Agenda packet — Pleasant Hill City Council, October 19, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

Pleasant Hill Community Proposed Underutilized Sites for Review APN
Common
Name
Approx.
acres Comments
Council
District
Current
Zoning
170-092-050
170-092-054
170-092-055
170-092-059
170-092-057
170-092-058
Black Angus
Site (vacant) 2.37
This site has had multiple housing proposals over the years, all of which have been denied by the City or the Planning Commission.

While we understand the City’s interest in pursuing a hotel use to generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue, that outcome appears increasingly unlikely given that the site has remained vacant for years. Recent articles in the East Bay Times have also highlighted the significant challenges currently facing hotels across the East Bay market. Given these conditions, it may be appropriate to reconsider housing on this site. In addition, the adjacent parcels could also be evaluated as part of a broader opportunity area.
2 PUD
152-060-021
152-060-026
152-060-023
152-060-025
152-060-024
Mangini Delu
(largely
vacant)

25.9 This is a largely vacant and underutilized parcel that the new General Plan designates for only 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, intended to provide a range of single-family housing options. It is unclear why the City would propose relatively low-density development on a significantly underutilized property while simultaneously considering rezoning established neighborhoods for medium- or high-density mixed-use development. Given its current condition and opportunity for redevelopment, this site could instead be redesignated for medium- to high-density mixed-use development.
4 Low density
Single Family
Housing
127-110-027
Old Rite Aid
(no current
business)

6.7 Several of the businesses at this location appear to be struggling, and the former Rite Aid space is currently vacant. Given these conditions, it is worth asking why this area was not evaluated for a mixed-use designation that would allow ground-floor
commercial uses with housing above. A mixed-use approach could help revitalize the site while also contributing to the City’s housing goals.
2 PUD
150-300-002 Old Bed, Bath
and Beyond 1.2
The building has struggled to maintain consistent tenancy, which may indicate an opportunity to consider mixed-use
redevelopment to improve the site’s long-term viability. 5 PUD Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 250 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

APN
Common
Name
Approx.
acres Comments
Council
District
Current
Zoning
153-050-037
153-050-046
153-050-040
153-050-021
153-050-052
153-050-014
153-050-067
153-050-059
Pleasant Hill
Executive
Park on Taylor
(many vacant
offices)

17.5 There are multiple office and commercial sites along Taylor Boulevard and Gregory Lane with large surface parking lots that appear well suited for mixed-use development, such as office or retail on the ground floor with housing above. One example is Pleasant Hill Executive Park on Taylor Boulevard. Given the amount of underutilized land and surface parking in this corridor, it is unclear why these opportunities were not more fully considered as part of the zoning update. With several offices currently vacant, this area appears to be a strong candidate for rezoning to allow mixed-use development.
5 & 1
Commercial:

Professional
and
Administrative
Office
148-042-009
and more
Fair Oaks
Neighborhood 11.89
This vacant parcel is located within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with unclear underlying zoning. As an undeveloped site, it presents significant redevelopment potential. Given the surrounding mix of residential, commercial, and office uses, the property appears well positioned to accommodate housing or mixed-use development.
2 PUD
170-242-073
170-242-051
170-231-029
Vacant
Parcels on
Geary Road

2.3 There are several vacant or underutilized parcels along Geary Road. Given these conditions, it is unclear why these areas were not considered for higher-density housing options, such as duplexes or townhomes, rather than maintaining single-family zoning on larger parcels.
3 Low density
housing R 10
150-201-027 Vacant Parcel
on Boyd 0.5
Vacant Parcel. Given these conditions, it is unclear why these areas were not considered for higher-density housing options, such as duplexes or townhomes, rather than maintaining singlefamily zoning on larger parcels. 5 Low density
housing R 7
Various:
examples,
152-070-053
152-370-057
PUDs 5.3
The City has dozens of properties designated as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), yet it is very difficult for the public to obtain clear zoning information for many of these parcels, even when it has been requested from staff. If the community had a better understanding of each PUD designation, these sites could also be evaluated for their potential to address future commercial or housing needs.

It would be helpful to know how many acres within the City are currently designated as PUD. Is there a publicly available list of all All
PUD
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 251 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

APN
Common
Name
Approx.
acres Comments
Council
District
Current
Zoning
PUD designations, along with an explanation of their intent and development standards?
The staff report also references “shell” designations for some PUDs. This terminology is not particularly transparent and may make it difficult for the community to fully understand how zoning is being applied. Providing clearer documentation and public access to this information would improve transparency and allow the community to more meaningfully engage in discussions about land use and development.
152-181-030 Office Space 2.28
401 Gregory: This property is currently developed with office space, much of which remains occupied, but it includes a large surface parking area and is directly adjacent to residential uses.

These characteristics suggest the site could be evaluated as a potential mixed-use redevelopment opportunity that would allow both office space and housing.
5 Commercial:

Professional
and
Administrative
Office
150-170-074 PUDs 1.51
140 Gregory: This property is currently developed with office space, much of which remains occupied and is directly adjacent to residential uses. These characteristics suggest the site could be evaluated as a potential mixed-use redevelopment opportunity that would allow both office space and housing.
5 PUD
154-734-
002, 154-
023-020
Vacant 5.27
Morello (no address): This vacant, government-owned parcel is designated as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), making its specific zoning unclear. Located directly next to existing residential uses, the site presents an opportunity to provide diverse housing options and contribute to the City’s housing goals.
1 PUD
Total 82.72
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 252 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 253 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: Eliot Smyrl
To: City Council
Cc: Zac Shess; Haley Croffoot
Subject: Proposed development of Beatrice Rd / Cleaveland Rd area Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 7:56:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Members of the Pleasant Hill City Council:

We are writing to request changes to the proposed development of housing in the Beatrice Rd / Cleaveland Rd area. We understand that the city does have a responsibility to meet state housing requirements, but we believe there are better options than the current proposal.

The current proposal includes the flood zone adjacent to Grayson Creek at the end of Beatrice Rd, and this development would have a dramatic impact on the residents of Beatrice Rd, Roberta Ave, and Soule Ave but it was added to the proposal without notice or input from the community or the property owners. As residents of Beatrice Rd, we respectfully request that you reconsider this decision and re-zone the properties in this area for single-family housing.

We know that this means the city needs to identify alternatives, and we believe there are in fact better alternatives.
* The previous Black Angus site could accommodate a substantial number of residents, especially if a pedestrian bridge were added to connect this site to the area near the BART station across the 680 freeway * There are several large commercial sites (such as the former Bed Bath & Beyond) that could be redeveloped to provide a substantial number of housing units
* There are a number of areas along Contra Costa Boulevard that could be mixed-use housing and would be much less disruptive
In short, the existence of viable alternatives is the reason this decision needs to be revisited for further public input and discussion.

Thank you very much,
Laura and Eliot Smyrl
404 Beatrice Rd
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 254 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 8:16:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18887 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:: Christina Francis
Street Address:: 1972 Peggy Drive
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: General Plan Amendments
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. I write as a concerned resident who cares deeply about this city. I believe that Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 255 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 you, as our elected officials, also care deeply about Pleasant Hill and about the responsibility you carry to serve this community and help it thrive.

The direction discussed at this study session, and the guidance given to staff, will help shape the future of our city and signal to residents what this Council values. While a previous Council may have created and adopted the current General Plan, this Council now holds the gavel—and with it the opportunity to improve the plan, or to keep what many of you have already acknowledged contains serious flaws. In identifying these shortcomings, the Council assumes responsibility for addressing and correcting these issues for the residents they represent. The decisions made now have the potential to affect our neighborhoods for generations. Every vote, every permit, and every zoning decision sends a message about what matters most to the people who call Pleasant Hill home.

I ask you to consider what we value as a community. Do we value the established neighborhoods where families have built their lives over generations? Do we value the character and stability that residents have worked together to create? These are not simply parcels of land, revenue projections, or building permits. They are the places where people raise families, build friendships, and create a sense of belonging.

I also ask whether this General Plan represents the best plan the City can offer its residents. Are there truly no better options than placing entire neighborhoods at risk of redevelopment, or is there an opportunity to pursue a more balanced approach, one that meets the City’s housing obligations while also preserving neighborhoods and supporting the businesses and commercial spaces that keep our city strong? The City is no longer facing the same immediate deadline pressures that existed earlier in this process, and the zoning code has been aligned with the General Plan to meet the required standards. This creates an opportunity to pause, reflect, and ensure that the path forward is truly the best one for Pleasant Hill.

So, I ask one final question: do we believe in the ability of this community to work together and find thoughtful solutions, or do you believe this task will be “too hard” or “too expensive” to pursue? I believe there is a better path forward, and that this community is worth the time and effort it takes to get it right. I respectfully ask that, at the March 16 Study Session, the Council direct staff to host community workshops, work collaboratively with residents to review the City’s vacant and underutilized parcels, and engage with Senator Grayson’s team to explore discussions with HUD about a more community-centered approach to any updates to the City’s General Plan.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 8:16:01 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 172.59.131.204
Referrer Page: http://m.facebook.com
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 256 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Lyone Conner
Cc: Ethan Bindernagel; Troy Fujimoto
Subject: FW: Public Comment – March 16 Study Session: 2026 General Plan Land Use Amendments Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:07:00 AM
From: Ryan Guest <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 7:22 AM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment – March 16 Study Session: 2026 General Plan Land Use Amendments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -- can you please include these in the public comments for the study session this evening? I plan to attend this evening as well. Thank you! Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I ask that you provide direction to Staff to re-evaluate the following areas:

1. The Beatrice/Soule Rezoning
The rezoning of 510, 520, and 535 Beatrice, along with 500 and 501 Soule, appears to be a clear departure from the character of the surrounding neighborhood. These properties sit at the terminus of a dedicated single-family street. Rezoning these specific lots to a higher density creates a fundamental inconsistency with the existing General Plan and the established land use pattern of the block.

I urge the Council to take a hard look at these homes and maintain their SFH designation to ensure neighborhood consistency.

2. Parcel 149-130-020 (Flood Control Land) and similar lots I find the proposal to rezone land owned by Flood Control (specifically the area west of the creek near Cleaveland/Beatrice) to medium density to be logically and procedurally flawed.

Owner Intent: In communications last year, Flood Control explicitly stated they have no intention of developing this land for housing, as it is integral to their long-term flood mitigation efforts.

Feasibility: Including this parcel in our housing plans creates "paper units" that will never realistically be built. In fact, the HCD previously removed these parcels from a housing element in a prior cycle for this very reason.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 257 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Safety & Policy: From a policy standpoint, rezoning active flood control land for medium-density housing seems like a liability-heavy exercise that ignores the geographical reality of the site.

Summary of Requests
I respectfully request that the City Council direct Staff to:

1. Revert the zoning for 510, 520, 535 Beatrice and 500, 501 Soule to remain consistent with the single-family character of the street.

2. Remove Parcel 149-130-020 and similar from consideration for medium-density rezoning, acknowledging the owner's stated intent and the parcel's history with HCD.

Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to provide input during this Study Session. --
Ryan Guest
423 Roberta Avenue
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 258 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 12:28:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18877 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:: Mark Gomez
Street Address:: 116 Julian Way
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning
Question or Comment:: The Julian Woods Neighborhood agrees with the City Council that new housing is needed to meet demand, and new commercial development will enhance our tax base and quality of life. However, any rezoning aiming to achieve these goals still needs to make sense.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 259 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 In the case of Julian Way, we believe that the consultant and city staff may have failed to evaluate what happens when you rezone one side of a residential street from single family to commercial. Currently, the front lawns of the homes on Julian Way all face each other. Please take a look at our attached graphic.

With the new zoning that just took effect in November 2025, the front lawns that currently face each other, could instead be front lawns facing the backs of commercial buildings. Imagine the current row of homes, and then a commercial building being placed right between them? Imagine if the home directly across from your house is replaced with the back wall of a commercial building? This is clearly not appropriate and was not thought through.

When we all purchased or rented our homes on Julian Way, we made the choice to live in homes that were located on a single family residential street. To transform the zoning of our street to a completely different vision is counterproductive. There are so many other commercial streets throughout the city where Mixed Use could occur without resulting in the back wall of a commercial building directly across the street from a residential front yard.

Therefore, we respectfully request that you consider this motion:
“For all ‘internal-facing’ single family home parcels that were zoned for single family and then changed to MixedUse as part of the May 2023 General Plan and November 2025 Zoning Map revisions, amend the General Plan and Zoning Map to reflect their original single family home designations.” For the purpose of this motion “internalfacing” refers to single family homes on residential streets with front yards that face each other.

I also want to suggest several sites in the city that make much better candidates for Mixed-Use than our six homes on Julian Way:
1) The former Black Angus site right off 680 would be perfect for multi-family housing, yet it is zoned for housing. It is undeveloped and has a sign on the site that says the property is up for sale. 2) 140 Gregory Lane is right in downtown, across from City Hall and yet it is zoned for low-density office instead of high density mixed-use/commercial. It is at the key intersection of Gregory Lane and Cleveland. It is a PERFECT candidate for mixed use!
3) The Mangini property is about 20 or 30 acres and is undeveloped. It is currently zoned for housing, but not at a very high density.
4) There are many mixed-use properties up and down the Contra Costa Blvd corridor. For the most part, these sites are already zoned mixed-use. Our hope is that some of these sites are developed for mixed-use in the future because they are much more appropriate for commercial buildings than our single family street.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 260 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Mark & Kalene Gomez
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/13/2026 12:28:17 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.70.193.14
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/54/Government
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 261 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: Haley Croffoot
To: Lyone Conner
Cc: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: FW: General Plan meeting 3/16
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:43:03 AM
From: Janet Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:25 AM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan meeting 3/16
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Ms Croffoot:

I cannot attend this evening's meeting, but would like to voice my concern as a resident of 419 Roberta Ave (this property has been in my family since 1949).

Once again I urge the City to take into serious consideration the unexplored opportunity that the creek and riparian habitat that runs through vacant property between Cleaveland Road and Beatrice Road and travels along the Middle School property--be considered a high priority for the "Climate Action Plan" and be protected from future housing. It is a goldmine for the education of our children and should seriously be considered a vital riparian buffer zone that only improves concerns about Green House Gas emissions. Please save the creek and surrounding property. Thank you.

Janet Clark
419 Roberta Ave, Pleasant Hill
(925)476-5119
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 262 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: Marshall Lewis
To: City Council
Subject: Public Comment for City Council Agenda Item 10.1 Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 2:42:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello,
I am broadly in favor of the mixed use rezoning that was done on November 17, 2026. However, I do have some technical recommendations.

The change of Sherman Acres to mixed use is an exciting development, but some of the specific permitted uses may cause friction with the surrounding neighborhood. I would recommend creating either a new zone or an overlay that maintains the existing MX requirements (dwelling units/acre, setbacks, etc.) but shifts the allowed uses to match the MX-N zone. This zone or overlay would apply to the interior of Sherman Acres, not the portion fronting onto Contra Costa Boulevard. This would prevent disruptive uses (live music, movie theaters, swap meets, etc.) deep inside a fairly cozy residential area.

I would also add a new use category, "Offices, general and medical, more than 35 percent of the gross floor area" set to Use Permit Required for all mixed use zones. Offices are significantly lower impact than many of the other permitted uses, and it seems strange to specifically limit this one usage to only 35% of floor area, which is how the regulations are currently written. Concord's experience with mixed use rezoning along Clayton Road (where I used to live) indicates that existing structures can be successfully converted for majority office use with minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood. I don't have the exact square footages, but I would estimate that the structure I lived in was maybe 1/3 residential and 2/3 office, and there was no impact to the surrounding neighborhood at all because the office area only had three people working in it (including me) and there was a three-car driveway.

I'd also like to reiterate the viewpoint I expressed when the mixed-use regulations were originally being crafted, which was that the minimum commercial percentage (section 18.22.040.A) is a poor way to meet the stated goal. The rationale for that section was that the city depends on existing commercial uses for tax dollars, and redevelopment for purely residential uses would erode the city's tax base. This is a real problem, but the requirement for a certain percentage of all redevelopments to be devoted to commercial uses does not effectively address it. I would prefer a system where any existing commercial square footage must be maintained. Thus, if an existing 10,000 sq ft commercial structure is redeveloped into a 15,000 sq ft mixed use structure, the resulting structure should maintain at least 10,000 sq ft for commercial uses. As the requirement is currently written, as little as 1,500 sq ft of the redeveloped structure could be set aside for commercial use, which would result in an erosion of the city's sales tax base.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 263 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 I also have to question section 18.22.040.A, which requires that "Buildings that incorporate over 50,000 square feet of office space shall include employee showers, clothes changing rooms, and lockers".

For one thing, under the existing requirement that no more than 35% of the building's square footage be used for office space, this would require a 142,000 sq ft building, roughly the size of the Costco in Concord. Beyond that, I've never heard of an office that requires employee showers. That may just be a side effect of me spending most of my career in small business, but it still seems like a peculiar requirement.

The romantic in me also disputes section 18.22.040.O.1, prohibiting second floor balconies. When Juliet stood on her balcony and asked, "O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?", she was bemoaning her beloved's identity as a Montague, not struggling to spot him from the third floor. If people want to have second-floor balconies, I see no reason to stop them.

Thanks,
Marshall Lewis
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 264 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: Ariane & Gaston Habets
To: City Council
Cc: Gaston and Ariane Habets
Subject: Resident input on Agenda item 10.1 City Council dd March 16, 2026 Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 2:46:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear City Council, Mayor Zac Shess,
Here is our input on your Agenda item 10.1 Study Session to Invite Public Input and to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding
Potential Additional General Plan Amendments Beyond what was Recently Completed as Part of the General Plan 2040.

We strongly encourage you to amend the rezoning plan for the properties between Roberta Ave- Beatrice Rd - Soule Ave and Grayson Creek.

We sympathize with your efforts to comply with the States need and HE requirements, but the designed density HERE is unrealistic, it will cause major problems and likely lead to litigation.

We list 5 main reasons why the rezoning needs to be amended:

1. It does not fit the existing neighborhood and will decrease property values Beatrice road has 29 single family homes with R-10 zoning, 3-4 houses per acre. You are proposing to remove 5 existing houses and add 78 (others list even 104) units on the Beatrice / Roberta side of the creek with a density of 20-30 units per acre and a height up to 40' on top of any flood zone mitigation. This proposal will create many issues and will decrease property values.

2. It goes against the City and Planning commission rezoning stated goals, purposes and intent. To mention a few:
“Maintain and enhance the quality of Pleasant Hill’s neighborhoods, through highquality design, neighborhood compatibility.

Purpose and Intent Zoning Districts:
“Protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, overcrowding, excessive traffic, excessive on-street parking, insufficient parking” and “Minimize the out-of-scale appearance of large homes, parking areas, and other Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 265 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 development relative to their lot size and to other homes in a neighborhood.”

3. It will cause traffic problems and create unsafe streets Neither Beatrice Rd, Roberta Ave nor Soule Ave can accommodate traffic from an extra 78-104 housing units, including the merge onto Patterson Blvd. As is, we often must navigate single-file down our street, typical in Poets Corner. With no sidewalks, People, kids, and elderly walk and bike these streets. You can’t triple the traffic without causing frustration, probably accidents and make response times for fire and medical services dangerous.

4. It does not consider the Grayson Creek natural environment The creek is a beautiful and unique part of our neighborhood that Pleasant Hill should not lose. Martinez, Concord and Walnut Creek have incorporated and revived their creeks into parks. It's an opportunity and an asset that can increase property values and connect the current trail system to neighborhoods, schools and the city center. This could actually decrease car traffic.

5. It does not consider the creek flooding issues that happen almost every winter and will only get worse with climate change
During storms the creek fills to the rim or overflows and more build up in the flood plain will make it worse. The area is needed to mitigate the flood issues, not create more.

Here is our proposal.
- Rezone the area west of Grayson creek to density that matches the existing neighborhood
- Use the vacant PH P&R lot north of the library for higher density development, and trade that for a generous buffer around Grayson creek to be developed as a park with some setback for flooding. Such creek side park would add a high-quality green space - dog run - victory gardens.
- Also consider rezoning the former Black Angus site as mixed use with higher density. That area has good highway access and could support higher density development.

On balance our proposal could even increase the total number of housing units but then in more fitting areas.

Lastly, I encourage you to reach out to those that have given you repeatedly feedback and include them or representatives in any study groups. Our neighborhood deserves to be part of the discussion before plans get voted on.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 266 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Thank you for your attention.

Gaston and Ariane Habets, 410 Beatrice Rd
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 267 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Liz Harrison; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:07:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here PH City Council - Community Involvement.docx * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18889 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Community involvement
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: PH City Council - Community Involvement.docx Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 268 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 3:06:05 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 269 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. At this time, there is limited information available about the scope of the meeting or how the process will unfold, which makes it difficult to provide detailed feedback. However, I would like to share my sincere hope for what this process can become.

As a community member who has been deeply engaged with, and personally affected by, the recent General Plan and subsequent zoning changes, I care greatly about the future of our city and the neighborhoods we all share. My hope is that this session marks the beginning of a thoughtful and collaborative process between the City Council, staff, planning experts, and the residents who call this community home.

First, I respectfully ask that the Council undertake an honest and open review of the current plan. I appreciate that some Councilmembers have hosted community forums to listen to residents’ concerns regarding the changes. Those efforts are valued and meaningful. However, none of these meetings have included City staff or the consultants who helped create the plan.

Without them present, community members have not had the opportunity to ask questions, understand the reasoning behind certain decisions, or discuss constructive ways the plan could be improved.

The Council has acknowledged that outreach during the General Plan process did not adequately reach many of the property owners most directly affected by the proposed changes.

The Council has also recognized that significant revisions were made to the General Plan after the Housing Element was submitted to HCD, with limited opportunities for community feedback afterward. I appreciate that acknowledgment and hope this moment becomes an opportunity to improve engagement and transparency moving forward.

My hope is that tonight begins a process where the Council and the community work together to identify areas where meaningful improvements can be made, improvements that both protect our established neighborhoods and support the additional housing our city needs.

Achieving this balance will require time, transparency, and meaningful engagement with planning experts. Our community is worth that effort.

To support a productive and inclusive process, I respectfully suggest the following framework:

1. Three community meetings facilitated by City staff and/or consultants who are knowledgeable about the General Plan and the proposed changes, allowing residents to ask questions and provide informed feedback.

2. A report to the City Council summarizing the feedback received during these meetings.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 270 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026

3. A published document outlining recommended changes, made available to the community for at least 30 days to allow for public review and comment.

4. One additional community meeting to review these recommendations and gather any final public feedback.

5. A final published report, released at least 30 days prior to the Council meeting where any proposed amendments would be considered for adoption.

Second, I respectfully request that the Council establish a formal policy to ensure direct notification of impacted property owners when General Plan amendments are proposed.

As the Council has acknowledged, the City should have done a better job directly contacting property owners who were most affected by the recent General Plan changes. This is an opportunity to ensure that the same mistake does not happen again.

I ask that the Council direct staff to develop a policy requiring the City to directly notify property owners whenever a General Plan amendment or rezoning is proposed that affects their property. This notification should include:
• Direct notice to the affected property owner and to all property owners within 500 feet of the site.
• Notification during both the General Plan amendment process and the rezoning process, if applicable.
• Clear, plain-language explanations describing what is being proposed and what it may mean for the property.

These notifications should be delivered directly to affected residents rather than relying solely on community newsletters or general announcements.

Clear communication builds trust. When residents are properly informed, they are far more able to participate constructively in shaping the future of their community.

Thank you for your time, your service to our city, and your willingness to listen to the voices of the residents you represent. I sincerely hope this study session becomes the first step toward a more transparent, collaborative, and thoughtful process that strengthens both our neighborhoods and our city's future.

Respectfully,
Trippe Roloff
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 271 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Liz Harrison; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:07:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here PH City Council - Community Involvement.docx * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18890 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: community involvement- March 16 meeting
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: PH City Council - Community Involvement.docx Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 272 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 3:06:51 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 273 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. At this time, there is limited information available about the scope of the meeting or how the process will unfold, which makes it difficult to provide detailed feedback. However, I would like to share my sincere hope for what this process can become.

Without them present, community members have not had the opportunity to ask questions, understand the reasoning behind certain decisions, or discuss constructive ways the plan could be improved.

The Council has acknowledged that outreach during the General Plan process did not adequately reach many of the property owners most directly affected by the proposed changes.

Achieving this balance will require time, transparency, and meaningful engagement with planning experts. Our community is worth that effort.

To support a productive and inclusive process, I respectfully suggest the following framework:

2. A report to the City Council summarizing the feedback received during these meetings.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 274 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026

3. A published document outlining recommended changes, made available to the community for at least 30 days to allow for public review and comment.

4. One additional community meeting to review these recommendations and gather any final public feedback.

5. A final published report, released at least 30 days prior to the Council meeting where any proposed amendments would be considered for adoption.

Second, I respectfully request that the Council establish a formal policy to ensure direct notification of impacted property owners when General Plan amendments are proposed.

These notifications should be delivered directly to affected residents rather than relying solely on community newsletters or general announcements.

Clear communication builds trust. When residents are properly informed, they are far more able to participate constructively in shaping the future of their community.

Respectfully,
Trippe Roloff
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 275 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Liz Harrison; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:07:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here PH City Council - Community Involvement.docx * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18891 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Community involvement - March 16 Council Study Session Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: PH City Council - Community Involvement.docx Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 276 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 3:07:47 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 277 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. At this time, there is limited information available about the scope of the meeting or how the process will unfold, which makes it difficult to provide detailed feedback. However, I would like to share my sincere hope for what this process can become.

Without them present, community members have not had the opportunity to ask questions, understand the reasoning behind certain decisions, or discuss constructive ways the plan could be improved.

The Council has acknowledged that outreach during the General Plan process did not adequately reach many of the property owners most directly affected by the proposed changes.

Achieving this balance will require time, transparency, and meaningful engagement with planning experts. Our community is worth that effort.

To support a productive and inclusive process, I respectfully suggest the following framework:

2. A report to the City Council summarizing the feedback received during these meetings.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 278 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026

3. A published document outlining recommended changes, made available to the community for at least 30 days to allow for public review and comment.

4. One additional community meeting to review these recommendations and gather any final public feedback.

5. A final published report, released at least 30 days prior to the Council meeting where any proposed amendments would be considered for adoption.

Second, I respectfully request that the Council establish a formal policy to ensure direct notification of impacted property owners when General Plan amendments are proposed.

These notifications should be delivered directly to affected residents rather than relying solely on community newsletters or general announcements.

Clear communication builds trust. When residents are properly informed, they are far more able to participate constructively in shaping the future of their community.

Respectfully,
Trippe Roloff
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 279 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Liz Harrison; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:15:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here PH City Council - A Better Way Forward.docx * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18892 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: A better way forward
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: PH City Council - A Better Way Forward.docx Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 280 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 3:15:00 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 281 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. I write as a concerned resident who cares deeply about this city. I believe that you, as our elected officials, also care deeply about Pleasant Hill and about the responsibility you carry to serve this community and help it thrive.

I also ask whether this General Plan represents the best plan the City can offer its residents. Are there truly no better options than placing entire neighborhoods at risk of redevelopment, or is there an opportunity to pursue a more balanced approach, one that meets the City’s housing obligations while also preserving neighborhoods and supporting the businesses and commercial spaces that keep our city strong?
The City is no longer facing the same immediate deadline pressures that existed earlier in this process, and the zoning code has been aligned with the General Plan to meet the required standards. This creates an opportunity to pause, reflect, and ensure that the path forward is truly the best one for Pleasant Hill.

So, I ask one final question: do we believe in the ability of this community to work together and find thoughtful solutions, or do you believe this task will be “too hard” or “too expensive” to pursue?
I believe there is a better path forward, and that this community is worth the time and effort it takes to get it right. I respectfully ask that, at the March 16 Study Session, the Council direct staff to host community workshops, work collaboratively with residents to review the City’s vacant and underutilized parcels, and engage with Senator Grayson’s team to explore Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 282 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 discussions with HUD about a more community-centered approach to any updates to the City’s General Plan.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Kari Balderston
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 283 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Liz Harrison; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:16:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here PH City Council - A Better Way Forward.docx * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18893 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: March 16: A better way forward
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: PH City Council - A Better Way Forward.docx Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 284 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 3:16:25 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 285 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. I write as a concerned resident who cares deeply about this city. I believe that you, as our elected officials, also care deeply about Pleasant Hill and about the responsibility you carry to serve this community and help it thrive.

I also ask whether this General Plan represents the best plan the City can offer its residents. Are there truly no better options than placing entire neighborhoods at risk of redevelopment, or is there an opportunity to pursue a more balanced approach, one that meets the City’s housing obligations while also preserving neighborhoods and supporting the businesses and commercial spaces that keep our city strong?
The City is no longer facing the same immediate deadline pressures that existed earlier in this process, and the zoning code has been aligned with the General Plan to meet the required standards. This creates an opportunity to pause, reflect, and ensure that the path forward is truly the best one for Pleasant Hill.

So, I ask one final question: do we believe in the ability of this community to work together and find thoughtful solutions, or do you believe this task will be “too hard” or “too expensive” to pursue?
I believe there is a better path forward, and that this community is worth the time and effort it takes to get it right. I respectfully ask that, at the March 16 Study Session, the Council direct staff to host community workshops, work collaboratively with residents to review the City’s vacant and underutilized parcels, and engage with Senator Grayson’s team to explore Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 286 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 discussions with HUD about a more community-centered approach to any updates to the City’s General Plan.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Charlene Balderston
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 287 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Liz Harrison; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:17:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here PH City Council - A Better Way Forward.docx * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18894 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Choosing a better path forward
Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: PH City Council - A Better Way Forward.docx Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 288 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 3:17:05 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 289 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. I write as a concerned resident who cares deeply about this city. I believe that you, as our elected officials, also care deeply about Pleasant Hill and about the responsibility you carry to serve this community and help it thrive.

I also ask whether this General Plan represents the best plan the City can offer its residents. Are there truly no better options than placing entire neighborhoods at risk of redevelopment, or is there an opportunity to pursue a more balanced approach, one that meets the City’s housing obligations while also preserving neighborhoods and supporting the businesses and commercial spaces that keep our city strong?
The City is no longer facing the same immediate deadline pressures that existed earlier in this process, and the zoning code has been aligned with the General Plan to meet the required standards. This creates an opportunity to pause, reflect, and ensure that the path forward is truly the best one for Pleasant Hill.

So, I ask one final question: do we believe in the ability of this community to work together and find thoughtful solutions, or do you believe this task will be “too hard” or “too expensive” to pursue?
I believe there is a better path forward, and that this community is worth the time and effort it takes to get it right. I respectfully ask that, at the March 16 Study Session, the Council direct staff to host community workshops, work collaboratively with residents to review the City’s vacant and underutilized parcels, and engage with Senator Grayson’s team to explore Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 290 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 discussions with HUD about a more community-centered approach to any updates to the City’s General Plan.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Doug Balderston
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 291 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Liz Harrison; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:17:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here PH City Council - A Better Way Forward.docx * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18895 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: March 16: working together for a better path forward Question or Comment::

Upload File Attachment here: PH City Council - A Better Way Forward.docx Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 292 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 3:17:44 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 174.160.128.22
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 293 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. I write as a concerned resident who cares deeply about this city. I believe that you, as our elected officials, also care deeply about Pleasant Hill and about the responsibility you carry to serve this community and help it thrive.

I also ask whether this General Plan represents the best plan the City can offer its residents. Are there truly no better options than placing entire neighborhoods at risk of redevelopment, or is there an opportunity to pursue a more balanced approach, one that meets the City’s housing obligations while also preserving neighborhoods and supporting the businesses and commercial spaces that keep our city strong?
The City is no longer facing the same immediate deadline pressures that existed earlier in this process, and the zoning code has been aligned with the General Plan to meet the required standards. This creates an opportunity to pause, reflect, and ensure that the path forward is truly the best one for Pleasant Hill.

So, I ask one final question: do we believe in the ability of this community to work together and find thoughtful solutions, or do you believe this task will be “too hard” or “too expensive” to pursue?
I believe there is a better path forward, and that this community is worth the time and effort it takes to get it right. I respectfully ask that, at the March 16 Study Session, the Council direct staff to host community workshops, work collaboratively with residents to review the City’s vacant and underutilized parcels, and engage with Senator Grayson’s team to explore Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 294 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 discussions with HUD about a more community-centered approach to any updates to the City’s General Plan.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Trippe Roloff
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 295 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Liz Harrison; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:22:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18896 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:: Michelle Abernethy
Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: General Plan - Study Session Comment for 3/16 Meeting Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. As the City evaluates its next steps, I want to highlight a broader concern shared Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 296 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 by many residents: the current design for implementing the Housing Element does not appear realistic and, as written, is unlikely to successfully meet the City’s housing goals.

Residents understand that Pleasant Hill must plan for additional housing in order to comply with state requirements. However, the way the current plan proposes to achieve those goals raises several practical concerns that may ultimately prevent it from being successfully implemented.

First, the plan rezones entire neighborhoods without a clear vision of what those neighborhoods are expected to become over the next decade. Many families have invested their lives in Pleasant Hill with the expectation of stability in their communities. Planning for significant density changes without clearly communicating what those areas will realistically look like in ten years is understandably difficult for residents to support.

Second, several of the targeted areas present physical and planning challenges that raise questions about whether meaningful development can actually occur. Some sites appear to have severe grading constraints or insufficient parcel dimensions to support viable housing projects. If sites are unlikely to develop in practice, they will not help the City meet its housing obligations.

Third, the current approach concentrates zoning changes in a limited number of areas while largely overlooking others. This risks creating the very “other side of the tracks” dynamic that the City has repeatedly stated it wants to avoid. A more balanced distribution of housing opportunities across the City would better align with the goals of fairness and long-term community cohesion.

Finally, the plan relies heavily on converting established single-family neighborhoods, despite the fact that many of these properties are not likely redevelopment candidates. At the same time, vacant or significantly underutilized parcels across the City appear to have received far less attention. From a practical standpoint, these types of sites are far more likely to result in actual housing production.

There is also an important fiscal reality to consider. The City is currently operating with an annual deficit of approximately $3 million and is relying on the general fund to cover ongoing expenses. Expanding retail alone is unlikely to resolve this issue. Additional housing, however, can help strengthen the City’s long-term revenue base.

In that sense, the goals of the City and its residents are aligned: both want a path that allows Pleasant Hill to meet housing requirements while maintaining a financially sustainable future.

Recognizing this, residents with significant knowledge of California housing law, state housing requirements, and local government processes have spent considerable time reviewing parcels throughout the City. Their goal has been to identify housing opportunity sites that are more likely to result in actual development, while respecting the character of Pleasant Hill and distributing opportunities more fairly across districts.

This work was undertaken in good faith to support the City’s housing objectives while helping ensure that the final plan is both workable and equitable.

I respectfully encourage the Council to consider whether the current framework is likely to produce the housing it intends to create. A plan that cannot realistically be implemented will not meet the City’s obligations or the needs of its residents. By focusing on sites that are physically feasible, more evenly distributed, and more likely to develop, Pleasant Hill can move toward a solution that works for the entire community.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued service to the residents of Pleasant Hill.

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

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 3:22:40 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 67.169.164.5
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 297 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: Wendy Gollop
To: Haley Croffoot; City Council
Subject: Comments on 3/16/2026 City Council Agenda Item 10.1 Study Session on General Plan Amendment Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:41:36 PM
Attachments: SPH ADHOC TF 2004002.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear City Council
I am writing to comment on the City Council's study session regarding Item 10.1 "Comprehensive zoning ordinance update and associated rezoning". Please make this letter part of the public record. These comments specifically address the Beatrice Rd site zoning change from PUD to medium density multi-family residential. I do not think that this is an optimal zoning designation for this parcel. Please consider an RMD zone,similar to Mangini/Delu.

The vacant land next to Beatrice Rd is scheduled for rezoning to medium density multi-family. Presently it is a vacant collection of
lots that are largely owned by the Contra Costa County Flood Control district. The land was purchased by the Flood Control District to mitigate persistent flooding issues in Southern Pleasant Hill that have been well documented by others.

Currently Grayson Creek does not have the capacity to contain a 100 year flood. " Along the lower reaches of Grayson Creek, the principal flood problems are caused by a lack of channel capacity and constriction of the floodplain by inadequate levees. Beginning with the Center Avenue Bridge, located in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, and proceeding upstream, numerous undersized or poorly maintained bridge crossings cause overbank flooding. In the upper portion of Grayson Creek, south of Viking Drive and continuing on to East Fork Grayson Creek, a concrete box channel constructed in the late 1950s causes overbank flooding". Source: https://map1.msc.fema.gov/data/06/S/PDF/06013CV001C.pdf? LOC=b67bda4e24d4967b7250cd83380d4dc3
Due to the persistent and unmitigated flooding issues, dense development would only worsen current flooding.

Previous studies on how to address flooding in Southern Pleasant Hill focused on the old high schoolyard parcels on Oak Park Blvd combined with the Beatrice Rd area. But now housing, and a library are built on the old schoolyard site with recreational fields scheduled for development on the open space that is left. This does not leave enough space to contain flood water from the surrounding development. Astrid and Cleveland Rd are often shut down due to this flooding. This situation needs to be taken into account when designating this area for new development.

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

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

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 298 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 299 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Wendy Gollop, Co founder Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks References:

Focus Area 2: https://pleasanthill2040.com/images/docs/PHGPU_03_Final_Land%20Use_2023%2006%2030.pdf Mangini-Delu Mangini-Delu is one of the largest underutilized sites left within Pleasant Hill. The Mangini-Delu property is located in the
far western portion of the city at the intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road. Located adjacent to the property and
directly at the intersection is the Winslow Center, which is owned by the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District. The Mangini-Delu
property has a rich history within the city. The property is currently open space and used to be an active farm. The property is presently
designated for Single-Family Medium Density residential development, with a corresponding R-10 zoning designation.

Over the years there
have been several proposals for future development of the site. Those proposals have been met with community concerns about converting the farm to residential development. The 2040 General Plan assumes the Mangini-Delu property will be developed and includes land use changes that meet the needs of the property owners and community.

The 2040 General Plan envisions the Mangini—Delu property being developed into a vibrant neighborhood driven by a Master Plan process that allows the community to weigh in on important factors for the site’s development. The master planned development at a minimum will address open space preservation, recognize creek restoration, and focus on the transition between new and existing development. Development is envisioned to include a range of housing types, expanding the opportunity for home ownership within Pleasant Hill. New development proposed within the ManginiDelu focus area is subject to the policies in this section, as well as other relevant sections of the General Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 300 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 301 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 302 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 303 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: Alan Bade
To: Haley Croffoot; City Council
Subject: Comment for City Council on item 10.1 for the General Plan Amendment discussion Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:43:14 PM
Attachments: 2025-09-09_Alan Bade Comments_Combined.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hi HaleyPlease see the attached letter to the City Council members regarding item 10.1 Study Session.

This letter was submitted to the Planning Commission on 9/9/25. However, I did not see it in the background material for the Council, hence I'd like to resubmit it.

Thanks, Alan Bade
280 Longfellow Drive
Pleasant Hill
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 304 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 305 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 306 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 307 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 308 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 309 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 310 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 311 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 312 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 313 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 314 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 315 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 316 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Liz Harrison; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:50:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here PH Rezoning Comment Letter_Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks_9.9.25_Compiled.pdf * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18897 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:: Alan Bade
Street Address:: 280 Longfellow Drive
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9253301780
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Comments for item 10.1 GP Amendment study session.

Question or Comment:: Dear City Council,
Please find attached the comment letter Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks submitted to the Planning Commission regarding the specific conditions of the Beatrice Rd/Cleaveland Rd area under discussion. I am submitting this letter since I did not see it in the attachments for the study session.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 317 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Upload File Attachment here: PH Rezoning Comment Letter_Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks_9.9.25_Compiled.pdf
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 3:50:21 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 66.234.197.156
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 318 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 September 9, 2025
Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail ([email protected])
RE: Concerns About Proposed Rezoning of Grayson Creek Floodplain (Beatrice/Cleaveland); Implementation of General Plan Provisions for Creek and Flood Protection; Designation of Creek Protection Zone (General Plan Policy ENV-3.1); Development of Master Plan Dear Planning Commissioners:

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

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

II. SIGNIFICANCE OF SITE

1. Natural Creek & Floodplain: Grayson Creek is a natural creek that flows through Pleasant Hill. As noted in the Housing Element, the Grayson Creek at Beatrice/Cleaveland site is a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain. This area has repeatedly experienced significant flooding. For example, in October 2021, a strong storm led to Grayson Creek overtopping its banks and flooding this site. (Attachment A, Fig. 3-6; see also FEMA National Flood Hazard map, Fig. 7) The severity of flooding is expected to increase with climate change. (Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan, 9-14) For decades, the City, County, and community members have explored solutions to mitigate flood risk for the residents of southern Pleasant Hill. According to historical records, the parcels at this site were acquired by the County specifically for flood protection purposes. Studies concluded that “large regional flood protection systems don’t have enough benefits to be eligible for federal participation. The focus will now shift to smaller, local solutions that can be funded locally.”2 Restoring this site while enhancing its natural stormwater carrying capacity is a key “local solution.” Conversely, paving over this floodplain would not only repeat the errors of 20th century development, which resulted in the significant flooding issues that our community has experienced for decades, it would exacerbate them. 1 The county-owned parcels are: 149-130-020; 021; 022; 023; 024; and 030. Parcel 149-130-029 is privately owned. 2 Grayson / Murderer’s Creek 2013 Feasibility Study—Summary.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 319 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 2 2. Ecological Significance: During a five-year wild bird survey conducted with Mt. Diablo Bird Alliance, FPHC documented more than 100 species of native and migratory California birds in the Grayson Creek riparian corridor as well as other native wildlife (Attachment C). Western pond turtles, a California Species of Special Concern, have been documented in Grayson Creek, and neighbors have observed nesting turtles at this site. Seasonal wetlands support wildlife, including migrating birds. Downstream, beavers and Chinook salmon have been observed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy HS-5.4 Development Stormwater Impacts: Require new development to manage stormwater runoff in a safe, responsible manner. Where possible, implement a zerodischarge policy.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 320 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 3 Policy HS-5.5 Development in Floodplains: Minimize development in the 100-year floodplain and require projects in the 100- and 500-year floodplains to incorporate required stormwater management and flood-prevention design measures. (emphasis added) Policy HS-5.6 Low-Impact Development: Require low-impact development (LID) measures in new development, major remodeling projects, and public projects to limit the amount of impervious surface in new development and to increase retention, treatment, and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy ENV-3.7 Erosion Control Plans: Require erosion control plans for new development that require significant grading or are near streams, wetlands, and riparian areas. The plans shall include recommendations for grading practices that prevent erosion, loss Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 321 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 4 of topsoil, and scouring of drainageways, consistent with biological and aesthetic values.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Master Plan: Given the complexity and unique features of this site, we request that the City develop a Master Plan through a multi-stakeholder community-engaged process, similar to the process envisioned for the Mangini-Delu Focus Area.
5 We believe that only a Master Plan can protect the unique values of this site while addressing flood risk.
3 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4732/General-Plan 4 https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21503/Draft-EIR (3.3-27-30). 5 https://www.phillca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21502/2040-Pleasant-Hill-General-Plan_reduced (3-23).

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 322 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 5 Specifically, the Master Plan should:
a) Engage the Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, other property owners, neighbors, community organizations, and other stakeholders in a comprehensive planning process prior to any development.
b) Designate this site as a Creek Protection Zone (see General Plan Policy ENV-3.1), with a significant buffer to optimize stormwater management and protect habitat value and seasonal wetlands. c) Establish a multi-benefit riparian restoration and enhancement plan focused on increasing stormwater management capacity, protecting/enhancing wildlife habitat, and providing public amenities (e.g., trails).
d) Identify appropriate locations and develop a plan for future housing that (i) protects and restores the Grayson Creek riparian corridor, wildlife habitat, and adjacent open space / flood plain; and (ii) does not increase flood risk to surrounding neighborhoods. e) Promote clustered development, especially at the eastern end near existing infrastructure with access to Downtown Pleasant Hill, to allow for preservation of open space. f) Implement relevant provisions from the City’s General Plan and County’s General Plan. g) Align with the Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Plan and the County’s 50 Year Plan, “From Channels to Creeks,” adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in 2009.6 h) Consider examples of multi-benefit site development plans that protect creeks and restore/enhance their natural flood plains. We would be happy to provide such examples. i) Engage restoration professionals with experience designing multi-benefit urban creek restoration and enhancement plans.

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

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

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

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 323 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 6 Attachment A
Grayson Creek Floodplain at Beatrice / Cleaveland
Fig. 1: East Branch of Grayson Creek between Beatrice Rd. and Cleaveland Rd.

Fig. 2: Grayson Creek Floodplain: Undeveloped Parcels Proposed to be Rezoned Source: Contra Costa County (CCMap)
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 324 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 7 Fig. 3: 10/24/2021, Looking east from Beatrice Rd.

Fig. 4: 10/24/2021, Looking Northeast from southwest FCD parcel Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 325 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 8 Fig. 5: 10/24/2021, Looking north from Pleasant Hill ballfield Fig. 6: 10/24/2021, Looking north from east end of Pleasant Hill Middle School ballfield Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 326 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 9 Fig. 7
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer Map
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 327 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü

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

SPECIAL FLOOD

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

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

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

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

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

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
122°4'16"W 37°56'38"N
122°3'38"W 37°56'10"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 328 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 10 Attachment B
Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Planning Resources
• Walnut Creek Watershed Council: https://www.wcwatershed.org/watershed-restoration-plan.html • Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/10011/Walnut-Creek-Watershed-Restoration-Plan • Report: Envisioning a Healthier Walnut Creek Watershed: Initial Identification of High and Medium Priority Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities for the Walnut Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (Nov. 15, 2024): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o-J5GDV2h2PEb3NvhAKzZweUPSTQp-i/view?usp=sharing Fig. 8: Grayson Creek Watershed High or Medium Priority Projects Grayson Creek @ Beatrice is Shown as Project #25
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 329 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 11 Attachment C
Grayson Creek Bird Survey Species List
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 330 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Grayson Creek Bird Survey Species List
Grayson Creek Riparian Corridor sections between Oak Park Blvd. and Chilpancingo Parkway, Pleasant Hill, CA November 2017—November 2022

1. Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons)

2. Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii)

3. Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)

4. Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)

5. American Wigeon (Mareca americana)

6. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)

7. Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)

8. Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus)

9. Common Merganser (Mergus merganser)

10. Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) *

11. Pie-billed grebe (Podilymbus Podiceps)

12. Rock Pigeon (Columba livia) *

13. Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) *

14. Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)

15. White-throated Swift (Aeronautes saxatalis)

16. Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri)

17. Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna)

18. Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)

19. American Coot (Fulica americana)

20. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous)

21. Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago delicata)

22. Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis)

23. California Gull (Larus californicus)

24. Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus)

25. Great Blue Heron (Ardea Herodias)

26. Great Egret (Ardea alba)

27. Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)

28. Green Heron (Butorides virescens)

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

30. Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)

31. Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius)

32. Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus)

33. Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)

34. Red Shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)

35. Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

36. Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon)

37. Red-breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber)

38. Acorn Woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus)

39. Downy Woodpecker (Dryobates pubescens)

40. Nuttall’s Woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii)

41. Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus)

42. American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)

43. Merlin (Falco columbarius)

44. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

45. Western Wood-Pewee (Contopus sordidulus)

46. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii)

47. Pacific-slope Flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis)

48. Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)

49. Say’s Phoebe (Sayornis saya)

50. Hutton’s Vireo (Vireo huttoni)

51. Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus)

52. Steller’s Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri)

53. California Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma californica)

54. American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)

55. Common Raven (Corvus corax)

56. Chestnut-backed Chicadee (Poecile rufescens)

57. Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus)

58. Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx
serripennis)

59. Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor)

60. Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina)

61. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)

62. Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)

63. Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)

64. Wrentit (Chamaea fasciata)

65. Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula)

66. Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis)

67. White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)

68. Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris)

69. Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii)

70. European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) *

71. Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)

72. Western Bluebird (Sialia Mexicana)

73. Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus)

74. American Robin (Turdus migratorius)

75. Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum)

76. House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) *

77. American Pipit (Anthus rubescens)

78. House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus)

79. Purple Finch (Haemorhous purpureus)

80. Pine Siskin (Spinus pinus)

81. Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria)

82. Lawrence’s Goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei)

83. American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis)

84. Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerine)

85. Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca)

86. Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis)

87. White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)

88. Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla)

89. White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)

90. Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)

91. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia)

92. Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii)

93. California Towhee (Melozone crissalis)

94. Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus)

95. Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)

96. Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus)

97. Bullock’s Oriole (Icterus bullockii)

98. Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)

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

Total Species: 108, Total Raptor Species: 9
Total Native and Migratory Species: 103
Data Source: Grayson Creek Bird Survey, a joint
community science project of Friends of Pleasant Hill
Creeks (a project of SEE) and Mt. Diablo Audubon
Society. Updated: 10/17/23.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 331 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 12 Fig. 9 Hooded Mergansers in Grayson Creek near Beatrice Rd Fig. 10 Cooper’s hawk in Beatrice creek area
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 332 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 13 Fig. 11 Otter in Grayson Creek near Beatrice Rd
Fig. 12. Western Pond Turtle in Grayson Creek near Chilpancingo Park Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 333 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 14 Attachment D
Community Engagement and Stewardship
Fig. 13 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup (April 2024)
Fig. 14 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup (April 2024)
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 334 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 15 Fig. 15 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup (October 2024) Fig. 16 Grayson Creek Community Cleanup and Arundo Removal (May 2025) Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 335 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 16 Attachment E
Comment Letters on Proposed Zoning Amendments Submitted by Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks Dated 06/25/24 and 10/08/24
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 336 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 | www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | @PHcreeks Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks is a Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

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

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

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

Relevant policies include:

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

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

2. Excavation, filling, or grading;

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

4. Alteration of any embankment.

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

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 337 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 ENV-3.3 Creek Bank Stabilization. Require new development proposals to include appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, and any additional steps necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation but preserve natural creek channels and riparian vegetation.

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

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

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

2. Specific Comments and Considerations.

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

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

Updated creek setbacks should take a number of issues into account, including the following • The codes in nearby cities and Contra Costa County (“County”) take bank slope angles along with depth into effect and have larger setbacks. For instance, the County uses a line from the toe (bottom) of the creek bank sloping at a 2.5 to 1 ratio (horizontal to vertical) to intersect with the top of the bank to determine the starting point of the required setback (in their case a minimum of 30 feet).1 This is a much safer approach as it provides for a buffer in case of erosion and increases climate resiliency.
• At a minimum, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (“CCFCD”) should be consulted regarding safer, more environmentally friendly setbacks given our now better understanding of climate risks and the need for riparian restoration, consistent with the CCFCD's 50 Year Plan.2 1 See https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41701/Creek-Structure-SetbackPamphlet_March_2024-PDF?bidId= 2 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6853/50---Year-Plan-3-20-09-BOS-compressedPDF?bidId= Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 338 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 • Orinda and Lafayette also have different setbacks for creeks with slopes of greater than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) than for lesser slopes. This means that on creeks with vertical banks the required setback does not start at the top edge of the bank as it can in Pleasant Hill. A buffer zone is added based on the slope angle and creek depth. Please note that vertical creek banks using a 1:1 ratio for depth/required setback are potentially unstable, according to CCCFCD. A vertical bank can easily erode at its base causing the top to collapse. For reference, we have included links to Orinda's guidelines3 and Lafayette's guidelines4 in the footnotes. • Pleasant Hill should consider stream channel types as do other municipalities. An ephemeral upstream channel may have different setback needs than much larger downstream channels. • It is possible to retain current exemptions for legally constructed but non-conforming structures should new setbacks be considered (keeping current requirements that non-conformity not be increased). Our city is mostly built-out and the standards should reflect that, but our new standards should also consider that there are large creek-side areas still undeveloped, on both private and public land.

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

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

Sincerely,
Alan Bade
Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks / SEE
[email protected]
3 Chapter 17.4 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BASE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS | Code of Ordinances | Orinda, CA | Municode Library
4 635561390008430000 (lovelafayette.org)
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 339 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Hours
Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

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

Records Counter is closed on Fridays
Phone numbers:

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

STRUCTURE

SETBACK

REQUIREMENTS

FOR NATURAL
(UNIMPROVED)

CHANNELS
Contra Costa
County
Public Works
Department
255 Glacier Dr.

Martinez, CA
(925) 313-2000

CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
AREA
CREEK

PROPERTY

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

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

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

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

CREEK
Other Useful Information
“FAQ for Property Owners Near Creeks” by
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
Warren Lai,
Director
Deputy Directors
• Stephen Kowalewski, Chief
• Allison Knapp
• Carrie Ricci
• Joe Yee
March 2024
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 340 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 If your property is traversed by, or is adjacent to, a natural (unimproved) channel, you must determine the CSS area, as required by
the County Title 9 Ordinance Code and the
County General Plan. No permanent structures of any kind, other than drainage structures, may be constructed within, under, or over the structure setback area (Ordinance
Sections 914-14.010 and 74-6.010).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14.012 provides the following table:

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

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

Creek structure setback line*
Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
\\pw-data\grpdata\engsvc\Forms\PUB\PUB-5 Creek Structure Setback pamphlet_2024 March_v4 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 341 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Lafayette Municipal Code Ordinance No. 512
Article 5. Creek Setback Requirements
6-1841 Structure setback.
(a) As defined by Section 6-312 and Section 6-355, buildings and structures shall be set back from an unimproved creek channel as follows:
(1) Channel Depth of Zero through 21 Feet. If the side slopes of the channel are steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), the width of the structure setback is determined by a line measured from the toe of the slope a distance of twice the channel depth plus the appropriate top-of-bank setback as follows:

Channel Depth Top of Bank Setback
(Feet) Minimum Width (Feet)
0 — 6 12 each side
6 — 12 15 each side
12 — 18 18 each side
18 — 21 21 each side
If the side slopes of the channel are flatter than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) the structure setback is the appropriate setback indicated in the table above, measured from the top of the bank. (2) Channel Depth Exceeding 21 Feet. If the depth of a channel exceeds 21 feet, the width of the structure setback is determined by measuring from the toe of the slope a distance of three times the channel depth. (b) If a parcel is subject to subdivision easements or setback requirements under Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Sections 914-14.002 through 14.014 which are inconsistent with Section 6-1841(a), those subdivision requirements control.
(c) No permanent structure other than fences and drainage and erosion protection improvements may be constructed within the setback area. Landscaping (including trees and shrubs) is permitted within the setback area. (Ord. 512 § 1 (Appx. A (part)), 2000)
(Lafayette 4-00)
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 342 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 | www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | @PHcreeks Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks is a Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

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

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

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

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

2. Excavation, filling, or grading;

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

4. Alteration of any embankment.

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

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

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 343 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Many of our creek banks are near vertical and susceptible to undercutting. As urban densities increase, so will impervious coverage. The 2040 GP should modernize our creek setbacks to meet these new conditions. We have witnessed storms in recent years that severely tax our creek systems. Pleasant Hill narrowly avoided significant flooding, as evidenced by our attached photos.

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

New Park and Recreation Zoning District:

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

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

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

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

Recommendations:
• Env-3.1: A “creek protection zone” as detailed in our adopted GP needs to be included in the zoning ordinance.
1 https://www.cal-ipc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/InvasivePlantChecklistforCaliforniaLandscaping.pdf 2 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stream_wetland/app1in clrefs.pdf
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 344 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 • 18.60-A: More protective, greater creek setbacks are a matter of public safety as we increase urban density and will improve environmental values and increase climate resilience.
• Env-3.1, Env-3.6, Env-3.9: We ask that prohibitions against invasive non-native plants be adopted. Resources such as Cal-IPC, the RWQCB, the California Native Plant Society, the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District have specific guidance. • Park and Recreation District: We ask that this be subject to standard City review as all other entities in Pleasant Hill.
• Creek Setbacks: Our current setbacks are inadequate. We encourage the Planning Commission and City staff to consult and collaborate with community stakeholders, adjacent cities, and the County (including the CCCFCD) regarding creek setbacks. We request that the City appoint a staff person to coordinate this revision process. • We again request the opportunity for the public to review a copy of the “City of Pleasant Hill Creek System” map, as referenced in Section 18.60.010B.

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

Thank you,
Alan Bade
Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks / SEE
[email protected]
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 345 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Murderer’s creek 10/24/2021:

Murderer’s Creek 10/24/21:

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 346 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Beatrice Road area 10/24/21:

Beatrice Road area 10/24/21:

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 347 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Invasive Plant Checklist for
California Landscaping
2018.05.08
California’s Model Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance and the CALGreen Building Standards strongly discourage the use of invasive plants in landscaping. This checklist is designed to serve as a reference to help landscape designers in California avoid the use of invasive plants. Three sources are referenced: the California Dept. of Food & Agriculture (CDFA), which regulates plants in the state; the PlantRight initiative, which brings together a diverse range of stakeholders, including the nursery and landscaping industry, to prevent the use of invasive plants in horticulture; and the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), which assesses the environmental impact of invasive plants.

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

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

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

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

The following checklist includes all plants from each list that are known from horticulture. Plants from the CDFA Noxious Weed List are illegal and marked with a red X. Plants for which PlantRight has reached Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 348 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 consensus with all partners including the nursery industry are marked with a green X. All other species are only listed by Cal-IPC.

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

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

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

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

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

Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 349 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Checklist of Invasive Plants
Regions
Acacia dealbata silver wattle
Acacia melanoxylon blackwood acacia
Agrostis stoloniferaT creeping bentgrassT
Ailanthus altissima tree-of-heaven X
Arctotheca calendula fertile capeweed X
Arctotheca prostrate South African capeweed
Arundo donax giant reed X
Asparagus asparagoides bridal creeper
Asphodelus fistulosus onionweed X
Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush
Briza maxima big quakinggrass
Carpobrotus chilensis iceplant
Carpobrotus edulis highway iceplant X
Centaurea debeauxii meadow knapweed X
Chrysanthemum coronarium garland chrysanthemum
Cordyline australis giant draceaena
Cortaderia jubata jubatagrass X
Cortaderia selloana pampasgrass X
Cotoneaster franchetii cotoneaster
Cotoneaster lacteus Parney's cotoneaster
Cotoneaster pannosa silverleaf cotoneaster
Cotula coronopifolia common brassbuttons
Crataegus monogyna English hawthorn
Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora montbretia
Cynara cardunculus artichoke thistle X
Cynodon dactylonT Bermuda grassT
Cynoglossum officinale beggar's-lice

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom X
Cytisus striatus Portuguese broom
Dactylis glomerataF orchard grassF
Delairea odorata Cape-ivy X
Digitalis purpurea foxglove
Dipsacus fullonum common teasel
Echium candicans pride-of-Madeira
Egeria densa Brazilian egeria
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 350 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth X
Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive
Erica lusitanica Spanish heath
Erodium cicutarium filaree
Eucalyptus camaldulensis red gum
Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian bluegum
Euphorbia esula leafy spurge X
Euphorbia oblongata oblong spurge X
Festuca arundinaceaT alta fescueT
Ficus caricaE edible figE
Foeniculum vulgareE fennelE
Gazania linearis gazania
Genista monspessulana French broom X
Hedera canariensis Algerian ivy
Hedera helix English ivy
Helichrysum petiolare licorice plant
Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean mustard
Holcus lanatus common velvet grass
Hypericum canariense Canary Island St.

Johnswort
X
Hypericum perforatum klamathweed X
Ilex aquifolium English holly
Iris pseudacorus yellowflag iris X
Isatis tinctoria dyer's woad X
Kochia scopariaF kochiaF
Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy
Linaria genistifolia ssp. Dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax X Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax
Lobularia maritime sweet alyssum
Lolium multiflorumF Italian ryegrassF
Ludwigia hexapetala creeping waterprimrose X
Ludwigia peploides creeping waterprimrose
Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife X
Marrubium vulgare horehound
Mentha pulegium pennyroyal
Mesembryanthemum crystallinum crystalline iceplant Myoporum laetum ngaio tree
Myosotis latifolia common forget-me-not
Myriophyllum aquaticum parrotfeather
Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 351 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Olea europaeaE European oliveE
Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle X
Pennisetum setaceum green fountain grass X
Phalaris aquatic hardinggrass
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm
Phytolacca Americana common pokeweed
Plantago lanceolata buckhorn plantain
Poa pratensisT Kentucky bluegrassT
Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed X
Prunus cerasifera cherry plum
Pyracantha angustifolia, P. crenulata, P.
coccinea
firethorn
Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup
Retama monosperma bridal veil broom X
Ricinus communis castor bean
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel
Saccharum ravennae ravennagrass X
Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean sage X
Saponaria officinalis bouncing-bet
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree
Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree
Sesbania punicea scarlet wisteria X
Silybum marianum milk thistle
Spartium junceum Spanish broom X
Stipa tenuissima Mexican feathergrass X
Tamarix parviflora smallflower tamarisk X
Tamarix aphylla athel
Tamarix ramosissima, T. gallica, T. chinensis saltcedar X Tanacetum vulgare common tansy
Triadica sebifera Chinese tallow tree X
Verbascum thapsus wooly mullein
Vinca major bigleaf periwinkle X
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm
Watsonia meriana watsonia
Zantedeschia aethiopica calla lily
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 352 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
Central Valley 7-9
Desert 10-13
North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
South Coast 18-24
Record of Changes
2017.09.07 – Corrected Cordyline australis regions. Updated Cal-IPC description and logo. 2018 05.08 – Corrected Crocosmia regions.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 353 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: Rebecca Auerbach
To: City Council
Subject: Public comment for tonight"s meeting
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:56:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear councilmembers,
I am writing to express my wholehearted support for upzoning. There has been a lot of scare talk around his issue, but upzoning doesn't tear down anyone's home or cause any sudden drastic change in a neighborhood. It seems very reasonable that, on the relatively rare occasions when lots come available for development in our residential neighborhoods, we allow modestly-sized apartment buildings to be built among the single family homes.

Allowing more housing near our local businesses will be good for business owners and residents alike. It promotes walkability, encourages people to shop locally, minimizes traffic, and fosters a sense of local community. I would much rather see development that brings us together instead of the kind that sprawls and isolates us.

Regards,
Rebecca Auerbach
Pleasant Hill resident
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 354 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:29:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

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

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Formal Comment for March 16 Study Session: A Proposed Framework for Equitable Housing Distribution, Environmental Protection, and Procedural Transparency Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, As the City Council convenes for the March 16th Study Session, I am writing to propose a comprehensive path Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 355 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 forward for our General Plan Amendments. While I appreciate the Council’s recent willingness to address zoning inconsistencies in some Districts, I believe this session is the critical moment to apply that same standard of corrective excellence for all Districts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Form submitted on: 3/10/2026 11:29:24 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 149.34.244.132
Referrer Page: https://www.bing.com/
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 356 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 357 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:03:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

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

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Public Comment for March 16 Study Session: A Request for Transparency and a Better Path for Districts 1 & 4
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to share my sincere hope for the March 16th Study Session. As a resident who cares deeply about the Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 358 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 future of our neighborhoods, I see this session as a critical opportunity to move toward a more collaborative process, one that fixes the acknowledged flaws in our current General Plan while still meeting our housing obligations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Form submitted on: 3/10/2026 11:03:18 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 159.26.99.228
Referrer Page: https://www.bing.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 359 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 9, 2026 11:04:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

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

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: General Plan Study Session
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing ahead of the March 16th General Plan Study Session to express my appreciation for the Council’s willingness to revisit and correct zoning inconsistencies in Districts 2, 3, and 5. It's appropriate for the Council to Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 360 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 recognize that protecting the character of established single-family neighborhoods is a goal of the City in general, but should also be a commitment that is extended to every resident, no matter where they live.

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

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

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

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

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

Form submitted on: 3/9/2026 11:04:40 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 37.19.205.209
Referrer Page: https://www.google.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 361 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 9, 2026 11:14:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

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

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Zoning and Land Use Study 3/16/26
Question or Comment:: Dear Pleasant Hill City Council,
As you prepare for the March 16th General Plan Study Session, I am encouraged by recent discussions regarding the correction of zoning errors in Gregory Gardens, Poet's Corner and East Vivian. This demonstrates that the Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 362 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 2040 General Plan is a living document that can be improved with generous community input.

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

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

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

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

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

Form submitted on: 3/9/2026 11:14:34 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 185.165.243.59
Referrer Page: https://www.google.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 363 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 364 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 365 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 366 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 367 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 368 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 369 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 370 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 371 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 372 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 373 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 374 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 375 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 376 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 377 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 378 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 379 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 380 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 381 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 UJm
bu ffr,rto.

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL - �UEST TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL
__ \.)J)_�O_bJj'\�-� h.v.-. h� - -U----- L I \e City Council: Date 1 / Je '2,0 -Z It, ,
To. JQJ
ForO<J Against ( )
t'"' e � 1 � � omment (Items on Consent Calendar or not on Agenda) � -� --�� .. ______ -reak but would like to leave comments ( on back) Name (please print) CO\) r -rn t,y\ Co O I'\
First � Last
Pleasant Hill Resident: )OYes □ No
Street Address 2 2 � (;, L 1 '.So.. LV\ q \-f � :2,3
Email Address Cc ooh @ "( M� l • Co rA
Organization Represented (if any) --------------

PLEASE FILL OUT & GIVE TO CITY CLERK RECORDER
This card becomes a public record
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 382 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: Deana Rabbach
To: Andrei Obolenskiy; [email protected]; City Council Cc: Todd Rabbach; Diana Urcuyo; Sergio Urcuyo; Cris Branch; [email protected]; Tom Branch; [email protected]; Josephine Greer; [email protected] Greer; Elaine Ernst; Christina Francis; Sarah Kelley; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Zac Shess; Lyone Conner; [email protected]
Subject: 2026 General Plan Land Use Study Session: East Vivian Neighborhood Concerns – Rezoning Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2026 8:19:43 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Andrei, Mayor Shess, City Council & Mr. Fujimoto,
Andrei, I want to thank you for your continued updates regarding Pleasant Hill's General Plan and the proposed zoning changes affecting the East Vivian neighborhood.

I want to reiterate a point that I believe has been made abundantly clear through the numerous public comments, emails, letters, phone calls, and in-person meetings with City Council members and staff over the last year: East Vivian residents do NOT support high-density or mixed-use rezoning in our neighborhood. I would like to ask that this formally go on record for the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study Session hearing taking place on October 19, 2026.

The East Vivian Neighborhood's position has been consistent from the very beginning. We strongly oppose these zoning changes and want to preserve the single-family residential character of our community.

While we appreciate your efforts to explore removing the commercial component from the proposed mixed-use designation, removing commercial uses does not resolve our fundamental concern about increased residential density. A residential mixed-use designation that allows significantly higher-density development is not the outcome residents have been advocating for, nor should it be characterized as a compromise supported by the neighborhood.

To put it simply, residents do not want two-story or four-story apartment buildings constructed in their front yards, backyards, or immediately adjacent to their single-family homes. We purchased homes in an established residential neighborhood, and we want to preserve the character, privacy, and quality of life that make East Vivian a desirable place to live.

We recognize that California's housing laws place certain requirements on cities. However, we also believe the City Council has a responsibility to explore every available option to protect established single-family neighborhoods while meeting its housing obligations. State housing requirements should not automatically mean that East Vivian must be designated for substantially higher-density development.

I am also concerned by the repeated suggestion that these zoning changes are unavoidable. If that were truly the case, one has to question the purpose of the numerous planning sessions, community meetings, and discussions that have taken place over the past year. Surely, the intent of these efforts was to explore viable alternatives, listen to residents, and identify solutions that balance the City's housing obligations with the preservation of established Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 383 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 neighborhoods.

We recognize that Pleasant Hill was under significant pressure to meet the state's Housing Element deadlines and submit a compliant housing plan, particularly given the legal challenges the City faced in January 2023. No one wants to see Pleasant Hill exposed to another lawsuit or the potential consequences of the state's Builder's Remedy provisions. We understand the urgency under which the City was operating, but that urgency should not mean that the zoning decisions made at the time are beyond reconsideration.

If the City's primary objective is to accommodate higher-density housing along major corridors with convenient access to public transportation, then why isn't Mangini Farms being prioritized as a potential location? With its available land and potential to accommodate more comprehensive development, it warrants serious consideration as an alternative to introducing high-density housing into an established single-family neighborhood. I drive by that large vacant plot of land regularly and, quite frankly, am baffled as to why such a substantial parcel of land is not being seriously considered as a potential solution to our City's housing requirements, particularly when established single-family neighborhoods like East Vivian are being asked to accommodate increased density. It simply defies logic that a property of this size would not be prioritized for consideration before fundamentally altering the character of existing residential neighborhoods.

We are not opposed to Pleasant Hill meeting its housing obligations or planning responsibly for future growth. What we oppose is placing the burden of that growth on established residential neighborhoods when other potential alternatives deserve thorough evaluation. East Vivian residents have consistently asked the City to explore those alternatives, and we expect those concerns to be meaningfully reflected in the final General Plan decisions.

As our District 2 representative, we are asking you to advocate for the position residents have consistently communicated, rather than advancing a compromise that does not reflect our wishes.

With the General Plan consultants expected to present their findings in October, we ask that the City Council give serious consideration to preserving East Vivian's existing single-family residential designation. There should be no uncertainty about where East Vivian residents stand at this point.

We appreciate your willingness to engage with our neighborhood, but we want to be absolutely clear: Our opposition is not simply to commercial development. It is to the high-density and mixed-use rezoning of our established single-family neighborhood.

We hope you will take that position into account as the City undergoes the Study Session.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best,
East Vivian Neighborhood Residents
Pleasant Hill, District 2
Deana & Todd Rabbach (Celia Drive)
Susanna & Rob Toso (Celia Drive)
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 384 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Diana & Sergio Urcuyo (Celia Drive)
Cris and Tom Branch (Celia Drive)
Beverly Branch (Celia Drive)
Elaine & Dave Ernst (Celia Drive)
Josephine & Scott Greer (East Vivian Drive)
Sarah & Joshua Kelley (East Vivian Drive)
Christina & Tim Francis (Peggy Drive)
On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 6:21 AM Andrei Obolenskiy <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Morning Deana,
As your neighbor and district representative I understand the emotions and frustration that come with these 30,000-foot view decisions. It can feel insensitive when discussing neighborhoods, acronyms, and the overall general plan/zoning discussions.

However, I did have several town hall meetings to ask questions in an environment that allowed all of us to discuss the situation and provide understanding in regard to the state laws, under arching reasons why the properties listed in this email can’t be used and solicit feedback on potential solutions. These solutions need to ensure we are not fined 10’s of thousands of dollars per day, sued by pro-housing groups, or have our housing plan decertified by the state board HCD.

I can tell you it is a very sobering experience to go to the planning commissioner, and councilmember training seminars and learn how much our hands are tied. Around 1200 bills in and around housing are put forward each year so navigating is a challenge. Additionally, as discussed in the last council meeting the next cycle will be starting in a few years. From my understanding the housing cycle will begin in 2027 and the expectation will be to add more zoning. Let me be clear, all neighborhoods near major arterials will be affected by zoning. This is unavoidable. If this is to change it has to happen at a state level.

In the feedback I received from neighbors it was most important not to have commercial in the East Vivian interior. This was the compromise. I can tell you all that even if the zoning did not change a small developer could upzone the neighborhood parcel by parcel without it.

Putting 4-6 units on each site depending on current and pending legislation. The density difference change goes from 4-6 units per acre currently to tripe that adding ADU’s and JADU’s. This is with a ministerial approval which means the city has to approve these housing units. In contrast Mixed Use designation is usually 20-40 units per acre, requires city planning approval, architectural approval, and design review. It would require significant parcel consolidation, and have no commercial aspect. Based on feedback and the constrains of state laws this is the best proposal we have for the current situation.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 385 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Thank you,
___________________________________
Andrei Obolenskiy (he/him)
Vice Mayor 2026
City Councilmember District 2
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Office: 925.671.5270
From: Deana Rabbach <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:51 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Andrei Obolenskiy <[email protected]> Cc: Deana Rabbach <[email protected]>; Todd Rabbach <[email protected]>; Diana Urcuyo <[email protected]>; Sergio Urcuyo <[email protected]>; Cris Branch <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Tom Branch <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Josephine Greer <[email protected]>; [email protected] Greer <[email protected]>; Elaine Ernst <[email protected]>; [email protected]; DanielNeighbor Langon <[email protected]>; Christina Francis <[email protected]>; Neighbor Jessica & Lloyd <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sarah Kelley Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 386 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: East Vivian Neighborhood Concerns – Rezoning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing on behalf of myself and several East Vivian (District 2) neighbors copied on this email regarding last night’s City Council Study Session.

Several of us attended the session feeling hopeful but left disheartened and frustrated. We are residents who have raised—or are currently raising—our families in this single-family neighborhood. Some of us have lived here for only a few years, while others grew up in these very homes. The character and stability of this neighborhood are precisely why we chose to live here.

We have all been impacted by the rezoning process, yet none of us were aware it was underway until August 2025. While planning discussions may have occurred since 2019, the fact that the vast majority of affected residents were unaware of them highlights a significant gap in communication which has been recognized by City Council.

Based on the numerous public comments, emails, letters, phone calls, and inperson meetings with Council members and staff, it should be clear that East Vivian residents are NOT supportive of high-density or mixed-use rezoning in our neighborhood. Our position has been consistent from the beginning: we strongly oppose these changes and wish to preserve the single-family nature of our community. None of us want a 2-story or 4-story apartment building in our back yard or front yard. If there is any confusion about our neighborhood’s point of view, we are more than happy to schedule a District 2 meeting with the entire City Council.

We respectfully ask the Council to seriously consider the attached alternative sites to meet state housing requirements. Many residents have submitted viable options and would appreciate a clear explanation as to why those alternatives are not being pursued. For example, sites such as Mangini Delu—with approximately 25.9 acres of largely vacant land currently designated for low-density housing—appear to be a Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 387 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 more suitable opportunity. We understand that prior plans for this site significantly evolved from 2019 to 2022 based on community input, why is that? We ask that our neighborhood be given the same consideration.

While we have heard that development in our neighborhood may be unlikely or challenging, the possibility alone is deeply concerning. It would only take one or two property sales to a developer to initiate changes that could fundamentally alter the character of our neighborhood.

We also want to emphasize the importance of accurately representing community feedback. There appears to be a disconnect between the input residents have consistently provided and how that input was conveyed during the Study Session.

Clear and faithful representation of community perspectives is essential to maintaining trust and fostering productive dialogue.

We respectfully request continued and direct engagement with District 2 residents, who are most impacted by these decisions, and we welcome the opportunity to meet with the full Council to discuss our concerns further.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration of our community’s voice.

Sincerely,
Deana & Todd Rabbach (Celia Drive)
Diana & Sergio Urcuyo (Celia Drive)
Cris and Tom Branch (Celia Drive)
Beverly Branch (Celia Drive)
Elaine & Dave Ernst (Celia Drive)
Daniel Langon (Celia Drive)
Josephine & Scott Greer (East Vivian Drive)
Andrea Bidwell & Will Pritchard (East Vivian Drive)
Sarah & Joshua Kelley (East Vivian Drive)
Christina & Tim Francis (Peggy Drive)
Cindy Sayles (Marta Drive)
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 388 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 From: Liz Harrison
To: Amanda Szakats; Andrei Obolenskiy; Belle La; Sue Noack; Zac Shess Cc: Ethan Bindernagel; janet.coleson; Lyone Conner; Liz Payne; Troy Fujimoto Subject: Fw: Public Comment for the 10/19 Rezoning Study Session Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 4:16:47 PM
Attachments: Outlook-Descriptio
Hello Mayor Shess and City Councilmembers,
Please see the email below, which was submitted for your consideration. As this message is related to an upcoming agenda item, it will be included as public comment for the meeting.

Thank you,
Liz Harrison
Administrative Analyst II & Deputy City Clerk
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Direct Phone: (925) 671-5283
[email protected]
From: Marshall Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 3:48 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment for the 10/19 Rezoning Study Session CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello,
First, I'd like to congratulate Council on successfully implementing the zoning changes that were called for in the Housing Element. Pleasant Hill, like the rest of the Bay Area, is facing an affordability crisis caused by decades of underbuilding housing. The zoning changes that Council adopted earlier this year were a vital first step in relieving the constraints on development that caused that crisis. I'd particularly like to thank my own Councilmember for her remarks at that meeting that we should pursue additional measures to increase the production of new housing.

A number of concerns were raised at that meeting by both Council and members of the public.

I won't be able to attend next week's meeting, and my thoughts on housing are always far too voluminous to fit into a three-minute speaking slot, so I'll provide my thoughts on those concerns here.
1) A number of members of the public expressed concern about a collection of parcels near Beatrice Road that were zoned for high-density residential, apparently several decades ago.

Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 389 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 My recollection from the meeting is that these parcels are owned by the water district and used for flood control, and were likely re-zoned for high density residential during a previous housing cycle in order to allow the city to meet its RHNA numbers on paper despite the negligible probability of development. I agree that these parcels should be rezoned to something like open space (and indeed should never have been upzoned in the first place), but I do not believe that this is time sensitive. To be frank, if the water district wanted to put housing in this particular flood catchment, they would have done it many years ago. If Council chooses to make other changes that would require an EIR, it may make sense to make this change (and accompanying upzoning of other parcels to ensure no net loss), but this concern by itself is not urgent enough to require a mid-cycle Housing Element revision. 2) The last meeting saw a great deal of written public comment about the Morello and Paso Nogal sites, and I suspect that this meeting will also see discussion of this subject even though it's technically outside of the meeting's purview. I believe that the inclusion of these sites in our adopted Housing Element was, much like the upzoning of the flood catchment area several decades ago, a bad faith action by the city to get the Housing Element certified without actually demonstrating the capacity to meet our housing needs. Both sites have significant obstacles to development, which is why they haven't been developed. Public comment before the Housing Element was adopted indicated that a previous attempt to develop the Paso Nogal site had failed because the fire department was concerned that they could not service the site.

The sloped nature of the Morello site means that it would require a fairly high density for unsubsidized affordable housing to be financially viable, and despite the protestations of much of the community, the site wasn't actually rezoned for a particularly high density (if developed at maximum density, it would be visually very similar to the surrounding neighborhoods, i.e. scattered two-story buildings). As such, the city should not have counted that site toward its low-income numbers.

All of that being said (and I have said it all many times before), this is also not time-sensitive for the same reason that the flood catchment site is not time-sensitive. If these sites were going to be developed, it would have already happened. There are just too many constraints on their development for that to take place. We should not be panicking about the development of undevelopable sites.
3) Some residents expressed concern about some properties adjoining Gregory Lane, which currently front onto side streets and can now be reconfigured to front onto Gregory. I am sympathetic to staff and Planning Commission, which would presumably like to activate those streetscapes but cannot do so because previous generations of planners decided to have backyards facing onto a major thoroughfare. However, that ship has unfortunately sailed. It's not reasonable to make that transition by having individual properties change their orientation over several decades, since (as was pointed out at the meeting) this would result in the side streets being a confounding patchwork of the fronts and backs of buildings. I'm hopeful that this can be rectified without an EIR, since the main change involves the orientation of the buildings rather than their permitted uses, but that would be a question for staff. It should be noted that a number of properties along Shirley Drive are similarly expected to pirouette on their foundations, and Council should address those properties as well. 4) Although it didn't come up much during the previous meeting, Councilmember Obolenskiy indicated that he had heard substantial negative feedback regarding the change of Sherman Acres from pure residential to mixed use. As someone who has lived and worked in a residential to mixed use conversion, I want to again emphasize that this kind of change can be Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 390 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 absolutely delightful when executed well, and that the issue with the rezoning was the execution rather than the concept. Instead of stripping the mixed-use designation entirely, Council should reduce the permitted uses to be more in line with the character of the neighborhood. Swap meets and nightclubs should not be allowed, but there's no issue with things like light offices. Indeed, I strongly support removing the current provision limiting office space to 35% of square footage, since offices are the exact kind of low intensity use that we should be encouraging.
5) During Council discussion at the last meeting, Councilmember La expressed support for finding additional opportunities to permit more housing, such as the former Bed Bath and Beyond site and the former Black Angus site. That discussion is technically not in the purview of this meeting, but may still come up due to no-net-loss requirements if Council chooses to downzone the sites that the meeting is about. Moreover, if Council chooses to take a course of action that requires an EIR, that may be an opportunity to add those sites even if adding them is not required by no-net-loss.

Council expressed the opinion at the previous meeting that those sites should be kept in reserve for the next RHNA cycle, and I disagree for two reasons. First, the city's RHNA numbers are, at least in part, based on the developable land in the city limits, so if we put housing on that land, it will affect our housing allocation during the next cycle. (Note that this also applies to the Mangini property, which will continue to inflate our RHNA numbers as long as it lies vacant.) Second, the main deliverable that Council should be focused on is not a certified Housing Element (a document that, while important, is ultimately a very impressive doorstop), but actual housing that people can actually live in. As HCD admished us while rejecting one of our Housing Element drafts, this is not a box-checking exercise. The sooner that housing gets built, the sooner people can live in it, and if that's inconvenient for the city's paperwork, then that's a price that's worth paying. It should also be noted that, unless no-netloss is a consideration, the city can upzone those sites without claiming them as Housing Opportunity Sites, which would still keep them free for the next cycle. Whether that's costeffective in terms of an EIR is, of course, a separate issue.

I am, again, sorry that I won't be able to attend the meeting in person, but you will all be in my thoughts. I encourage you to fight like tigers to make Pleasant Hill a pleasant, affordable place to live for future generations by allowing for the production of more housing and ensuring that the new mixed-use areas are sensible.

Thank you,
Marshall Lewis
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 391 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 19, 2026October 19, 2026
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. __- 26 DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE

DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF WEEDS AND ORDERING THE
ABATEMENT OF SAME ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 319

GLORIA DRIVE

SYNOPSIS
Pursuant to Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC) section 7.45.050, this is a public hearing for the City Council to consider declaring a public nuisance and ordering the abatement of extensive weed growth at 319 Gloria Drive. City Code Enforcement (CE) learned of the conditions onsite in June 2026 through an anonymous complaint. CE staff has issued two formal written notices, and a notice regarding this hearing to the property owner, who has taken no action to date to address conditions onsite. Staff is requesting the City Council adopt the resolution, declare a public nuisance, and order an abatement.

DISCUSSION
Property Information
The property is located on the south side of Gloria Drive abutting 313 and 325 Gloria Drive and adjacent to the single-family residential lots at 312, 318, and 324 Belva Lane. The 7,300-sq-ft lot is developed with a 1,484-sq-ft single-family residence with a 360-sq-ft garage.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 392 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Background
This has been a seasonal and recurrent issue with the property since at least April of 2023, where first and second notices, as well as administrative citations were issued. In July of 2023 the property owner attempted to pay one of the citations, however the check was returned by the bank.

The property remained in this condition until the rainy season. The issue was repeated in 2024, however, to better address issues such as this, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 973, Weed Abatement Chapter §7.45.

Subsequently after another rainy season, in 2025, the City received the same complaint about the property. In accordance with the new ordinance, the City issued two notices to abate or show cause in the same previous manner with similar unsuccessful results. As a result of continued noncompliance, on July 28, 2025, CE staff issued notice of this hearing to the property owner via regular and certified mail and posted the notice in a conspicuous place on the property.

On August 4, 2025 at a regular meeting of the City Council, the property owner failed to appear to appeal the notices and conditions at the property. The City Council declared the property a public nuisance and ordered staff to abate the property per PHMC §7.45.110. Thus, the property was abated on October 23, 2025, and the costs associated with the abatement were billed to the property owner who failed to pay them. The cost of the abatement was later recorded as a special assessment on County Tax rolls under City Council Resolution No. 52-26.

Subsequently after another rainy season, in June 2026, the City received the same complaint about the property. In accordance with City provisions (Chapter 7.45), the City issued two notices to abate or show cause, with unsuccessful results. As a result of continued noncompliance, on September 17, 2026, CE staff issued notice of this hearing to the property owner via regular and certified mail and posted the notice in a conspicuous place on the property.

On September 21, 2026, hearing notice was posted at the property; however, due to conditions at the property, including an overflowing mailbox, the City Code Investigator requested a welfare check of the property owner. Police officers found the front door unlocked, opened it and, without entering, made verbal contact with property owner advising her that they were there to check on her well-being. The property owner was hostile to the officers telling them to leave her alone and go away. In addition, the City Code Investigator attempted to speak to the homeowner through the door, but was refused and told to leave the premises. In attempting to explain the posting of the hearing notice to take the property before City Council, the property owner responded that the City should do what we need to do. Based on the continued noncompliance to address the hazardous and unsightly weed condition, CE staff requests City Council’s approval to abate and resolve the issue.

Violation Description
The property owner has allowed the proliferation of overgrown weeds onsite at 319 Gloria Drive since June 2026. The existing condition poses a health and safety risk and fire hazard in violation of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code.

Findings
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 393 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 After proper notification of the issue, the property owner failed to contact code enforcement to discuss the merits of the case or seek any form of redress from code enforcement actions. In an attempt to gain compliance, the City Code Investigator visited the property. While there the property owner did speak to the City Code Investigator through the door, yelling at him to leave and refusing to come to the door. The City Code Investigator attempted to explain the posting was for notice for a hearing before the City Council to which the property owner responded that the City should do what we need to do. This interaction should serve as prima facie evidence that the property owner was aware of the violation, but took no action to contact code enforcement, correct the conditions at the property, or seek redress from code enforcement actions.

Other Requirements
Pursuant to PHMC section 7.45.090, a property owner may object to the proposed declaration of public nuisance and removal of weeds, rubbish, refuse, and dirt from the property during the public hearing on the matter. In accordance with PHMC sections 7.45.070 and 7.45.080, CE staff sent notice of this hearing via regular and certified mail to the property owner at the last known address, as shown on the assessment roll of the city, and conspicuously posted notice onsite at 319 Gloria Drive.

If the property owner appears before the City Council to appeal the notice, as set forth in PHMC section 7.45.090, the City Council shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed removal of weeds, rubbish, refuse, and dirt. The City Council may adopt the resolution declaring a public nuisance exists and order an abatement.

Next Steps
If the City Council declares a public nuisance and authorizes staff to abate, staff will move forward with the abatement at 319 Gloria Drive, after which an invoice will be sent to the property owner for the cost of abatement. If the invoice is not paid within 30 days of notice, pursuant to PHMC section 7.45.140, CE staff will return to the City Council to request approval to place a lien against the property for the cost of abatement via county tax rolls.

Additionally, under the authority of PHMC §7.45.100 notice on future occurrences on the specified parcel, within the same calendar year, may be declared to be seasonal and recurrent nuisances. Such seasonal and recurrent nuisances shall be abated in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, and no further City Council hearing need be held.

FISCAL IMPACT
None. Any funds expended on abatement would be recovered via invoice payment or property lien recorded on the county tax rolls.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 394 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Public Contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the Resolution to Declare a Public Nuisance and Order Abatement of Same

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Continue the item to a later date with direction provided to staff, or afford the property owner additional time to bring the property into compliance.

ATTACHMENT(S)
Proposed Resolution
Attachment A Pleasant Hill Ordinance No. 973, adding Chapter §7.45 – Weed Abatement Attachment B Notice of Hearing
Prepared by: Luis Martinez, City Code Investigator
Reviewed by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 395 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 RESOLUTION NO. __-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 319 GLORIA DRIVE AND ORDERING THE

ABATEMENT OF SAID NUISANCE CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, Chapter 7.45 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code (PHMC) requires that it is the duty of any person owning, occupying, renting, managing, or controlling any real property in the city to remove or destroy such weeds and/or rubbish; and WHEREAS, a staff report has been prepared and submitted for City Council review summarizing the case file history and Code Enforcement actions taken to enforce PHMC Chapter

7.45; and
WHEREAS, the following actions have occurred; (1) City received a complaint from a resident about overgrown weeds; (2) the City issued multiple notices to bring the property into compliance; (3) no response was provided by the property owner; (4) additional resident complaints resulted in the City issuing the property owner a courtesy notice to avoid hearing before City Council for abatement, which went unanswered; (5) the City visited the site to gain compliance and complete a wellness check; however, during the visit Police Officers and the City Code Investigator were told to leave the premises, and when told of the pending City Council hearing, the property owner was hostile and not cooperative; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2026, and again on August 27, 2026, the Code Enforcement Division, sent the property owner via certified mail a notice to abate or show cause and posted same notices in a conspicuous place on the property, which went unclaimed and unanswered; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, in accordance with Chapter 7.45 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code declares a public nuisance at 319 Gloria Drive and orders City staff to abate the nuisance condition.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of October 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ZAC SHESS, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
LYONE CONNER, City Clerk
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 396 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 1 ORDINANCE NO. 973

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
AMENDING THE PLEASANT HILL MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING CHAPTER 7.45 WEED

ABATEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill is committed to protecting the life, health, and safety of its residents and all people within the geographical boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, private property in the City, if not maintained to eliminate overgrown weeds and/or rubbish, has the potential to create a hazardous condition as relates to uncontrolled fire and thereby result in an imminent danger to other properties and people in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adopting the procedure set forth in California Government Code §39501 et seq. and as subsequently amended, provides an efficient and effective means of notifying property owners when such conditions exist on their properties and requiring the abatement of such hazardous conditions will help to alleviate the imminent danger posed to the health, safety and welfare of persons and properties in the City when these conditions are allowed to persist.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill does ordain as follows:

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this ordinance by this reference.

Section 2. Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Chapter 7.45 Weed Abatement is hereby added to Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, Title 7 Community Preservation to read as follows:

Chapter 7.45 Weed Abatement
Section

7.45.010 Definitions

7.45.020 Public Nuisance

7.45.030 Duty of Property Owner to Destroy or Remove

7.45.040 Standards for Maintenance

7.45.050 Resolution of Public Nuisance and Abatement

7.45.060 Right of Entry

7.45.070 Notice to Destroy or Remove

7.45.080 Method of Giving Notice

7.45.090 Hearing; Appeal from Notice

7.45.100 Seasonal and Recurrent Nuisances

7.45.110 Destruction and Removal by City

7.45.120 Account and Report of Cost of Abating Nuisance

7.45.130 Same - Notice of Report; Form

7.45.140 Same - Hearing and Confirmation of Report

7.45.150 Collection of Costs on Tax Roll
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 397 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 2 Section 7.45.010 Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning:

City Manager means the City Manager of the City of Pleasant Hill, California, or designee.

Party concerned means the owner( s) of record, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and any other person known to the City Manager to be the occupant, person in control of, or owner of any interest in or to the building or structure or the land upon which it is located.

Rubbish means waste matter, litter, trash, refuse, debris and dirt which, when dry, is or may become a fire hazard or which is or may become a menace to health, or which is offensive to the senses.

Streets include alleys, parkways, driveways, sidewalks, and areas between sidewalks and curbs.

Weeds means plants which, when mature, bear wingy or down seeds, or which because of having attained, or which may attain, such a large growth and when dry, is or will become a fire hazard, or which are otherwise noxious or dangerous to health.

Section 7.45.020 Public Nuisance
The City Council hereby declares that all weeds growing upon private property or streets in the city and all rubbish on private property or streets in the City result in a hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the people in the City due to the imminent danger of uncontrolled fire posed by these conditions and are therefore a public nuisance.

Section 7.45.030 Duty of Property Owner to Destroy or Remove It shall be unlawful for any person owning, occupying, renting, managing, or controlling any real property in the City to cause or permit any weeds, or to place cause or permit any rubbish, to be or remain on any real property in the City or on portions of streets adjoining such real property to the centerline of such streets. It shall be the duty of every such person to remove or destroy such weeds and/ or rubbish. Destruction by burning within the City is unlawful.

Section 7.45.040 Standards for Maintenance
The City Manager may establish standards for the maintenance of weeds. The standards shall be effective upon being filed with the City Clerk.

Section 7.45.050 Resolution of Public Nuisance and Abatement The City Council may declare, by resolution, that a property constitutes a public nuisance pursuant to this Chapter. The resolution shall refer to the property by street address or Assessor’ s Parcel Number (“ APN”) according to the official or assessment map. Any number of streets, sidewalks, or parcels of private property may be included in one resolution.

Section 7.45.060 Right of Entry
a) Whenever necessary to make an inspection or to enforce any of the provision of this Chapter, or whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any property is being maintained in violation of the provisions of this Chapter, the City Code Investigator, or designee, may enter Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 398 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 3 such property with the consent of any party concerned, or view the property conditions from a public sidewalk or street in order to determine whether the conditions prohibited by this Chapter exist on the property.
b) It shall be unlawful for any person, including any party concerned: (i) to refuse to allow the City Code Investigator, or designee, or a contractor engaged by the City, to enter upon the property, consistent with subsection (a); or (ii) to obstruct, impede, or interfere in any manner with the City Code Investigator, or designee, or a contractor engaged by the City, in any work undertaken pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.

Section 7.45.070 Notice to Destroy or Remove
If the person owning, occupying, renting, managing, or controlling any real property in the City fails to remove therefrom and from the portions of streets adjoining such property, all weeds and rubbish in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, it shall be the duty of the City Manager to notify such person to remove the same. Such notice shall be in writing and shall be in substantially the following form:

NOTICE TO DESTROY WEEDS AND REMOVE RUBBISH, REFUSE, AND DIRT Notice is hereby given that on the ____ day of __________ 20___ , the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill passed a resolution declaring that noxious or dangerous weeds were growing upon or in front of the property on (address and assessor’ s parcel number), and that rubbish, refuse, and dirt were upon or in front of property on this street, in Pleasant Hill, California and that they constitute a public nuisance which must be abated by the removal of the weeds, rubbish, refuse, and dirt. Otherwise, they will be removed and the nuisance abated by the City and the cost of removal assessed upon the land from or in front of which the weeds, rubbish, refuse, and dirt are removed and will constitute a lien upon such land until paid. Reference is hereby made to the resolution for further particulars. A copy of said resolution is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

All property owners having any objections to the proposed removal of the weeds, rubbish, refuse, and dirt are hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill to be held at 7:00 pm on ________________, 20__, when their objections will be heard and given due consideration.

Dated this ___________ day of ________20__.

Section 7.45.080 Method of Giving Notice
Notice shall be deposited in the United States Post Office at Pleasant Hill, California, with postage thereon prepaid and addressed to such owner at his last known place of address shown on the assessment roll of the City. If such real property is occupied and the mailing address thereof is different from that of the owner on assessment roll, then an additional copy shall be similarly mailed to the occupant of such property at the mailing address thereof. Such notice shall contain a description of the property, which description may be the County Assessor’ s Parcel Number, or may be the street and number thereof, or may be any other description by which the property may be reasonably identified. One or more lots or blocks of land may be Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 399 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 4 described in one and the same statement of notice. Notice shall be mailed no less than five (5) days before the City Council hearing.

Alternately, the City Manager may cause notices to be conspicuously posted on or in front of the property on or in front of which the nuisance exists no less than five (5) days before the City Council hearing, as follows:
a) One notice to each separately owned parcel of property of not over 100 feet of street frontage.
b) Notices at not more than 100 feet apart if the street frontage of such a parcel is greater than 100 feet.

Section 7.45.090 Hearing; Appeal from Notice
At the time stated in the notices, the City Council shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed removal of weeds, rubbish, refuse, and dirt. It may continue the hearing from time to time.

By motion or resolution at the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall allow or overrule any objections. At that time, the City Council has jurisdiction to proceed with a resolution to perform the work of removal. The decision of the City Council is final.

Section 7.45.100 Seasonal and Recurrent Nuisances
The notice may also find and declare that weeds on specified parcels of property are seasonal and recurrent nuisances.

Such seasonal and recurrent nuisances shall be abated in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter; provided that upon the second and subsequent occurrence of such nuisance on the same parcel or parcels within the same calendar year, no further hearing need be held, and it shall be sufficient to mail a notice to the owner of the property as they and their addresses appear upon the current assessment roll.

Section 7.45.110 Destruction and Removal by City
If the person owning, occupying, renting, managing, or controlling real property in the City fails to remove or destroy weeds and rubbish in accordance with the notice given pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, within five (5) days after the mailing or posting of such notice, and no objections are made, or the City Council has disposed of the objections made, the City Council may order, by motion or resolution, that the City Manager and/ or any contracting agents, or other representatives, destroy, cut, and/or remove such weeds, refuse, dirt or rubbish.

Section 7.45.120 Account and Report of Cost of Abating Nuisance a) The City Manager shall keep an account of the cost of abating such nuisance upon each separate lot or parcel of land, and the abutting half of the street in front, and alley, if any, in the rear thereof, and embody such account in such a report and assessment list to the City Council, which shall be filed with the City Clerk. Such report shall refer to each separate lot or parcel of Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 400 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 5 land by description sufficient to identify such lot or parcel, together with the expense proposed to be assessed against each separate lot or parcel of land therefore, respectively. b) The cost of abatement may include incidental expenses, including, but not limited to the expenses and costs of the City in the inspection of lots, preparation of notices, specifications and contracts, and in inspecting work, and the costs of printing and mailing required hereunder. The cost of abatement shall be established by resolution of the City Council.

Section 7.45.130 Same - Notice of Report; Form
The City Clerk shall post a copy of the report and assessment list on the bulletin board near the entrance door to City Hall, together with a notice of the filing thereof and of the time and place when and where it will be submitted to the City Council for hearing and confirmation, notifying property owners that they may appear at such time and place, and object to any matter contained therein. Additionally, such notice, shall be provided to the owner(s) of the real property to be assessed in the same manner as provided in Section 7.45.080 of this Chapter and shall be substantially in the following form:

NOTICE OF HEARING ON REPORT AND ASSESSMENT FOR WEED ABATEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on ________________, 20__, the City Manager filed with the City Clerk a report and assessment on abatement of weeds within the City of Pleasant Hill, a copy of which is posted on the bulletin board at the entrance to City Hall.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that at 7:00 pm on the _____ day of ______________, 20 __ , in the Council Chambers of the Pleasant Hill City Hall, said report and assessment list will be presented to the City Council for consideration and confirmation, and that any and all persons interested, having any objections to said report and assessment list, or to any matter or thing contained therein, may appear at said time and place and be heard.

DATED _____________________, 20______
City Clerk of the City of Pleasant Hill, California
Section 7.45.140 Same - Hearing and Confirmation of Report a) At the time and placed fixed for receiving and considering the report, the City Council shall hear the same together with any protests or objections which may be raised by any interested persons. Upon such hearing, the Council shall make such corrections or modifications in any proposed assessment, which it may deem to be excessive or otherwise incorrect, after which such assessment shall be confirmed by resolution of the Council and the amount thereof shall constitute a lien on property assessed until paid. The confirmation of assessment by the Council shall be final and conclusive.
b) After the assessment is made and confirmed, the City Manager shall cause the order confirming the assessment to be recorded in the office of the Contra Costa County Recorder.

Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 401 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 6 Section 7.45.150 Collection of Costs on Tax Roll
On or before the first day of August of each year, the City Manager shall submit to the County Tax Collector the assessment list as confirmed by the City Council. The cost of abatement constitutes a special assessment against that parcel. Thereafter, such amounts shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general City and County taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same interest and penalties as are provided for other delinquent taxes or assessments of the City.

Section 7.45.160 Method of Removal
The methods of removing weeds, vines, shrubs, brush, and/ or debris from property as herein provided shall not be an exclusive method, but shall be an alternative method, and such weeds, vines, brush, shrubs and/or debris may be removed from such property pursuant to the provisions of any law of the state or of any ordinance of the city, applicable thereto.

Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.

Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective thirty ( 30) days after the date of its adoption.

Section 5. Posting. Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it or a summary of it to be posted in the three places designated by resolution of the City Council.

Section 6. Compliance with CEQA. This Ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council hereby finds that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061( b)(3), this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Further, and in the alternative, the City Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308 as an action by a regulatory agency taken to protect the environment and natural resources. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager to prepare and file a Notice of Exemption within five business days following adoption of this Ordinance.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill held on the 18th day of November, 2024.

Signatures on the Following Page]
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 402 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 7 ADOPTED and ordered posted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, held on the 2nd day of December, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Noack, Shess, Vinson, Rinn
NOES: None
ABSENT: Flaherty
ABSTAIN: None
MATTHEW RINN, Mayor
ATTEST:

LYONE P. CONNER, City Clerk
Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 403 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 404 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 405 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 406 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 407 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 408 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 409 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 410 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 411 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026 Item 10.2
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 412 of 412 - Monday, October 19, 2026

Pleasant Hill City CouncilOctober 19, 2026

Pleasant Hill City Council
October 19, 2026