levels associated with future projects may exceed the FTA’s daytime construction noise limits, and impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce the 2040 General Plan construction noise impacts associated with future discretionary projects in Pleasant Hill. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would not ensure that construction noise impacts would be reduced to below the significance threshold of 80 dBA Leq during the daytime at residential uses and other sensitive Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 382 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 128 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
receptors in all cases. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Operation
Stationary sources of noise may occur in all types of land uses. The 2040 General Plan contains goals, policies, and programs that would minimize potential adverse noise-related impacts from stationary sources. Noise impacts from operational use of residential-scale heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, industrial equipment, and other stationary noise sources would be reduced by the proposed 2040 General Plan policies. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan stationary operational noise impact would be less than significant.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would allow additional buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to operational roadway vehicle noise. Significant roadway vehicle noise increases are estimated along Taylor Boulevard west of Contra Costa Boulevard, Contra Costa Boulevard north of Beth Drive, Taylor Boulevard east of Alhambra Avenue, Taylor Boulevard west of Alhambra Avenue, Gregory Lane west of Cleaveland Road, and Contra Costa Boulevard north of Monument Boulevard. Along all other roadway study segments, roadway vehicle noise increases would be less than significant. Implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs would reduce operational roadway vehicle trips and associated operational roadway vehicle noise to the extent feasible. However, the implementation of these would not guarantee that roadway vehicle noise would be below the thresholds of significance. As such, roadway vehicle noise impacts would be potentially significant. Although the General Plan proposes Mitigation Measure NOI-1, since there are no feasible measures that would reduce roadway vehicle noise to less than significant in all cases, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of mitigation measures.

Vibration
Construction
Construction of individual projects facilitated by the proposed 2040 General Plan could intermittently generate groundborne vibration to nearby properties. Buildings and structures could experience the strongest vibration during the use of pile drivers and vibratory rollers. Vibration levels from typical equipment such as bulldozers and jackhammers would not exceed FTA thresholds for historic structures and residential buildings at a distance of 25 feet or greater. However, vibration levels from pile driving equipment and vibratory rollers may exceed FTA thresholds. Project-level details are not available for individual development projects that would be carried out under the 2040 General Plan; it is not possible Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 383 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 129 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
to determine which projects may use pile driving or vibratory rollers and their exact vibration levels, locations, or time periods for construction of such projects. Therefore, construction vibration levels may exceed FTA vibration levels for preventing architectural building damage, and impacts would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce the 2040 General Plan construction groundborne vibration and noise impacts in Pleasant Hill to a level of less than significant.

Operation
Residential, commercial, industrial, and retail land uses facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not involve substantial vibration sources associated with operation, such as railroad and subway. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan operational groundborne vibration and noise impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
According to the General Plan EIR, neither the PHMC nor the 2040 General Plan contains quantitative limits for construction noise. While no quantitative limit exists for construction noise, Section 9.15.040, Special Noise Sources, of the PHMC, outlines the times in which construction may take place: Monday through Friday from 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM, and on Saturdays and Sundays, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.18 In lieu of City-specific standards, the FTA criteria for assessing construction noise impacts are used. For residential uses, the FTA daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA Leq (8 hour) for an 8- hour period. Projects under the CAP would adhere to General Plan Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and NOI-2 to reduce construction noise and vibrational impacts associated with future projects under the CAP.

Implementation of new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, solar power and other energy-generating technologies, EV charging infrastructure, tree planting and native landscaping, and resiliency hubs proposed in the CAP could result in noise and vibrations generated during construction and from construction-related vehicle trips. However, construction activities for projects under the CAP would be short-term and would not involve particularly loud or construction equipment or activities, such as blasting or pile driving. Regarding construction-related vehicle trips, while traveling to project sites would result in increases in ambient noise levels, these trips would be traveling along multiple roads within the City, not exposing any individual sensitive receptor to substantial noise levels for a sustained period of time.

Additionally, the minor and temporary increase in construction-related work trips would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels along roadways because a doubling of traffic volume on a 18 PHMC, Section 9.15.040: Special Noise Sources. Available online at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/PleasantHill/#!/PleasantHill09/PleasantHill0915.html#9.15, accessed October 25, 2025.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 384 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 130 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
roadway would have to occur in order for an increase in noise levels would be detectable to a person.

Further, consistent with PHMC Section 9.15.040, all construction activities would be limited to daytime hours when ambient noise levels are higher; intermittent periods of exposure to substantial noise level increases would be less substantial than prolonged exposure to sustained substantial noise levels over longer construction periods.

Several of the CAP actions are designed to encourage a shift from single-occupancy passenger vehicles to walking and bicycling or from conventional fuels to electric vehicles, which would reduce vehicular travel and therefore noise associated with such vehicles. These actions would support the transition to cleaner, quieter, and more efficient modes of transportation throughout the City.19 Implementation of these actions would reduce roadway-related noise levels compared to existing levels, making the impacts less than significant. As a result, long-term implementation of the CAP actions would not result in exposure of persons to noise in excess of established standards or ground-borne noise or vibration, nor would it result in a temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing levels.

Operationally, implementation of the actions described above would not introduce stationary or transportation-related sources of groundborne vibration or noise. Implementation of the CAP would not result in substantial temporary increases in noise levels that would adversely affect human health or wellbeing in the community and would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels with adherence to Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2. Therefore, no additional mitigation would be required, and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(c) For a project located within-the vicinity of a private airstrip or-an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
19 Karsan, Quiet Cities: The Role of Electric Buses in Reducing Noise Pollution, October 9, 2024. Available online at:
https://www.karsan.com/en/blog/sustainability-blog/quiet-cities-the-role-of-electric-buses-in-reducing-noisepollution, accessed August 25, 2025.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 385 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 131 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
General Plan EIR
Construction
Potential noise impacts related to location proximate to a private airstrip or public use airport are limited to operational impacts. No respective construction impacts related to effects of airport activity noise would occur.

Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan is not expected to directly increase airport activities and airport noise from the Buchanan Field Airport. Existing requirements, such as Title 21 of the CCR and the Federal Aviation Administration Regulation Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program for airports would reduce the noise impacts of airport activity on residents and workers. Further, individual projects as a result of development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be subject to all development standards if the project is located within Safety Zone 4 of the Buchanan Field Airport, and other policies contained within the Contra Costa County ALUCP are intended to reduce land use conflicts with airport operations. With the aforementioned requirements in place and implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan policies, airport activity would not expose residents and workers to excessive noise.

Therefore, the 2040 General Plan operational impact related to consistency with noise land use compatibility standards and effects of airport activity noise would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the only airport located within the City’s boundaries is the Buchanan Field Airport. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would be required to comply with Federal and State regulations, regulations the Contra Costa ALUCP, and General Plan goals and policies pertaining to airport operations to ensure that the implementation of actions proposed in the CAP would not expose people residing or working in a project area to excessive noise levels from airport activity. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 386 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 132 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Population and housing impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated with regard to the General Plan EIR. The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant was evaluated in relation to two questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines. (a) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the induction of substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Impacts related to inducing substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, are limited to operational impacts. No respective construction impacts would occur from development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan.

Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in approximately 19,216 net new residential units in Pleasant Hill through 2040. Growth anticipated under the proposed 2040 General Plan is intended in part to meet regional housing needs over the long term. Additionally, growth facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in a more balanced jobs-household ratio by 2040 by increasing the number of residential units available in Pleasant Hill. Although the 2040 General Plan would facilitate development beyond what is forecasted by ABAG, it would bring the forecasts for the Pleasant Hill General Plan and RTP/SCS into consistency when the RTP/SCS is next updated to reflect new forecasts for each city in the region. Given that the State is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply, the additional units under the 2040 General Plan would further assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting the housing needs of Pleasant Hill communities. Because the 2040 General Plan is designed for planned and orderly growth, and residential development would be completed in accordance with State law, development facilitated by and in accordance with the 2040 General Plan would not directly or Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 387 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 133 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
indirectly induce substantial unplanned growth in Pleasant Hill. Therefore, operational 2040 General Plan impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The CAP consists of strategies and actions with the overall goals of GHG reduction and transitioning the City into a more climate-resilient community. The CAP does not propose any goals, strategies, or actions that directly or indirectly result in an increase in population and would not generate growth beyond that anticipated by the City's adopted General Plan or induce additional population growth. Some strategies and actions proposed in the CAP (Strategies EN 1.4; Actions EN 1.4.2, EN 2.2.1, and EN 3.3.1) would incentivize homeowners to transition to cleaner and/or renewable energy sources. Future development would be required to comply with the applicable policies in the City’s General Plan (including but not limited to the Land Use Element and Housing Element), the ABAG RTP/SCS, and PHMC. No actions proposed under the CAP would result in the displacement of existing people or housing, nor would the Project generate substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
(b) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the potential to displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Impacts related to the displacement of substantial existing people or housing are limited to operational impacts. No respective construction impacts related to population or housing displacement would occur from development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan.

Operation
“Substantial” displacement would occur if allowed land uses would displace more residences than would be accommodated through growth facilitated by the 2040 General Plan. Development in the General Plan Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 388 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 134 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
area would not result in significant displacement of existing residences in order to accommodate the planned increase in development intensity, considering that existing residences are not proposed for demolition. In addition, the 2040 General Plan would facilitate the development of 19,216 net new dwelling units throughout the General Plan area. As such, the 2040 General Plan would not result in the net loss or displacement of housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, operational 2040 General Plan impacts related to population or housing displacement would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The CAP consists of strategies and actions with the overall goals of GHG reduction and transitioning the City into a more climate-resilient community. The CAP does not propose any goals, strategies, or actions that have the potential to displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 389 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 135 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
O. PUBLIC SERVICES
Public Services impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated based on a review of the General Plan EIR.

The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to public services was evaluated in relation to one question (relevant to each public service) recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.
(a) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
(i) Fire protection?
(ii) Police protection?
(iii) Schools
(iv) Parks
(v) Other public facilities
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
i) Fire Protection
General Plan EIR
Construction
The 2040 General Plan would allow a net increase of approximately 19,216 residential units and facilitate the addition of 45,740 net new residents in Pleasant Hill. As a result, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) could need to incrementally increase its fire protection services to the City of Pleasant Hill through the year 2040, which could in turn require the construction of new facilities to accommodate subsequent personnel, equipment, and vehicles. If construction or expansion of future facilities is needed or proposed, then a separate environmental review would be required that could determine and require future project-specific construction-related mitigation measures. Construction of new fire protection facilities, if required, would likely occur on property previously disturbed or developed and, thus, within the programmatic analysis for buildout under the 2040 General Plan as analyzed throughout the EIR.

Construction would be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 390 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 136 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
governing the provision of fire protection services, including adequate fire access, fire flows, and the number of hydrants, such as the California Fire Code. Construction impacts related to the potential need for new or expanded fire protection facilities would be less than significant.

Operation
As future buildout occurs under the 2040 General Plan, the CCCFPD will evaluate operations and deployment of services to efficiently use resources. New development under the buildout of the 2040 General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services, including adequate fire access, fire flows, and the number of hydrants, such as the California Fire Code. In addition, the 2040 General Plan Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element contains a number of goals and associated policies, listed below, for providing adequate fire protection services in Pleasant Hill. As future buildout occurs under the 2040 General Plan, the City will evaluate operations and deployment of services to efficiently use resources and ensure that development does not exceed the service capacity of CCCFPD. Because the 2040 General Plan regulates the provision of fire protection services concurrently with 2040 General Plan development and population growth, operational impacts related to the provision of fire protection services would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As discussed, fire protection for the City is provided by the CCCFPD. The City contains two CCCFPD fire stations within City Limits: Station 2, located at 2012 Geary Road, and Station 3, located at 205 Boyd Road.20 The CAP does not call for additional fire protection, nor would it require any new or redeveloped government facilities. Implementation of the CAP would not facilitate growth beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, it would not increase demand for public services or facilities or generate a need for new physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would result in significant impacts to the environment. The CAP would have no adverse impact on acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performative objectives for fire protection services. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR. 20 CCCFPD, “Fire Stations.” Available online at: https://www.cccfpd.org/station-address/, accessed October 24, 2025.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 391 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 137 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
ii) Police
General Plan EIR
Construction
The 2040 General Plan would allow a net increase of approximately 19,216 residential units and facilitate the addition of 45,740 net new residents in Pleasant Hill. As a result, Pleasant Hill Police Department (PHPD) could need to incrementally increase its police services through the year 2040, which could in turn require the construction of new facilities to house subsequent personnel, equipment, and vehicles.

Construction of new police facilities, if required, would likely occur on property previously disturbed or developed, and thus, within the programmatic analysis for buildout under the 2040 General Plan. This would reduce the potential for adverse construction impacts associated with construction of new or expanded police protection facilities associated with implementation of the 2040 General Plan. Thus, construction impacts related to the potential need for new or expanded police protection facilities would be considered less than significant.

Operation
As future buildout occurs under the 2040 General Plan, the City will evaluate operations and deployment of services to efficiently use resources. New development under the buildout of the 2040 General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of police protection services, including adequate emergency access and community safety measures. Because the 2040 General Plan regulates the provision of police protection services concurrently with 2040 General Plan development and population growth, operational impacts related to the provision of police protection services would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The City operates the PHPD; the PHPD has one police station in the City located at 330 Civic Drive. 21 The
CAP does not call for additional police protection, nor would it require any new or redeveloped government facilities. Implementation of the CAP would not facilitate growth beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, it would not increase demand for public services or facilities or generate a need for new physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would result in significant impacts to the environment. The CAP would have no adverse impact on acceptable service 21 PHPD, “About Us.” Available online at: https://www.phillca.gov/1641/About-Us, accessed October 24, 2025.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 392 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 138 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
ratios, response times, or other performative objectives for police protection services. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR. iii) Schools
General Plan EIR
Construction
The 2040 General Plan would allow a net increase of approximately 19,216 residential units and facilitate the addition of 45,740 net new residents in Pleasant Hill. As a result, Mount Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD) could need to incrementally increase its school services to the City of Pleasant Hill through the year 2040, which could in turn require the construction of new facilities to accommodate subsequent students, staff, and facility space. Construction of new school facilities, if required, would likely occur on property previously disturbed or developed and thus within the programmatic analysis for buildout under the 2040 General Plan. This would reduce the potential for adverse construction impacts associated with construction of new or expanded school facilities associated with implementation of the 2040 General Plan.

However, given the large amount of net new school facilities anticipated under the 2040 General Plan, and the significant and unavoidable construction impacts associated with air quality, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and noise, it is conservatively concluded that construction impacts related to new or expanded school facilities would be significant and unavoidable.

Operation
Although MDUSD has experienced a decline in enrollment in the last several years, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, the addition of 7,345 school students within Pleasant Hill could exceed the current school district capacity. However, the 2040 General Plan would facilitate the development of a net increase of 6,444,767 gross square feet of schools. Because the 2040 General Plan regulates the provision of school services concurrently with 2040 General Plan development and population growth and with payment of mandatory MDUSD school impact fees by developers for future projects in the City, operational impacts related to the provision of school services would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The City is served by the Mt. Diablo Unified School District, which operates 9 schools in the City.

Implementation of the CAP would not facilitate growth beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan.

The CAP does not call for additional school facilities, nor would it require any new or redeveloped school facilities. The CAP would not increase demand for public services or facilities or generate a need for new, Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 393 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 139 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would result in significant impacts to the environment. Therefore, the CAP would not have an adverse impact on demand for schools. Rather, the CAP includes multiple strategies and actions that benefit schools and students. For example, Strategy TR 2.1 facilitates the creation of infrastructure that allows citizens to safely travel between high traffic areas, particularly elementary schools, middle schools, and downtown, to reduce speeds and create safer crosswalks and bike lanes, and Action AM 1.2.3 encourages students and parents to plant trees in partnership with the Mount Diablo School District. As such, there would be no new or greater impacts to schools than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
iv) Parks
General Plan EIR
Construction
The 2040 General Plan would allow a net increase of approximately 19,216 residential units and facilitate the addition of 45,740 net new residents in Pleasant Hill, but the proposed 2040 General Plan does not include the designation of additional land for parks, recreational facilities, or open space within the City.

Consequently, existing parks and recreational facilities in Pleasant Hill could be used more frequently and potentially deteriorate at an accelerated pace, and the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District could need to incrementally increase its parks and recreational services through the year 2040, which could, in turn, require the construction of new facilities to accommodate subsequent recreational visitors and facility space. Construction of new parks and recreational facilities, if required, would likely occur on property previously disturbed or developed and, thus, within the programmatic analysis for buildout under the 2040 General Plan. Thus, construction impacts related to the potential need for new or expanded parks and recreational facilities would be considered less than significant.

Operation
The Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District currently maintains 13 parks, one area of open space, and seven areas of undeveloped open space, totaling approximately 147 acres. Currently, there are approximately 4.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in Pleasant Hill, which exceeds the City’s goal to provide three acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. The 2040 General Plan would not include the designation of additional land for parks or recreational facilities within the City. However, the 2040 General Plan would facilitate the addition of approximately 45,740 residents in Pleasant Hill. To ensure that parkland and park access increase concurrently with population growth, the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element of the 2040 General Plan includes the goals and policies related to parks and recreation.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 394 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 140 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Because the 2040 General Plan and the Municipal Code regulate provision of parkland concurrently with development and population growth and because of substantial parkland available immediately outside of City Limits and with payment of mandatory parkland impact fees by developers for future projects in the City, operational impacts related to provision of, access to, and potential deterioration of parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant
Proposed Project
Implementation of the CAP would not facilitate growth beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan.

The CAP would not increase demand for public services or facilities or generate a need for new, physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would result in significant impacts to the environment. The CAP would not have an adverse impact on acceptable service ratios or other performative objectives for parks. Rather, the CAP proposes multiple strategies and actions that will benefit parks, such as Action GC 1.1.1, which would, in partnership with the Recreation and Parks District, continue the participation in Republic Service’s annual compost giveaway and distribute compost to city parks and municipal operations. Consistent with the evaluation in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project therefore would have a less than significant impact on parks. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR. v) Other Public Facilities
General Plan EIR
Construction
The 2040 General Plan would allow approximately 19,216 residential units and facilitate the addition of 45,740 net new residents in Pleasant Hill. The proposed 2040 General Plan does not include the designation of additional land for libraries or other public facilities within the City that would require construction and might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. However, the 2040 General Plan would allow for a net increase of 1,401,063 gross square feet of semi-public and institutional land uses, which could include library facilities. Additionally, Contra Costa County Libraries could need to incrementally increase their library services to the City of Pleasant Hill through the year 2040, which could, in turn, require the construction of new facilities to accommodate subsequent library visitors and facility space. construction of new library facilities, if required, would likely occur on property previously disturbed or developed, and thus, within the programmatic analysis for buildout under the 2040 General Plan as analyzed throughout this EIR. This would reduce the potential for adverse construction impacts associated with construction of new or expanded library facilities associated with implementation of the 2040 General Plan.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 395 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 141 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Thus, construction impacts related to the potential need for new or expanded library facilities would be considered less than significant.

Operation
The 2040 General Plan would facilitate the addition of approximately 45,740 residents in Pleasant Hill. An increase in population would increase demand for public facilities. With implementation of the goals and policies included in the 2040 General Plan, impacts related to public facilities, including libraries, associated with development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Implementation of the CAP would not facilitate growth beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan.

Therefore, it would not increase demand for public services or facilities or generate a need for new physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would result in significant impacts to the environment. The CAP would not have an adverse impact on acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performative objectives for any public services. The proposed Project would not generate population increase and would have no impact on other public facilities or libraries, consistent with the discussion in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 396 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 142 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
P. RECREATION
The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to recreation was evaluated in relation to the General Plan EIR and two questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(a) Increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) On-site recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
The 2040 General Plan would allow a net increase of approximately 19,216 residential units and facilitate the addition of 45,740 net new residents in Pleasant Hill, but the proposed 2040 General Plan does not include the designation of additional land for parks, recreational facilities, or open space within the City.

Consequently, existing parks and recreational facilities in Pleasant Hill could be used more frequently and potentially deteriorate at an accelerated pace, and the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District could need to incrementally increase its parks and recreational services through the year 2040, which could, in turn, require the construction of new facilities to accommodate subsequent recreational visitors and facility space. Construction of new parks and recreational facilities, if required, would likely occur on property previously disturbed or developed and, thus, within the programmatic analysis for buildout under the 2040 General Plan. This would reduce the potential for adverse construction impacts associated with construction of new or expanded parks and recreational facilities associated with implementation of the 2040 General Plan. Thus, construction impacts related to the potential need for new or expanded parks and recreational facilities would be considered less than significant.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 397 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 143 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Operation
The Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District currently maintains 13 parks, one area of open space, and seven areas of undeveloped open space, totaling approximately 147 acres. The 2040 General Plan would add approximately 19,216 net new residential units to Pleasant Hill, which would support approximately 45,740 net new residents. Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would require the development of additional parkland to maintain the City’s established parkland-to-population ratio. To ensure that parkland and park access increase concurrently with population growth, the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element of the 2040 General Plan includes the goals and policies related to parks and recreation.

These policies would increase the amount of parkland available to City residents, which currently exceeds the City’s standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The provision of parkland in accordance with this standard would ensure that substantial physical deterioration of existing parks would not occur or be accelerated. Because the 2040 General Plan and the Municipal Code regulate provision of parkland concurrently with development and population growth and because of substantial parkland available immediately outside of City Limits and with payment of mandatory parkland impact fees by developers for future projects in the City, operational impacts related to provision of, access to, and potential deterioration of parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Because the proposed Project would not generate any new population, there would be no increase in demand for park or recreational facilities as a result of the Proposed Project. The proposed Project would not require the expansion of regional parks or recreational facilities. Further, the proposed Project does not include the construction of recreational facilities. As previously discussed in Section 3.O.a(iv), above, multiple actions in the CAP support parks and recreational facilities in the City. Consistent with the evaluation in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project therefore would have a less than significant impact on recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 398 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 144 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Q. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Transportation and traffic impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated in light of the General Plan EIR.

The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts related to transportation and traffic was evaluated in relation to four questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Roadway, Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
Construction activities related to implementation of the 2040 General Plan could create potential conflicts with other roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian users, such as construction related activities resulting in lane, bicycle path, or sidewalk closures along the frontages of individual development projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan, construction vehicles queuing within the public right-of-way waiting entry to the site, construction worker parking in non-designated parking areas, or construction debris on public streets.

Construction impacts would be temporary in nature, and encroachment permits from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) would be required for facilities under its administration, such as I-680, SR 4, SR 24, and SR 242. With respect to conflicts with circulation system policies related to roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, the 2040 General Plan construction impacts would be less than significant.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 399 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 145 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Operation
Roadway Facilities
The modifications to existing street networks to create a pedestrian-oriented and bicycle-oriented street network could cause existing and future local and regional traffic to circulate differently. The 2040 General Plan’s proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements would not conflict with existing or planned roadway facilities, because the proposed street changes are additions of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and do not specifically propose any reduction in roadway vehicle lanes. The 2040 General Plan includes policies that would support development consistent with applicable plans, such as the Plan Bay Area 2050 and the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). Implementation of the 2040 General Plan policies relating to roadway facilities would ensure consistency with circulation system policies related to roadway facilities.

Buildout of the 2040 General Plan land use plan would lead to an approximately 100 percent increase in residential units and a 50 percent increase in non-residential uses, which in turn would increase the vehicle travel demand on the Pleasant Hill roadway network. Increased vehicle travel demand may result in increased congestion because no roadway widenings are proposed as part of the 2040 General Plan. Growth associated with implementation of the 2040 General Plan could interfere with the operation of existing roadway facilities or conflict with planned roadway facilities; however, implementation of the aforementioned roadway facility policies would minimize such potential conflicts. Therefore, with respect to conflicts with circulation system policies related to roadway facilities, operational impacts of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant.

Transit Facilities
Development under the 2040 General Plan would not obstruct existing transit services or facilities, nor would it conflict with existing or planned facilities. All new development would be subject to City discretionary review, allowing the City to ensure that project designs would not interfere with transit operations. Buildout of the 2040 General Plan would increase the number of potential transit users on the various transit systems serving the city. Increased users would result in a correlated increase in demand for transit. The General Plan includes policies that encourage an increase in transit ridership, decreased dependence on motor vehicles, and reduced transit delays. While the 2040 General Plan could add peakhour transit riders, implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not disrupt existing or interfere with planned transit services or facilities. Therefore, with respect to conflicts with circulation system policies related to transit facilities, operational impacts of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 400 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 146 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Bicycle Facilities
Growth in residential and non-residential uses under the 2040 General Plan could result in more bicycle use on existing facilities. The 2040 General Plan includes complete streets policies, new bicycle facilities, and transportation and circulation goals and policies to accommodate increased bicycle demands generated by new development. This network would accommodate the bicycle demand generated by the land development. The 2040 General Plan would encourage bicycling by improving bicycle connectivity with a comprehensive community-wide network of on-street and off-street bicycle facilities.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not interfere with existing bicycle facilities or conflict with planned bicycle facilities or adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Therefore, with respect to conflicts with circulation system policies related to bicycle facilities, operational impacts of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant.

Bicycle Facilities
Growth in residential and non-residential uses under the 2040 General Plan could result in more use and demand on existing pedestrian facilities. The 2040 General Plan includes complete streets policies, new pedestrian facilities, and transportation and circulation goals and policies to accommodate increased pedestrian demands generated by the development envisioned in the 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan would encourage walking by improving pedestrian facilities and connectivity with a safe and continuous pedestrian network to shorten walking distances and improve pedestrian connections to popular local destinations. Therefore, with respect to conflicts with circulation system policies related to pedestrian facilities, operational impacts of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The CAP contains numerous actions pertaining to transit, roadways, bicycles, and pedestrian facilities. The CAP supports State GHG reduction goals pertaining to reducing VMT, such as SB 743, through pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements, the promotion of EVs/provision of EV charging infrastructure, and reducing dependency on private transportation. While the implementation of these actions could temporarily increase VMT to these subsequent CAP action sites, the VMT and emissions generated would be temporary and negligible. Ultimately, the CAP would improve the operation of the circulation system in several ways through fewer vehicle trips on roadways and highways, and higher numbers of transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The CAP would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and no impact would occur. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 401 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 147 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
(b) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to conflicting with or being inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Impacts related to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) are limited to operational impacts.

No respective construction impacts would occur because construction is temporary in nature and, while it may marginally generate VMT from construction worker trips or road detours, it does not substantially impact regional VMT.

Operation
Implementing the 2040 General Plan policies regarding roadway facilities would reduce VMT through promoting accessibility, encouraging non-vehicle transportation modes, and improving access to transit services. Even with the 2040 General Plan policies to reduce VMT, it is possible that VMT per employee would still remain above applicable thresholds. Thus, with respect to consistency with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), the operational VMT impact of the 2040 General Plan would be significant and unavoidable since VMT per employee would be greater than 12.7 in the 2040 General Plan area, and Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would be required. Due to unknown future conditions at the time of future projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan and the uncertainty of the effectiveness of VMT reduction measures under Mitigation Measure TRA-1 to guarantee a reduction of VMT below thresholds, operational VMT impacts of the 2040 General Plan would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation.

Proposed Project
In response to the implementation of State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) - Land Use Projects; vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 402 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 148 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

Implementation of the CAP would not result in long-term operational increases in vehicular traffic along roadways in the City. Implementation of the CAP would not induce substantial population or employment growth in the City, and therefore, it would not be a source of consistent, long-term increases to VMT.

Construction activities associated with the implementation of CAP actions, such as but not limited to Strategies TR 1.6 and TR 2.3, would be minimal and would not require large construction crews, resulting in a small number of construction-related trips to and from future CAP action sites. Similarly, while retrofitting existing buildings would introduce new vehicle trips, this increase in vehicle movement would be dispersed throughout the City and would not be to a substantial degree that more than 110 trips are generated per day. Therefore, the CAP would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The GHG reduction measures proposed in the CAP would improve the operations of the circulation system in several ways, such as reducing vehicle trips on roadways and highways, and increasing numbers of public transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Any temporary VMT increases associated with construction activities would be offset by the overall net benefit of reducing the long-term improved rate of VMT and associated reductions in GHG emissions. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR. (c) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Construction of the 2040 General Plan is anticipated to utilize vacant areas within the City to accommodate the storage of large construction vehicles. Such staging areas would reduce the number of heavy construction vehicles using adjacent roads. During construction, truck deliveries would be expected to use collectors and would avoid adding additional heavy-duty truck traffic on feeder streets and local streets.

Furthermore, these truck routes are specifically designated to avoid impacts to pedestrian and bicyclists.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 403 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 149 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Thus, because the construction trucks would travel along the designated truck routes, there would not be a conflict with the automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian design and activity along roadways on and near the plan area. Therefore, construction impacts related to roadway design safety hazards would be less than significant.

Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would increase the number of users on the Pleasant Hill transportation system, which could increase transportation circulation design safety hazards associated with future projects in the 2040 General Plan area. Pleasant Hill maintains improvement standards that guide the construction of new transportation facilities to minimize design hazards for all users of the system. Through the environmental review process, land use proposals that would add traffic to streets not designed to current standards are evaluated. If needed, mitigation measures would be identified therein, and the project would be conditioned to construct or provide funding for an improvement that would minimize or eliminate the hazard. Additionally, the 2040 General Plan contains policies regarding infrastructure safety. Therefore, with respect to the increase of hazards due to design features, the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant operational impacts.

Proposed Project
The CAP does not propose any physical improvements or future development that would increase geometric design hazards and incompatible uses. Although some CAP actions, such as Strategies TR 1.6 and TR 2.3, would involve roadway improvements, these actions would increase safety and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists once operational. Additionally, these actions would be subject to City review to ensure that the proposed action is consistent with the City’s design guidelines and would not increase hazards or be incompatible with surrounding uses. As such, impacts related to increasing hazards due to design or incompatible uses would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR. (d) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to inadequate emergency access?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 404 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 150 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
General Plan EIR
Construction
Construction of the 2040 General Plan would include the buildout of a roadway extension that was identified in the City's Circulation Element of the 2040 General Plan. Thus, the 2040 General Plan would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, no impacts would occur.

Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be required to meet all applicable current State and local codes and ordinances related to fire protection, which includes emergency access. Therefore, development within the 2040 General Plan area would be adequately served in case of a fire-related emergency. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be required to provide adequate accommodation of fire access to structure frontages, multiple access points to development, as well as adequate width, height, and turning radius of roadways and access points, pursuant to CBC requirements.

Future projects that would not meet required standards and codes would not be permitted by the City.

Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be required to comply with City and County standards and requirements and would undergo review by public safety officials as part of the approval process. Additionally, the 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies, and a program related to the provision of adequate emergency vehicle access to sites throughout the City. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to emergency vehicle access adequacy would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed in Hazards and Hazardous Materials, construction and operational activities associated with future CAP actions would be subject to the City’s design guidelines and standards, and the final design must be approved by the City to ensure adequate emergency access. Ultimately, the CAP would improve the operation of the circulation system in several ways through fewer vehicle trips on roadways and highways and higher numbers of transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians. As such, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 405 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 151 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Tribal Cultural Resources of the proposed Project were evaluated with regard to the General Plan EIR. The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts was evaluated with respect to the General Plan EIR and in relation to two questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances  
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances   New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information  
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent  
General Plan EIR
Construction
Ground-disturbing activities associated with future development projects under the 2040 General Plan could expose previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as tribal cultural resources and could be adversely affected by associated project construction. AB 52 and SB 18 tribal consultation, thus far, have not identified known tribal cultural resources in the General Plan area, and the SLF results received from the NAHC were negative for Sacred Lands. Adherence to the requirements of AB 52 would require tribal consultation with local California Native American Tribes prior to implementation of any future project activities that are subject to CEQA. The goal, policy, and implementation programs included in the 2040 General Plan relating to the protection of cultural and tribal resources would help reduce the potential for tribal cultural resources to be adversely impacted by the ground-disturbing activities associated with the development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan.

However, there would still be potential for development to affect tribal cultural resources, and those Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 406 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 152 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
impacts would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-4 would reduce the 2040 General Plan construction impacts related to historical or tribal resources to less than significant with mitigation.

Operation
Given that impacts to tribal cultural resources would occur solely during construction, there would be no 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to tribal cultural resources.

Proposed Project
PRC Section 5024.1(c) considers a resource to be culturally significant if it (1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattens of California’s history and cultural heritage; (2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Impacts related to historical resources are evaluated in Section 3.E, Cultural Resources. No heavy ground disturbance or subsurface excavation is proposed by the Project. While some minor ground disturbance could result from the implementation of the CAP, such as turf replacement, tree planting, or retrofitting irrigation systems in previously disturbed or landscaped areas, ground disturbing activities would likely not occur substantially below grade. However, these future actions following the adoption of the CAP could potentially unearth previously undiscovered historical or tribal cultural resources during construction. Because implementation of the CAP includes the potential for activities at previously undisturbed depths, the potential for discovery of previously unidentified tribal cultural resources exists.

Adherence to Mitigation Measure CR-4 would ensure that tribal cultural resources would be protected during construction. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 407 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 153 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
S. UTILITIES
The impacts of the proposed Project on utilities and service systems were evaluated with regard to the General Plan EIR. The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to utilities and service systems was evaluated in relation to seven questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Proposed development under the 2040 General Plan could result in the CCWD, EBMUD, Martinez Water District, Central San, and local telecommunications providers to need to increase their water supply, wastewater, stormwater, and telecommunications services to the City of Pleasant Hill through the year 2040, which could in turn require the construction of new or expanded facilities to accommodate additional utility supply and collection. If construction or expansion of future facilities is needed, a separate environmental review would be required, which could result in the development and implementation of future project-specific construction-related mitigation measures. Construction of new utility infrastructure or facilities, if required, would likely occur on property previously disturbed or developed and thus within the programmatic analysis for buildout under the 2040 General Plan. While construction under the 2040 General Plan would comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of utility infrastructure and utilities, significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, historic resources, paleontological resources, and noise are possible. Therefore, construction impacts related to the potential need for new or expanded utility infrastructure and facilities would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 408 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 154 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Operation
Water
The Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) for both CCWD and EBMUD determined that there are sufficient water supplies to accommodate the anticipated population growth throughout their respective service areas according to ABAG Plan Bay Area 2050 projections. In compliance with the California Fire Code, Part 9 of the CBC, development facilitated under both plans would follow standards for fire safety, such as fire flow requirements for buildings, fire hydrant location, and distribution criteria. However, despite adherence to these regulations as well as proposed goals and policies under the 2040 General Plan relating to adequate utility capacity and infrastructure, there could be a potential need for future water pipeline upsizing and infrastructure connections. Operational impacts related to the potential need for new or expanded water supply utility infrastructure and facilities would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Wastewater
Growth and development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would create additional demand for wastewater treatment in Pleasant Hill. Similar to water infrastructure, increased density could require upgraded wastewater pipelines or pumps. Development facilitated under the 2040 General Plan would undergo review by Central San to ensure that development does not encroach on easements for sewer pipes, and applicants would be responsible for the payment of standard sewer connection fees, as necessary. Additionally, the 2040 General Plan contains goals and policies relating to maintaining and supporting the existing sanitary sewer system and ensuring that wastewater service is adequate. Despite this, there could be a potential need for future wastewater pipeline upsizing and infrastructure connections.

Operational impacts related to the potential need for new or expanded wastewater utility infrastructure and facilities would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Stormwater
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would reduce the extent of impervious surfaces within the General Plan area, which could, in turn, reduce stormwater runoff that enters the City’s municipal storm drain system. The amount of impervious surfaces would be reduced through implementation of Best Management Practices, including LID approaches, aimed at reducing stormwater runoff to ensure downstream storm drain capacity is not exceeded. Additionally, the 2040 General Plan contains goals and policies that would ensure adequate stormwater capacity and infrastructure. With implementation of the 2040 General Plan’s goals and policies and LID techniques, sufficient stormwater collection would be maintained. As such, new or expanded facilities are not anticipated to be required due to operational Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 409 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 155 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
demand. Therefore, 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to adequacy, capacity, and need for new stormwater infrastructure facilities related to stormwater generation would be less than significant.

Telecommunications
In operation, the 2040 General Plan would increase demand for internet and telephone services provided by local telecommunications providers. The City contains existing telecommunications providers that already offer internet and telephone services. As such, upon operation, the 2040 General Plan would not require the relocation or expansion of telecommunications infrastructure, due to local telecommunications providers continuing to provide adequate telecommunications capacity and access. Additionally, the 2040 General Plan contains goals and policies that would ensure adequate telecommunication capacity and infrastructure. Therefore, 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to access, capacity, and the need for new telecommunications infrastructure facilities as a result of increased telecommunications demand would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Implementation of the CAP would not result in the approval of any physical improvements or future development that would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities; the CAP does not generate population growth that would necessitate the construction of these facilities. Rather, the CAP provides multiple actions that support the conservation of water (such as Strategies 3.1, WS 3.2, WS 3.4), the promotion of renewable, more efficient energy (such as Strategies EN

1.2, EN 3.3, GC 1.3; Action TR 1.3.2), as well as the provision of EV charging infrastructure (such as Strategies TR 1.2, TR 1.3, TR 1.5). Development facilitated by the CAP would comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of utility infrastructure and utilities, as described above. The Project would result in less than significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 410 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 156 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(b) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to having sufficient water supplies available to serve the currently Proposed Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
While construction under the 2040 General Plan could necessitate the occasional use of a minimal, limited quantity of water for dust control, mixing concrete, and washing equipment and vehicles, impacts related to water supplies are primarily limited to operational impacts. Therefore, 2040 General Plan construction impacts related to the need for a new water supply as a result of water demand would be less than significant.

Operation
The UWMPs for both CCWD and EBMUD determined there are sufficient water supplies to accommodate anticipated regional population growth throughout their service areas according to the ABAG Plan Bay Area 2050 projections. However, development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan could result in an increase in population that would exceed such ABAG population forecasts, resulting in potential insufficient water supplies to serve the General Plan’s 2040 buildout. While the development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in additional population beyond the projected population within Plan Bay Area 2050 and the CCWD and EBMUD UWMPs, current water supplies and adherence to the 2040 General Plan policies would be adequate to meet the 2040 General Plan per capita water demand.

Therefore, 2040 General Plan impacts related to sufficient water supplies would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The proposed Project would not alter the operations of local utility services, including water supply or treatment facilities. As stated above, the UWMPs for both CCWD and EBMUD determined that there are Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 411 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 157 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
sufficient water supplies to accommodate the anticipated population growth induced by the implementation of the General Plan throughout their respective service areas according to ABAG Plan Bay Area 2050 projections. The CAP establishes goals, strategies, and actions to reduce GHG emissions and transition the City into a more climate-resilient community. The Project would not result in an increase in demand for water. Rather, multiple actions proposed in the CAP would conserve water and increase water efficiency. As such, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(c) Does the currently Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to resulting in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Impacts related to adequate wastewater treatment capacity are limited to operational impacts. No respective construction impacts would occur.

Operation
Implementation of the 2040 General Plan could have a significant impact if the wastewater treatment provider would not have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed new land uses in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Wastewater collected within Pleasant Hill is treated at the Central San Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which has a wastewater treatment capacity of 54 million gallons per day (gpd) and treats an average of 35.6 million gpd. The 2040 General Plan at full buildout would constitute an additional 11 percent of the remaining capacity of the Central San WWTP. Therefore, Central San’s WWTP would have sufficient capacity to accommodate wastewater generated by the 2040 General Plan.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 412 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 158 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Additionally, Central San has prepared and is implementing a 10-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which serves to expand, upgrade, and replace its WWTP and collection system. Implementation of Central San’s 10-year CIP and the existing WWTP’s capacity would ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity for future development under the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to sufficient water treatment capacity would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As stated above, Central San’s WWTP would have sufficient capacity to accommodate wastewater generated by the 2040 General Plan. The CAP does not propose any physical development or improvements that would result in an increase in demand for utility services and/or result in the need for new wastewater facilities, as the CAP would not induce unplanned population growth. The CAP would not result in a determination by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District that the Central San WWTP would not be able to accommodate the CAP in addition to its existing commitments. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts; there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the following:
(d) Generating solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (e) Compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Development under the 2040 General Plan would result in the generation of solid waste from demolition and on-site construction activities. Future projects developed under the 2040 General Plan that would entail construction and generate solid waste would be subject to PHMC Chapter 14.40 to ensure that constructiongenerated solid waste is not in excess of State or local standards or the capacity of local landfills, or Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 413 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 159 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Additionally, the proposed General Plan includes Policy PFS-4.3, which requires the recycling and reuse of building materials during demolition and construction. Therefore, construction impacts related to landfill capacity and solid waste reduction goals consistency would be less than significant.

Operation
Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan could result in the addition of up to 45,740 new residents and 19,216 residential units throughout Pleasant Hill by the year 2040. The 2040 General Plan would yield an annual solid waste generation of approximately 102,037 pounds per day, which would account for approximately 1.4 percent of the throughput of the Keller Canyon Landfill; Acme Landfill could also divert a portion of this solid waste. Therefore, development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local solid waste infrastructure. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be required to comply with goals and policies established in the General Plan to address solid waste generation and disposal in the City, as well as pay a fair share for solid waste services and achieve greater diversion rates required by AB 939. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would also be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations related to management and reduction of solid waste, including those related to recycling and composting (i.e., California Senate Bill 1383). Therefore, the 2040 General Plan impact related to local solid waste infrastructure capacity, solid waste management, and consistency with reduction statutes and regulations would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The CAP establishes goals, strategies, and actions to reduce GHG emissions and transition the City into a more climate-resilient community. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, development facilitated by the CAP would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local solid waste infrastructure. The Project does not propose any physical improvements or development and would result in a substantive increase in solid waste that exceeds State or local standards, nor would implementation of the CAP exceed the capacity of the landfills that serve the City. In addition, the Project would not induce unplanned population growth in the City. Further, the CAP includes actions that promote waste diversion and educate the community on waste management and recycling, such as Strategies WS 1.1, WS 1.2, WS

1.3; Action WS 1.3.2. All CAP actions would be required to adhere to federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as AB 939. The Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding solid waste. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 414 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 160 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
T. WILDFIRE
The potential for the proposed Project to result in new or substantially more adverse significant impacts to wildfire was evaluated in relation to the General Plan EIR and four questions recommended for consideration by the State CEQA Guidelines.

Do the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to being located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, and any of the following:
(a) Substantially impairing an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbating wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (c) Requiring the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
(d) Exposing people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
Construction
Impacts related to wildfire hazard risks affecting people, structures, or emergency response and evacuation plans are limited to operational impacts. No construction impacts would occur.

Operation
Pleasant Hill is not located in or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in or near a State Responsibility Area; the nearest VHFHSZ in a State Responsibility Area is located approximately four miles west of the 2040 General Plan area. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would be subject to the California Fire Code. Fire sprinklers would also be required in residential developments pursuant to the Contra Costa County Code and Chapter 14.05 of the PHMC. Construction would also be required to meet CBC requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. In addition, compliance with the 2040 General Plan Hazards and Safety Element Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 415 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 161 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
policies would also help reduce potential wildfire risk to people and structures, and wildfire exacerbation.

Further, impacts related to wildfire that would result from specific project development characteristics would be considered when the City reviews those specific development proposals. Despite this, the 2040 General Plan area’s steep terrain is surrounded by, or contains, vegetation that could be prone to wildfires.

Existing codes and regulations cannot guarantee that wildfires would not occur or damage structures and harm occupants. This represents a significant wildfire exposure and exacerbation risk impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3, the risk of loss of structures and the risk of injury or death due to wildfires would be reduced. These measures would make structures more fire-resistant and less vulnerable to loss in the event of a wildfire, as well as reduce the potential for construction to inadvertently ignite a wildfire. However, even with mitigation, it is not possible to prevent a significant risk of wildfires or fully protect people and structures from the risks of wildfires. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan operational impact related to wildfire exposure and exacerbation risk would be significant and unavoidable.

Proposed Project
While Pleasant Hill is not located within or near a VHFHSZ or a State Responsibility Area, portions of Pleasant Hill are located in or near a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a Local Responsibility Area, and areas of vegetated open space. The CAP establishes goals, strategies, and actions to reduce GHG emissions and transition the City into a more climate-resilient community, and would not directly result in the approval of any physical improvements or future development that would expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildfires. Actions proposed under the CAP would comply with General Plan goals, policies, and mitigation measures aimed at reducing potential wildfire risk to people and structures, such as Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3. Further, the CAP supports disaster preparedness through strategies such as Strategy AM 1.1, which would identify, fund, and prepare existing and new public facilities to serve as resilience hubs (i.e., locations which are able to generate power in the event of a power outage, distribute emergency supplies, and coordinate communication. Although it is unlikely that actions proposed under the CAP would occur in areas at risk of wildfires, development facilitated by the CAP would be subject to California Fire Code and any future projects under the CAP would be subject to the City’s design guidelines and standards and the final design must be approved by the City to ensure that a project located in an area at risk of wildland fires would not substantially impair an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, exacerbate wildfire risks, necessitate the installation or maintenance of infrastructure, or expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 416 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 162 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
U. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
General Plan EIR
The State CEQA Guidelines, as interpreted by the City, state that a significant growth-inducing impact may result if the proposed project or plan would:
• Induce substantial population growth in an area (for example, by proposing or facilitating new residences or employment-generating uses beyond the land use density/intensity envisioned in the 2040 General Plan);
• Substantially alter the planned location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the population of an area; or
• Include extensions of roads or other infrastructure not assumed in the general plan or adopted capital improvements project list, when such infrastructure exceeds the needs of a project and could accommodate unplanned future development.

Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when the implementation of a plan or project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth or by leading to the construction of additional developments in the same area. Plans or projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth, may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in an area such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial uses to support residents.

Population and Employment Growth
It is anticipated that buildout under the 2040 General Plan would directly support the population growth and subsequent housing needs within Pleasant Hill’s projected growth estimates. Proposed 2040 General Plan land use and planning policies aim to provide guidance for orderly development while balancing the land use needs for housing, residential and commercial services, civic needs, and jobs. It is the specific purpose of the 2040 General Plan to guide growth and development in Pleasant Hill such that infill development would be prioritized, and open space areas would be preserved and enhanced. Therefore, by its nature, the 2040 General Plan is intended to reduce the potential for uncontrolled growth and associated environmental impacts. For the reasons discussed above, implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not lead to direct or indirect growth impacts beyond what is anticipated and planned for by Pleasant Hill.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 417 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 163 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Removal of Obstacle to Growth
Although development of some vacant land within Pleasant Hill would require new utility connections, new development would occur where existing roads, water, parking lots, sewer, and other utilities are in place and in a manner that minimizes the impact of development on existing infrastructure and services.

Major infrastructure extensions are not envisioned due to the level of existing development within Pleasant Hill, and improvements would be primarily limited to the replacement and/or upgrade of aging facilities and enhancement of existing infrastructure as needed on a future project-by-project basis. All new development envisioned as part of the 2040 General Plan would occur within City limits. Therefore, because new development would use existing facilities and major infrastructure extensions would not occur, the 2040 General Plan would not remove obstacles to unplanned growth within Pleasant Hill.

Irreversible Environmental Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c) requires that EIRs evaluating plans and projects involving amendments to public plans, ordinances, or policies contain a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes.

The addition of new residential and non-residential development in Pleasant Hill through 2040 would irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum and natural gas.

Increasingly efficient building fixtures and automobile engines, as well as the implementation of policies included in the 2040 General Plan, are expected to offset the demand for non-renewable energy to some degree. Growth resulting from implementation of the 2040 General Plan is not anticipated to significantly affect local or regional energy supplies.

Growth facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would require an irreversible commitment of City services, water supply, and wastewater treatment. Impacts to public services and utilities would remain significant and unavoidable as they relate to the construction of schools.

Growth associated with the 2040 General Plan through 2040 would incrementally increase local VMT, noise levels, and regional air pollutant and GHG emissions. Implementation of 2040 General Plan policies, regional air pollution programs, and mitigation measures would reduce the air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with individual future development projects; however, air quality pollutants and GHG emissions would not be reduced to below significant thresholds. Additionally, implementation of the 2040 General Plan policies, historical resources regulations, and mitigation measures would not be reduced to below significant thresholds.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 418 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 164 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
Implementation of 2040 General Plan policies and mitigation measures would reduce the noise impacts associated with future growth, but not to a less-than-significant level. The policies in the 2040 General Plan and mitigation measures would reduce many transportation impacts to a less-than-significant level; however, population growth facilitated by the 2040 General Plan, combined with regional population growth, would result in additional vehicle trips on area roadways, resulting in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts on several roadways.

Proposed Project
The proposed Project would not induce growth in an area that is not already developed with infrastructure to accommodate any population growth. The proposed Project would not involve the relocation of an existing use and does not propose an expansion of use.

Overall, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in the population that could tax existing community service facilities or encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment or the area, either individually or cumulatively. The CAP consists of strategies and actions with the overall goals of GHG emissions reduction and transitioning the City into a more climate-resilient community. The CAP does not propose any goals, strategies, or actions that directly or indirectly result in an increase in population and would not generate growth beyond that anticipated by the City's adopted General Plan or induce additional population growth. Thus, the proposed Project would not generate significant growth-inducing impacts beyond those disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

Overall, the proposed Project would not remove obstacles to population growth, result in an increase in the population that may tax existing community service facilities, nor would the proposed Project encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment or the area, either individually or cumulatively. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts beyond those disclosed in the General Plan EIR, and no new or greater impacts would occur.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 419 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 165 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Mandatory Findings of Significance were evaluated with respect to the General Plan EIR and three questions.
(a) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
The 2040 General Plan would not facilitate development that would eliminate or threaten wildlife habitats.

Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant with mitigation impacts related to wildlife habitats. However, the 2040 General Plan could potentially eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to cultural resources, specifically historical resources, hazards and hazardous materials, construction and operational noise/groundborne vibrations, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

Proposed Project
The proposed Project relates to each of the significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR as follows:
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: The Project proposes the development and implementation of a Climate Action Plan for the City. While no specific development projects are proposed in the CAP, later projects or actions would be examined during the City’s review to determine whether they are consistent with activities identified in the CAP and whether the environmental impacts associated with these projects or actions are greater than what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR or this Addendum.

Projects or actions found not to be within these impact conclusions may be required to prepare an additional environmental document. Subsequent projects and actions under the CAP would be subject Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 420 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 166 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
to their own analysis regarding impacts to historical resources, and the CAP would not conflict with the implementation of MM CR-1, since it is a measure directed at the City to update the General Plan Environment Element Program M. Impacts relating to historical resources would not be greater than what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Construction and operational activities associated with future CAP actions would be subject to the City’s policies and regulations related to the emergency response, including Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3. Thus, the proposed Project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
• Construction and Operational Noise/Groundborne Vibration: Long-term implementation of the CAP actions would not result in exposure of persons to noise in excess of established standards or groundborne noise or vibration, nor would it result in a temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing levels. Operationally, implementation of the actions described above would not introduce stationary or transportation-related sources of groundborne vibration or noise. Implementation of the CAP would not result in substantial temporary increases in noise levels that would adversely affect human health or well-being in the community and would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels with adherence to Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2. Therefore, no additional mitigation would be required, and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified General Plan EIR. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy: Implementation of the Project would introduce a CAP to the City that would serve as a guiding document toward GHG reductions in municipal operations and throughout the community. As a result, implementation of the CAP would not conflict with any applicable GHG reduction plan and would guide the City in reducing community-wide GHG emissions. These efforts would not conflict with an existing plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs. Rather, the CAP would be consistent with and support Statewide plans, policies, and regulations pertaining to the reduction of GHG emissions. Adoption and implementation of the CAP would ensure that projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would meet statewide GHG reduction goals. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
• Public Services (Schools): The CAP would not significantly increase the demands for emergency services, police services, parks, and other public services/libraries. Unlike the findings of the General Plan EIR, implementation of the CAP would not call for additional school facilities, nor would it require Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 421 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 167 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
any new or redeveloped school facilities. The CAP includes strategies and actions that would support schools and students in the City. The CAP would not increase demand for public services or facilities or generate a need for new, physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would result in significant impacts to the environment. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
• Transportation and Traffic: The CAP would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The GHG reduction measures proposed in the CAP would improve the operations of the circulation system in several ways, such as reducing vehicle trips on roadways and highways, and increasing numbers of public transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Any temporary VMT increases associated with construction activities would be offset by the overall net benefit of reducing the long-term rate of VMT and associated reductions in GHG emissions. Projects under the CAP would adhere to Mitigation Measure TRA-1. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
• Utilities and Service Systems: Development facilitated by the CAP would comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of utility infrastructure and utilities, as described above. The CAP would result in less than significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
• Wildfire: Development facilitated by the CAP would be subject to California Fire Code and any future projects under the CAP would be subject to the City’s design guidelines and standards and the final design must be approved by the City to ensure that a project located in an area at risk of wildland fires would not substantially impair an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, exacerbate wildfire risks, necessitate the installation or maintenance of infrastructure, or expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The Project would have a less than significant impact on wildfire. Therefore, there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.

The significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. Under CAP implementation, no additional mitigation would be required, and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified 2040 General Plan EIR with respect to these issue areas.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 422 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 168 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
The proposed Project would not substantially impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California prehistory. Under CAP implementation, no additional mitigation would be required, and there would be no new or greater impacts than those identified in the certified 2040 General Plan EIR with respect to these issue areas. (b) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to impacts, which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable “means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
While the 2040 General Plan policies encourage residents, businesses, and the City to reduce energy, fuel use, water use, VMT, and solid waste generation and the associated GHG emissions, the 2040 General Plan would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT and GHG emissions. In addition, as discussed throughout the respective cumulative impacts discussions within this EIR, the 2040 General Plan would also result in significant cumulative impacts for similar topics. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would result in an overall significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to all CEQA topics addressed within the General Plan EIR.

Proposed Project
The CAP consists of strategies and actions with the overall goals of GHG emissions reduction and transitioning the City into a more climate-resilient community. All impacts associated with the proposed Project would be within those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and therefore would not result in individually limited impacts that could be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, there would be no new or greater cumulative impacts than those identified in the certified 2040 General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 423 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 169 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
(c) Does the Proposed Project require Subsequent or Supplemental CEQA Documentation with respect to environmental effects, which cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Yes No
New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances
 
New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information
 
Ability to Substantially Reduce a Significant Effect Shown by New Information but Declined by Proponent
 
General Plan EIR
The 2040 General Plan would result in adverse effects on human beings. Implementation of the 2040 General Plan could result in impacts related to transportation, air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and hazards that could, in turn, affect human beings. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would result in an overall significant and unavoidable impact related to the potential for adverse effects on human beings.

Proposed Project
The proposed Project would not require additional mitigation or result in new or greater impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR with respect to adverse effects on human beings.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 424 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

3. Environmental Setting & Impact Analysis
Impact Sciences, Inc. 170 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026
W. CONCLUSION
The proposed Project is described in Section 2 of this Addendum and would be within the assumptions analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project has been reviewed by the City of Pleasant Hill in light of Sections 15162 and 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines. As the CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Pleasant Hill has determined, based on the analysis presented herein, that none of the conditions (identified in Section 1) apply, which would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, and that an Addendum to the certified 2040 General Plan Final EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation under CEQA for the proposed Project.

Section 3 discusses issue-by-issue how the impacts anticipated for the proposed Project would be within those previously identified in the General Plan EIR. The MMRP adopted with the General Plan EIR would apply as appropriate to the proposed Project to ensure that all impacts are reduced as necessary and feasible. Further, the proposed Project is consistent with the goals of the 2040 General Plan.

As discussed throughout this Addendum, the proposed Project would result in environmental impacts within those analyzed for the 2040 General Plan EIR for every issue with implementation of applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 425 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 Impact Sciences, Inc. 171 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026

4. REFERENCES
Bay Area Air District. 2022 CEQA Guidelines. April 20, 2022. Available online at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-actceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed October 22, 2025.

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, 2010.

CCCFPD. “Fire Stations.” Available online at: https://www.cccfpd.org/station-address/, accessed October 24, 2025.

City of Pleasant Hill. Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. April 2023.

Available online at: https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21504/Final-EIR?bidId=, accessed June 26, 2025.

City of Pleasant Hill. Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan. May 2023. Available online at https://phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21502/2040-Pleasant-Hill-General-Plan_reduced, accessed October 27, 2025.

Karsan, Quiet Cities: The Role of Electric Buses in Reducing Noise Pollution, October 9, 2024. Available online at: https://www.karsan.com/en/blog/sustainability-blog/quiet-cities-the-role-of-electric-buses-inreducing-noise-pollution, accessed August 25, 2025.

Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, Section 9.15.040: Special Noise Sources. Available online at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/PleasantHill/#!/PleasantHill09/PleasantHill0915.html#9.15, accessed October 25, 2025.

Pleasant Hill Police Department. “About Us.” Available online at: https://www.phillca.gov/1641/AboutUs, accessed October 24, 2025.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Glossary of Climate Change Terms.” Available online at:
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary-climate-changeterms_.html#Climate%20Change, accessed August 18, 2025.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Understanding Global Warming Potentials.” Available online at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials, accessed August 18, 2025.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 426 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 Impact Sciences, Inc. 172 Pleasant Hill CAP EIR Addendum 1588.004 February 2026

5. REPORT PREPARATION
A. LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasant Hill
Mark Pestrella, Public Works, Capital Projects Program Manager Rodolfo Garduno, Public Works, Sr. Civil Engineering Assistant B. CONSULTANTS
Impact Sciences, Inc.
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2550
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Jessica Kirchner, AICP, Managing Principal
Brett Pomeroy, Associate Principal
Lynn Kaufman, CLA, Associate Principal
Amber Williams, Planner and Technical Specialist
Kara Yates Hines, Publications Manager
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 427 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 428 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 429 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 430 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 431 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 432 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 From: Kirsten Riker
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: RE: City of Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan Public Review Draft Date: Monday, December 22, 2025 11:38:46 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Good morning,

1. Page 44 cites “511 Contra Costa” – our program name is changing to “511 CCTA.”

2. Strategy TR1.1 could be revised to include our local ebike rebate program which is available to all county residents ages 18+. There is no income limit for our standard rebate of $150. Our Low Income Rebate of $300 is available for residents with household incomes at or below 400% of the FPL.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Happy holidays, Kirsten Riker
511 Contra Costa
[email protected]
Cell: 925-393-4807
511 Contra Costa is a program of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority From: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2025 11:05 AM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Cc: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan Public Review Draft [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 433 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 From: Kesha Hitchrick
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Draft Climate Action Plan
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:26:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Good Morning,
My family and I are Pleasant Hill residents and our home is in the Ridgeview area. We’ve been living in Pleasant Hill since 2016 and we absolutely love our city! I read the Draft Climate Action Plan and it looks great. I was very happy to see GC 2.5, Gas Powered Equipment Ban. Most of my neighbors have yard maintenance people that use gas powered blowers. I have to close our bedroom windows whenever they’re using blowers because the exhaust fumes come into our home. Even when I’m taking our dogs on their daily walk I have to cross the street or hold my breath because the exhaust is so bad. I’m glad PH is planning on doing this since we're sandwiched between other cities that have already adopted this ban. Why is the gas powered equipment ban Tier 3 complementary and not Tier 1?
We would like to see our city ban the use of chemical insecticides and herbicides. We are beekeepers and are witness to how these chemicals are killing our honeybee and native bee populations. We'd also like to make sure the honey we’re blessed to extract from our hives is free of chemicals. Everyday I see the yard maintenance workers people in my community have hired, spraying chemicals to kill insects and weeds, or company trucks like Orkin pulling up to their homes to do the same. It would be great if there was a city wide requirement to use botanical formulas for insect and weed control and ban the chemical ones. Companies such as Planet Orange have been offering botanical solutions for years.

It would also be beneficial to educate the residents of our city about permaculture gardening practices so they’ll learn chemicals are not necessary. Just the simple act of planting herbs around your fruit trees or vegetable gardens help to repel pests because of the aromas they emit. Companion planting is also another trick to help our gardens and landscape thrive. Insects are beneficial because they are pollinators too! Sincerely,
Kesha Hitchrick
510-508-6778
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 434 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 From: B-P Irion
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comments on Climate Action Plan
Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 1:20:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am writing to provide comment on Pleasant Hill's Climate Action Plan.

The plan notes that the single largest source of green house gases is caused by vehicular traffic. Page 151 provides a breakdown based on speed, however, there is no breakdown for idling, eg 0 mph. I would think that working to reduce or eliminate emissions while idling at traffic lights or waiting to pick up children at schools should be a study area for the Climate Action Plan.

It is commendable that page 48 talks about "Creating infrastructure that allows citizens to safely travel between high traffic areas, particularly elementary schools, middle schools, and downtown." Tactics that would allow children to more safely walk or bike to school would reduce traffic congestion and emissions associated with parents driving to pick up their children.

Finally, it should be recognized that regardless of how successful Pleasant Hill is in reducing emissions, the city and its residents will still have to deal with the impacts of climate change. Therefore it would seem prudent to include such tactics in the Climate Action Plan. In particular, I would like to see study of the City's plan for dealing with increased wildfire risk, including prevention tactics and evacuation plans.

Thank you.

Bruce Irion
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 435 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan 2025
Public Response Comments from Pleasant Hill Resident: Mona Wang Submission Date: 1/30/2026
Context:

This document provides comments from Mona Wang, resident and homeowner in Pleasant Hill, in response to Pleasant Hill’s 2025 Climate Action Plan within the Public Comment Period.

Highlights:

Pleasant Hill’s holistic approach to climate action is thoroughly appreciated. The approach is focused and aligned with California’s emissions reductions goals, while also taking a broader and more holistic ecosystems-level approach by integrating nature-based solutions and emphasizing increasing opportunities for community engagement, education, and involvement for sustained success.

Overall Comments for Consideration:
● Energy - Consider building a sustainable solar infrastructure for the city that would create criteria for responsible sourcing of solar installation materials, and would require panel installation to occur only in existing high-use public and urban spaces (e.g., parking lots, commercial rooftops) and exclude green, open, and natural spaces.

Additionally, consider establishing more facilities and public engagement and education, and increased accessibility for proper hazardous waste disposal (i.e., organizing e-waste collection days, having a booth for collection at each PH event, etc.). Consider also introducing and providing incentive programs (e.g., tax deduction, free weatherization programs, etc.) to residents (owners and renters) to increase energy efficiency and further reduce city-wide emissions.
● Transportation - Would encourage PH to consider the following to add to its transit-oriented development plans: 1) creating more affordable housing opportunities near and around the PH Downtown area and/or the Pleasant HIll BART station to increase equitable access and walkability to major transportation hubs - as opposed to its focus on providing e-bikes, 2) supporting more small business development in the Pleasant Hill BART station, as another major transportation hub area, to increase walkability and connectivity across City and County, 3) pilot or engage County of Contra Costa to test feasibility of increasing frequency and utility of County Connection to create more connectivity within City and County points of interest, 4) move away from providing individualized e-bikes approach, which would add to clutter and enable continued resource waste and depletion
● Resource Conservation - Consider incentivizing and/or requiring permeable pavers and surfaces and establishing native plant (drought-tolerant) and pollinator corridors to new and existing municipal construction, and providing similar incentive programs to residents, for the purposes of improving groundwater retention, mitigating flooding risk, providing habitat to improve native wildlife and insect populations (foundational for Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 436 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 ecosystem health), supporting PH’s tree retention policy (by allowing improved water retention for older tree root systems), and reducing overall municipal water use. Could be worthwhile to explore models of re-purposing un-used public spaces to create urban gardens and pollinator gardens (e.g., street medians, abandoned parking spaces, etc.). ● General - consider also prioritizing minority-owned businesses in proposed green sourcing strategy for vendor procurement
In-Depth Comments for Consideration:
● Section: Goals, page 32
○ Energy - Ensure prioritization of installation of solar panels in existing high-use urban settings (e.g., parking lots, rooftops), and avoiding expansion into green, open and natural spaces.
○ Resource Conservation - Improved Waste Diversion Program - establish more programs and facilities dedicated to proper treatment and disposal of toxic materials and waste (e.g., paint, oil, insecticides, scrap metal, etc.) ○ Resource Conservation - Consideration to also include prioritization of minority-owned businesses, in addition to green purchasing options, as part of improved procurement plan
● Section: Energy, EN1
○ Energy - Very much appreciate the holistic community engagement and education emphasis, providing technical support and creating ways for residents to get informed and involved.
○ EN1.1. -
■ Will these solar incentives also include for those who intend to own? While it is important for PH to move forward in the green energy transition, and while leasing to solar companies is a more feasible financial option for most homeowners, it would be important to also include incentives for homeowners who wish to own their solar panels and storage.
■ Is there a way to ensure that the raw materials for solar installation are sourced responsibly?
● Section: Energy, EN3, Page 40
○ EN3.1 and EN3.2 - Consider LEED certification for building efficiency in energy and water usage, if possible.
○ EN3.3 -
■ Consider making it a requirement for commercial buildings to comply with electrification standards, and provide incentives for residents. ■ Consider providing city-wide rebate incentives or tax deductions to incentivize energy-efficiency home improvements through tax credits, such as replacing, to a certain extent, the program provided under the Inflation Reduction Act, which ended in 2025. (This is what made us make the jump to finally bite the bullet to pay the upfront costs to switch out our 30-year old furnace to a heat pump – because we still qualified, as of Dec. 2025, for the IRA energy credits). Could be helpful to have a Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 437 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 city-wide program or advocate for a county-wide program to continue the momentum, given the sunset of the IRA program, and current administration’s stance on clean energy and climate change. ■ Consider offering a city-sponsored “Weatherization Program” ahead of the winter months, where free services for simple efficiency improvements are offered to provide residents (owners and renters) applied improvements in heat retention (e.g., weatherizing windows, doorways, etc.), saving residents - both owners and renters - money in utility bills, and lowering overall city-wide gas and electricity usage, and therefore emissions.
● Section: Transportation, TR 1
○ Overall -
■ Recommend shifting to a more holistic approach by focusing on transit-oriented development. Suggest advocating for pilot program on increasing the frequency to existing bus routes over 12 months+ to test feasibility of increasing ridership by increasing utility and function of existing public transportation networks to riders to therefore reduce individual vehicle emissions transmission, or consider engaging the County to partner and pilot on similar-type program, given that this issue lies within county jurisdiction.
■ Piloting an e-bike program further enables the dependence of addressing transportation as an individualized location-by-location basis (i.e., it’s not enough of a systems change), and detracts from the broader more impactful focus of shifting and improving the public transportation system for improved collective city-wide transportation.
○ TR1.1 - Would heavily deter against the focus of introducing e-bikes into the city, for reasons of safety, and most of all, sustainability issues. Most e-bikes require regular maintenance, and battery replacements that contribute to a cycle of increasing minerals extractions from an unregulated industry associated with human rights and labor rights violations and significant environmental degradation, often from lower-income countries. Would recommend regular bikes instead and for focus to create safer and more extensive, accessible bike lanes through and around the city.
○ TR1.6 - Thank you for making space for community engagement, engagement, and involvement in this area. Shifting the culture of how we see “driving vs walking” is key. It would be key to prioritize safety as a prerequisite to this. ● Section: Transportation, TR 2
○ TR2.1 - One key consideration for improving walkability in a residential area is how close local necessities are located, or how densely commercial spaces are located alongside residential areas to facilitate ease and practicality of walking to reach places for daily necessities, such as grocery stores, drugstores, convenience stores, etc. Are there any zoning policies currently that prohibit this type of mixed-use planning? Are there any that could support greater integration, Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 438 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 that would make it more practical and easier for walking to complete more daily household-type activities?
○ TR2.2 -
■ Consider boosting businesses surrounding the Pleasant Hill BART station, by holding certain city events, to draw in greater crowds and support to businesses surrounding that area.
■ Consider creating more affordable housing units near Pleasant Hill BART station to increase equitable access and walkability to major transportation hubs
● Section: Resource Conservation
○ WS1 -
■ Would be helpful to establish more infrastructure on proper waste disposal, by creating more facilities whose purpose is to help residents and commercial operators and owners properly dispose of hazardous materials, scrap metal, etc. (e.g. e-waste, paint, oil, insecticides, scrap metal, etc.), and to include this in the public education campaign. Have ready options available makes it easier and more possible to properly dispose of these materials and to ensure they do not further contaminate groundwater and unnecessarily fill landfills.
■ Consider hosting dedicated city-wide e-waste events, or hold a booth at each Pleasant Hill City event, to increase accessibility and awareness. ○ WS3 -
■ Consider exploring requiring new construction, and replacing existing municipal surfaces, with permeable pavers or permeable surfaces that can help with replenishing groundwater, mitigate flooding, and improve water availability and retention for deep tree root systems for existing and older trees, in alignment with and supporting ease of maintenance of PH’s tree retention policy. (In support, alignment with GC1.2) ■ In addition to transitioning all municipal landscaping to native plants as plants are replaced, consider requiring all new municipal landscaping be restricted to native plants only.
■ Are there any aquatic plants planted in the Pleasant Hill City Hall pond? They could offer natural filtration and improve water quality for wildlife and promote public aesthetics.
● Section: Green Community
○ General
■ Establish more native plant and native pollinator corridors. Identify un-used public spaces and re-purpose land-use (physically and policy-wise) to create urban gardens and pollinator gardens. Could include street medians, and managing the area to create native plant havens for pollinators instead, improving native wildlife and reducing water use
■ Prohibit the use of pesticides in all municipal landscaping and public spaces to protect groundwater, improve safety for residents and children, Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 439 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 and protect insect population, which serves as the foundation for an overall healthy ecosystem.
● Section: General
○ AM2.5 - greatly appreciate the focus on providing readily available information on day-to-day practicalities for residents (e.g. one-stop shop list of vendors, rebates, and incentives) to reduce emissions reductions. Would be useful for homeowners to have a similar list of responsible contractors for home improvement projects and repairs.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 440 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 From: Ryan Guest
To: Planning
Cc: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Public Comments | Pleasant Hill Planning Commission | Item 6.1: City of Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan (CityWide).

Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 11:41:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing because I can’t make it to the meeting tonight. These public comments are regarding Agenda Item 6.1: City of Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan (CityWide).

Flooding
While the plan covers greenhouse gases, it does not fully cover flood prevention. This omission is particularly concerning given recent and ongoing City actions. As you all voted, the City has just completed a major rezoning effort to meet the 2040 General Plan, and in March the City Council is expected to begin the process of amending that General Plan. One of the primary community concerns raised during rezoning has been the use of flood-prone land for medium-density housing. Given that context, it is surprising that the Climate Action Plan does not clearly identify floodplain development as a climate risk.

I am also disappointed to see that while several agencies provided input on the Climate Action Plan, Contra Costa Flood Control was not consulted. Flood protection and floodplain management are among the City’s most significant near-term climate risks, alongside wildfire, yet they receive relatively little attention in this plan.

Protecting and enhancing flood control infrastructure and flood zones should be a toptier climate priority.

I want to specifically challenge the statement in the CAP Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Final EIR (Page 57):
“Less than significant impact. Development... would not increase existing potential for inundation within flood hazard areas...”
This conclusion is logically inconsistent. Placing four-story buildings in FEMA flood hazard areas increases exposure by introducing residents, structures, and vehicles into a known danger zone. Characterizing these impacts as “less than significant” without flood modeling or clear mitigation measures is not smart planning.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 441 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 Lastly, I’m not an urban planner, and I think a lot of us in the public would appreciate discussion on these items:

1. The Library "Resilience Hub": Does this mean the library becomes our emergency shelter during a flood or a power outage? Could this be used as a shelter for the unhoused?

2. The Downtown Climate Action District: What is a "demonstration area" exactly? What is a Climate Action District? In my experience, "demonstration area" is often code for something else. I’d like a guarantee that we aren't going to see parking fees that drive customers away from our local shops and into other cities.

I hope you’ll take a moment tonight to discuss whether parts of this plan make Pleasant Hill better or it simply adds layers of bureaucracy while leaving us vulnerable to the next big storm.

Ryan Guest
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 442 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 From: Courtney Coon
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comments on draft CAP
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 10:37:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Haley Croffoot,
Thank you and your team for the tremendous work that has gone into the 2025 Climate Action Plan.

Pleasant Hill has made real and measurable progress — achieving emissions reductions ahead of schedule is no small accomplishment. That leadership matters.

I also appreciated the opportunity to participate in the first community workshop. There were many thoughtful, creative, and bold ideas shared, including discussions about developing microgrids for the city and exploring zero-waste building requirements. The level of ambition and imagination in that room was inspiring. However, many of those forward-thinking concepts do not appear to be reflected in the current draft CAP, which feels more incremental than that first conversation suggested.

As such, I am writing to respectfully suggest that the next phase of our climate policy be bolder and more structurally robust.

The last three years have exceeded 1.5°C of global warming. Federal climate leadership is uncertain.

And while Pleasant Hill is “ahead of schedule,” we have largely achieved the easier emissions reductions.

The remaining reductions will be harder and require stronger policy tools.

The current draft CAP relies heavily on several optimistic assumptions:

High participation in voluntary electrification and retrofit programs Continued strong state and regional policy momentum and incentives Transportation emissions reductions driven primarily by electrification rather than meaningful VMT reduction
Limited enforcement levers or formal accountability mechanisms If any of these assumptions underperform, our carbon neutrality pathway becomes even more fragile. To ensure Pleasant Hill continues to lead, I would like to see a strengthening of the CAP with the following policy upgrades, many of which are already in place in peer Bay Area cities:

1. Require All-Electric New Construction and Major Remodels (with equity carve-outs).

Move from promotion to requirement, while protecting affordability-restricted housing through targeted support. Berkeley, San Jose, San Mateo, Mountain View, and Oakland have already adopted similar policies.

2. Adopt a Building Emissions Performance Standard (BEPS).

Rather than relying on voluntary retrofits, establish emissions or energy performance thresholds for larger buildings. San Jose has adopted a BEPS, and San Francisco has implemented a Nonresidential BEPS.

3. Implement VMT- or GHG-Based Transportation Impact Fees.

Replace or supplement traditional traffic impact fees with a structure that charges more for high-VMT projects and offers discounts for transit-oriented, mixed-use, or car-light development. Palo Alto, Redwood City, and Oakland are already moving in this direction.

4. Enact Meaningful Parking Reform.

Parking policy is one of our lowest-cost emissions levers. Consider eliminating parking minimums near Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 443 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 transit, introducing parking maximums in downtown and TOD areas, and unbundling parking from rent.

More significant parking reforms (e.g., paid parking) could be used in areas when/where their is sufficient alternative infrastructure like buses, protected bike lanes + bike parking and safe sidewalks. Berkeley, San Francisco, and Emeryville have adopted these reforms.

5. Establish a Local Carbon Mitigation Fund.

If projects cannot meet on-site electrification or EV readiness standards, require payment into a local mitigation fund to support electrification, EV charging in multifamily housing, and urban greening. San Jose and San Carlos have implemented similar models.

6. Include Formal Course-Correction Triggers.

If interim targets are missed, the CAP should specify automatic policy escalation measures. This makes the plan adaptive and self-correcting rather than aspirational.

7. Assign Department-Level Carbon Budgets.

Allocate annual emissions budgets to departments such as Public Works, Fleet, and Facilities, and tie manager performance metrics to reductions. San Francisco and Oakland have adopted accountability frameworks like this. Carbon reductions must be someone’s job.

8. Streamline Permitting for Solar, Storage, and Electrification Retrofits.

Clear, expedited processes reduce friction and increase participation.

9. Mandate Complete Streets.

Given the ongoing Pleasant Hill Safety Action Plan survey, this is a timely opportunity to codify Complete Streets standards to support walking, biking, and transit.

10. Require Rooftop Solar on New and Municipal Buildings.

11. Encourage and formalize telework policies for government employees.

Pleasant Hill has already demonstrated leadership. The question now is whether we institutionalize that leadership with durable, enforceable mechanisms — especially as easy reductions disappear and external policy support becomes less certain.

Strengthening the CAP in these ways would align Pleasant Hill with regional best practices and ensure that our carbon neutrality goal is not only technically achievable, but structurally resilient.

Thank you for your time and for your continued work on this critical issue. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss any of these ideas further.

Sincerely,
Courtney Coon, PhD, MPH
she/her
Pleasant Hill resident
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 444 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: FW: Draft PH Climate Action Plan
Date: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:28:35 PM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 11:05 PM
To: Ethan Bindernagel <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]>; Lyone Conner <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

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

Name: Courtney Coon
Street
Address:
2246 Lisa Lane
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Draft PH Climate Action Plan
Question
or
Comment:

Dear Councilmember Obolesky, I’m writing regarding the draft Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan, which the Planning Commission just reviewed and is now forwarding to the City Council. The recommendation to approve the plan comes with a request to adopt a more aggressive implementation timeline. I want to express my strong support for that recommendation — it is absolutely critical. First, I want to acknowledge the substantial work that has gone into this draft and the real progress Pleasant Hill has already made. Achieving emissions reductions ahead of schedule is meaningful, and our City deserves credit for that leadership. I participated in the first community workshop, where I heard thoughtful, creative, and genuinely bold ideas from residents — including discussion of citywide microgrids and zero-waste building requirements. The ambition in that room reflected a community that wants Pleasant Hill to lead. However, many of those forward-leaning ideas are not reflected in the current draft, which feels more incremental than the urgency of the moment demands. The last three years have exceeded 1.5°C of global warming, a target set by the IPCC, after which we can expect to see truly catastrophic impacts from climate change (here is a great summary article: https://e360.yale.edu/features/1.5-degrees-tipping-points). Federal climate leadership is uncertain. And while Pleasant Hill is “ahead of schedule,” we have largely achieved the easier emissions reductions. The remaining reductions will be harder and will require stronger policy tools and a faster pace. The current draft CAP relies heavily on optimistic assumptions: High participation in voluntary electrification and retrofit programs Continued strong state and regional policy Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 445 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 momentum and incentives Transportation emissions reductions driven primarily by electrification rather than meaningful VMT reduction Limited enforcement levers or formal accountability mechanisms If any of these assumptions underperform, our carbon neutrality pathway becomes fragile. That is why accelerating the timeline and strengthening implementation mechanisms now is so important. The Planning Commission’s recommendation to pursue a more aggressive timeline is not symbolic — it is structurally important. Front-loading action: Locks in emissions reductions earlier Reduces long-term risk Signals continued leadership in the region Prevents us from deferring the hardest decisions to future councils Pleasant Hill has demonstrated that it can lead. The question now is whether we institutionalize that leadership with a timeline and policy framework that reflect both the science and the reality that the “easy” reductions are behind us. I strongly encourage you to support a more ambitious implementation schedule when the CAP comes before Council. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further if helpful. I have several ideas about specific policies that could be proposed in the plan. Thank you for your time and your service to our community. Sincerely, Courtney Coon, PhD, MPH she/her Pleasant Hill Cohousing resident Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18830 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:: Courtney Coon
Street Address:: 2246 Lisa Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Draft PH Climate Action Plan
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 446 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 Question or Comment:: Dear Councilmember Obolesky,
I’m writing regarding the draft Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan, which the Planning Commission just reviewed and is now forwarding to the City Council. The recommendation to approve the plan comes with a request to adopt a more aggressive implementation timeline. I want to express my strong support for that recommendation — it is absolutely critical.

First, I want to acknowledge the substantial work that has gone into this draft and the real progress Pleasant Hill has already made. Achieving emissions reductions ahead of schedule is meaningful, and our City deserves credit for that leadership.

I participated in the first community workshop, where I heard thoughtful, creative, and genuinely bold ideas from residents — including discussion of citywide microgrids and zero-waste building requirements. The ambition in that room reflected a community that wants Pleasant Hill to lead. However, many of those forward-leaning ideas are not reflected in the current draft, which feels more incremental than the urgency of the moment demands.

The last three years have exceeded 1.5°C of global warming, a target set by the IPCC, after which we can expect to see truly catastrophic impacts from climate change (here is a great summary article: https://e360.yale.edu/features/1.5-degrees-tipping-points).

Federal climate leadership is uncertain. And while Pleasant Hill is “ahead of schedule,” we have largely achieved the easier emissions reductions. The remaining reductions will be harder and will require stronger policy tools and a faster pace.

The current draft CAP relies heavily on optimistic assumptions:

High participation in voluntary electrification and retrofit programs Continued strong state and regional policy momentum and incentives Transportation emissions reductions driven primarily by electrification rather than meaningful VMT reduction
Limited enforcement levers or formal accountability mechanisms If any of these assumptions underperform, our carbon neutrality pathway becomes fragile. That is why accelerating the timeline and strengthening implementation mechanisms now is so important.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 447 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 The Planning Commission’s recommendation to pursue a more aggressive timeline is not symbolic — it is structurally important. Front-loading action:

Locks in emissions reductions earlier
Reduces long-term risk
Signals continued leadership in the region
Prevents us from deferring the hardest decisions to future councils Pleasant Hill has demonstrated that it can lead. The question now is whether we institutionalize that leadership with a timeline and policy framework that reflect both the science and the reality that the “easy” reductions are behind us.

I strongly encourage you to support a more ambitious implementation schedule when the CAP comes before Council. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further if helpful. I have several ideas about specific policies that could be proposed in the plan.

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

Sincerely,
Courtney Coon, PhD, MPH
she/her
Pleasant Hill Cohousing resident
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 2/10/2026 11:05:20 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 98.47.222.112
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1649/Andrei-Obolenskiy-Vice-Mayor-Dist-2- Coun
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 448 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 1 Haley Croffoot
From: Michelle Simone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 11:48 AM
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Climate Action Plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Good morning Haley,
I’d like the city to consider renting drones or having a light show instead of having firework celebrations. I have personally experienced the decline in air quality after the fireworks at College Park and it lasted several hours. In addition to poor air quality, fireworks upset animals, and are a fire hazard.

American Lung Association
https://www.lung.org/blog/fireworks-hidden-dangers
Earth.org
https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-fireworks/
Thank you,
Michelle Simone
Resident
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 449 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 From: Therese Peffer
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: PH CAP
Date: Sunday, March 29, 2026 3:14:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hi Haley,
Great job getting the CAP together! So exciting to see, so many amazing ideas! The layout is beautiful with gorgeous photos, great use of icons, and great content. I LOVE the librarymicrogrid idea for a resilience hub!!! I have a couple of comments:

1. I am confused by this sentence:

Regional Natural Gas Policies: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations show an electrification of approximately 2055 for all building stock.

Does this mean electrification of all building stock in PH by 2055?

2. p. 33 and 36: I would not list or recommend PACE--interest rates are way too high.

Consider GoGreen instead.

3. I love the crowd-sourced ideas about solar! Consider mentioning Solar United Neighbors as a way to connect people interested in solar, to get more information and bulk purchase pricing:
solarunitedneighbors.org

4. p. 38 Just a thought: My contractor hates the term weatherization and prefers "home performance." Also I think BayREN has all capital letters for REN....

5. Have you considered having a story in the newsletter each month/bimonth showcasing the electrification story of a residential citizen? "I changed out my gas water heater for a HPWH and these are the issues....." "I replaced my old gas wall furnace for a ductless mini split and this is how we did it....." or gas range to induction etc. I think folks seeing stories and photos of folks in PH electrifying their homes will go a long way towards adoption....Or maybe host regular meetings for people to share their electrification journeys?

6. Random thought: regarding reducing waste, has the City of PH ever considered partnering with Ridwell to provide a place for people to recycling more plastics? Best regards,
Therese
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 450 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Citywide, City of Pleasant Hill
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Pleasant Hill that the City Council will hold a public hearing to review a Public Review Draft of the City of Pleasant Hill’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and consider adoption the proposed document. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the document on February 10, 2026.

The Public Review Draft of the City of Pleasant Hill’s 2025 Climate Action Plan (CAP) is available for public review on the project website, www.phillca.gov/CAP2025.

The public may provide comments on the draft document to Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner through email at [email protected] , phone (925) 671-5297, or via mail to the address below:

City of Pleasant Hill
Planning Division
Attn: Haley Croffoot
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
The recently adopted Pleasant Hill General Plan 2040 included a mitigation measure for the City to prepare a Climate Action Plan. The proposed plan outlines strategies for the City to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other climate adaptation measures. The CAP includes goals, strategies, and actions to meet targets set by Senate Bill 32 (SB32) to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030 and Assembly Bill 1279 (AB1279) that requires achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

The City has prepared an Addendum to the certified 2040 General Plan Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022070095) for the project. Additionally, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required for a later project that is with the scope of the Programmatic EIR. Therefore, the City finds that an Addendum to the certified 2040 General Plan Final EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation under CEQA for the Proposed Project.

The PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the CITY COUNCIL starting at 7:00 p.m. on MONDAY, April 6, 2026, in the CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill. Interested persons will be heard at this time at the meeting. More information on how to participate, including providing live comments during the meeting, will be provided on the posted City Council Agenda.

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(B) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at a Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Pleasant Hill at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.

For information on this matter, please call or email Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner, at (925)671-5297 or [email protected].

Troy Fujimoto
Zoning Administrator
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 451 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. __,

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE (ADU & JADU)

AMENDMENT

SYNOPSIS
A proposed amendment to the accessory dwelling unit ordinance, Section 18.15.050 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, will codify provisions that were implemented as part of an Urgency Ordinance that was approved by the City Council in response to State legislation that was adopted in December 2025. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment at a public hearing on February 24, 2026, and recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the City Council.

DISCUSSION
Background/Analysis
In recent years, the California Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, numerous bills that amended various sections of the Government Code to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs. In late 2025, new bills were enacted that further amended State ADU law as summarized below.

AB 462 – Coastal Development Permits; Disaster-Affected Areas AB 462 mainly modifies several permitting requirements associated with processing Coastal Development Permits (CDP) for ADUs located in the Coastal Zone. Pleasant Hill is not, however, located within a Coastal Zone. In addition to Coastal Zone modifications, AB 462 modifies the rules governing the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CofO) for an ADU. Historically, state law has prohibited a local agency from issuing a CofO for an ADU before one is issued for the primary dwelling (i.e., the primary dwelling must have a CofO before the ADU can receive one).

AB 462 creates a narrow exception to this prohibition for detached ADUs when all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The Governor has declared a state of emergency for the county on or after February 1, 2025;
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 452 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 (2) The primary dwelling was substantially damaged or destroyed by an event referenced in the state of emergency proclamation; and
(3) The ADU has been issued construction permits and passed all required inspections.

If these conditions are satisfied, the detached ADU can receive a CofO before the primary dwelling. In all other scenarios, the primary dwelling still requires issuance of a CofO before one can be issued for an ADU.

AB 462 was enacted as an urgency measure that took effect immediately when signed by the Governor (on October 10, 2025).

The following three bills were enacted as non-urgency measures and took effect on January 1, 2026:

AB 1154 – JADU Owner-Occupancy; Short-Term Rental
When a JADU is developed, existing state law requires a property owner to reside in the JADU or remaining portion of the single-family dwelling. AB 1154 narrows this requirement to apply only when a JADU shares sanitation facilities (bathroom) with the single-family dwelling. If the JADU has its own bathroom, then the property owner does not have to reside on the property at all.

AB 1154 also expressly prohibits JADUs from being used as short-term rentals (i.e., rented for a term shorter than 30 days). Most ADU ordinances, including the City of Pleasant Hill’s, already included this prohibition (as well as prohibiting ADUs from being used as short-term rentals). But the prohibition is now required by state law.

SB 9; SB 543 – ADU Ordinance Submittal to HCD; Approval Under existing law, local agencies are required to submit a copy of their ADU ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of adoption. This year’s SB 9 and SB 543 create a penalty for failing to do so by rendering null and void any local ordinance that is not submitted to HCD within 60 days of adoption. The bills further specify that a local ADU ordinance is null and void if HCD issues findings that the ordinance does not comply with state law and the local agency fails to respond to HCD within 30 days.

SB 543 – ADU Size; Number of ADUs; Impact Fees; Permitting Timeline SB 543 makes numerous changes and clarifications to state ADU law, the most notable of which are summarized below.

Measuring ADU & JADU Size
Existing law limits the maximum size of a JADU to 500 square feet and prohibits local ADU ordinances from imposing certain development standards that would prevent an ADU created under Government Code section 66314 through 66322 from being at least 800 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 453 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 square feet. SB 543 amends state ADU law to specify that allowable square footage of an ADU or JADU refers to square footage of “interior livable space.” Impact Fees
Existing law exempts ADUs that are 750 square feet or smaller from development impacts fees (DIFs). SB 543 clarifies that DIFs may not be imposed on an ADU that has 750 or fewer square feet of interior livable space and for a JADU with 500 or fewer square feet of interior livable space. The bill also exempts an ADU or JADU with fewer than 500 square feet of interior livable space from school impact fees.

Quantity of ADUs Created Under Government Code Section 66323 Existing state law creates four categories of Class 1 ADUs that must be approved if they comply with the limited standards provided in Government Code section 66323(a)(1)(4).

These four categories are:

On a Lot with a Single-Family Dwelling:
(1) A converted ADU and/or JADU created on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling;
(2) A detached ADU created on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling;
On a Lot with Multi-Family Dwellings:
(3) Converted ADUs created in an existing multifamily dwelling; and (4) Detached ADUs created on a lot with a proposed or existing multifamily dwelling.

For some time, there has been uncertainty as to whether ADUs created under Government Code section 66323 could be combined. Some practitioners interpreted the statute not to obligate local agencies to allow combinations. Initially, HCD took that same position, as noted in its 2020 ADU Handbook. But for the last few years, HCD has taken the opposite position that combinations are permitted.

SB 543 codifies HCD’s most recent interpretation by amending Government Code section 66323 to specifically allow certain combinations. Thus, for a lot with a singlefamily dwelling, a property owner will be able to combine categories (1) and (2) above, and for lots with multi-family dwellings, a property owner will be able to combine categories (3) and (4) above.

ADU Permitting Process
Existing law requires local agencies to approve or deny an ADU application within 60 Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 454 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 days of receiving a complete application. However, state law has been silent with respect to incompleteness determinations, subsequent resubmittals, and appealing local decisions on ADU applications.

SB 543 requires local agencies to now:
(1) Determine whether an ADU application is complete within 15 business days of submittal;
(2) If the application is incomplete, within the same 15 days provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and how to address them; (3) Review a resubmitted application for completeness within 15 business days; (4) Provide the applicant with a written appeal process for any incompleteness determination or denial (to the Planning Commission or City Council, or both); and
(5) Provide a final written determination on the appeal within 60 business days of receiving the appeal).

Other Amendments Adopted in Urgency Ordinance
In addition to the above amendments, which were required by State Law, through the urgency ordinance, amendments to the screening requirement for Class 2 ADUs were made based on staff consultation with the City Attorney. As part of the urgency ordinance, the City Council approved omitting the landscaping screening provisions for Class 2 ADUs, which allowed property owners to satisfy the screening requirement by planting one 15-gallon, six-foot-tall evergreen tree for every 10 linear feet of exterior wall and left the screening option to installation of a solid six-foot fence or wall. This modification was recommended and approved since landscape for screening within the statutory four-foot side and rear setbacks would leave little to no room for firefighters to maneuver around an ADU.

Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed ordinance amendment at a public hearing on February 24, 2026; no public comments were received or made at the meeting.

During the discussion, the Planning Commission considered items raised by the City Council at the December 15, 2025 City Council hearing, including potentially increasing ADU height and/or allowing greater lot coverage to afford smaller residential lots greater flexibility when considering an ADU. Further, the Council was concerned with the loss of landscaping as a screening method, as it was an opportunity to have a more environmentally responsible solution to screening rather than only a solid wall or fence. The Commission expressed concerns about the secondary effects of taller detached ADUs, such as visual impacts on neighboring parcels, reduced privacy, and Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 455 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 compatibility within the neighborhood and determined that evergreen trees located within a fourfoot setback could impede emergency access. It was noted that the modification of the screening provision would not preclude property owners from planting drought-tolerant landscaping if desired.

After discussion of the proposed ordinance amendment, the Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the City Council, as proposed by staff.

City Council Discussion Items
The Council is requested to provide input and feedback on the two discussion items, as initially discussed at the December 15, 2025 City Council hearing, and discussed by the Planning Commission at the February 24, 2026 hearing:
• Increasing ADU Building Height Allowance – Augmented building heights could allow increased flexibility for ADU development, particularly on small or constrained sites.

However, allowing increased ADU heights could result in additional massing on a site resulting in privacy, light, or air impacts for properties adjacent. • Landscape Screening – The primary rationale for removing this option for screening is that within a four-foot setback, planting a tree could obstruct access around an ADU. In addition, the use of foliage for screening is subject to the health and thickness of a tree; thus, depending on health or tree type, the treatment may not effectively screen the ADU from view. However, allowing a tree option is an environmentally superior option, as trees are healthy for the environment and certain species, once mature, could have a more visually appealing appearance.

Necessary Findings
Pursuant to PHMC §18.180, in order to approve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission and City Council are required to make findings as follows:

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

2. The new ordinance section shall be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which is to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare and implement the policies of the General Plan, more specifically:
a. Provide a precise guide for the physical development of the City to preserve the character and quality of the residential neighborhoods, foster convenient, harmonious and workable relationships among land uses and achieve the arrangement of land uses described in the General Plan.
b. Promote the economic stability of existing land uses. c. Prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of land and buildings.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 456 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 d. Ensure the provision of adequate open space for light, air and fire safety. e. Ensure that service demands of new development will not exceed the capacities of existing streets, utilities or public services.

An analysis of the amendment’s consistency with these findings is provided under Section 1 of the attached proposed ordinance (Attachment A).

General Plan Consistency
The proposed ordinance would be consistent with existing General Plan policies and programs identified in the Land Use Element and Housing Element; an analysis of the amendment’s consistency is provided under Section 2 in the attached proposed ordinance (Attachment A).

Environmental Review
This project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code because it is an ordinance regarding accessory dwelling units in single-family residential, multifamily residential, and mixed-use zones in compliance with Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

PUBLIC CONTACT
A notice of this public hearing was published in the Contra Costa Times on Friday, March 6 and Friday March 27, 2026. In addition, A-Frame signs notifying the public about this item have been on display at the Pleasant Hill Police Station and Library, it has been posted on the electronic message board at City Hall and notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website and at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Introduce an ordinance replacing the urgency ordinance for Section 18.15.050 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and determine the ordinance to be exempt from CEQA.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 457 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

1. Do not introduce the ordinance.

2. Introduce the ordinance with amendments.

3. Continue the item to a later date with direction to staff from the City Council.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Proposed Ordinance (underline/strikethrough)
B. Proposed Ordinance (clean)
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-26
D. Public Notice
Prepared by: Andrew Shiflet, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 458 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL TO FORMALLY CODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18 OF THE PLEASANT HILL MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE), SECTION 18.15.050,

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, THAT

WERE PART OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, state law authorizes cities to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its local regulatory scheme for the construction of accessory dwelling units to meet new state law; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the California Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, a number of bills that, among other things, amend various sections of the Government Code to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and WHEREAS, in 2025, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law further amendments to State ADU law; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2025, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, the City Council adopted Ordinance 980 as an urgency measure in accordance with Government Code section 36937, subdivision (b).

WHEREAS, Ordinance 980 allows the City to apply local regulations governing height, setback, landscape, and architectural review, among other things, to certain applications for ADUs and JADUs, that would otherwise threaten the character of existing neighborhoods, and negatively impact property values, personal privacy, and fire safety.

WHEREAS, the City desires to codify the provisions of the urgency ordinance that were implemented as part of Ordinance 980; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2026 where all interested persons might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06- 26 recommending approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment was held by the City Council on April 6, 2026 where all interested persons might appear and be heard; and Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 459 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Zoning Ordinance Amendment based on the following findings according to Chapter 18.180 (Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map) of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code:

1. The new ordinance section shall be consistent with the policies of the General Plan; See Section 2 below for consistency with the policies of the General Plan.

2. The new ordinance section shall be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which is to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare and implement the policies of the General Plan, more specifically:
a. Provide a precise guide for the physical development of the City to preserve the character and quality of the residential neighborhoods, foster convenient, harmonious and workable relationships among land uses and achieve the arrangement of land uses described in the General Plan.

The amendment clarifies provisions for accessory dwelling units within residential areas consistent with recent changes to State Law. In addition, the new ordinance will provide greater consistency with the City’s General Plan (as noted under Section 2). b. Promote the economic stability of existing land uses.

The amendment codifies provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025 that is consistent with recent changes to State Law. In addition, the new ordinance provides greater consistency with the City’s General Plan, as noted in Section 2 below.
c. Prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of land and buildings.

The ordinance amendment codifies provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025 that is consistent with recent changes to State Law. Existing State provisions allow combinations of certain types of ADUs and JADUs on properties with Single Family and Multiple Family dwellings. The new ordinance will not allow increases in size or number of units than what is currently allowed, thus avoiding overcrowding.
d. Ensure the provision of adequate open space for light, air and fire safety.

The ordinance amendment codifies provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025 that is consistent with recent changes to State Law. Removing the landscape screening option for Class 2 ADU’s will increase fire safety by enhancing access in setback areas. The City of Pleasant Hill will still enforce lot coverage and setback provisions to provide adequate open space for light, air and fire safety.
e. Ensure that service demands of new development will not exceed the capacities of existing streets, utilities or public services.

The ordinance amendment will be in accordance with State requirements and will not increase the number of residential units beyond what is currently allowed by State Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 460 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 law. The City already passed an urgency ordinance consistent with State provisions; thus, the amendment will have minimal effects on streets, utilities and public services.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the ordinance amendment will be consistent with the existing General Plan policies and programs identified in the Land Use Element and Housing Element as identified below:

1. Land Use Policy LU-3: “To provide a variety of housing types that offer choices for Pleasant Hill residents and create complete, livable neighborhoods.

The ordinance amendment will allow the City to continue providing a variety of housing types by increasing ADU and JADU construction within livable neighborhoods.

2. Land Use Program LU-3.5: “Support the development of a broad range of housing types, to increase housing choice, neighborhood diversity, and innovative design.

The ADU ordinance will support the construction of ADUs and JADUs, which will increase housing choice and further neighborhood diversity.

3. Housing Policy H-2: “Promote a diversity in tenure, type, size, location, and price to permit a choice of housing for persons of all economic levels throughout the City.” The ordinance amendment will continue to allow for ADU’s that are both different types of housing from traditional single- and multi-family residential units.

4. Housing Program H-2.5: “Promote the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in all residential zones.”
The ordinance amendment codifies provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025. The ordinance will be consistent with State legislation that, in part, would address California’s shortage of housing supply.

SECTION 3. Section 18.15.050 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is codified and replacing the urgency ordinance (Ordinance 980) with the following ordinance provisions. For reference, amendments as previously adopted by the urgency ordinance are displayed in strikethrough and underline:

18.15.050 Accessory dwelling units (ADU and JADU)
A. Purpose and Intent.

1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to allow and regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code.

2. Intent. The regulations of this Section are intended to:
a. Implement the provisions of the General Plan Housing Element.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 461 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 b. Assure compliance with State law.
c. Encourage the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).
d. Streamline and minimize governmental constraints on residential development
e. Minimize potential adverse impacts on public health, safety, and general welfare that may be associated with accessory dwelling units.

B. Applicability. This Section contains all applicable zoning standards for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). No additional standards from other chapters or sections of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply.

C. Building Code Compliance Required. Any construction, establishment, alteration, enlargement or modification of an ADU or JADU shall comply with the requirements of this Section and the California Building Code. An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this Section will not be:

1. Deemed to be inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning district for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

2. Deemed to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

3. Considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

4. Required to correct a nonconforming zoning condition, as defined in Subsection C.8 of this Section. This does not prevent the City from enforcing compliance with applicable building standards in compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.

D. Definitions. As used in this Section, terms are defined as follows additional terms:

1. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). An attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons.

It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family primary dwelling unit is situated.

An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
a. An efficiency unit, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 17958.1; and
b. A manufactured home, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 18007.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 462 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

2. Complete Independent Living Facilities. Permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.

3. Attached. An attached structure shares a common wall with the primary residential dwelling structure on a lot. A structure that is connected to the primary residential dwelling solely by a breezeway shall not be considered attached.

4. Efficiency Kitchen. A removable kitchen that does not exceed six lineal feet and includes each of the following:
a. A cooking facility with appliances Examples of appliances that may be used include microwaves, two-burner electric stove tops refrigerators, freezers, and toaster ovens.
b. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of a reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
c. Food storage cabinets that total at least 30 square feet of shelf space.

5. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU). A JADU is a residential unit that does not exceed 500 square feet of livable space and is contained entirely within an existing or proposed structure and includes an efficiency kitchen and access to either private or shared sanitation facilities within the existing structure.

6. Livable space means a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.

7. Living Area. The interior habitable area of a dwelling unit includes basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.

8. Nonconforming Zoning Condition. A physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.

9. Passageway. A pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU or JADU.

10. Proposed Dwelling. A dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.

11. Public Transit. A location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

12. Setback. The required front, side, and rear setback for an ADU is measured from the furthest projection of the structure (such as an eave) to the corresponding property line.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 463 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

13. Tandem Parking. When two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another, such that the front vehicle may not be retrieved without the rear vehicle being moved.

E. Types of Accessory Dwelling Units. An ADU approved under this Section may be one of the following types:

1. Attached. An accessory dwelling unit that is created in whole or in part from newly constructed space that is attached to the proposed or existing primary dwelling, such as through a shared wall, floor, or ceiling.

2. Detached. An accessory dwelling unit that is created from newly constructed space that is detached or separated from the proposed or existing primary dwelling The detached accessory dwelling unit shall be located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling.

3. Converted. An accessory dwelling unit that is entirely located within the proposed or existing primary dwelling or accessory structure, including but not limited to attached garages, storage areas, or similar uses; or an accessory structure including but not limited to studio, pool house, or other similar structure. Converted spaces may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions of the existing space for the sole purpose of accommodating ingress and egress to the unit.

4. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A junior accessory dwelling unit is a unit that meets all the following:
a. Shall only be allowed on lots zoned for single-unit residences and that include an existing or proposed single-family dwelling. b. Is entirely located within a proposed or existing primary single-family dwelling (an enclosed use within the residence, such as an attached garage, is considered to be a part of and contained within the single-family structure).
c. Has independent exterior access from the primary dwelling. d. Has sanitation facilities that are either shared with or separate from those of the primary dwelling.
e. Includes an efficiency kitchen as defined in Subparagraph D.4 of this Section.

F. General Requirements for Approval. The following approvals apply to ADUs and JADUs under this Section:

1. Building Permit Only. An application for a Building Permit within a residential or mixed-use zone for any of the following shall be approved ministerially if all Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 464 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 applicable requirements are met:Class 1: Statutorily Regulated. Class 1 ADUs and JADUs are approved with an ADU permit and building permit under Government Code section 66323. If an ADU or JADU complies with each of the general requirements in subsection G below, it is allowed in each of the scenarios provided in this subsection F.1. An ADU and JADU approved under subsection F.1.a may be combined with an ADU approved under subsection F.1.b, and ADUs approved under subsection F.1.c may be combined with ADUs approved under subsection F.1.d.
a. One Converted ADU and One JADU on a Single-Family Lot with SingleFamily. One converted ADU as defined in Subparagraph E.3 of this Section and one JADU shall be allowed on a lot with a proposed or existing singlefamily dwelling if all of the following apply:
i. Is either: within the space of a proposed single-family dwelling; within the existing space of an existing single-family dwelling; or (in the case of an ADU only) within the existing space of an accessory structure, plus up to 150 additional square feet if the expansion is limited to accommodating ingress and egress; and i.ii. The converted ADU has exterior access that is independent from the single-family dwelling; and
ii.iii. The converted ADU has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes. iii.iv. The JADU, if applicable, complies with the requirements of Government Code Sections 66333 through 66339Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code. b. One Detached ADU on a Single-Family Lot with Single-Family. One detached, new-construction ADU and one JADU shall be allowed on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling, if all the following conditions are met:
i. The side and rear setbacks of the detached ADU are at least four feet.
ii. The total floor area of the detached ADU is 800 square feet of livable space or smaller.
iii. The peak height above finished grade does not exceed the applicable height limit in Subparagraphs G.2.a through G.2.c of this Section. iv. The JADU, if applicable, complies with the requirements of Government Code Sections 66333 through 66339.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 465 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 c. Converted ADU(s) on a Multi-Family Lot with Multi-Family. One or more ADUs within portions of existing multi-family dwelling structures that are not used as livable space (e.g., storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages) if each converted ADU complies with State building standards for dwellings. A least one converted ADU shall be allowed within an existing multi-family structure, up to a quantity equal to 25 percent of the existing multi-family dwelling units in the structure. d. Detached ADU on a Multi-Family Lot with Multi-Family. No more than two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multi-family dwelling, or up to eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling, if each detached ADU satisfies the following limitations:
i. The side and rear setbacks are at least four feet. If the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side setback of less than four feet, the City will not require any modification to the multi-family dwelling as a condition of approving the ADU.
ii. The peak height above finished grade does not exceed the applicable height limit in Subparagraphs G.2.a through G.2.c of this Section. iii. If the lot has an existing multi-family dwelling, the quantity of detached ADUs does not exceed the number of primary dwelling units on the lot.

2. ADU Permit.Class 2: Locally Regulated. Class 2 ADUs are approved under Government Code sections 66314-66322. Except for Class 1 ADUs approved under subsection F.1 above, all ADUs are subject to the standards set forth in subsections G and H below.
a. Except as allowed under Subparagraph E.1 of this Section, no ADU may be created without a Building Permit and an ADU Permit in compliance with the standards established in Subsections G and H of this Section. b. An ADU Permit shall be processed in compliance with the standards established in Section F.3Chapter 18.170 (Zoning Permit). c. The City may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs incurred in processing ADU Permits, including any costs of adopting or amending the City’s ADU ordinance. The ADU Permit processing fee is determined by the Zoning Administrator and approved by the City Council by resolution.

3. Process and Timing.
a. Completeness
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 466 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 i. The City will determine whether an application to create or serve an ADU or JADU is complete and will provide written notice of the determination to the applicant within 15 business days after the City receives the application submittal.
ii. If the City determination under subsection F.3.a.i above is that the application is incomplete, the City’s notice must list the incomplete items and describe how the application can be made complete. iii. After receiving a notice that the application is incomplete, the applicant may cure and address the items that were deemed by the City to be incomplete.
iv. If the applicant submits additional information to address incomplete items, within 15 business days of the subsequent submittal the City will determine in writing whether the additional information remedies all the incomplete items that the City identified in its original notice. The City may not require the application to include an item that was not included in the original notice.
v. If the City does not make a timely determination as required by this subsection (a), the application or resubmitted application is deemed complete for the purposes of subsection F.3.c below.
vi. An applicant may appeal the City’s determination that the application is incomplete by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk. The Planning Commission will review the written appeal and affirm or reverse the completeness determination and provide a final written determination to the applicant within 60 business days after receipt of the appeal.
a.b. An ADU Permit shall be considered and approved ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing.
b.c. The City must approve or deny an application to create an ADU or JADU within 60 days from the date that the City receives a completed application.

If the City has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved unless either:
i. The applicant requests a delay, in which case the 60-day time period is tolled for the period of the requested delay; or
ii. An application to create an ADU or JADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multi-family dwelling on the lot, in which case the City may delay acting on the Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 467 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 permit application for the ADU or JADU until the City acts on the permit application to for the new single-family or multi-family dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or JADU will still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing.
d. If the City denies an application to create an ADU or JADU, the City shall provide the applicant written comments that include a list of all the defective or deficient items and a description of how the application may be remedied by the applicant. Notice of the denial and corresponding comments must be provided to the applicant within the 60-day time period established by Subsection F.3.c of this Section.
c.e. An applicant may appeal the city’s denial of the application by submitting a written appeal to the city clerk. The planning commission will review the written appeal and affirm or reverse the denial and provide a final written determination to the applicant within 60 business days after receipt of the appeal.
d.f. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU shall be reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time.

G. General Development Requirements. The following requirements apply to all Class 1 and Class 2 ADUs and JADUs that are approved under Subsection E.1 or E.2 of this Section:

1. Zoning.
a. An Class 1 ADU or JADU subject only to a Building Permit approved under Subsection EF.1 of this Section may be created on any lot in a residential or mixed-use zoning district.
b. An Class 2 ADU or JADU subject to an ADU Permitapproved under Subsection EF.2 of this Section may be created on any lot in a zoning district that allows single-family residential uses or multi-family residential uses. b.c. In accordance with Government code section 66333(a), a JADU may only be created on a lot zoned for single-family residences.

2. Height. All ADUs shall comply with the following height requirements, measured above finished grade to the peak of the structure:
a. Except as otherwise provided by Subparagraphs G.2.b and G.2.c of this Section, a detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit may not exceed 16 feet in height.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 468 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 b. A detached ADU may be up to 18 feet in height if it is created on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit that is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in Section 21155 of the California Public Resources Code. The ADU may be up to two additional feet in height (for a maximum of 20 feet) if necessary to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. c. A detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-family dwelling that has more than one story above finished grade may not exceed 18 feet in height.
d. An ADU that is attached to the primary dwelling may not exceed 25 feet in height or the height limitation imposed by the underlying zoning district that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower. This requirement shall not require the City to allow an ADU to exceed two stories.

3. Fire sprinklers.
a. Fire sprinklers are required in an ADU if sprinklers are required in the primary residence.
b. The construction of an ADU does not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

4. Rental Term. An ADU or JADU may be rented separate from the primary residence for a rental term of 30 days or longer.

5. Separate Conveyance. An ADU or JADU shall not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the primary residence (in the case of a single-family lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multifamily lot), except as allowed under Government Code Section 66341.

6. Septic System. If the ADU or JADU will connect to an on-site water-treatment system, the owner must include with the application a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.

7. Owner Occupancy.
a. ADUs are not subject to owner-occupancy requirements. b. JADUs are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the property, in either the primary dwelling or JADU, as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence. However, the owner-occupancy requirement does not apply if the JADU has separate sanitation facilities (i.e., does not share Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 469 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 sanitation facilities with the existing primary dwelling unit structure), or the property is entirely owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

8. Deed restriction. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for an ADU or JADU, a deed restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the County Recorder’s Office and a copy filed with the Administrator. The deed restriction must run with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the deed restriction will be provided by the City and must provide that:
a. The ADU or JADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling except as allowed under State law.
b. The ADU or JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed by this Section.
c. The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future property owners.
d. The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the ADU or JADU, as evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the deed restriction, an owner may make a written request to the Zoning Administrator, providing evidence that the ADU or JADU has in fact been eliminated. The Zoning Administrator may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the ADU or JADU has been eliminated. Appeal may be taken from the Zoning Administrator’s determination consistent with other provisions of this code. If the ADU or JADU is not entirely physically removed but is only eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of an ADU or JADU removed, the remaining structure and improvements must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this Municipal Code.
e. The deed restriction is enforceable by the Zoning Administrator or their designee for the benefit of the City. Failure of the property owner to comply with the deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and the City is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity, including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the ADU or JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of the illegal unit.

9. Income reporting. In order to facilitate the City’s obligation to identify adequate sites for housing in accordance with Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of California Government Code, each building permit application must include an estimate of the projected annualized rent that will be charged for the ADU or JADU.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 470 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

10. Building and Safety.
a. Building Code. Subject to Subsection F.10.b of this Section, all ADUs and JADUs must comply with all local building code requirements. b. No Change of Occupancy. Construction of an ADU does not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, as described in Section 310 of the California Building Code, unless the Building Official or a Code Enforcement Officer makes a written finding based on substantial evidence in the record that the construction of the ADU could have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. Nothing in this Subsection G.10.b prevents the City from changing the occupancy code of a space that was uninhabitable space or that was only permitted for nonresidential use and was subsequently converted for residential use in accordance with this Section.

11. Certificate of Occupancy Timing
a. No certificate of occupancy for an ADU or JADU may be issued before the certificate of occupancy is issued for the primary dwelling unit. b. Notwithstanding subsection G.11.a above, a certificate of occupancy for an ADU may be issued before a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling if each of the following requirements are met:
i. The county is subject to a proclamation of a state of emergency made by the California Governor on or after February 1, 2025. ii. The primary dwelling was substantially damaged or destroyed by an event referenced in the Governor’s state of emergency
proclamation.
iii. The ADU has been issued construction permits and has passed all required inspections.
i.iv. The ADU is not attached to the primary dwelling.

H. Specific ADU Requirements. The following requirements apply only to ADUs that require an ADU Permit under Paragraph EF.2 of this Section. No application of any requirements in this Subsection shall prevent the construction of an attached or detached ADU of at least 800 square feet with four-foot side and rear setbacks.

1. Maximum Unit Size.
a. The maximum size of a detached or attached ADU subject to this Subsection is 1,200 square feet.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 471 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 b. An attached ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling is further limited to 50 percent of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling.

2. Setbacks. ADUs subject to this Subsection shall comply with the following setbacks. Setbacks are measured from property lines or vehicular easements, whichever is applicable.
a. Attached and Detached ADUs.
i. Front Setbacks. Front setback requirements shall comply with the following:
(1) Single-Family Residential Zoning District R-20: 25 feet. (2) Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts R-15, R-10, R10A, R-7, R-6, and Single-Family PUDs/PPDs: 20 feet. (3) Mangini-Delu Residential Zoning District RMD: 15 feet. (4) Multiple-Family Residential Zoning Districts MFM, MFH, MFVH: 10 feet;
(5) Multiple-Family Residential Zoning Districts PUD/PPD, MFL, MFVL: 15 feet.
(6) Mixed-Use Zoning Districts MX-N and MX: 15 feet.
(7) Mixed-Use Zoning District MX-HD: 10 feet.
(8) Mixed Use Zoning District MX-VHD: 5 feet.
ii. Side and Rear Setbacks. The side and rear setbacks for all ADUs shall be a minimum of four feet.
iii. If the ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure, no additional setbacks are required.

3. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). No ADU subject to this Subsection shall cause the total FAR of the lot to exceed that of the underlying zoning district.

4. Lot coverage. No ADU subject to this Subsection, shall cause the total lot coverage to exceed the maximum lot coverage requirements of the underlying zoning district as follows:
a. Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts R-20 and, R-15: 25 percent maximum lot coverage.
b. Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts R-10: 30 percent maximum lot coverage.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 472 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 c. Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts PUD/PPD, R-10A, R-7, R-6 and Single-Family PUD/PPDs: 35 percent maximum lot coverage. d. Mangini-Delu Residential Zoning District RMD: 70 percent maximum lot coverage.
e. Multiple-Family Residential Zoning Districts PUD/PPD, MFRVL, and MFRL: 40 percent maximum lot coverage.
f. Multiple-Family Residential Zoning District MFM: 50 percent maximum lot coverage.
g. Multiple-Family Residential Zoning District MFH: 60 percent maximum lot coverage.
h. Multiple-Family Residential Zoning District MFVH: 70 percent maximum lot coverage.
i. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts MX-N, MX, MX-HD, MX-VHD: There is no lot coverage or FAR maximum established for residential uses in mixed-use zoning districts.

5. Open Space. No ADU may cause the site to be less than the following open space provisions for multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts:
a. Total usable open space on a site having three or more dwelling units shall be at least 200 square feet per dwelling unit. This requirement shall be met by providing private open space, shared open space, or a combination of the two.
b. Private Open Space. To satisfy the open space requirement, private open space must be on a patio or balcony, within which a horizontal rectangle has no dimension less than six feet.
c. Shared Open Space. To satisfy the open space requirement, shared open space must be provided by interior side yards, patios and terraces, each designed so that no dimension is less than 10 feet. The open space must be open to the sky and may not include driveways or parking areas or area required for front or corner side yards.

6. Landscaping. No ADU(s) shall cause the total landscaping of the lot to be less than that required in the underlying zoning district as follows:
a. Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts (including PUD and PPD single-family residential): Minimum of 50 percent of the front yard setback area is to be landscaped.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 473 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 b. Mangini-Delu Residential Zoning District RMD: At least 35 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
c. Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts.
i. Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts MFVL and MFL: At least 35 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
ii. Multi-Family Residential Zoning District MFM: At least 30 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
iii. Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts PUD/PPD and MFH: At least 25 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
iv. Multi-Family residential zoning district MFVH: At least 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
d. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts.
i. Mixed-Use Zoning District MX-N: At least 25 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
ii. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts MX, MX-HD, and MX-VHD: At least 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped.

7. Passageway. No passageway, as defined by Subsection D.9 of this Section, is required for an ADU.

8. Parking.
a. General Requirements. One off-street parking space is required for each ADU. The parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking. The size of the off-street parking necessary for the ADU shall be eight and one-half feet wide by 19 feet deep (if enclosed the space shall be 10 feet wide by 22 feet deep, with a nine-foot-wide door opening) with a 10-foot-wide paved vehicular access from/to the public right-of-way and shall be surfaced with concrete or two inches of asphalt concrete over six inches of aggregate base.
b. Exceptions. Off-street parking for ADUs is not required in the following situations:
i. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, as defined in Paragraph D.11 of this Section.
ii. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
iii. The ADU is located fully within the proposed or existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 474 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 iv. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU.
v. When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one block of the ADU.
vi. When the permit application to create an ADU is submitted with an application to create a new single-family or multi-family dwelling on the same lot; provided, that the ADU or the lot satisfies any other criteria listed in Subsections H.8.b.i through H.8.b.v of this Section. c. No Replacement. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced.

9. Architectural Requirements.
a. The materials and colors of the exterior walls, roof, windows, and doors must match the appearance and architectural design of those of the primary dwelling.
b. The exterior lighting must be limited to down-lights or as otherwise required by the building or fire code.
c. The ADU must have an independent exterior entrance, apart from that of the primary dwelling. The ADU entrance shall not be on the same side of the primary dwelling entrance, unless this entrance is screened from public views.
d. The roof slope must match that of the dominant roof slope of the primary dwelling. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof.

10. Screening. A ground-level ADU shall provide privacy between the ADU and adjacent parcels:

11.10. Fence. A with a solid fence at least six feet in height;. a. Landscaping. A landscape screen at least six feet in height that complies with the following requirements:
i. Trees. At least one 15-gallon size evergreen tree that is six feet tall at the time of installation for every 10 linear feet of exterior wall of the ADU;
Landscaping shall be drought tolerant.

12.11. Historical Protections. The following requirements apply to ADUs on or within 600 feet of real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources:

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 475 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 the architectural treatment of an ADU to be constructed on a lot that has an identified historical resource listed on the federal, state, or local register of historic places must be located so as to not be visible from any public right-of-way.

I. Fees.

1. Impact fees.
a. No impact fee is required for an ADU that is less than 750 square feet in size.
b. A JADU or ADU with less than 500 square feet of interior livable space does not increase assessable space by 500 square feet for purposes of Education Code section 17620(a)(1)(C) and is therefore not subject to school fees under Education Code section 17620.
b.c. Any impact fee that is required for an ADU that is 750 square feet or larger in size must be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit (e.g., the floor area of the primary dwelling, divided by the floor area of the ADU, times the typical fee amount charged for a new dwelling). Impact fee here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service.

2. Waiving of Fees. The City shall waive fees for ADUs in the following manner:
a. Building and planning permit fees shall be waived if the ADU is deedrestricted for 55 years at the low-income affordable level. b. Building, planning, and traffic mitigation fees shall be waived if the ADU is deed-restricted for 55 years at the very low-income affordable level.

J. Nonconforming Zoning Conditions, Building Code Violations, and Unpermitted Structures.

1. General Requirements. The City will not deny an ADU or JADU application due to a nonconforming zoning condition, building code violation, or unpermitted structure on the lot that does not present a threat to the public health and safety and that is not affected by the construction of the ADU or JADU.

2. Unpermitted ADUs and JADUs Constructed Before 2018.
a. Permit to Legalize. As required by State law, the City may not deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2018, if denial is based on either of the following grounds:
i. The ADU or JADU violates applicable building standards; or Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 476 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 ii. The ADU or JADU does not comply with State ADU or JADU law (Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) or the standards of this Section.
b. Exceptions.
i. Notwithstanding Subparagraph J.2.a of this Section, the City may deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2018, if the City makes a finding that correcting a violation is necessary to comply with the standards specified in California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3.
ii. Subparagraph J.2.a of this Section does not apply to a building that is deemed to be substandard in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3.

K. Nonconforming ADUs and Discretionary Approval. Any proposed ADU or JADU that does not conform to the objective standards established in this Section may be allowed by the City with a Use Permit, in accordance with the other provisions of this Title.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The City Council finds the adoption of this ordinance to be statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code because it is an ordinance regarding accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones to implement the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 7. Within fifteen (15) days after the final passage and adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in the three public places designated by resolution of the City Council.

SECTION 8. Filing. The City Clerk shall submit a copy of this ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 477 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 The foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Pleasant Hill City Council, held in said City on the 6th day of April, 2026, and thereafter adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council, held in said City on the ___ day of _______________ 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
ZAC SCHESS, Mayor
ATTEST:

LYONE P. CONNER, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________________
JANET E. COLESON, City Attorney
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 478 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL TO FORMALLY CODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18 OF THE PLEASANT HILL MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE), SECTION 18.15.050,

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, THAT

WERE PART OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, state law authorizes cities to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its local regulatory scheme for the construction of accessory dwelling units to meet new state law; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the California Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, a number of bills that, among other things, amend various sections of the Government Code to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and WHEREAS, in 2025, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law further amendments to State ADU law; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2025, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, the City Council adopted Ordinance 980 as an urgency measure in accordance with Government Code section 36937, subdivision (b).

WHEREAS, Ordinance 980 allows the City to apply local regulations governing height, setback, landscape, and architectural review, among other things, to certain applications for ADUs and JADUs, that would otherwise threaten the character of existing neighborhoods, and negatively impact property values, personal privacy, and fire safety.

WHEREAS, the City desires to codify the provisions of the urgency ordinance that were implemented as part of Ordinance 980; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2026 where all interested persons might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06- 26 recommending approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment was held by the City Council on April 6, 2026 where all interested persons might appear and be heard; and Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 479 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Zoning Ordinance Amendment based on the following findings according to Chapter 18.180 (Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map) of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code:

1. The new ordinance section shall be consistent with the policies of the General Plan; See Section 2 below for consistency with the policies of the General Plan.

2. The new ordinance section shall be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which is to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare and implement the policies of the General Plan, more specifically:
a. Provide a precise guide for the physical development of the City to preserve the character and quality of the residential neighborhoods, foster convenient, harmonious and workable relationships among land uses and achieve the arrangement of land uses described in the General Plan.

The amendment clarifies provisions for accessory dwelling units within residential areas consistent with recent changes to State Law. In addition, the new ordinance will provide greater consistency with the City’s General Plan (as noted under Section 2). b. Promote the economic stability of existing land uses.

The amendment codifies provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025 that is consistent with recent changes to State Law. In addition, the new ordinance provides greater consistency with the City’s General Plan, as noted in Section 2 below.
c. Prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of land and buildings.

The ordinance amendment codifies provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025 that is consistent with recent changes to State Law. Existing State provisions allow combinations of certain types of ADUs and JADUs on properties with Single Family and Multiple Family dwellings. The new ordinance will not allow increases in size or number of units than what is currently allowed, thus avoiding overcrowding.
d. Ensure the provision of adequate open space for light, air and fire safety.

The ordinance amendment codifies provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025 that is consistent with recent changes to State Law. Removing the landscape screening option for Class 2 ADU’s will increase fire safety by enhancing access in setback areas. The City of Pleasant Hill will still enforce lot coverage and setback provisions to provide adequate open space for light, air and fire safety.
e. Ensure that service demands of new development will not exceed the capacities of existing streets, utilities or public services.

The ordinance amendment will be in accordance with State requirements and will not increase the number of residential units beyond what is currently allowed by State Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 480 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 law. The City already passed an urgency ordinance consistent with State provisions; thus, the amendment will have minimal effects on streets, utilities and public services.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the ordinance amendment will be consistent with the existing General Plan policies and programs identified in the Land Use Element and Housing Element as identified below:

1. Land Use Policy LU-3: “To provide a variety of housing types that offer choices for Pleasant Hill residents and create complete, livable neighborhoods.

The ordinance amendment will allow the City to continue providing a variety of housing types by increasing ADU and JADU construction within livable neighborhoods.

2. Land Use Program LU-3.5: “Support the development of a broad range of housing types, to increase housing choice, neighborhood diversity, and innovative design.

The ADU ordinance will support the construction of ADUs and JADUs, which will increase housing choice and further neighborhood diversity.

3. Housing Policy H-2: “Promote a diversity in tenure, type, size, location, and price to permit a choice of housing for persons of all economic levels throughout the City.” The ordinance amendment will continue to allow for ADU’s that are both different types of housing from traditional single- and multi-family residential units.

4. Housing Program H-2.5: “Promote the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in all residential zones.”
The ordinance amendment codifies provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025. The ordinance will be consistent with State legislation that, in part, would address California’s shortage of housing supply.

SECTION 3. Section 18.15.050 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code is codified and replacing the urgency ordinance (Ordinance 980) with the following ordinance provisions. For reference, amendments as previously adopted by the urgency ordinance are displayed in strikethrough and underline:

18.15.050 Accessory dwelling units (ADU and JADU)
A. Purpose and Intent.

1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to allow and regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code.

2. Intent. The regulations of this Section are intended to:
a. Implement the provisions of the General Plan Housing Element.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 481 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 b. Assure compliance with State law.
c. Encourage the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).
d. Streamline and minimize governmental constraints on residential development
e. Minimize potential adverse impacts on public health, safety, and general welfare that may be associated with accessory dwelling units.

B. Applicability. This Section contains all applicable zoning standards for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). No additional standards from other chapters or sections of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply.

C. Building Code Compliance Required. Any construction, establishment, alteration, enlargement or modification of an ADU or JADU shall comply with the requirements of this Section and the California Building Code. An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this Section will not be:

1. Deemed to be inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning district for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

2. Deemed to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

3. Considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

4. Required to correct a nonconforming zoning condition, as defined in Subsection C.8 of this Section. This does not prevent the City from enforcing compliance with applicable building standards in compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.

D. Definitions. As used in this Section, terms are defined as follows additional terms:

1. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). An attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons.

It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family primary dwelling unit is situated.

An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
a. An efficiency unit, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 17958.1; and
b. A manufactured home, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 18007.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 482 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

2. Complete Independent Living Facilities. Permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.

3. Attached. An attached structure shares a common wall with the primary residential dwelling structure on a lot. A structure that is connected to the primary residential dwelling solely by a breezeway shall not be considered attached.

4. Efficiency Kitchen. A removable kitchen that does not exceed six lineal feet and includes each of the following:
a. A cooking facility with appliances Examples of appliances that may be used include microwaves, two-burner electric stove tops refrigerators, freezers, and toaster ovens.
b. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of a reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
c. Food storage cabinets that total at least 30 square feet of shelf space.

5. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU). A JADU is a residential unit that does not exceed 500 square feet of livable space and is contained entirely within an existing or proposed structure and includes an efficiency kitchen and access to either private or shared sanitation facilities within the existing structure.

6. Livable space means a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.

7. Living Area. The interior habitable area of a dwelling unit includes basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.

8. Nonconforming Zoning Condition. A physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.

9. Passageway. A pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU or JADU.

10. Proposed Dwelling. A dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.

11. Public Transit. A location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

12. Setback. The required front, side, and rear setback for an ADU is measured from the furthest projection of the structure (such as an eave) to the corresponding property line.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 483 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

13. Tandem Parking. When two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another, such that the front vehicle may not be retrieved without the rear vehicle being moved.

E. Types of Accessory Dwelling Units. An ADU approved under this Section may be one of the following types:

1. Attached. An accessory dwelling unit that is created in whole or in part from newly constructed space that is attached to the proposed or existing primary dwelling, such as through a shared wall, floor, or ceiling.

2. Detached. An accessory dwelling unit that is created from newly constructed space that is detached or separated from the proposed or existing primary dwelling The detached accessory dwelling unit shall be located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling.

3. Converted. An accessory dwelling unit that is entirely located within the proposed or existing primary dwelling or accessory structure, including but not limited to attached garages, storage areas, or similar uses; or an accessory structure including but not limited to studio, pool house, or other similar structure. Converted spaces may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions of the existing space for the sole purpose of accommodating ingress and egress to the unit.

4. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A junior accessory dwelling unit is a unit that meets all the following:
a. Shall only be allowed on lots zoned for single-unit residences and that include an existing or proposed single-family dwelling. b. Is entirely located within a proposed or existing primary single-family dwelling (an enclosed use within the residence, such as an attached garage, is considered to be a part of and contained within the single-family structure).
c. Has independent exterior access from the primary dwelling. d. Has sanitation facilities that are either shared with or separate from those of the primary dwelling.
e. Includes an efficiency kitchen as defined in Subparagraph D.4 of this Section.

F. General Requirements for Approval. The following approvals apply to ADUs and JADUs under this Section:

1. Class 1: Statutorily Regulated. Class 1 ADUs and JADUs are approved with an ADU permit and building permit under Government Code section 66323. If an Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 484 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 ADU or JADU complies with each of the general requirements in subsection G below, it is allowed in each of the scenarios provided in this subsection F.1. An ADU and JADU approved under subsection F.1.a may be combined with an ADU approved under subsection F.1.b, and ADUs approved under subsection F.1.c may be combined with ADUs approved under subsection F.1.d.
a. One Converted ADU and One JADU on a Lot with Single-Family. One converted ADU as defined in Subparagraph E.3 of this Section and one JADU shall be allowed on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
i. Is either: within the space of a proposed single-family dwelling; within the existing space of an existing single-family dwelling; or (in the case of an ADU only) within the existing space of an accessory structure, plus up to 150 additional square feet if the expansion is limited to accommodating ingress and egress; and ii. The converted ADU has exterior access that is independent from the single-family dwelling; and
iii. The converted ADU has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes. iv. The JADU, if applicable, complies with the requirements of Government Code Sections 66333 through 66339.
b. One Detached ADU on a Lot with Single-Family. One detached, newconstruction ADU shall be allowed on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling, if all the following conditions are met:
i. The side and rear setbacks of the detached ADU are at least four feet.
ii. The total floor area of the detached ADU is 800 square feet of livable space or smaller.
iii. The peak height above finished grade does not exceed the applicable height limit in Subparagraphs G.2.a through G.2.c of this Section. c. Converted ADU(s) on a Lot with Multi-Family. One or more ADUs within portions of existing multi-family dwelling structures that are not used as livable space (e.g., storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages) if each converted ADU complies with State building standards for dwellings. A least one converted ADU shall be allowed within an existing multi-family structure, up to a quantity equal to 25 percent of the existing multi-family dwelling units in the structure.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 485 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 d. Detached ADU on a Lot with Multi-Family. No more than two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multi-family dwelling, or up to eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling, if each detached ADU satisfies the following limitations:
i. The side and rear setbacks are at least four feet. If the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side setback of less than four feet, the City will not require any modification to the multi-family dwelling as a condition of approving the ADU.
ii. The peak height above finished grade does not exceed the applicable height limit in Subparagraphs G.2.a through G.2.c of this Section. iii. If the lot has an existing multi-family dwelling, the quantity of detached ADUs does not exceed the number of primary dwelling units on the lot.

2. Class 2: Locally Regulated. Class 2 ADUs are approved under Government Code sections 66314-66322. Except for Class 1 ADUs approved under subsection F.1 above, all ADUs are subject to the standards set forth in subsections G and H below. a. Except as allowed under Subparagraph E.1 of this Section, no ADU may be created without a Building Permit and an ADU Permit in compliance with the standards established in Subsections G and H of this Section. b. An ADU Permit shall be processed in compliance with the standards established in Section F.3.
c. The City may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs incurred in processing ADU Permits, including any costs of adopting or amending the City’s ADU ordinance. The ADU Permit processing fee is determined by the Zoning Administrator and approved by the City Council by resolution.

3. Process and Timing.
a. Completeness
i. The City will determine whether an application to create or serve an ADU or JADU is complete and will provide written notice of the determination to the applicant within 15 business days after the City receives the application submittal.
ii. If the City determination under subsection F.3.a.i above is that the application is incomplete, the City’s notice must list the incomplete items and describe how the application can be made complete.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 486 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 iii. After receiving a notice that the application is incomplete, the applicant may cure and address the items that were deemed by the City to be incomplete.
iv. If the applicant submits additional information to address incomplete items, within 15 business days of the subsequent submittal the City will determine in writing whether the additional information remedies all the incomplete items that the City identified in its original notice. The City may not require the application to include an item that was not included in the original notice.
v. If the City does not make a timely determination as required by this subsection (a), the application or resubmitted application is deemed complete for the purposes of subsection F.3.c below.
vi. An applicant may appeal the City’s determination that the application is incomplete by submitting a written appeal to the City Clerk. The Planning Commission will review the written appeal and affirm or reverse the completeness determination and provide a final written determination to the applicant within 60 business days after receipt of the appeal.
b. An ADU Permit shall be considered and approved ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing.
c. The City must approve or deny an application to create an ADU or JADU within 60 days from the date that the City receives a completed application.

If the City has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved unless either:
i. The applicant requests a delay, in which case the 60-day time period is tolled for the period of the requested delay; or
ii. An application to create an ADU or JADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multi-family dwelling on the lot, in which case the City may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or JADU until the City acts on the permit application to for the new single-family or multi-family dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or JADU will still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing.
d. If the City denies an application to create an ADU or JADU, the City shall provide the applicant written comments that include a list of all the defective or deficient items and a description of how the application may be remedied Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 487 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 by the applicant. Notice of the denial and corresponding comments must be provided to the applicant within the 60-day time period established by Subsection F.3.c of this Section.
e. An applicant may appeal the city’s denial of the application by submitting a written appeal to the city clerk. The planning commission will review the written appeal and affirm or reverse the denial and provide a final written determination to the applicant within 60 business days after receipt of the appeal.
f. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU shall be reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time.

G. General Development Requirements. The following requirements apply to all Class 1 and Class 2 ADUs and JADUs:

1. Zoning.
a. A Class 1 ADU approved under Subsection F.1 of this Section may be created on any lot in a residential or mixed-use zoning district. b. A Class 2 ADU approved under Subsection F.2 of this Section may be created on any lot in a zoning district that allows single-family residential uses or multi-family residential uses.
c. In accordance with Government code section 66333(a), a JADU may only be created on a lot zoned for single-family residences.

2. Height. All ADUs shall comply with the following height requirements, measured above finished grade to the peak of the structure:
a. Except as otherwise provided by Subparagraphs G.2.b and G.2.c of this Section, a detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit may not exceed 16 feet in height.
b. A detached ADU may be up to 18 feet in height if it is created on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit that is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in Section 21155 of the California Public Resources Code. The ADU may be up to two additional feet in height (for a maximum of 20 feet) if necessary to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 488 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 c. A detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-family dwelling that has more than one story above finished grade may not exceed 18 feet in height.
d. An ADU that is attached to the primary dwelling may not exceed 25 feet in height or the height limitation imposed by the underlying zoning district that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower. This requirement shall not require the City to allow an ADU to exceed two stories.

3. Fire sprinklers.
a. Fire sprinklers are required in an ADU if sprinklers are required in the primary residence.
b. The construction of an ADU does not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

4. Rental Term. An ADU or JADU may be rented separate from the primary residence for a rental term of 30 days or longer.

5. Separate Conveyance. An ADU or JADU shall not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the primary residence (in the case of a single-family lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multifamily lot), except as allowed under Government Code Section 66341.

6. Septic System. If the ADU or JADU will connect to an on-site water-treatment system, the owner must include with the application a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.

7. Owner Occupancy.
a. ADUs are not subject to owner-occupancy requirements. b. JADUs are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the property, in either the primary dwelling or JADU, as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence. However, the owner-occupancy requirement does not apply if the JADU has separate sanitation facilities (i.e., does not share sanitation facilities with the existing primary dwelling unit structure), or the property is entirely owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

8. Deed restriction. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for an ADU or JADU, a deed restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the County Recorder’s Office and a copy filed with the Administrator. The deed restriction Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 489 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 must run with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the deed restriction will be provided by the City and must provide that:
a. The ADU or JADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling except as allowed under State law.
b. The ADU or JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed by this Section.
c. The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future property owners.
d. The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the ADU or JADU, as evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the deed restriction, an owner may make a written request to the Zoning Administrator, providing evidence that the ADU or JADU has in fact been eliminated. The Zoning Administrator may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the ADU or JADU has been eliminated. Appeal may be taken from the Zoning Administrator’s determination consistent with other provisions of this code. If the ADU or JADU is not entirely physically removed but is only eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of an ADU or JADU removed, the remaining structure and improvements must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this Municipal Code.
e. The deed restriction is enforceable by the Zoning Administrator or their designee for the benefit of the City. Failure of the property owner to comply with the deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and the City is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity, including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the ADU or JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of the illegal unit.

9. Income reporting. In order to facilitate the City’s obligation to identify adequate sites for housing in accordance with Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of California Government Code, each building permit application must include an estimate of the projected annualized rent that will be charged for the ADU or JADU.

10. Building and Safety.
a. Building Code. Subject to Subsection F.10.b of this Section, all ADUs and JADUs must comply with all local building code requirements. b. No Change of Occupancy. Construction of an ADU does not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, as described in Section 310 of the California Building Code, unless the Building Official or Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 490 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 a Code Enforcement Officer makes a written finding based on substantial evidence in the record that the construction of the ADU could have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. Nothing in this Subsection G.10.b prevents the City from changing the occupancy code of a space that was uninhabitable space or that was only permitted for nonresidential use and was subsequently converted for residential use in accordance with this Section.

11. Certificate of Occupancy Timing
a. No certificate of occupancy for an ADU or JADU may be issued before the certificate of occupancy is issued for the primary dwelling unit. b. Notwithstanding subsection G.11.a above, a certificate of occupancy for an ADU may be issued before a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling if each of the following requirements are met:
i. The county is subject to a proclamation of a state of emergency made by the California Governor on or after February 1, 2025. ii. The primary dwelling was substantially damaged or destroyed by an event referenced in the Governor’s state of emergency
proclamation.
iii. The ADU has been issued construction permits and has passed all required inspections.
iv. The ADU is not attached to the primary dwelling.

H. Specific ADU Requirements. The following requirements apply only to ADUs that require an ADU Permit under Paragraph F.2 of this Section. No application of any requirements in this Subsection shall prevent the construction of an attached or detached ADU of at least 800 square feet with four-foot side and rear setbacks.

1. Maximum Unit Size.
a. The maximum size of a detached or attached ADU subject to this Subsection is 1,200 square feet.
b. An attached ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling is further limited to 50 percent of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling.

2. Setbacks. ADUs subject to this Subsection shall comply with the following setbacks. Setbacks are measured from property lines or vehicular easements, whichever is applicable.
a. Attached and Detached ADUs.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 491 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 i. Front Setbacks. Front setback requirements shall comply with the following:
(1) Single-Family Residential Zoning District R-20: 25 feet. (2) Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts R-15, R-10, R10A, R-7, R-6, and Single-Family PUDs/PPDs: 20 feet. (3) Mangini-Delu Residential Zoning District RMD: 15 feet. (4) Multiple-Family Residential Zoning Districts MFM, MFH, MFVH: 10 feet;
(5) Multiple-Family Residential Zoning Districts PUD/PPD, MFL, MFVL: 15 feet.
(6) Mixed-Use Zoning Districts MX-N and MX: 15 feet.
(7) Mixed-Use Zoning District MX-HD: 10 feet.
(8) Mixed Use Zoning District MX-VHD: 5 feet.
ii. Side and Rear Setbacks. The side and rear setbacks for all ADUs shall be a minimum of four feet.
iii. If the ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure, no additional setbacks are required.

3. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). No ADU subject to this Subsection shall cause the total FAR of the lot to exceed that of the underlying zoning district.

4. Lot coverage. No ADU subject to this Subsection, shall cause the total lot coverage to exceed the maximum lot coverage requirements of the underlying zoning district as follows:
a. Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts R-20 and, R-15: 25 percent maximum lot coverage.
b. Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts R-10: 30 percent maximum lot coverage.
c. Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts PUD/PPD, R-10A, R-7, R-6 and Single-Family PUD/PPDs: 35 percent maximum lot coverage. d. Mangini-Delu Residential Zoning District RMD: 70 percent maximum lot coverage.
e. Multiple-Family Residential Zoning Districts PUD/PPD, MFRVL, and MFRL: 40 percent maximum lot coverage.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 492 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 f. Multiple-Family Residential Zoning District MFM: 50 percent maximum lot coverage.
g. Multiple-Family Residential Zoning District MFH: 60 percent maximum lot coverage.
h. Multiple-Family Residential Zoning District MFVH: 70 percent maximum lot coverage.
i. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts MX-N, MX, MX-HD, MX-VHD: There is no lot coverage or FAR maximum established for residential uses in mixed-use zoning districts.

5. Open Space. No ADU may cause the site to be less than the following open space provisions for multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts:
a. Total usable open space on a site having three or more dwelling units shall be at least 200 square feet per dwelling unit. This requirement shall be met by providing private open space, shared open space, or a combination of the two.
b. Private Open Space. To satisfy the open space requirement, private open space must be on a patio or balcony, within which a horizontal rectangle has no dimension less than six feet.
c. Shared Open Space. To satisfy the open space requirement, shared open space must be provided by interior side yards, patios and terraces, each designed so that no dimension is less than 10 feet. The open space must be open to the sky and may not include driveways or parking areas or area required for front or corner side yards.

6. Landscaping. No ADU(s) shall cause the total landscaping of the lot to be less than that required in the underlying zoning district as follows:
a. Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts (including PUD and PPD single-family residential): Minimum of 50 percent of the front yard setback area is to be landscaped.
b. Mangini-Delu Residential Zoning District RMD: At least 35 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
c. Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts.
i. Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts MFVL and MFL: At least 35 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
ii. Multi-Family Residential Zoning District MFM: At least 30 percent of the site shall be landscaped.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 493 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 iii. Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts PUD/PPD and MFH: At least 25 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
iv. Multi-Family residential zoning district MFVH: At least 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
d. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts.
i. Mixed-Use Zoning District MX-N: At least 25 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
ii. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts MX, MX-HD, and MX-VHD: At least 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped.

7. Passageway. No passageway, as defined by Subsection D.9 of this Section, is required for an ADU.

8. Parking.
a. General Requirements. One off-street parking space is required for each ADU. The parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking. The size of the off-street parking necessary for the ADU shall be eight and one-half feet wide by 19 feet deep (if enclosed the space shall be 10 feet wide by 22 feet deep, with a nine-foot-wide door opening) with a 10-foot-wide paved vehicular access from/to the public right-of-way and shall be surfaced with concrete or two inches of asphalt concrete over six inches of aggregate base.
b. Exceptions. Off-street parking for ADUs is not required in the following situations:
i. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, as defined in Paragraph D.11 of this Section.
ii. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
iii. The ADU is located fully within the proposed or existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure.
iv. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU.
v. When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one block of the ADU.
vi. When the permit application to create an ADU is submitted with an application to create a new single-family or multi-family dwelling Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 494 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 on the same lot; provided, that the ADU or the lot satisfies any other criteria listed in Subsections H.8.b.i through H.8.b.v of this Section. c. No Replacement. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced.

9. Architectural Requirements.
a. The materials and colors of the exterior walls, roof, windows, and doors must match the appearance and architectural design of those of the primary dwelling.
b. The exterior lighting must be limited to down-lights or as otherwise required by the building or fire code.
c. The ADU must have an independent exterior entrance, apart from that of the primary dwelling. The ADU entrance shall not be on the same side of the primary dwelling entrance, unless this entrance is screened from public views.
d. The roof slope must match that of the dominant roof slope of the primary dwelling. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof.

10. Screening. A ground-level ADU shall provide privacy between the ADU and adjacent parcels with a solid fence at least six feet in height.

11. Historical Protections. The following requirements apply to ADUs on or within 600 feet of real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources:
the architectural treatment of an ADU to be constructed on a lot that has an identified historical resource listed on the federal, state, or local register of historic places must be located so as to not be visible from any public right-of-way.

I. Fees.

1. Impact fees.
a. No impact fee is required for an ADU that is less than 750 square feet in size.
b. A JADU or ADU with less than 500 square feet of interior livable space does not increase assessable space by 500 square feet for purposes of Education Code section 17620(a)(1)(C) and is therefore not subject to school fees under Education Code section 17620.
c. Any impact fee that is required for an ADU that is 750 square feet or larger in size must be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 495 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 the primary dwelling unit (e.g., the floor area of the primary dwelling, divided by the floor area of the ADU, times the typical fee amount charged for a new dwelling). Impact fee here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service.

2. Waiving of Fees. The City shall waive fees for ADUs in the following manner:
a. Building and planning permit fees shall be waived if the ADU is deedrestricted for 55 years at the low-income affordable level. b. Building, planning, and traffic mitigation fees shall be waived if the ADU is deed-restricted for 55 years at the very low-income affordable level.

J. Nonconforming Zoning Conditions, Building Code Violations, and Unpermitted Structures.

1. General Requirements. The City will not deny an ADU or JADU application due to a nonconforming zoning condition, building code violation, or unpermitted structure on the lot that does not present a threat to the public health and safety and that is not affected by the construction of the ADU or JADU.

2. Unpermitted ADUs and JADUs Constructed Before 2018.
a. Permit to Legalize. As required by State law, the City may not deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2018, if denial is based on either of the following grounds:
i. The ADU or JADU violates applicable building standards; or ii. The ADU or JADU does not comply with State ADU or JADU law (Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) or the standards of this Section.
b. Exceptions.
i. Notwithstanding Subparagraph J.2.a of this Section, the City may deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2018, if the City makes a finding that correcting a violation is necessary to comply with the standards specified in California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3.
ii. Subparagraph J.2.a of this Section does not apply to a building that is deemed to be substandard in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 496 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 K. Nonconforming ADUs and Discretionary Approval. Any proposed ADU or JADU that does not conform to the objective standards established in this Section may be allowed by the City with a Use Permit, in accordance with the other provisions of this Title.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The City Council finds the adoption of this ordinance to be statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code because it is an ordinance regarding accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones to implement the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 7. Within fifteen (15) days after the final passage and adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in the three public places designated by resolution of the City Council.

SECTION 8. Filing. The City Clerk shall submit a copy of this ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption.

Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 497 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 The foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Pleasant Hill City Council, held in said City on the 6th day of April, 2026, and thereafter adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council, held in said City on the ___ day of _______________ 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
ZAC SCHESS, Mayor
ATTEST:

LYONE P. CONNER, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________________
JANET E. COLESON, City Attorney
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 498 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 RESOLUTION NO. 06-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FORMALLY CODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18 OF THE PLEASANT HILL MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE), SECTION 18.15.050 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS &

JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS THAT WERE PART OF AN URGENCY

ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, state law authorizes cities to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the California Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, a number of bills that, among other things, amend various sections of the Government Code to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and WHEREAS, in 2025, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, further amendments to state ADU law; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2025, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 980 as an urgency measure in accordance with Government Code section 36937, subdivision (b).

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 980 allows the City to apply local regulations governing height, setback, landscape, and architectural review, among other things, to certain applications for ADUs and JADUs, that would otherwise threaten the character of existing neighborhoods, and negatively impact property values, personal privacy, and fire safety.

WHEREAS, the City desires to codify provisions that were implemented as part of the urgency ordinance, Ordinance No. 980; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2026 where all interested persons might appear and be heard.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the exemption from CEQA and adopt the attached ordinance amendment (Attachment C of the February 24, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report) based on the following findings:

Zoning Ordinance Amendment Findings
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 499 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

1. The new ordinance section shall be consistent with the policies of the General Plan; a. Land Use Policy LU-3: “To provide a variety of housing types that offer choices for Pleasant Hill residents and create complete, livable neighborhoods.

The ADU ordinance will allow the City to continue providing a variety of housing types by increasing ADU and JADU construction within livable neighborhoods. b. Land Use Program LU-3.5: “Support the development of a broad range of housing types, to increase housing choice, neighborhood diversity, and innovative design.

The ADU ordinance will support the construction of ADUs and JADUs, which will increase housing choice and further neighborhood diversity. c. Housing Policy H-2: “Promote a diversity in tenure, type, size, location, and price to permit a choice of housing for persons of all economic levels throughout the City.”
The ordinance amendment will continue to allow for ADU’s that are both different types of housing from traditional single- and multi-family residential units. d. Housing Program H-2.5: “Promote the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in all residential zones.”
The ordinance amendment will codify provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025. The ordinance will be consistent with State legislation that, in part, would address California’s shortage of housing supply.

2. The new ordinance section shall be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which is to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare and implement the policies of the General Plan, more specifically:
a. Provide a precise guide for the physical development of the City to preserve the character and quality of the residential neighborhoods, foster convenient, harmonious and workable relationships among land uses and achieve the arrangement of land uses described in the General Plan.

The amendment will clarify provisions for accessory dwelling units within residential areas consistent with recent changes to State Law. In addition, the ordinance will provide greater consistency with the City’s General Plan, as noted Section V of the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 24, 2026. b. Promote the economic stability of existing land uses.

The ordinance amendment will codify provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025 that is consistent with recent changes to State Law. The regulations conform with current State law thereby promoting the Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 500 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026 stability of residential land uses and will continue to allow accessory dwelling units that could provide additional housing opportunities for workers in need of more affordable housing.
c. Prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of land and buildings.

The proposed ordinance amendment will codify provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025 that is consistent with recent changes to State Law. Existing State provisions allow combinations of certain types of ADUs and JADUs on properties with Single Family and Multiple Family dwellings. The ordinance amendment will not allow increases in size or number of units than what is currently allowed, thus avoiding overcrowding. d. Ensure the provision of adequate open space for light, air and fire safety.

The ordinance amendment will codify provisions that were implemented by the City as part of an urgency ordinance in 2025 that is consistent with recent changes to State Law. Removing the landscape screening option for Class 2 ADU’s will lead to increased fire safety by ensuring access in setback areas. The City of Pleasant Hill will still enforce lot coverage and setback provisions that would provide adequate open space for light, air and fire safety.
e. Ensure that service demands of new development will not exceed the capacities of existing streets, utilities or public services.

The ordinance amendment will be in accordance with State requirements and will not increase the number of residential units beyond what is currently allowed by State law. The City already passed an urgency ordinance consistent with State provisions; thus, the amendment will have minimal effects on streets, utilities and public services.

ADOPTED by the Planning Commission, City of Pleasant Hill, on the 24th day of February, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Chiang, Khalfin, Mascaro, Vavrek, Field
NOES: None
ABSENT: Webber, Wyler
ABSTAIN: None

TROY FUJIMOTO, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 501 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY COUNCIL

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT

ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

CITYWIDE, CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Pleasant Hill that the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a zoning ordinance amendment related to Accessory Dwelling Units (Section 18.15.050). The proposed amendment to the accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit provisions contained in the zoning ordinance would codify provisions that were implemented as part of an urgency ordinance in response to State Legislation that was passed in 2025.

Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, the lead agency has determined that the proposed activity is exempt from CEQA. The City, as the lead agency, has determined with certainty that the proposed activity will not have a significant effect on the environment, as the proposed amendments are intended to comply with State law and have an ordinance consistent with State mandated provisions. In addition, under California Public Resources Code section 21080. 17, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which is California’s ADU law and which also regulates JADUs as defined by section 65852.22. Therefore, the proposed ADU ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements the State’s ADU law The PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the CITY COUNCIL starting at 7:00 p.m. on MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2026, in the CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill. Interested persons will be heard at this time. More information on how to participate, including providing public comments during the meeting, will be provided on the posted City Council Agenda.

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(B) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at a Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Pleasant Hill at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.

For information related to the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance, please call or email Andrew Shiflet, Associate Planner, at (925) 671-5211 or [email protected].

Troy Fujimoto
Zoning Administrator
Item 10.3
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 502 of 502 - Monday, April 06, 2026