Pleasant Hill City Council
October 19, 2026

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 16, 2026
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
TITLE: 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 General Plan 2040.

SYNOPSIS
The City Council is requested to conduct a 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 General Plan 2040. This Study Session is a follow up from the November 17, 2025 City Council hearing at which the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 978 amending the City’s Municipal Code Title 18 (Planning and Land Use) in its entirety and amending the Zoning Map to include the rezoning of 1,072 parcels throughout the city for consistency with the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element.

DISCUSSION
Background
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update and Associated Rezonings: On November 17, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 978 amending the City’s Municipal Code Title 18 (Planning and Land Use) in its entirety and amending the Zoning Map to include the rezoning of 1,072 parcels throughout the city for consistency with the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element. At that meeting, the City Council directed staff to provide an opportunity within the first six months of 2026 for additional discussion on potential additional General Plan Amendments. This Study Session is in response to that request.

General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decision making and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The 2040 General Plan establishes the following Guiding Principles:
• Encourage Smart and Sensitive Development
• Foster Economic Diversity and Sustainability
• Barrier Free Mobility
• Balanced Growth
• Ensuring Public Safety
• Support Diverse Housing Options
The General Plan included several implementation programs, which outlined necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023-2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs that outlined requisite amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20), and introduced new mixed-use district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.

Analysis
At the November 17, 2025 City Council Meeting, the City received many public comments expressing concerns with the rezoning of several areas throughout the City. The areas of concern identified in those public comments are summarized below, with additional context provided from the 2040 General Plan (also see Attachment D 2022 GPAC Preferred Alternative Memo).

Mixed Use Zoning District along Contra Costa Boulevard: General Plan Focus Area 5 The first area is along Contra Costa Boulevard,
generally between Harriet Drive to the north
and Anelda Drive to the south and
encompassing the Sherman Acres West
neighborhood to the east of Contra Costa
Boulevard (E. Vivian Drive) and the properties
along Linda Drive and Shirley Drive. These
properties were redesignated from a SingleFamily designation to a Mixed-Use designation (medium-purple color on map), as part of the
2040 General Plan and rezoned to the
corresponding Mixed-Use zoning district in
November 2025. The General Plan states the
following goal for this area:
“The 2040 General Plan envisions
transforming Contra Costa Boulevard into a
contemporary transit oriented corridor focused
on multi-modal opportunities and denser
development. In an effort to reduce
incompatibility between development types, all
single-family residential areas in this focus
area will be re-designated to Mixed-Use to
create consistency of development patterns. This shift in the fabric of Pleasant Hill from single-family to mixed-use will take decades to come to fruition and will require significant parcel consolidation.”
A majority of the public comments received as part of the rezoning effort were concerned with the rezoning of the single-family neighborhood surrounding E. Vivian Drive (east of Contra Costa Boulevard), and the single-family properties along Shirley Drive whose rear yards abut Contra Costa Boulevard. The concerns primarily focused on the potential impact of introducing commercial uses and higher residential densities within existing single-family neighborhoods.

Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zoning District along Gregory Lane: General Plan Focus Area 6 The second and third areas are along Gregory Lane, specifically the properties at the south end of Maureen Lane and the north side of Julian Way, all which abut Gregory Lane.

These properties were redesignated from a Single-Family designation to Mixed Use Neighborhood designation (light purple color on map below), along with adjacent properties fronting Gregory Lane (generally between the Contra Costa Canal Trail east of Pleasant Hill Road and Pleasant Hill Park to the east), as part of the 2040 General Plan, and rezoned to the corresponding Mixed-Use Neighborhood Business zoning district in November 2025.

The General Plan states the following Goal for this area (areas highlighted for discussion):
“The 2040 General Plan envisions transforming Gregory Lane into a neighborhood mixed-use corridor anchored by higher intensity development at the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road to the west and Downtown/Contra Costa Boulevard to the east. In an effort to reduce incompatibility between development types, all single-family residential areas in this focus area will be reassigned with the lower intensity Neighborhood Mixed-Use land use designation to create consistency between development patterns.”
The majority of public comments
received focused on the
redevelopment of these areas with
commercial and/or higher density
residential uses and potential
impacts to existing neighborhoods
that share access from the same
neighborhood-serving streets. In
response, the City Council added
new, clarifying language to the
City’s development standards for
Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
(18.20.040.P) to restrict access for
new developments from internal,
neighborhood serving streets:

P. Access. Any development proposal (excluding single family residential development) submitted after December 17, 2025, for any parcel with a Mixed Use zoning designation abutting Contra Costa Boulevard, Gregory Lane or Oak Park Boulevard shall provide exclusive vehicular and service access from these same streets.

Cleaveland Road and Beatrice Road
The final area of focus is along Cleaveland Boulevard, which abuts the single-family neighborhood to the east along Beatrice Road. The previously applicable Planned Unit Development zoning district (PUD 410) applied to the west side of Cleaveland Road, north of Astrid Drive and atypically included properties with different General Plan land use designations.

By law, zoning and general plan designations must be aligned, so City staff sought to rectify the inconsistency through the rezoning process. In November, the properties within PUD 410 were rezoned so that each property’s zoning designation aligned with its applicable overarching General Plan land use designation. Staff further notes that the General Plan land use designations for these properties have remained unchanged for over 35 years.

Further, regarding the implications for future development, PUD 410 was considered a “shell” PUD, meaning it contained no specific land use or development standards. Therefore, future development in this area would be subject to the standards within the zoning district aligned with the overarching General Plan land use designation. Accordingly, rezoning these properties made no change to the already applicable development provisions, such as height, density, setbacks, etc.

A majority of the public comments expressed concerns with the existing Multi-Family designation for this area, most specifically for the existing single-family homes along the east end of Beatrice Road and the three large vacant properties between Beatrice Road and Cleaveland Road, two of which are owned by the Contra Costa County Flood Control District. The concerns were related to the potential impacts of higher density residential development adjacent to existing singlefamily neighborhoods and potential flood impacts associated with such developments.

Discussion Items
Staff has identified four areas to discuss; however, the discussion is not limited to only these areas.

The City Council may identify other areas for staff the to explore for potential General Plan Amendment. City Council direction can include specific areas of focus, potential changes to General Plan Land Use Designations, or no changes to the General Plan. Thus, to assist in next steps, staff requests City Council’s feedback and direction.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this Study Session. Potential fiscal impact for future General Plan amendments will be evaluated once direction is provided to Staff.

PUBLIC CONTACT
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. In addition, a notice of this public hearing was published twice in the Contra Costa Times Newspaper on February 16, 2026, and March 2, 2026. Further, notification was provided on the City’s electronic sign, A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library, respectively, and notices of the meeting have also been posted on both the front page of the City’s website (www.phillca.gov) and on the project website (www.phillca.gov/2026gpstudy). Additionally, public notices were mailed to all property owners and current residents within 500 feet of all properties rezoned under Ordinance No. 978 for a total of 6,895 notices. Finally, the agenda and staff report were posted on the City’s website.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
No formal action is required, though staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback to regarding any potential additional General Plan Amendments and/or zoning changes beyond what was approved in May 2023, as part of the adoption of General Plan 2040, and November 2025, as part of the rezoning process, respectively.

NEXT STEPS
Staff and the Consultant will analyze all feedback received from public comments and direction provided by the City Council to determine potential implications and next steps. Depending on the direction received, Staff will bring the analysis back to the City Council for review at another Study Session if necessary.

ATTACHMENT(S)
A – Focus Area 5: Contra Costa Boulevard (excerpt from the 2040 General Plan) B – Focus Area 6: Gregory Lane (excerpt from the 2040 General Plan) C – Cleaveland Road and Beatrice Road Area - General Plan Designation D – 2022 GPAC Preferred Alternative Memo
E – General Plan Map
F – Public Hearing Notice
G – Public Comments
Prepared by: Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Approved by: Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager

3. Land Use Element
Adopted May 2023 Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan 3-31
Focus Area 5 | Contra Costa Boulevard
The Contra Costa Boulevard area is located in central Pleasant Hill, serving as one of the primary roadway arterials in the City running parallel to Interstate 680. This area includes a mix of single-family residential, office, space, mixed-use development, and both strip and regional commercial. This area like other focus areas in the city faces challenges from compatibility of uses, specifically the existing single-family residential uses that are adjacent to the boulevard.

The 2040 General Plan envisions transforming Contra Costa Boulevard into a contemporary transitoriented corridor focused on multi-modal opportunities and denser development. In an effort to reduce incompatibility between development types, all single-family residential areas in this focus area will be re-designated to Mixed-Use to create consistency of development patterns. This shift in the fabric of Pleasant Hill from single-family to mixed-use will take decades to come to fruition and will require significant parcel consolidation.

The goal of transforming Contra Costa Boulevard is to create a lively, active environment, that is uniquely Pleasant Hill. The intent is to ensure high-quality projects and urban design characteristics as well as the integration of expanded pedestrian and bicycle facilities. To further create an energized corridor, the General Plan envisions the expanded allowance of creative outdoor spaces for the public as part of private developments. Additional opportunities for streetscape enhancements, outdoor dining, paseos connecting developments, and community gathering spaces will create a new and innovative neighborhood for the City. All new development proposed within the Contra Costa Boulevard focus area is subject to the policies in this section, as well as other relevant sections of the General Plan.

LU-6.25 Transit-Oriented Development
Encourage the design and development of transit-oriented developments along Contra Costa Boulevard to support future transportation system enhancements.

LU-6.26 Strip Commercial
Support compact commercial development by discouraging new “strip” center development patterns along Contra Costa Boulevard. Strip centers are characterized by low-density commercial frontage with parking in front of the building and multiple access driveways.

LU-6.27 Pedestrian Oriented Development
Support the transformation of existing auto-oriented and strip commercial uses into attractive pedestrian-oriented developments that enhance the visual character and interest of the boulevard.

LU-6.28 Parcel Consolidation
Support parcel consolidation in the East Vivian Neighborhood to stimulate future mixed-use development.

LU-6.29 Limit Driveways and Curb Cuts
Support limiting new driveways and curb cuts and encourage consolidating existing driveways and curb cuts as Contra Costa Boulevard redevelops.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan | Policy Document
3-32 Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Adopted May 2023
LU-6.30 Street Activation
Encourage active street fronts to create vibrant spaces for the community to congregate, including paseos, courtyards, expanded outdoor dining, expanded sidewalks, and enhanced landscaping.

LU-6.31 Increased Residential Development
Support increased residential development along Contra Costa Boulevard in the form of either vertical or horizontal mixed-use projects.

LU-6.32 Commercial Use Design
Support the design of commercial uses on Contra Costa Boulevard that relate to, and reflect uses adjacent to and behind, those uses, with careful attention to design themes common to specific blocks along the boulevard.

LU-6.33 Mixed-Use Compatibility
Ensure that development of the mixed-use parcels on the west side of Contra Costa Boulevard considers the interface with the lower-density parcels to the west of Shirley Drive. The mixed-use area shall be connected to- not walled off from -, the lowerdensity residential area, but designed in a way that reduces conflict and promotes compatibility between uses.

3. Land Use Element
Adopted May 2023 Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan 3-33
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan | Policy Document
3-34 Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Adopted May 2023
Focus Area 6 | Gregory Lane
The Gregory Lane area is located in central Pleasant Hill, connecting Contra Costa Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road. This area includes a diverse mix of uses from institutional, office, neighborhood business, multi-family, and single-family residential. Gregory Lane is heavily traveled connecting Downtown and Interstate 680, to City Hall, and the more traditional single-family residential areas of the City. Accordingly, in 2020, the City made upgrades to the roadway to slow traffic and implement additional safety measures to ensure a safer environment for all types of travelers. Similar to Contra Costa Boulevard, single-family residential uses abut and take access directly from Gregory Lane leading to incompatibility pressures and conflicts along the heavily travelled roadway.

The 2040 General Plan envisions transforming Gregory Lane into a neighborhood mixed-use corridor anchored by higher intensity development at the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road to the west and Downtown/Contra Costa Boulevard to the east. In an effort to reduce incompatibility between development types, all single-family residential areas in this focus area will be reassigned with the lower intensity Neighborhood Mixed-Use land use designation to create consistency between development patterns. This shift in the fabric of Pleasant Hill from single-family to mixed-use will take decades to come to fruition and will require significant parcel consolidation. All new development proposed within the Gregory Lane focus area is subject to the policies in this section, as well as other relevant sections of the General Plan.

LU-6.34 Transform Gregory Lane
Support the transformation of Gregory Lane into an attractive streetscape that includes neighborhood-serving mixed-use developments with active frontages facing the street, wider sidewalks, expanded bicycle lanes, and consistent landscaping.

LU-6.35 Parcel Consolidation
Support parcel consolidation along Gregory Lane, between Pleasant Hill Road and Contra Costa Boulevard to stimulate future neighborhood-serving mixed-use development.

LU-6.36 Parking Management Considerations
Support alternative parking management techniques and development standards for new development on Gregory Lane.

LU-6.37 Pedestrian Friendly Design
Encourage the expansion of Gregory Lane pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to create a friendlier multi-modal environment that increases overall safety.

LU-6.38 Neighborhood-Serving Mixed-Use
Encourage the development of Gregory Lane to attract low-intensity neighborhoodserving mixed-use development.

LU-6.39 Development Compatibility
Require Gregory Lane mixed-use projects to apply design and development techniques to ensure a seamless transition to adjacent low-density residential.

3. Land Use Element
Adopted May 2023 Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan 3-35
Cleaveland Road and Beatrice Road Area – General Plan Designations May 2022 1
This memo provides an overview of GPAC direction through both the Focus Area and Housing Opportunity Sites processes, followed by a summary comparison of buildout potential between the Existing General Plan Land Use diagram and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use diagram.

Introduction
On February 5, 2020, the GPAC met to discuss the results of the community feedback received from the Planning and Design Workshops and online engagement. This meeting was a follow-up to the November 19, 2019, GPAC Meeting where the members were briefed on initial feedback from the Workshops earlier in November and where the General Plan Vision Statement and Guiding Principles were finalized.

Following the discussion on community feedback, the Consultant team provided the GPAC with an overview of nine Focus Areas and the changes recommended by the community to each area. The GPAC analyzed each Focus Area and had a robust discussion on what changes, if any, should occur, before finalizing a GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative consisting of preferred land uses within the final Focus Areas. Figure 1 shows GPAC Focus Areas.

In May 2021, the GPAC began working with staff and the Consultant team to revisit the 2020 GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative as part of the Housing Element Update process. At meetings on May 12, 2021 and June 23, 2021, the GPAC reviewed and discussed potential sites for higher density residential land uses, some of which overlap the GPAC Focus Areas. On November 17, 2021, the GPAC recommended that staff carry forward nine Housing Element Opportunity Sites for consideration in conjunction with the changes proposed through the GPAC Focus Areas. The text box on the following pages illustrates the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Process.

In January 2022, the Consultant Team prepared a GPAC Preferred Alternative Memo that summarized GPAC recommendations on both the Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites. On January 26, 2022 the GPAC met to discuss the GPAC Preferred Alternative Memo, receive and consider public input, and provide a final recommendation for each Focus Area.

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................1 GPAC Focus Areas................................................................................................................................................................4 GPAC Housing Element Opportunity Sites.............................................................................................................21 Buildout Potential Comparison ..................................................................................................................................36 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Memo
2020 GPAC RECOMMENDATION
FOR FOCUS AREAS (1-9)
2021 GPAC HOUSING ELEMENT

OPPORTUNITY SITES (A-N)
2022 GPAC PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE

ADDITIONAL

COMMUNITY INPUT

ADDITIONAL

COMMUNITY INPUT
VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES; 1 INITIAL COMMUNITY INPUT 2 3
4 2 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo 2020
2021
GPAC Focus Areas (Figure 1)
The GPAC analyzed and discussed nine Focus Areas,
considered community input and the City’s Vision and
Guiding Principles, and recommended preferred land
uses within each Focus Area.

GPAC Housing Element Opportunity Sites
The GPAC refined the recommendation to incorporate
housing element objectives. The GPAC analyzed smaller
Housing Element Opportunity Sites for pinpointed
residential density increases to accommodate the
projected housing need. This process is explained
beginning on page 18. Housing Element Opportunity
Sites are shown in Figure 9.
2019 General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles
Community Design Workshops
The GPAC-Preferred Alternative Process
2022 GPAC Focus Area Final Recommendations
In 2022, the GPAC reviewed the 2020 Focus Area
recommendation and Housing Element Opportunity
Sites, considered public input, and provided final
recommendations for each Focus Area. Pages 4-19
summarize the GPAC process for each Focus Area,
including initial 2020 recommendation and any
modifications recommended in 2021 and 2022.

THE FOCUS AREAS ARE

ESTABLISHED THROUGH

COMMUNITY DESIGN

WORKSHOPS

GPAC REVIEWS COMMUNITY

INPUT AND RECOMMENDS

PREFERRED LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS WITHIN EACH

FOCUS AREA

GPAC REVIEWS STATE HOUSING

GOALS AND RECOMMENDS

SMALLER HOUSING ELEMENT

OPPORTUNITY SITES FOR

TARGETTED DENSITY INCREASES,

SOME OF WHICH LIE WITHIN A

FOCUS AREA

BECAUSE THE HOUSING

ELEMENT OPPORTUNTY SITES

ALTERED THE ORIGINAL FOCUS

AREA RECOMMENDATION, THE

GPAC REVISITED THE FOCUS

AREAS AND PROVIDED FINAL

RECOMMENDATIONS
1 2
3 4
May 2022 3
Figure 1: GPAC-Preferred Focus Areas
1 2
6 8
4 9
5 3
7 1. DVC College Area

2. Taylor/Pleasant Hill (Mangini)

3. Downtown Pleasant Hill/
Pleasant Hill Plaza

4. Industrial Area off Hookston

5. Contra Costa Boulevard

6. Gregory Lane

7. Taylor Boulevard

8. Oak Park Boulevard

9. Monument Boulevard

10. JFK University/Ellinwood Way
10 4 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo GPAC Focus Areas
Focus Area 1: Diablo Valley College (DVC)
Location: East of Contra Costa Boulevard along Golf Club Drive The GPAC discussed the area surrounding Diablo Valley College and the potential for land use changes. This focus area is primarily built out, except for a portion an existing shopping center and large empty surface lots across Golf Club Road from DVC. The existing shopping center (Diablo Valley Plaza) has been experiencing development, with a portion of the site currently undergoing redevelopment with new commercial tenants. The remaining vacant lots are owned by DVC and are used for overflow parking. The lots are currently not slated for development. Several public comments focused on the potential for student housing. Currently the demand for student housing is not high enough to change land uses surrounding the college to support it. The GPAC discussed the reality that the cost of rental housing is so high, it is likely that students would not be able to afford to live in the housing adjacent to the campus. If housing is desired surrounding the campus, the GPAC believes that process would have to be led by DVC.

The GPAC was open to developing goals
and policies for this Focus Area that
would encourage the restoration of
the creek corridor, potentially opening
access to the creek from adjacent
commercial businesses. The goal would
be to expand the walking trail, add bike
lanes, and more walkable amenities.
2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 1:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended to
leave Focus Area 1 as is. No changes
were proposed to General Plan land use
designations in this Focus Area.
2021 GPAC Modifications:

In 2021, the GPAC selected the DVC
overflow parking lot on the northwest
corner of the Focus Area as a Housing
Element Opportunity Site with a GPACPreferred land use designation of Mixed Use Very High Density. This designation
allows for density of 70‑100 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac), and is
shown on Figure 2. For more information
on this, please see page 22.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

No additional modifications
recommended.

May 2022 5
Figure 2: DVC Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
DVC Overflow Parking Lot
See page 22

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
DVC Overflow Parking Lot
See page 22
6 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 2: Taylor/Pleasant Hill (Mangini-Delu)
Location: Intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard The GPAC discussed the overall vision for Focus Area 2 which includes the Mangini-Delu property. Public input received for this focus area was mixed with approximately half requesting the property to remain as open space with a farm, while the other half requested the property be developed with more housing for the community. The GPAC noted that the land is presently already designated for Single-Family Medium Density residential, with an underlying R-10 zoning designation.

Members were in favor of keeping the property residential but were open to increasing the allowable density from SingleFamily Medium to Single-Family High on the two parcels adjacent to the Parks and Recreation Facility at the intersection (the Winslow Center) and allowing Multi-Family Low along Pleasant Hill Road. This would provide a feathering of density, lessening the impact to adjacent single-family residential on Apollo Way. The GPAC was in favor of creating specific goals and policies for this area that served to protect the creek and encourage the clustering of housing in order to preserve as much of the existing open space as possible if and when the property owner decides to develop the land. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 2:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended a
slight increase in density in the area by
re-designating the parcels along Taylor
Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road to SingleFamily High Density and Multi-Family Low, while maintain Single-Family Medium
Density on parcels adjacent to Apollo Way.
2021 GPAC Modifications:

In 2021, the Focus Area (specifically the
Mangini site) was selected as a Housing
Element Opportunity Site by the GPAC.

The GPAC also recommended additional
changes, resulting in the application of a
single designation for those parcels along
Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road,
but requiring a cohesive plan for the area
that would commit to accommodating the
construction of 210 units.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that
the entire Focus Area be designated
with a single land use designation that
allows a range in densities appropriate
to accommodate the 210 unit goal. With
an allowable density range of 4.6 to 13.0
dwelling units per acre, and an assumed
realistic density of 9 units per acre, the area
can be assumed to accommodate 210 units.

These changes are reflected on Figure 3.

May 2022 7
Figure 3: Taylor/Pleasant Hill (Mangini) Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
8 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 3: Downtown Pleasant Hill
Location: Retail centers adjacent to Contra Costa Boulevard and along Crescent Drive north of Boyd Road and south of Woodsworth Lane
The existing General Plan designation in Downtown Pleasant Hill is Mixed Use. Most public comment for this Focus Area was primarily centered on adding the ability to include housing above existing retail, which has the potential to energize the Downtown and bring in additional foot traffic. The GPAC discussed that because this area is already designated Mixed Use per the existing General Plan, it currently allows housing and the broadest range of commercial uses, including office uses.

The GPAC was open to developing goals and policies for this Focus Area that would encourage a more walkable environment through enhanced pedestrian connections between businesses along Crescent Drive and adjacent retail centers. The GPAC was also open to considering potential policy that encourages the establishment of civic uses such as a City Arts Center which could encourage more businesses to relocate downtown.
2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 3:

The GPAC recommended that Pleasant Hill Plaza (marked on the map below) be added to the Downtown Focus Area, but ultimately decided to leave the Focus Area unchanged, as no revisions were proposed to General Plan land use designations. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that the Focus Area be expanded to include the retail parcels on the southeast corner of the intersection of Contra Costa Boulevard and Gregory Lane. The intent of this change was to tie together the retail centers that anchor the intersection and expand the Downtown boundary. This change is reflected on the images below.

Pleasant Hill
Plaza
Additional
retail parcels
added in
2022
Additional
retail parcels
added in
2022
May 2022 9
Focus Area 4: Industrial Area off Hookston Road
Location: Adjacent to Estand Way and Vincent Road off Hookston Road The existing General Plan designation for Focus Area 4 is Light Industrial. All GPAC members recognized that this is the only remaining area in Pleasant Hill with such a designation, and that the designation should be preserved with only minor modifications to allowable uses. GPAC members generally agreed upon that allowing for increased diversity of uses will allow the area to flourish, as well as potentially encouraging more amenities for workers in the area. It was noted that for this area to compete for more tech and incubator uses, the infrastructure must be improved, as this is believed to be one of the largest impediments to relocation for tech, biotech, and incubator businesses. Public comment for this focus area echoed the same sentiments by the GPAC. The public felt that the City should preserve areas in the City for non-retail or service jobs and that allowing for light manufacturing is vital to the local economy and job diversity. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 4:

The GPAC recommended to leave Focus Area 4 as is. No changes were proposed to General Plan land use designations. In lieu of land use changes, the GPAC recommended modifications to the land use definition for Light Industrial to allow for more flexible uses including, but not limited to, restaurants, research and development facilities, and biotech. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.
10 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 5: Contra Costa Boulevard
Location: Contra Costa Boulevard between Boyd Road and Taylor Boulevard The GPAC discussed the overall vision for Focus Area 5, which includes a majority of Contra Costa Boulevard, the primary north-south arterial through the City. Currently the street is primarily commercial and retail uses, with occasional pockets of single-family residential. The GPAC noted that the corridor presently allows a mix of uses including commercial and residential uses. Members were in favor of retaining this area for a mix of uses and were open to re-designating properties that are currently not Mixed Use. Most of these parcels are located adjacent to, or fronting upon the street. One area the GPAC is considering re-designating is the East Vivian residential neighborhood. This neighborhood is currently designated Single-Family High Density and has several properties that back up to Contra Costa Boulevard. The GPAC envisioned that this area would be prime for increased mixed-use development in the long-term given its proximity to both Contra Costa Boulevard and Interstate 680.

Public comment on this focus area included the concern of re-designating the East Vivian neighborhood, since many felt mixed use might be too intense for the area and that the change could be too drastic in the short-term. One suggestion was to allow mixed use but limit the height of buildings to reduce compatibility impacts. The General Plan currently notes that mixed use projects are subject to review under Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning districts that currently limits project sizes to a minimum of one acre for commercial projects and two acres for residential projects. This should be carried forward and will require future parcel consolidation which is unlikely to occur over the next 20 years. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 5:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended maintaining Focus Area 5 as Mixed Use. Recommended changes include re-designating
the southern half of the East Vivian neighborhood extending from Dawn Avenue to Anelda Drive from Single- Family High Density to Mixed Use, and re- designating the Commercial and Retail area at the corner of Ellinwood Drive and Contra Costa Boulevard to Mixed Use to create consistency among all parcels that front the Boulevard.
2021 GPAC Modifications:

In 2021 the GPAC chose three areas within the Contra Costa Boulevard Focus Area as Housing Element Opportunity Sites.

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density for these
parcels, which are shown on Figure 4 on the following page.

This revised designation allows for a density of 40-70 du/ ac. For more information, please see the Housing Element Opportunity Sites discussion beginning on page 21.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that the Focus Area be
expanded to include the strip of uses along Shirley Drive, just west of Contra Costa Boulevard. Additionally the GPAC recommended that the single family uses in the Focus Area be redesignated to Mixed Use. The intent of this change was to begin the transition of planning for less single-family residential along Contra Costa Boulevard with a greater emphasis on mixed-use and transit-oriented development.

The GPAC felt redesignating the parcels between Shirley Drive and Contra Costa Boulevard was consistent with the redesignating of parcels between Peggy Drive and Contra Costa Boulevard. These changes are reflected in Figure 4.

Additional
parcels added
in 2022
May 2022 11
Figure 4: Contra Costa Boulevard Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Additional
parcels added
in 2022
Additional
parcels added
in 2022
Single family parcels
(North of Dawn Dr.)
recommended for
Mixed Use in 2022
Single family parcels
(South of Elda Dr.)
recommended for
Mixed Use in 2020
Single family parcels
(North of Dawn Dr.)
recommended for
Mixed Use in 2022
Single family parcels
(South of Elda Dr.)
recommended for
Mixed Use in 2020
12 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 6: Gregory Lane
Location: Gregory Lane between Contra Costa Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road Focus Area 6 which is centered on Gregory Lane was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on mobility improvements for pedestrians and cyclists. The GPAC discussed opportunities to slow traffic and incorporate potential bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks, which can be achieved through the creation of goals and policies that direct transportation and safety upgrades to this corridor. It was noted that to slow the speed and increase pedestrian crossing safety, the City has recently installed a street signal at the intersection of Elinora and Gregory. Public comment was in support of the GPAC direction and favored the potential addition of bike lanes along Gregory Lane. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 6:

In 2020, the GPAC recommended to leave Focus Area 6 as is. No changes were proposed to General Plan land use designations in this Focus Area. In lieu of land use changes, the GPAC recommended complete street upgrades for a safer environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
2021 GPAC Modifications: In 2021, parcels at the corner of Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory Lane were recommended for additional density as Mixed Use High Density through the Housing Element Opportunity Site process. This revised designation allows for a density of 40-70du/ac. For more information, please see page 31. 2022 GPAC Modifications:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that all the parcels at the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory Lane be redesignated Mixed Use High Density. Additionally, the GPAC recommended that the single-family uses parcels within the Focus Area be redesignated Mixed Use Neighborhood. Similar to changes along Contra Costa Boulevard, the GPAC felt that Gregory Lane was a similar heavily traveled corridor and that in the long term this area would be best served by mixed-use and transit-oriented development rather than single-family residential. These changes are reflected in Figure 5.

May 2022 13
Figure 5: Gregory Lane Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Parcels near
intersection
recommended for
Mixed Use High in
2022
Single-family parcels
recommended for Mixed
Use Neighborhood in 2022
Parcels near
intersection
recommended for
Mixed Use High in
2022
Single-family parcels
recommended for Mixed
Use Neighborhood in 2022
14 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Focus Area 7: Taylor Boulevard
Location: Taylor Boulevard between Contra Costa Boulevard and the City Limits of Lafayette Similar to Focus Area 6 (Gregory Lane), Focus Area 7 which is centered on Taylor Boulevard was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on mobility and safety improvements. The GPAC discussed that Taylor Boulevard is meant to serve as a critical vehicular corridor and opportunities to widen or add bike lanes are not feasible based on the topography and traffic speeds. The GPAC was interested in creating new policies that would encourage safer pedestrian crossings at existing intersections such as Pleasant Hill Road and Grayson Road. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 7: The GPAC recommended to leave Focus Area 7 as is. No changes were proposed to General Plan land use designations in this Focus Area. In lieu of land use changes, the GPAC recommended policies and programs that focus on expanding pedestrian crossings to enhance safety. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.

Focus Area 8: Oak Park Boulevard
Location: Oak Park Boulevard between Patterson Boulevard and North Main Street Similar to Focus Areas 6 and 7 (Gregory Lane and Taylor Boulevard), Focus Area 8 which is centered on Oak Park Boulevard was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on mobility and safety improvements. The GPAC discussed that Oak Park Boulevard is currently a heavily traveled corridor that tends to experience increased congestion due to narrow lanes and several popular businesses that front the street. These businesses regularly have overflow parking which creates traffic and parking management issues. The GPAC recognized that in order to improve this area the General Plan should include new goals and policies that are directly focused on improving traffic flow, circulation, and parking demand.

This could include an eventual widening of the corridor. Further, to help lessen compatibility issues between existing singlefamily homes and adjacent commercial uses, the GPAC recommended re-designating parcels on the south side of Oak Park Boulevard east of the intersection of Patterson Boulevard to a new Mixed-Use Neighborhood Designation. 2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 8: The GPAC recommended to re-designate properties that are currently SingleFamily High Density on the south side of Oak Park Boulevard east of the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and Patterson Boulevard. These properties would be re-designated to a new General Plan designation called Mixed Use Neighborhood which would allow a maximum of 20 du/ac and the incorporation of both commercial and office uses. 2021 GPAC Modifications:

The GPAC did not suggest any further modifications.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that the Focus Area be expanded to include four additional parcels near of Patterson Boulevard and Oak Park Boulevard. Additionally, the GPAC recommended that all commercial and neighborhood business designated parcels be re-designed to Mixed Use Neighborhood to allow for mixed use residential projects in the future. 2022 GPAC Modifications:

No additional modifications recommended.
* Parcels added to the
Focus Area in 2022
*
*
* *
* * * *
May 2022 15
Figure 6: Oak Park Boulevard Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
* Parcels added to the
Focus Area in 2022
*
*
* *
* Parcels added to the
Focus Area in 2022
*
*
* *
Single-family parcels
recommended for Mixed
Use Neighborhood in 2020
Single-family parcels
recommended for Mixed
Use Neighborhood in 2020
Neighborhood business and
commercial parcels recommended
for Mixed Use Neighborhood in 2022
Neighborhood business and
commercial parcels recommended
for Mixed Use Neighborhood in 2022
* * * *
* * * *
16 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Pleasant Hill Plaza
Location: Corner of Contra Costa Boulevard and Gregory Lane adjacent to Interstate 680 Originally Focus Area 9, the Pleasant Hill Plaza Focus Area was developed out of the Planning and Design Workshops to primarily focus on potential improvements to existing shopping and retail centers on Contra Costa Boulevard. The GPAC recognized that this site does not necessarily require any land use changes and should be consolidated into adjacent focus areas (e.g. Focus Area 3: Downtown Pleasant Hill) that emphasize retail center enhancements and overall connectivity and walkability. The public did not have any additional comments for this area. 2020 GPAC Direction for Pleasant Hill Plaza: in 2020,The GPAC recommended that Pleasant Hill Plaza be merged with Focus Area 3 (Downtown Pleasant Hill). No changes to General Plan land use designations were proposed in this area. See page 8 for details on the combined Focus Area.

Focus Area 9: Monument Boulevard
Location: Oak Park Boulevard between Patterson Boulevard and North Main Street The Monument Boulevard Focus Area includes a series of parcels located at the corner of Monument Boulevard at the intersection of Lisa Lane. This area currently includes a medical business park, gas station, vehicle sales lot, and mobile home park. The GPAC was in favor of re-designating this area from Commercial and Retail to Mixed-Use to encourage additional retail, office, and housing development. The GPAC also recognized that this area should also include policies that protect and preserve the existing mobile home
park that is located south of Mohr Lane.
2020 GPAC Direction for Focus Area 9: In 2020,
the GPAC recommended that all parcels in this
area be re-designated to Mixed Use and that
policies be created to preserve the existing
mobile home park.
2021 GPAC Modifications: In 2021, the GPAC
included parcels within this Focus Area within
a Housing Element Opportunity Site. The GPAC
recommended designating these parcels Mixed
Use High Density. This revised designation allows
a density of 40-70 du/ac. These changes are
reflected on Figure 7 on the next page. For more
information, please see page 34.
2022 GPAC Modifications:

Although the GPAC did not recommend any
additional land use changes, they did request
that a new policy focused on traffic circulation
around Monument Boulevard be included in the
updated Transportation/Circulation Element.

May 2022 17
Figure 7: Monument Boulevard Focus Area Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
18 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo JFK
University Site
Focus Area 10: JFK University Site and Sites along Ellinwood Way Location: East of the Intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard The JFK University site is a 4.87-acre site currently designated Office. The sites along Ellinwood Way comprise approximately 15-acres and are also currently designated Office. 2021 GPAC Direction for the potential site:

In 2021, the GPAC recommended that the JFK University site be considered as a Housing Element Opportunity Site, designated Mixed Use High Density and that Mixed Use Very High Density be considered at this site if necessary to meet the identified housing need. The GPAC also recommended that the site’s proximity to the freeway be considered in all land use decisions. Due to a request from the owner, the site has been removed from the housing element process. However, this site could still be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the General Plan Land Use Element update.
2022 GPAC Direction for the potential site:

In 2022, the GPAC recommended that the JFK site be re-designated Mixed Use Very High Density as part of the General Plan Update. At this time, the GPAC also recommended that the office uses along Ellinwood Way, just north of JFK University, be re-designated to Mixed Use Very High Density. Finally the GPAC recommended that the office use at the north end of Ellinwood Way, be re-designated to Multi-Family Low Density. The intent of redesignating the properties adjacent to Ellinwood Way was to create more capacity for future higher-density residential where there was already existing infrastructure in place. Currently
these properties are low-rise to mid-rise office
complexes which have the onsite capacity
for residential and the associated parking.

This redesignation also is consistent with the
surrounding development which consists of
multi-family townhomes, apartments, and
hotels. These changes are reflected in Figure 8.

During GPAC meetings in 2021, the
JFK University Site was presented
as Housing Element Opportunity
Site E. Although the site will not
be recommended for rezoning in
the housing element, it may still
be considered for re-designation
within the General Plan Land Use
Element update. The GPAC has
recommended the site, as well as
additional parcels along Ellinwood
Way for re-designation.

May 2022 19
Figure 8: JFK University Site and Sites along Ellinwood Way

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
JFK
University
site
JFK
University
site
* Parcels added to the
Focus Area in 2022
*
*
*
* Parcels added to the
Focus Area in 2022
*
*
*
20 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Minor Clean-Up Modifications
As part of the review of the General Plan Land Use map, staff identified, and the Planning Commission recommended, additional “clean-up” sites for modifications to existing land use designations. The sites are summarized below:
• 1791 Shirley Avenue (APN 153-223-012) – This site currently has a single-family residence, yet has an Office designation. The GPAC recommended this site to have a mixed use designation, thus, if this land use designation is recommended, then this will bring make the site consistent with the proposed changes to the land use designation of single family properties to the north.
• 700 Ellinwood Way (APN 127-180-058 & 055) – This property currently has a hotel and has a split land use designation, Office designation to the north and Commercial and Retail to the south, both containing a single hotel use. With the hotel use in place, the Commercial and Retail with a Tourist Commercial Overlay designation may be more appropriate.
• 650 Ellinwood Way (APN 127-210-031) – This site currently has an Office designation. The site has a multiple story hotel on the site, thus, a change to Commercial and Retail with a Tourist Commercial Overlay designation may be more appropriate.
• 3220 Buskirk Avenue (APN 148-100-045) – This site currently has a Commercial and Retail land use designation.

However, due to a multi-story hotel on the property, applying the Tourist Commercial Overlay designation would be consistent with recent action by the City.

May 2022 21
GPAC Housing Element Opportunity Sites
At meetings on May 12, 2021 and June 23, 2021, the GPAC reviewed and discussed potential sites for higher density residential land uses with sufficient capacity to meet the State-mandated housing goals. On November 17, 2021, the GPAC recommended that staff carry forward eight Housing Opportunity Sites for consideration in addition to the changes recommended in the previously discussed Focus Areas. In 2022, the Mangini-Delu site was removed from the housing opportunity sites list in order to give the City time to implement a master plan requirement for the area. This section summarizes each of the seven Housing Element Opportunity Sites, which are identified in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Housing Element Opportunity Sites
22 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site A: DVC Overflow Parking Lot Location: North of Golf Club Road near Paso Nogal Road.

The DVC Overflow Parking Lot Opportunity Site is an 11-acre site currently designated School and zoned for single-family residential.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site A:

The GPAC recommended that the density on the Opportunity Site be increased to Mixed Use Very High Density, which can accommodate 70-100 dwelling units/acre (du/ac).

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

Assuming five acres of redevelopment at Mixed Use Very High Density, the site can accommodate 350 units of the lower income housing need.

May 2022 23
Figure 10: DVC Overflow Parking Lot Housing Element Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
24 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site F: TAP Plastics Site
Location: Along Contra Costa Boulevard and Massolo Drive, just north of Beth Drive.

The TAP Plastics Opportunity Site is a 1.53-acre site currently designated Mixed Use.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site F:

The GPAC recommended that Mixed Use High Density be considered for this Opportunity Site. The GPAC also recommended that the site be extended north to include Tap Plastics, but that the parcel including Ace Hardware be removed (based on owner request).

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 53 lower income units.

TAP Plastics
Ace Hardware
May 2022 25
Figure 12: TAP Plastics Housing Element Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
TAP Plastics TAP Plastics
26 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site G: Gregory Gardens
Location: Along Contra Costa Boulevard between Doray Drive and Doris Drive.

The Gregory Gardens Opportunity Site is a 3.59-acre site is currently designated Mixed Use. The Opportunity Site is a shallow site and is currently occupied by various active commercial uses.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site G:

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density in this Opportunity Site.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 126 lower income units.

May 2022 27
Figure 13: Gregory Gardens Housing Element Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Gregory Gardens
Opportunity Site Gregory Gardens
Opportunity Site
Opportunity Site F
See page 24
Opportunity Site F
See page 24
28 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site I: Pleasant Hill Road/ Gregory Lane
Location: The intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and Gregory Lane.

The Gregory Gardens Opportunity Site is a 3.64-acre site currently designated Neighborhood Business and occupied by retail, service, and restaurant uses. The Opportunity Area initially included a total of 4.93 acres; however Walgreens, 7-11, and 607 Gregory Lane were removed based on owner requests. These parcels are identified in Figure 14.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site I:

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density for this Opportunity Site and that the site be expanded to include the parcels on the southwest corner of the intersection.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 127 lower income units.

Walgreens
607 Gregory
7-11
May 2022 29
Figure 14: Pleasant Hill Road/Gregory Lane Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Walgreens
607 Gregory
7-11
Walgreens
607 Gregory
7-11
30 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site J:

Contra Costa Boulevard/Gregory Lane
Location: Parcels along the west side of Contra Costa Boulevard between Gregory Lane and Vivian Drive.

The Contra Costa Boulevard/Gregory Lane Opportunity Site is a 7.07-acre site currently designated Mixed Use and occupied by retail, service, and restaurant uses. 1817 Contra Cosa Boulevard was removed based on owner requests.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site J:

The GPAC recommended that the original site be expanded north to Vivian Drive, as shown in Figure 15. The GPAC also recommended that the Mixed Use High Density designation be considered for this Opportunity Site, primarily in the southern portion of the expanded site.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

With a combination of Mixed Use (12-40 du/ac) and Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 146 lower income units and 57 moderate income units. 1817 Contra Costa Blvd.

May 2022 31
Figure 15: Contra Costa Boulevard/Gregory Lane Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
32 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site M: Monument Triangle
Location: Parcels south of Monument between Lisa Lane and the Park Royale Mobile Home Park.

The Monument Triangle Opportunity Site is a 4.55-acre site currently designated Commercial and occupied by restaurant and commercial uses.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site M:

The GPAC recommended Mixed Use High Density for this Opportunity Site, but removed the gas station (due to feasibility concerns) and the mobile home park (due to complicated requirements for changing a mobile home park use).

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

At Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 159 lower income units.

Mobile Home Park
Gas Station
May 2022 33
Figure 16: Monument Triangle Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Mobile Home Park
Gas Station
Mobile Home Park
Gas Station
34 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Housing Element Opportunity Site N: Former JC Penny
Location: Two parcels along Pacheco Boulevard near Golf Club Road.

The Former JC Penny Opportunity Site is a 6.64-acre site currently designated Commercial and occupied by a vacant retail structure, a restaurant, and parking. Since the restaurant locations are unlikely to redevelop in the planning period, the Opportunity Site assumes development of only five acres of the site.

GPAC Direction for Housing Element Opportunity Site M:

Consider Mixed Use High Density for this Opportunity Site. Exclude the restaurant uses at the northwest corner from site calculations.

Progress Toward State-Mandated Housing Goals:

Assuming five acres of development at Mixed Use High Density (40-70 du/ac) the Opportunity Site can accommodate 175 lower income units.

Restaurants
May 2022 35
Figure 17: Former JC Penny Opportunity Site Comparison

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
36 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Buildout Potential Comparison | 2022 GPAC Preferred Alternative Potential Housing Unit Capacity
Table 1 compares housing unit potential under the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative to the Statemandated housing goals contained in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates the capacity for an additional 1,193 units that can be counted toward State-mandated goals for housing unit capacity.

Table 1: Potential Housing Capacity Vs. RHNA Goal
Lower
Moderate Above Moderate Total
Very Low Low
State Housing Goal
(Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
566 326
254 657 1,803 892
2021 Alternative Total 1,218 355 963 2,272
GPAC Sites 1,136 57 0 1,193
Vacant Sites 0 10 105 115
Assumed Redevelopment of Mixed Use Sites 0 0 249 249
Assumed ADUs 0 288 32 320
Pending and Approved Projects Estimate 82 0 313 395
Difference 326 101 42 469
Difference as % 137% 140% 106% 126%
Potential Non-Residential Square Footage
Table 2 compares maximum non-residential square footage potential under the Existing General Plan and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative. As shown the GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates the potential for an additional 362,020 sq.ft. of retail space, 162,040 sq.ft. of service commercial space. Conversely, the GPACPreferred Alternative reduces the square footage potential in the Other category by recommended re-designation of the DVC overflow parking lot from School to Mixed Use Very High.

Table 2: Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage Potential Non-Residential Square Footage
Total Acres Retail Service
AgricultureManufacturing Wholesale Other TOTAL
GPAC-Preferred Alternative 4,812 3,408,420 4,167,310 - 181,600 - 9,403,200 17,160,530 Existing General Plan 4,812 3,046,400 4,005,270 - 181,600 - 9,796,790 17,030,060 Difference - 362,020 162,040 - - - (393,590) 130,470
Difference as Percent - 11.9% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -4.0% 0.8% May 2022 37
Potential Population
Table 3 compares maximum population potential under the Existing General Plan and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative. This data is based on maximum allowable density at full buildout of the General Plan. This is not a population projection, but a tool to compare the maximum potential change under the GPAC-Preferred Land Use. While the GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates a slight reduction in potential in single-family designations (-1.4 percent change), it creates the potential capacity an additional 12,086 residents in multifamily housing opportunities at full buildout. In total the recommended changes represent a 14.9 percent increase over the maximum potential under the existing General Plan.

Table 3: Maximum Population Potential
Population
Total Acres
Single
Family
Multifamily TOTAL
GPAC-Preferred Alternative 4,812 42,285 46,064 88,349
Existing General Plan 4,812 42,906 33,978 76,884
Difference - (621) 12,086 11,465
Difference as Percent - -1.4% 35.6% 14.9%
Employment Potential
Table 4 compares employment potential under the Existing General Plan and the GPAC-Preferred Land Use Alternative. As shown the GPAC-Preferred Alternative creates the potential for an additional 1,129 retail jobs and 1,569 service jobs. Conversely, the GPAC-Preferred Alternative reduces total employment in the Other category.

This change is also caused by re-designating the DVC overflow parking lot from School to Mixed Use Very High Density.

Table 4: Employment Potential
Employment Potential
Total Acres Retail Service Agriculture
Manufacturing Wholesale Other TOTAL
GPAC-Preferred Alternative 4,812 10,647 9,814 - - - 3,043 23,504 Existing General Plan 4,812 9,518 8,245 - - - 3,482 21,245 Difference - 1,129 1,569 - - - (439) 2,259
Difference as Percent - 11.9% 19.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -12.6% 10.6% Land Use Diagrams
Figures 18 and 19 compare the Existing General Plan Land Uses and the GPAC-Preferred Land Uses within the Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites. Because the GPAC recommendations are limited to the Focus Areas and Housing Opportunity Sites, only these areas are shown on the diagrams.

Figure 20 shows the Citywide GPAC-Preferred Land Use Diagram.

Why are these totals so high?
This table compares the maximum
potential buildout of each alternative
if every parcel were to be built-out at
the maximum allowed density. This
is not an evaluation of reality of the
built environment in Pleasant Hill.
38 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo Figure 18: Existing Land Uses in Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
May 2022 39
Figure 19: 2022 GPAC-Preferred Land Uses in Focus Areas and Housing Element Opportunity Sites

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
40 City of Pleasant Hill | 2022 GPAC-Preferred Alternative Summary Memo

GPAC-PREFERRED LAND USE
Figure 20: 2022 GPAC-Preferred Land Use
Grayson Creek
Golden Hills
Park
Oakmont
Memorial Park
Grayson Creek
Queen of
Heaven
Cemetery
Hidden Valley
Park
Hidden Lakes
Park
Paso Nogal
Park
Ridgeview Open
Space
Contra
Costa
Country
Club
Co ntra Costa Canal
Brookwood Park
Dinosaur Park
Acalanes Ridge
Open Space
Grayson
Creek
Contra Costa Canal
Buchanan
Fields
Golf
Course

PACHECO
C
o
ntra Cost a Canal
Grayson Creek
Sunvalley
Shopping
Center
The Veranda
Diablo Valley
College
Pleasant Hill
Park

PLEASANT
HILL
Contra Costa Canal
Contra
Costa
Canal
Pleasant Oaks
Park
Bay
Area
Rapid

TRANSIT
Larkey Park
Walnut Creek
Buchanan Field
Walnut Creek
Willows
Shopping
Center
Six Flags
Hurricane
Harbor Concord
Walnut Creek
Wal nut Creek

HOOKSTON

SPARKLE

LAS JUNTAS
Contra Costa Canal
BART-Pleasant
Hill & Contra
Costa Centre
WALDON
Tourist
Commercial Overlay
680
680
Mayette
Ave
Golf Club Rd
Concord
Ave
Hoover Ave
Boyd Rd
B
ancroft Rd
F
o
xglove
Ln
Cleaveland Rd
I
ro
n
Ho
rs
e
Propos
e
d
Center Ave
Pleasant Hill Rd
Second Ave
Withers Ave
Fellows Dr
Briones To Mt. Diablo Regional
Mayhew Way
Sage Dr
Cal. Riding & Hiking Trl.

Willow Pass Rd
Diamond Blvd
Roanoke Dr
Morello Ave
Carter Acres Ln
A p
e
x
C
t
Las Juntas
Way
Ironw o o
d
Ct
Larkey Ln
Stevens
o
n
D
r
Geary Rd
Third Ave
Oak Park Blvd
Sunnyvale Ave
Mercu
ry
Way
Sally Ride Dr
Blue Ridge Dr
Cherry Ln
Country
Club Dr
Mountain
View
Vine Hill Way
Chilpancingo
Pkwy
Colton
Pl
Taylor Blvd
Damascus Dr
Alvarado Ave
Jones Road Rd
Huston
Rd
San
Luis Rd
Chilpancingo Pkwy
First Ave
N Main St
Oak Park Blvd
Monument Blvd
Suez
Dr
Iron
Horse Proposed
K
a
h
r
s
Av
e
Morello Ave
Pacheco
Manor Dr
Algeiers
Way
Selima
Dr
Reliez Valley Rd
Oak Rd
Iron
Horse
Grayson Rd
Donegal Way
Skander Ln
Devon Ave
Horizon Dr
O
Vis
ak
ta Ct
Jones Pl
Amate Way
Jones Rd
Smith
Dr
Concord Ave
As hw o o
d
Dr
Treat Blvd
Silver
Lake Pl
Cair o
D
r
Aspen
Dr
Carolos Dr
Forest Way
Coggins Dr
Hale Ct
Oak
Park Blvd
Pacheco Blvd
Lake
Field Pl
Morello Ave
Las Juntas
Gloria Ter
Muir
Rd
St o necreek
Ct
Strayh orn
Rd
Putnam Blvd
Rock
Pass Pl
Horten
Ct
Milburn
Dr
Hieber
Dr
Gail
Dr
Norse Dr
Las Juntas Way
Madeira Way
I
ronw
o
o
d
D
r
Blum Rd
Cal. Riding &
HikingTrl.

Lake
Park
Ct
Camel
b
ack
Rd
Cumberland
D
r
Franquette
Ave
Aria Dr
Alhambra Ave
Hawks
Hill Ct
Rock
Creek
Way
Ivanhoe
Ct
Range
Pl
Diana
Ln
Oak
Ct
Hawks
Hill
Ct
GloriaTerrace
Ct
Macalvey
Dr
Skyline
Dr
Kaimu
Dr
Foothill Park
Ter
Oak Vista Ct
Ridge
Dr
Bud
Ct
Santos
Ln
Aspen
Dr
El
S
e
r
e
n
a
She
l
d
o
n
Ct
W
South
West
Ct
Rolling
Green
Way
Saint Louis
Dr
C
h
a
r
et
rOak
Dr
Pleasant Hill Rd
Fairfax
Ct
Diana
Ct
Gregory Ln
Lisa Ln
Li
m
e
w
o
o
d
L
n
C
a
rob
Way
Lexington Pl
Victory
Ln
Stage
Coach Dr
B
aldwin
L
n
Del
Centro
Oak Plz
Valley
Maureen Ln
Rolling
Green Cir Douglas Ln
E
Peak
Ct
Mercury
Ct
Netherby
Pl
Elda
Ct
Brandon Rd
Kevin
Ct
Alps
Ct
Sti
m
el D
r
Fos
C
s
t
Snead
Ct
Vita
Ct
Lisa
Ln
Alan Dr
W Hookston
Rd
P
a
ch
e
co
Blvd
Webst
e
r
D
r
Hawthorne
Dr
San
Juan
Ave
Morel
Av
lo
e
Willow Lake
Dr
Ch
a
d
ima Ct
Sweetwater
Dr
Stugun
Ct
Daphne
Ct
Balboa
Ct
Juniper
Ln
Lake
Meadow Cir
Tami Lynne Dr
Leslie
Dr
John
Muir
Rd
Mozden
Ln
Flora
Ct
Ludell Dr
Canal
Ln
Woodsworth
Ln
Marcia
D
r
Milano
Wa
y
Belmont
Ct
Monte
Vista
Ct
Brown Dr
Hid
d
e
n
Lakes
Dr
Ophir Ct
Swan
Lake
Ct
Al g e
i
e
rs
C
i
r
Starflower Dr
Vicki Ln
Del
ReySt
Ilene Dr
Duke
Ct
Harwich
Walk
Santa
Lucia
Ct
Christie Dr
Irvin
Ct
Peggy
Dr
Oakvue Rd
Rhodes
Ct
Chenin
Ct
Monti
Ct
Eloise Ave
Glacier Dr
Malaga Way
Cl iffside
Dr
Skyview
Ct
Gloucester
Ln
Fordham
Ct
Boies Dr
Price Ln
Condor
Ct
Cullen
Ct
Bodega
Ct
Elvia St
Kiki Dr
First Ave
Cindy
Ct
Osborne Ln
Pom
W
f ret
a l k
Pinnacle Dr
Trinity
Ct
Larkey Ln
Fernwood
Dr
Susan
Ln
Marlee
Rd
Sierra
Dr
Zelma
Ct
Croyden
Ct
Hookston Rd
Gladys Dr
Warren
Ln
J
a
n
ice
Dr
Kathy
Ln
G
Saint
ermaineLn
M
o
n
t
clair
Cir
Waverly Rd
N
Marta
Dr
Morello
Ct
Woo
d
side
Mea
d
ows
Rd
Southwind Dr
Lyle
Ct
Gree
n
o
c
k
Ln
N Main St
Frumenti
Ct
Ward
Ct
Longbrook Way
Appian
Ct
Hill c re
t s C
ri
Shenandoah Dr
Lucille Ln
Lake Ct
Willow
Donna
Dr
Lake
Reed
Ct
Leigh
Ct
Tammy
Ln
Rainbow
Ct
S Larkey Ln
Olympic
Ct
Deerwo
o
d
D
r
Via
Royal
Jean
Pl
Falcon
Ct
And
L
rew
n
Thatcher
Ln
Primrose
Pl
Hardwoo
C
d
t
Rolling Hill Way
Chris ten
Dr
Mesquite
Dr
Concord
Ave
Fushia
Ct
Oakside
Ct
May
Ct
Rancho
V
e
i
w
Dr
Henson
Creek
Ct
Elda Dr
Cum
b
e
r
a
l
n
d
Ct
Boyd Rd
Augustine Dr
V
ista
Del
Rio
Sparrow
Ct
S
wa
n
sea
L
n
Golf Links
St
Elf
Ct
Camino Verde
Holland Dr
April
Ct
Parkhaven
Ct
El
Rancho
Ct
S Third
Ave
Harriet Dr
M
a
rtindale
Dr
P
el a
s
a
n
t
Valle
y
D
r
Oak
Bro
o
k
Pl
Palmer
Ct
He
rcu
l
es
D
r
ShetlandDr
Chester
Ct
Blue
Canyon
Ct
Rya
D
n
r
Daisy
Pl
Hallgreen
Ln
Morello
Ave
Lena
Ct
Monte
Vista
Ct
James
Ct
Glenview Dr
Court
"B"
Bridge
Rd
Villa Ct
Norfolk
Ct
Elderwood
Dr
Geraldine Dr
Medallion
Ct
Martin
Ct
Sa
n
ta
L
u
ci
a
Dr
Strand Ave
Saint Germaine Ln
N Peak
Pl
Baldwin
Ct
Lake
Ridge Dr
Ta
m
bor Way
Stimel
Ct
Ryan
Dr
Foxhil l Dr
Carrick
Ct
Mesa Verde
Pl
Devonshire
Ct
Miles
Ct
Hamilton Dr
Smoke
Tree Ct
Barbara
Cir
Quietwood
Ln
Diamond
Blvd
Bonnie Ln
Hidden Pond Ct
Via
Peralta
Hustonwood
Ct
Kiki
Ct
Vessi
n
D
r
Norse
Ct
Croyden Dr
Longwood
Ct
Kinney
Ct
Chianti
Pl
Highcliff
Ct
Avenida
Flores
Sahara
Dr
Del
Rio Ct
Via
Royal
Hannan
Dr
Ardith Dr
Virginia
Cir
Flame
Ct
Elderwood
Dr
Madonna
Ln
Upson
Ct
Faye
Ct
Astrid
Dr
Lockwood Ln
Driftwood
Ct
B
Lake
rook Ct
Manhatten
Ct
Apollo Way
S.O.S
Dr
Pacheco
Blvd
M
n
i
o
ru
Dr
Hamilton
Ct
Fla
m
e
D
r
Yerbena
Ct
C
o
r
e
t
Te
rc
e
r
a
Westover Dr
Adela
Ct
Banner
Ct
Las Animas
Dr
St
Thomas
Ln
Larkey Ln
Novato
Ct
Lake
Dale Ct
Corte
Poquita
Linton
Pl
Lampligh
C
t
t
Ardmore
Ct
Oakvue
Ln
Stella
Ct
Caitlin
Ct
Dunbar
Ct
Rampo
Ct
Carrie
Ct
Oak
Glen
Ct
Benham Dr
Bristol
Ct
P a r k
Pl
Sheryl
Ct
Orlando
Ct
Kerrison
Ln
Everidge
Ct
Hercule
Dr
s
Bonnie
Pl
Ivy
Ct
Vine Hill Way
Johns
Ct
May
Ct
Je n nifer
Way
Redrock Pl
Tiana
Terrace Ter
Hauth
Ln
Ranier
Ct
Dudley
Ct
M
ed
i
n
a
Dr
Lois
Ct
Doris Dr
Temple Dr
Olympic Dr
Ch
attswood
Dr
Kenton
Cir
Cedar
Ct
Wittenmyer
Ct
Suzanne
Pl
Silverhill Dr
Corona
Pl
La
k
e
Ct
Wo
o
d
rid
g
e
C
t
Skander
Ct
Sierra
Ct
Viking Dr
O
a
k
C
r
e
e
k
St
Waverly
Ct
Lommel
Ct
Gree n w
o
o
d
Ct
St
Thomas
Ct
Gatew o o
d
C t
Hillcrest
Pl
E Vivian Dr
New
Ln
Del
Mar Dr
Rand om
Way
Lindsey Dr
Klamath
Ct
Patterson
Blvd
Boyd
Ct
Del
Rey
St
F
ra
ncis
Dr
Lamplight
Ct
Barika
Ct
Corrie
Pl
Meridian Park Blvd
Paso
Nogal
Second Ave
Vivian Dr
Fries
Ct
Ramona
Dr
Strand
Ct
Francis
Ct
Wyatt
Cir
Brown
Ct
Scenic
Pl
Cherry
Hills
Ct
Dalton
Ct
Sa
int
Cla
ire
Ln
Bud
Ct
Grove
Cir
Pacheco
Blvd
Mcneil Pl
Harvard
Ct
Elderwo o
d
Ct
Pico
Ct
Wallin
Ct
Pa
rkhaven
Dr
Hasleme
D
re
r
Shirley Dr
Elderwood Dr
Valley
High Dr
Greyfell
Pl
Stewart
Cir
Radcliffe
Ct
A
C
lmaden
t
Rosemary
Ct
Po
rt
ms
outh
Cir
Via
De
Mercados
Ludell
Ct
Beswick
Ct
Edie
C
t
Daisy
Ct
Sean
Ct
Barry
Ct
Doray Dr
Easter
Ct
Stratford
Ct
Minaret Dr
Aspen
Ridge
Ct
Vartan
Ct
Marian
Pl
E
m
e
ar
ld
Dr
Tyr
Ct
Coats
Cir
Judy
Ct
Cherry
Hills
Dr
Madsen
Ln
Diablo View Rd
Soule Ave
La kehurst
Dr
Barton
Ct
Lupine
Ln
Cela
Ct
Fenslair
Dr
Crestview
Ct
Santa Monica Dr
Lava
Ct
Chandon
Ct
G
ary
Lee
Ln
Topaz
Ln
R
u
t
h
Dr
H
enry
Clay
Ct
Karol
Ln
Sky
Rd
Westfield
Ct
High
Ridge
Ct
William
Henry
Ct
StonehedgeDr
Citadel
Ct
G
reenridge
Ct
Baron
Ct
Bayleaf
Ct
sI
pwich
Wy
Elder Dr
Sharon
Ct
Fa
i
r
af
x
Stanmore
Rd
Alhambra
Hills Ct
St Julie
Ct
Palo
Alto Ct
Theo
Dr
Beaumont
Ct
Mono Dr
Alderwood
Rd
RossPl
Ellinwood
Way
Fieldcrest
Cir
Topsail
Ct
Christina
Ln
Bramblewood
Ln
Brixham
Way
Diab
Ct
lo
P le asant
Oaks Ct
Clarie
Dr
Eric
Ct
Cherrywood
Ct
Pleasant
Ln
El Ran c h
o
D
r
Maybelle Dr
Cumberland
Dr
Calle
Este
Belle Ave
Tokay
Ct
St Claire
Ln
Rim Ridge
Ct
Cannon
Pl
R
ain
b
o
w
D
r
Eagle
Nest
Ct
Argenta
Ct
Woodgl e
n
Ln
Milden Rd
Ri d
ge
View
Dr
Santa Cruz
Dr
Ramsgate
Ln
Falls
Ct
Donkey
Flats Ct
Greenhills
Dr
Belinda Dr
Mohar
Ct
Blue Canyon Way
Dam a s
c
u
s
L o
o
p
We
ste
rn
Hil sl D
r
M
e
ria
n
D
r
Byron Dr
Drycreek
Ct
Endriss Dr
Ell iott
Ct
Marta Dr
Williamson
Ct
Lost L
P
ake
l
C
romart
Ct
St
L
o
uis Ct
First
Ave
Mc
Millan Ct
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
L
n
Alpine
Ct
H
illsd a le
D
r
Kilgo Ct
Sunset
Dr
Sherman
Dr
Patricia
Dr
B
l
a
ckwood
D
r
Alana
Ct
Rae
Dr
Eccleston Ave
Viewpoint
Ct
Skyview Dr
B
or
okwood
Dr
Woodview
Ct
Echo
Ct
Shetland
Ln
Rai
n
ei r
Dr
Dakar
Dr
Huntridge
Ct
Lin
d
a
D
r
Elmwood
Dr
Buxton
Cir
Audrey Ln
Shadow
Mountain
Ct
Flaming Oak Dr
Briar Dr
Hodur
Ct
Corte
D
a
i
blo
Fawn
Creek Ct
Sonoma
Ct
Ke
a
ts
Cir
Dublin
Dr
Brandon
Ct
Tavan Estates
Dr
Rockr
d
i
ge Dr
Oak
Rd
Ca
rte
P
l
Vista Del Diablo
Wildwoo
C
d
t
Appalachian Dr
Jay
Pl
Marguerite
Ave
Paris Pl
Colton
Ln
Raymond Dr
Ri
S
d
unrise
ge Dr
Ru
th
D
r
Shasta
Ct
Kelsey
Ct
Bifrost
Ave
Duke
Way
P
a
r
a
dis
e
Dr
Sunnyv
ale
Pl
Treadway
Ln
Aleman
Ct
Loralee
Pl
Paddac
C
k
t
Sunnybrae Dr
Padre St
Elinora Dr
El Cajon
Larkey
Creek Pl
Skyline
Dr
Gum Ct
Blue
Hawthorne
Ct
Burns
Ct
Hidden Pond
Rd
P
el
asant
OaksDr
Henry Ct
Freda Dr
Bridge
Rd
Highland
Ave
W
e
ndy
D
r
Encanto
Ct
Monument
Blvd
Co
ntra
C
osta
B
l
vd
Banbridge
Pl
Topinera
Ln
Carreiro
Ln
Saxton
Ct
Twinview Dr
Hargate
Ct
Johnson Rd
Rubicon
Ct
Sequoia Dr
Dobbs Dr
Flores
Ct
Bonnie
Ct
Lake
New
Pl
Vineta
Ct
Overl
o
ok Dr
Calle
Nogales
Sh
e
rree
D
r
W
e
s
et
rn
Hil sl
D
r
LindaCt
Glenbri dge
Ct
Diamond
Way
Caldwell Ct
Charlton Dr
Camino
Verde Cir
Suncrest
Ct
Cloudview Dr
Hannibal Dr
Beechwood Dr
Odin Dr
Donegal
Ct
Mazie Dr
C St
Picardy
Ct
Spring Lake Dr
Jamara Wy
Virginia
Way
Boies
Ct
Sunspring
Ct
Del Rio Dr
B
u
e
n
a
V
si a
t
Ave
Le Jean
Way
Contra Costa Blvd
Redwood Dr
Cornwall
Ct Darian
Ln
Liahona
Ct
Wedgewood
Ct
Treehaven
Ct
Estella
Ct
Isola
Ln
Stanwell
Dr
Civic Dr
Valle
y
D
r
Elmwood
Dr
Ke
l
ly
Ann
Ct
Ellis Ct
St erling
Way
Byron
Ct
Butte rcu
p
Ln
Supreme
Ct
Mercury
Way
Via
Ferrari
Wellfleet
Pl
Ro
che
Dr
Bartlett
Ct
Cleopatra
Dr
Pleasant
Valley
Dr
Charleston
Ct
Virginia Hills Dr
Lorie
Ln
EVie
P
w
l
Pleasant Hill
Rd
Crown
Ct
S Second
Ave
Teakwood
Dr
Buena
Vista Way
Greenwich Dr
Caudel
Ct
Rouse
Ct
Fafnir
Pl
Elaine
Way
Mary Dr
Debbi
Ct
Sandpiper
Ct
Starling
Ct
Kingsley
Ct
Melillo Dr
Evelyn Dr
Ivanhoe
Ave
Chance
Ln
R
di ge
Vie
w
Pl
Sunset
Rd
Walden Rd
Knollcrest
Ct
D o negal
Pl
Briones To Mt.

Diablo RegionalTrl
Q
u
ei t
V
ei w
C
t
Oberon Dr
Pa r kdale
Plz
Arends Ln
Pagosa
Faran Dr
Warren Ln
Ra msey
Cir
Surmont
Ct
G
r
o
ve
C
re
ek
Ct
Silver
Oaks Pl
Deodar Dr
Monet
Cir
Del Rey
Ct
L
ejean
Way
Ellinwood Dr
Longfellow Dr
Greenview
Ct
Waldale
Ct
Cayucos
Dr
Cholla
Ct
Chalk
Creek Ct
Emerson
Ct
Am
ber
Ln
Alhamb
Hill
ra
s Dr
Trini
P
ty
l
Briaridge
Ct
Beth Dr
Alhambra
Ave
Halten Ct
B
o
d
e
g
a
Pl
Stillcreek Ct
Water b erry
Ct
Deneb
Ct
Ha
rv
a
rd
D
r
Chaucer
Ct
Shelly Dr
Linda Ln
M
o
zde
n
L
n
Lynvale
Ln
Twinview Pl
Beacon
Ridge Ln
Buenos
Aires Ct
Elliot Dr
Christensen
Ln
Elton
Dr
Jemco Ct
Paso Nogal Rd
Benthill
Ct
Pas o
Nogal Ct
Cam elback
Pl
Colt
Ct
Pi llon Real
Sa
n
ta
M
o
n
ica
Ct
Cumbre
Dr
Tera
Ct
Babette
Ct
St
D
anmore
r
Marbi
Ln
Platt Dr
Harris
Ct
Encinal
Ct
Bro
o
kv
ei w
Cir
Wildcroft Dr
Meier
Rd
Diablo
View
Mendota
Ct
1St
Avenue Ct
Collins
Ct
Corrie
Ln
Lombar d Ln
Via Del Sol
Pleasant View Dr
Bryce Dr
Hampton
Dr
B
e
rry
D
r
Gabriel
Ct
Pico
Way
Bellamy
Ct
Caitlin Park
S Cody
Ln
Enrica
Ln
Mallard Dr
Star Tree
Ct
Roxie
Ln
Denise
Ln
Maggie
Ln
Geary
Ct
Briarwood
Way
Encanto
Pl
Ward
Ct
C
a
risa Ct
Sherree
Ct
B
u
s
kir
k
Av
e
W
ni
chester
Ct
Crescent Plz
Deer
Tree
Ct
Wood
Creek Pl
Carlos Ct
Buttner
Ct
Cortsen
Ct
Conejo Way
San Luis
Ct
Sheldon
Ln
Deerpa th
Ct
Hopeco
Rd
Reiner Ln
Piper Rdg
Onley
Dr
Grayson Rd
Shasta
Ln
Oa
k
Gle
n
Cir
Ry a n
Dr
Clara
Ct
Chaucer
Dr
Boris
Ct
Rahn Ct
A
M
v
orello
e
Katie
Ct
G
o
leta Ct
Valla
Ct
Isab
D
el
r
4Th
Ave
Verbena
Ct
Cortsen Rd
S 5Th
Ave
Sage
Ct
Village
Square
Pl
Pleasant
Hill
Rd
Beatrice Rd
Dorothy Dr
Kawa
i
Ln
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
H
i
l
l
C
t
La
Playa
Dr
Fieldcrest Dr
Folin
Ln
Thames
Dr
C
Lake Oaks
t
B
i
rch
Dr
Ga
r
d
e
nia
C
t
VistaGlen
Pl
Ravenwood
Dr
Duffy Ct
H
e
ro
Ct
Bruce
Ct
Crosby
Ct
Cor
et
Br io
nes
Rodeo
Ct
MtTam
Ct
I
ro
n
H
o
rse
Amber
Ln
Mohr
Ln
Maricopa
Ct
First
Ave
Lomas
Veerdes
Pl
Donegal Pl
Ronda
Ct
Brandon
Oaks Pl
Mckissick
St
Paradise
Ln
Montin Ct
Sterling Dr
Parkland Dr
Hills Dr
Forest
Trelany
Rd
Nancy Ln
Kuhl
Ct
Ackley
Ct
De
l
Ho
m
bre
Ln
Cond
o
r
D
r
Mt Hood
Ct
Wootten
Dr
Polley
Ln
Dia
b
o
l
W
a
y
Quiet
Lake Pl
Heri t a
g
e
Hi lls
D
r
P i
n
eme
a
d
o
w
s
C
t
Exeter Ln
Barbara
Ct
Iv
y
w
ood
D
r
Betty Ln
Harmony Ln
Clear Creek
Ct
C
h
a
h
t
am
C
t
Litke Ln
Sandy
Ln
Bernice
Ln
G
r
a
yson
Ter
Se
quoia
Ct
Ell ington
Ter
Linton
Ter
Patte
rs
o
n
Blv
d
Verbena
Pl
Barocio
Ct
Diablo View
Rd
Arc a d
ai
Ct
Vessing
Rd
Heritage Ct
St
LaWay
Palo
Alto Pl
Camelba c k
Ct
Jewell Ln
Shadow
Hill Rd
High St
Deerwood
Ct
J
e
n
ayCt
Bernard
Way
Patrick
Dr
Roberta Ave
F airway
Pl
P
ro
m
intory
L
n
Cameo
Ct
H
a m ar
St
Old Rogers
Ranch Ct
Sp
ur
cewood
Ct
Keith Ct
Del
V
si a
t
Ct
Arnold Dr
Edna
Dr
SheilaCt
Likins
Ct
Whitfield
Ct
Claire
D
r
Theresa Ln
Mc Grath Ct
Christine
Ct
H edaro
Ct
Lenox
Ct
H
o
over
C
t
Cedarbrook
Ct
Poppy
Pl
Valley View
Rd
Winston
Dr
Galaxy
Way
Paula
Ct
ShawRd
Cottonwood Dr
Lanway
Ct
Oram Ln
Thistle
Way
Eagle
Lake Ct
Moiso
Ln
Mission
Pl
Flintwood
Ct
Derby
Ct
Doulton
Ct
Patina
Ct
W
h
it tier
Rd
Autocenter
Dr
Fair Oaks Dr
Dana
Highlands Ct
Sunnyvale
Ave
Temple
Ct
Ridge
ViewCt
Hall Ln
Minton
Ct
Gaines
Ln
Via
Dominguez
Geriola
Ct
Deerhaven
Pl
Westover
C
t
Huston
Ct
Elmira
Ln
Del
Este Ct
Ellinwood
Way
M
arvin
Dr
Lake
Crest Ct
Dia
blo
R
d
Pine Grove
Ct
Jolie Ln
Lake s ide
Ct
W Boyd Rd
Clem son
Ct
Lin
d
en
D
r
C
o
rte
S
e
g
u
nda
Lake V i e
w
P l
D
e
llwo od Ct
Decca Ln
Byrdee
Way
Od
ni Pl
W
e
e
D
o
n
e
gal
Brookview
Dr
Arcadia
Pl
La Playa
Ct
Jib
Ct
Kathleen Dr
G
a
rd
en
V
e
i
w
Ln
Pineview
Ct
Upper Pond
Ct
Kulani
Dr
Pikes C t
Mcnamara
Ln
Best Rd
Waterberry
Dr
Elminya
Dr
Pantano
Ln
Pic nic
Ln
Glacier
Ct
C ar pente
C
r
t
Ridgevale
Ln
Burnha
Ct
m
Roberts
Ct
Terra Teresa
Chaucer
Dr
Valley Ct
St Lawrence
Ln
Bentley
Ct
Del O c
e
a
n
o
D
r
B
e
n
edict
C
t
Kentfie
C
ld
t
Pimlico
Dr
Marion Ct
Towers
Dr
Santa
Ana Dr
S
Pond
Ct
Esplanade
Pl
C
o
r
n
ell
M
Ct
averi
ck
Ct
Iroquois
Dr
Clark Ln
Tonstad
Pl
Sunnybrae
Ct
Rainier
Dr
HolidayH
i
l
l
s
Dr
Trailside
Pl
White
M
o
u
ntain
Ct
Macgreggor
Rd
Piedra
Dr
Kinder
Ln
D
i
c
ks
on
Ct
Rachele
Rd
Ranier
Dr
Elmwood
Ct
Buena
Vista Pl
St Germaine Ln
Hidden
Pond Ln
Mayo
Ln
Thomas Ln
Milburn
Dr
Ha z elti n e
Cir
Service
Rd
Pantano
Cir
Swan Ct
F
o
o
th ill Park
Cir
Myra Dell
Rd
Black
Pine Ln
C
alle
M
olin
o
Old
Vin
e
Ct
Plato
C
t
Hook Ave
Sky
Ra
n
ch
Ct
S Second
Ave
Cordelia
Way
Foothill Park
Cir
We
l
e
l
r
C
t
Valley
Glen Ln
Potom
a
c
Way
Vaughn
Ave
Oakvu
e
Ct
Myradell
Rd
Pinewo o d
C
t
Pioneer
Old Quarry
Rd
Ma d o
n na
Ln
Te
m
p
e
Ct
B
l
iss Ct
O
a
kv
u
e
Ln
Silverhill
Way
O
ak Crest
Ct
V
L
ia
a Cu mbr e
Audrey
Ct
Spar
Ct
Mc
Kissick St
Herit a
g
e
Meadow
s
R d
Todd
Ln
H
o l
l and
Ci r
Mendota
Way
Lesnick Ln
Ta h o
e
C t
Margrave
Ct
Country
View Ln
Wig
gin
s
C
t
Eagle
Nest Dr
Cal. Riding &
Hiking Trl.

Willow St
Franquette
Ave
Co
Stage
ach Ct
Pebble Beach Loop
C
ole
m
a
n
Ct
N
Pond
Ct
Lorie Ct
Diamond
Ln
Casa De
Sima
Begonia
Ct
Hill Ln
Mobile Dr
Woodlawn
Dr
Erin Ct
Surmont Dr
Wildflow e r
Dr
Freya Way
Frances
Way
Greenhi
l
l
s
Ct
Primro
Dr
se
Pasatiempo
Ct
C h a
C
rlton
ir
El Paseo
Buttner
Rd
Oak Rd
Greendell
Pl
Goble Way
Little
Ln
Monivea
Pl
Sunrise
Ln
Ric
h
e
i
D
r
Mazda Dr
Beacon
Ridge Ct
Reliez
Hig
h land Rd
Lance
Ct
College
Way
Frontage
Rd
R
o
g
e
rs
C
t
Parnell Ct
Ponde
rosaCt
Aleta Pl
45 Haven Ln
W Clayton
Rd
Riley Dr
S
i
n
a
i
Dr
Purson
Ln
Mon
e
t
C
resta
D
r
Alfred Ave
Almond Ave
Stagecoach
Dr
Maryal
Rd
Magda
Way
Lucinda
Ln
Silverhill Ct
Waterworld
Pkwy
Estand Way
Ramada Ct
Sanko
Rd
Meghan Ln
Creston Rd
Ma
rs
h
D
r
Pi o n
e
e
r
Ave
Wilbur Dr
Laird Ln
H di
de
n
C
Lakes
t
Mockingbird
Dr
LejeanWay
N Buchanan
Cir
Helen Rd
Leroy Ln
Janin Pl
V
oi el t
Way
Phylis Dr
Hawthorne
Dr
Me
a
d
owvale
Ct
Si
lver La ke
Way
Agnes Way
Mc Nutt Ave
Golf
Club Rd
Honey
Trail
Adak Ct
Scarlet
Oak Ct
Starflower
Dr
Knollwood
Dr
F
e
n
sal
i
r
Ave
Cynthia Dr
Hills Dr
Te
rry
Wa
y
Orion Ave
Va
Reliez
lley Ct
DukeC
i
r
O
r
e
t
g
aDr
Glen
Oak Ct
Atrice
Ln
Cherrywood
Dr
ScottsdaleRd
King
Oak Pl
Vili Way
Belle Ln
Roble Rd
Burnett Ave
Silverwood Dr
Enea Cir
Lake Villa Ct
Campbell Ln
Celia Dr
Green Valley
Dr
Vance Ln
Coral ei D
r
Pershing Dr
Poshard St
Huston Rd
StJoan
Ln
Monti Cir
Chappa
ra
l
Ln
W
e
n
d
ell
L
n
Jeffrey Dr
Barnett Cir
S
u ntree
Ln
Sad
d
l
e
brook Ln
TavanEstates
Dr
Galaxy Way
Willows Dr
Dale Rd
M
o
h
aw
k
Dr
Charles Ave
S
h
a
d
o w ood Dr
MtKennedy
Dr
Jackson Way
Douglas
Ter
Barn
e
t
t
Te
r
Wayne Dr
Kingston Pl
Briones
Ramsay Cir
Shul gi n Rd
Hiller Ln
P
owell
Ave
Orion Ln
Steven Cir
Helen Rd
Challenge Dr
M
o
n
t
e
C
r
e
s
t
a
Av
e
Allen Way
Keaveny Ct
Brittany
Ln
Rainbo w
L
n
Vineyard
C
t
Starlyn Dr
John Glenn Dr
Crescent Dr
Jeanne Dr
Argenta Dr
Ahnetta Dr
Cannon
Dr
Cora Ct
B r a ndywine
L n
Lorenzo Dr
Dawn Dr
Lassen Dr
Westover Ln
Shasta Dr
Turrin Dr
Shady Ln
Yellow
Stone Dr
Casa Way
Snow Dr
M
a n o r
P
a
r
k
C
ri
Anelda
Dr
Encinal Dr
Ahneita
Dr
Collins Dr
Tono Ln
Essenay Ave
Ad
a
D
r
Massolo Dr
Baylor Ln
Dos Palos
S Buchanan
Cir
Contra
Costa Blvd
Hubbard Ave
Sun Valley Dr
Paso Nogal
Adria Dr
Appalachian Way
Belva Ln
Creekside
Rd
Manor Ave
G
o
lf
C
ul b
C
i
r
Costanza Dr
First Ave
Calle Verde
Maxine Dr
Market St
Diablo Ct
Likins Ave
TavanEstate Dr
Rose Ln
Carolyn Dr
Degnan Dr
Alvina Dr
T h istle
Cir
Sun Valley Ave
Herita
g
e
H
i
l
l
s
Dr
Beverly Dr
Muir Rd
wT b
ni
ridgeCir
Jeanette Dr
N
M
a
i
n
St
Hampton Rd
eer G
nwoodCir
Kim Rd
Lester Rd
Ellinw
o
o
d
Wy
Jennie Dr
Hudson Ave
Gloria Dr
Hardy Cir
Iron Horse
Julian Way
Sylvia Dr
Vi
n
ce
n
t
Rd
B
u
s
ki
rk
Ave
M an
gini R
d
Likins Ave
Rancho View
Rogers Ave
Wa
et
wr
o
rld
Pkwy
Margie Dr
Luella Dr
Masefield Dr
Hazel Dr
Quail View Cir
Iron Hill St
Golf Club Way
Esther Dr
My Rd
Carey Dr
S
even Hil
ls
Ran
ch
Rd
Lawrence
W
a
y
Kathryn Dr
Teigland Rd
Stubbs Rd
Fountainhead Ct
Pacheco
Blvd
Muir Rd
Jeann
C
e
ir
Sudan
Loop
Starbridge
Ct
Trl
Trl
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R
C&R

C&R C&R
LI
LI LI
LI
LI
MDR
MFCVHD
MFHD
MFHD
MFHD
MFHD
MFHD
MFHD
MFHD
MFHD
MFHD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFLD
MFMD
MFMD
MFMD
MFMD
MFMD

MFMD MFMD
MFVHD
MFVLD
MFVLD
MFVLD
MFVLD
MFVLD
MFVLD
MFVLD
MFVLD
MFVLD
MFVLD
MFVLD
MISC
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED

MIXED-HD

MIXED-HD

MIXED-HD

MIXED-HD

MIXED-HD

MIXED-N

MIXED-N

MIXED-N

MIXED-N

MIXED-N

MIXED-VHD

MIXED-VHD
NB
NB
NB
NB
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD
SFHD

SFHD SFHD
SFLD
SFLD
SFLD
SFLD
SFLD

SFLD SFLD
SFLD
SFLD
SFLD
SFLD
SFLD
SFLD
SFLD
SFLD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SFMD
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
SP-I
±
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
Last Amended: August 10, 2023
General Plan Land Use Map
City of Pleasant Hill

GENERAL PLAN
Single-Family Low Density
Single-Family Medium Density
Single-Family High Density
Multi-Family Very Low Density
Multi-Family Low Density
Multi-Family Medium Density
Multi-Family High Density
Multi-Family Very High Density
Cleaveland Multi-Family Very High Density
Mangini-Delu Residential
Commercial and Retail
Office
Misc
Mixed Use
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Mixed Use High Density
Mixed Use Very High Density
Neighborhood Business
Light Industrial
Open Space
Semi-Public and Institutional
Park
School
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Urban Limit Line
Tourist Commercial Overlay

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION

CITY COUNCIL
2026 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE STUDY SESSION

CITY-WIDE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Pleasant Hill that the City Council will conduct a 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 General Plan 2040. This Study Session is a follow up from the November 17, 2025 City Council hearing where the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 978 amending the City’s Municipal Code Title 18 (Planning and Land Use) in its entirety and amending the Zoning Map to include the rezoning of 1,072 parcels throughout the city for consistency with the 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element. At that meeting, the City Council directed Staff to provide an opportunity for additional discussion on potential additional, future General Plan Amendments within the first six months of 2026. More information can be found at www.phillca.gov/2026gpstudy.

CEQA: N/A
Public Hearing
Date
Monday, March 16, 2026, at 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill
STAFF

CONTACT
Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner
Ph: 925-671-5297 Email: [email protected]
If you wish to comment on this matter, you may participate in the Public Hearing in person, or you may contact the staff person listed above.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

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

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill, CA
Phone Number::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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=18796 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill, CA
Phone Number::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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=18862 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name:

Street
Address:

City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your hard work and for your dedication to a fair process for all five districts. Sincerely, Jim Lehman
Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18804 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

I truly appreciate the work the Council has done to listen to residents in Gregory Gardens, East Vivian, and Poet’s Corner. By offering a Focused Fix for those neighborhoods, you’ve shown a commitment to correcting land-use designations that simply don't fit the reality of the community.

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

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

Protect our Shared Safety: By reviewing the hillsides together, we can ensure that housing is built at an appropriate density that accounts for the very real fire and landslide risks on our steepest slopes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name:

Street
Address:

City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

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

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

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

We aren't asking for a favor. We are asking you to represent all five districts, not just a select few. Include Districts 1 and 4 in the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study scope. Sincerely, Carl Noble
Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18805 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name:

Street
Address:

City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:

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

Dear City Council, I am writing to formally request that Districts 1 and 4 be included in the upcoming 2026 General Plan Land Use Study. It is unacceptable that while other districts are being granted a "second look" at rezoning, the high-density designations for Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill are being ignored. We were not properly notified of these hillside changes originally, and we deserve the same opportunity for remedy as Districts 2, 3, and 5. Please ensure our safety and neighborhood character are prioritized this time around. Sincerely, JD Upload File
Attachment
here
[]
* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18793 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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=18795 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill, CA
Phone Number::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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=18797 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill, CA
Phone Number::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Request:

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

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

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

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

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=18863 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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=18794 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

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

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

Best regards,
Jen C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pleasant Hill Executive Park on Taylor Blvd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This location is currently vacant.

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

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

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

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

This is the perfect location for mixed-use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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=18865 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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=18864 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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