Attachment D - Public Comments Received after publication of the March 16, 2026 City Council Study Session Agenda.pdf — Pleasant Hill City Council, October 19, 2026

From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Thursday, March 12, 2026 9:44:12 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=18870 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: A Call for City-Wide Integrity, Environmental Stewardship, and the Restoration of Public Trust – March 16 General Plan Study Session
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess, Vice Mayor, and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to you today not just as a resident, but as a passionate champion for the soul of Pleasant Hill. As we approach the Study Session on March 16, we stand at a generational crossroads. The decisions made in Council chambers will determine whether our city remains a collection of vibrant, stable neighborhoods or becomes a cautionary tale of "compliance-first" planning that ignored the people it was meant to serve.

While I am heartened by the Council’s recent willingness to acknowledge and correct zoning "mistakes" in several privileged Districts, a partial correction is not enough and introduces biases and favoritism that Districting was meant to avoid. If we admit that the 2040 General Plan contains flaws in one neighborhood, we must have the courage and the moral consistency to address the systemic issues that persist in every District, including Districts 1 and 4.

Neighborhood integrity is not a district-specific luxury; it is a city-wide right. I respectfully urge the Council to direct Staff to broaden the scope of this Study Session to include the following Comprehensive Restoration Framework:

1. Protecting Our Environmental Resources (District 1&4) The current designation of high-density "Program F" housing on the hillsides of Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal Hill is more than a zoning error—it is an ecological failure. These are sensitive fire-prone ridgelines with steep slopes that are not meant for high density. Forcing hundreds of units onto these slopes is a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century housing challenge.

The Solution: We must transition a portion of these sites to a less dense, gentler designation that supports adequate housing, but doesn't endanger the surrounding neighborhoods. We must protect the safety of the area. We can meet our RHNA numbers more effectively by maximizing truly underutilized, paved, and transit-rich "High Resource" sites like the DVC Overflow Lot and the Black Angus parcel.

2. Preserving the "Neighborhood" Character
The central heartbeat of Pleasant Hill is under threat from incompatible scale.

The Solution: We need a formal commitment to Objective Design Standards that prioritize "Step-Down" transitions. A high-density mixed-use building should never "wall off" a single-family backyard. We must ensure that the growth enhances our walkable "Neighborhood" feel rather than eroding it with monolithic structures that ignore our unique suburban fabric.

3. Codifying the Corrections
We applaud the move to protect Single Family Neighborhoods, but it should be broad based, not specific. All neighborhoods should be deserving of respect. If the Council agrees that one single family neighborhood should be protected, then it should be fair and protect them all. A commitment to correction is the right choice. However, this must be more than a verbal promise.

The Solution: The March 16 session must provide clear direction to Staff to draft formal General Plan Amendments that solidify the "Missing Middle" scale for all residential areas, ensuring they remain protected from high-intensity encroachment in perpetuity.

4. Implementing a "Community-First" Transparency Protocol The greatest "mistake" acknowledged by this Council was the failure of outreach. Many residents only learned their neighborhoods had been rezoned after the ink was dry. We must never allow this to happen again.

The Solution: We call for a formal Direct Notification Policy. Any resident within 500 feet of a proposed land-use change deserves a plain-language letter delivered to their door—not just an obscure notice in a newsletter.

Furthermore, we need Expert-Led Community Workshops where residents can engage with the planning consultants directly, asking the hard questions that have so far gone unanswered.

A Better Path Forward
Councilmembers, you hold the gavel and the responsibility. You have inherited a plan that many of you have admitted is flawed. But you are not bound by the mistakes of the past. You have the opportunity to prove that this community’s voice matters more than a consultant’s spreadsheet.

We are not "anti-housing." We are pro-neighborhood. We believe in a Pleasant Hill that meets its state obligations through Deliberate and Intention Infill—building up on our paved commercial corridors and near transit—while fiercely protecting the quiet streets, the ridgelines, and the backyards that make this city home.

I ask you to lead with vision on March 16. Let’s fix the plan, let’s protect all five districts, and let’s restore the trust that has been so deeply shaken.

Sincerely,
Jane Muno
Resident of District 4
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/12/2026 9:42:01 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 159.26.99.229
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff 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: Thursday, March 12, 2026 12:23:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18871 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:: Fiscal Oversight for the March 16 Study Session: Moving Toward a Cost-Effective General Plan Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to share my professional and personal concerns regarding the long-term fiscal implications of our current General Plan. As the Council prepares for the March 16th Study Session, I urge you to move beyond "check-the-box" state compliance and perform a rigorous Common Sense Audit of our density blueprint.

While I support the need for housing, the current plan contains high-risk "fiscal mistakes" across all five districts that will eventually be borne by the taxpayers of Pleasant Hill. I ask that you direct Staff to prioritize the following fiscally responsible amendments:

1. Ending the "Hillside Infrastructure Subsidy" (Districts 1 and 4) Placing high-density housing (nearly 300 units) on the Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal hillsides is an inefficient use of city resources. These sites require specialized, high-cost infrastructure—including specialized sewer stations, complex drainage systems, and reinforced emergency access roads for steep slopes. In addition, giving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to private developers to incentivize development on unsustainable land is irresponsible.

The Fiscal Alternative: We should transfer some of this density to the DVC Overflow Lot and the Black Angus site. These are flat, 100% paved, "plug-and-play" sites where the infrastructure is already in place. At the density suggested for these sites (70-100 du/ac, there are still hundreds of uncounted units that could easily absorb the transfer and not trigger any decertification). Moving units from hillsides to infill parking lots significantly reduces the long-term maintenance burden on the City's Public Works budget. Also, the City will not have to transfer taxpayer money to private companies since these sites are ready to go. Save the taxpayer money for programs that directly benefit our residents.

2. Protecting Property Value & Commercial Viability (Districts 2, 3, & 5) The lack of clear "Step-Down" buffers in the current mixed-use corridors of Districts 2, 3, and 5 creates a "Zoning Cliff." If we devalue existing single-family neighborhoods by allowing incompatible encroachment, we risk eroding our most stable property tax base.

The Solution: We must codify the "Missing Middle" protections across the entire city. Protecting neighborhood integrity is, quite literally, protecting the City’s balance sheet.

3. Procedural Efficiency & Transparency
The current lack of direct notification for impacted property owners is a liability. It leads to late-stage community opposition, project delays, and potential and actual litigation—all of which are "hidden costs" to the City.

The Request: I ask for a formal Direct Notification Policy (mailers to all owners within 500 feet). Clear, plainlanguage communication at the start of the process prevents expensive "fire-fighting" at the end of the process.

Pleasant Hill is no longer facing the same immediate "deadline pressure" from the State. This creates a rare opportunity to pause and ensure that our path forward is not just compliant, but fiscally sustainable. I believe this community is worth the extra effort to build where the infrastructure already exists and where our natural assets can be preserved.

I look forward to seeing the Council lead with fiscal courage on March 16.

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

Form submitted on: 3/12/2026 12:23:15 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 146.70.230.134
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff 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: Friday, March 13, 2026 8:00:46 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.

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=18875 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: 2026 General Plan Land Use Study Session – Ensuring Zoning Equity Across All Five Districts
Question or Comment:: Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, As the City Council prepares for the General Plan Land Use Study Session on March 16, 2026, I am writing to urge a balanced and equitable approach to the proposed General Plan Amendments.

While the adoption of Ordinance No. 978 and the rezoning of 1,072 parcels were necessary steps to align with the 2040 General Plan and the State-mandated Housing Element, the upcoming Study Session provides a critical window to address remaining "zoning mistakes" or inconsistencies. As you review these potential amendments, I strongly request that the Council ensures the burden and benefit of these adjustments are distributed fairly across all five City Council Districts.

Focusing rezoning fixes or density increases primarily in one district risks undermining the principle of neighborhood equity. To maintain the character and stability of Pleasant Hill, the following points should be prioritized:

District-Wide Accountability: Any "fixes" to the zoning map should be evaluated for their cumulative impact on each of the five districts. No single neighborhood should disproportionately bear the weight of recent legislative oversights. Districts 1 and 4 have already absorbed a significant amount of housing so either 1), Districts 1 and 4 are included in the fixes, or 2) fixes isolated to only Districts 2, 3, and 5 should remain in those Districts. For example, removing mixed use in District 5 should be replaced by mixed use somewhere else in District 5, to be fair.

Consistency with General Plan 2040: Amendments must strictly adhere to the goals of the 2040 General Plan, ensuring that "housing-opportunity sites" are spread throughout the city rather than clustered in a single area.

Pushing all the housing opportunity sites to Districts 1 and 4 is inherently inequitable. Unless all 5 districts are included in the fixes, any targeted fixes that require replacement parcels should come from that District.

Transparency for Residents: Many residents in districts outside the downtown core expressed concerns during the hearings regarding a lack of notification. I encourage the Council to ensure that outreach for this Study Session is robust and inclusive of all five districts.

Pleasant Hill is a community of diverse neighborhoods. For our city to grow sustainably, our zoning must reflect a shared responsibility. I ask that you direct Staff to provide a district-by-district breakdown of any proposed changes to ensure that "fairness" is not just a goal, but a measurable outcome.

Thank you for your time and your dedication to the future of our city.

Sincerely,
Tenaya Smith
District 1
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/13/2026 7:55:20 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 146.70.230.131
Referrer Page: https://search.yahoo.com/
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Gordon Swidler
To: Lyone Conner
Subject: March 16 City Council Meeting, Rezoning
Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 11:06:59 PM
Attachments: Rezoning Outcome Scenarios on Julian Way.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Lyone,
I tried to submit this email through the web site, but it was rejected.

Dear City Council,
The Julian Woods Neighborhood agrees with the City Council that new housing is needed to meet demand, and new commercial development will enhance our tax base and quality of life.

However, any rezoning aiming to achieve these goals still needs to make sense.

In the case of Julian Way, we believe that the consultant and city staff may have failed to evaluate what happens when you rezone one side of a residential street from single family to commercial. Currently, the front lawns of the homes on Julian Way all face each other. Please take a look at our attached graphic.

With the new zoning that just took effect in November 2025, the front lawns that currently face each other, could instead be front lawns facing the backs of commercial buildings.

Imagine the current row of homes, and then a commercial building being placed right between them? Imagine if the home directly across from your house is replaced with the back wall of a commercial building? This is clearly not appropriate and was not thought through.

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Gordon Swidler
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Existing Today
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Commercial Frontage
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Rear of Commercial Building Front Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Proposed Rezoning Scenario A
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Commercial Frontage
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Rear of Commercial Building Front Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Proposed Rezoning Scenario B
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 11:51:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here 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=18879 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:: Balancing the Map: Zoning Equity for Districts 1 and 4 (March 16 Study Session) Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor and City Council,
As a resident concerned with the long-term integrity of our neighborhoods, I am writing regarding the March 16 General Plan Study Session.

While I understand the complexity of reconciling the 2040 General Plan with the recent rezoning of over 1,000 parcels, I am concerned that the current "corrections" may overlook the specific needs of Districts 1 and 4. For too long, zoning discussions have centered on the needs of other districts, while our districts are often treated as an afterthought or a "catch-all" for leftover density requirements.

As you review the zoning map this Monday, I urge you to consider the following for Districts 1 and 4:

Infrastructure Reality: Districts 1 and 4 face unique traffic and drainage constraints. Inappropriate, increased density within these zones require wholistic fixes. Without a district-specific infrastructure audit, this is a recipe for future problems.

Buffer Zone Consistency: In many parts of District 4 and District 1, current zoning creates jarring transitions between high-density and single-family homes. We need "fair fixes" that protect the quiet enjoyment of our homes, not just fixes that satisfy a spreadsheet.

Geographic Fairness: If "mistakes" are being corrected to lower density or add protections in other parts of the city, those same standards must be applied to the parcels in our districts. Equity means that Districts 1 and 4 shouldn't be the default locations for "overflow" units that other districts successfully lobby to remove.

Our neighborhoods are more than just lines on a map; they are the communities where we’ve invested our lives.

We ask that the Council looks at the entire city through a lens of fairness, ensuring that Districts 1 and 4 are not disproportionately impacted by the latest round of amendments.

We are watching this process closely and expect a map that respects every corner of Pleasant Hill equally.

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

Form submitted on: 3/13/2026 11:50:56 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 146.70.230.150
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: Saturday, March 14, 2026 5:44:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here Rezoning Outcome Scenarios on Julian Way (1).pdf * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18880 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:: Christine Will
Street Address:: 127 Julian Way
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 5103032027
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Julian Woods Rezoning
Question or Comment:: The Julian Woods Neighborhood agrees with the City Council that new housing is needed to meet demand, and new commercial development will enhance our tax base and quality of life. However, any rezoning aiming to achieve these goals still needs to make sense.

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.
-Christine Will
Upload File Attachment here: Rezoning Outcome Scenarios on Julian Way (1).pdf Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/14/2026 5:44:32 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 73.70.193.34
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/forms.aspx?FID=137 Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Existing Today
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Commercial Frontage
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Rear of Commercial Building Front Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Proposed Rezoning Scenario A
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Commercial Frontage
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Rear of Commercial Building Front Lawn
Front
Lawn
Front
Lawn
Proposed Rezoning Scenario B
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 7:15:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here Letter to City Council_031426.pdf * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18881 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:: Deana Rabbach
Street Address:: 23 Celia Drive
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 5103676987
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: General Plan - Community Involvement
Question or Comment:: Please record the attached letter.

Upload File Attachment here: Letter to City Council_031426.pdf Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/14/2026 7:15:34 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 107.128.55.240
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 March 14, 2026
Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. At this time, there is limited information available about the scope of the meeting or how the process will unfold, which makes it difficult to provide detailed feedback. However, I would like to share my sincere hope for what this process can become.

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

First, I respectfully ask that the Council undertake an honest and open review of the current plan. I appreciate that some Councilmembers have hosted community forums to listen to residents’ concerns regarding the changes. Those efforts are valued and meaningful.

However, none of these meetings have included City staff or the consultants who helped create the plan. Without them present, community members have not had the opportunity to ask questions, understand the reasoning behind certain decisions, or discuss constructive ways the plan could be improved.

The Council has acknowledged that outreach during the General Plan process did not adequately reach many of the property owners, most directly affected by the proposed changes. The Council has also recognized that significant revisions were made to the General Plan after the Housing Element was submitted to HCD, with limited opportunities for community feedback afterward. I appreciate that acknowledgment and hope this moment becomes an opportunity to improve engagement and transparency moving forward. My hope is that tonight begins a process where the Council and the community work together to identify areas where meaningful improvements can be made, improvements that both protect our established neighborhoods and support the additional housing our city needs. Achieving this balance will require time, transparency, and meaningful engagement with planning experts. Our community is worth that effort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the Council has acknowledged, the City should have done a better job directly contacting property owners who were most affected by the recent General Plan changes.

This is an opportunity to ensure that the same mistake does not happen again. I ask that the Council direct staff to develop a policy requiring the City to directly notify property owners whenever a General Plan amendment or rezoning is proposed that affects their property. This notification should include:
• Direct notice to the affected property owner and to all property owners within 500 feet of the site.
• Notification during both the General Plan amendment process and the rezoning process, if applicable.
• Clear, plain-language explanations describing what is being proposed and what it may mean for the property.

These notifications should be delivered directly to affected residents rather than relying solely on community newsletters or general announcements. Clear communication builds trust. When residents are properly informed, they are far more able to participate constructively in shaping the future of their community.

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

Respectfully,
Deana Rabbach
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 9:04:35 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.

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=18882 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:: Reconciliation of General Plan Amendments – Prioritizing Geographic Equity Question or Comment:: Honorable Mayor and Council Members, As a professional in urban planning, I am writing to provide comments ahead of the March 16 General Plan Land Use Study Session. The integrity of our Housing Element depends on a Zoning Map that is both internally consistent and equitably distributed. If the Council moves to correct "zoning mistakes" or land-use inconsistencies, it is imperative that these adjustments are applied fairly across all five districts to prevent a disproportionate concentration of density or the erosion of environmentally sensitive spaces.

In particular, the Council must address two critical areas where the current map fails to reflect the nuanced planning goals of the Housing Element and the General Plan 2040:

District 1: Morello Terraces and Infill Consistency
The Housing Element emphasizes the need for housing that is compatible with existing neighborhood scales. The current land-use designations near Morello Terraces present a technical inconsistency where the density targets may exceed the infrastructure capacity of the surrounding hillside topography.

The Planning Conflict: Over-zoning in this specific area risks violating the Housing Element’s commitment to "preserving the character of existing residential neighborhoods." The Correction: The Council should evaluate land-use amendments for District 1 that prioritize gentler densities, such as duplexes or clustered cottage housing, that respect the unique terrain of the Terraces while still meeting RHNA objectives through a more distributed, city-wide model.

District 4: Paso Nogal Hill and Environmental Preservation The Housing Element and General Plan 2040 both identify the protection of environmental resources as a pillar of community health. The "zoning mistake" regarding the potential for high-density development on Paso Nogal Hill contradicts the city's stated goals for hillside preservation and wildfire safety.

The Planning Conflict: Allowing intensive residential designations on Paso Nogal ignores the principle of ensuring safe, accessible open spaces for all residents. From a planning standpoint, converting sensitive hillside land into high-density residential pockets creates significant, unmitigatable impacts on emergency egress and active transportation routes.

The Correction: I urge the Council to re-designate Paso Nogal Hill to a category that reflects its actual utility as a community resource and environmental buffer, shifting some density requirements to transit-oriented corridors and flatter, underutilized vacant parcels.

Conclusion
A General Plan is only as strong as its weakest entry. Addressing the discrepancies at Morello Terraces and Paso Nogal is not just a local concern; it is a matter of city-wide planning ethics. We must ensure that the burden of meeting state housing mandates does not fall unfairly on specific neighborhoods due to oversight or mapping errors. I ask the Council to direct staff to bring these two areas into alignment with our broader goals for environmental health and neighborhood character.

Regards,
Estella Cane
District 4
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/15/2026 9:04:30 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 146.70.230.147
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
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, March 15, 2026 9:43:47 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.

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=18883 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:: Restoring Planning Integrity in the General Plan Study Session Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to you today as a resident deeply invested in the future of Pleasant Hill. The Study Session on March 16 is a critical juncture. While the previous Council may have drafted the current General Plan, this Council now holds the pen. You have the power, and the moral obligation, to correct flaws in a plan that many of you have already acknowledged as problematic.

A General Plan should be the sturdy foundation upon which our community flourishes. However, current "zoning mistakes" act as imbalances that threaten the harmony of our neighborhoods. True planning integrity requires that we cultivate equity across all five districts, rather than focusing on only one area while leaving others to bear the brunt of oversight.

Specifically, we must address the structural issues in Districts 1 and 4:

District 1 (Morello Terraces): Under Housing Element Program F, we committed to infill that remains compatible with our existing fabric. However, the current high-density designations at Morello Terraces exceed the infrastructure and physical capacity of the hillside topography. We must modify Program F to explicitly include "topographic sensitivity" as a criterion, favoring "Missing Middle" densities, like duplexes or townhomes, that fit the terrain rather than overwhelming it.

District 4 (Paso Nogal Hill): The zoning on Paso Nogal Hill under Program F is a significant misalignment.

Placing high-density residential pockets on a hillside defined by wildfire risks and limited emergency egress creates unmitigatable safety impacts. I urge the Council to re-designate this land to reflect its utility as an environmental buffer, shifting density requirements to the transit-oriented, flatter commercial corridors.

Additionally, using Program EEE with taxpayer money to give to developers to build on the hillsides is a perverse incentive.

Pleasant Hill is more than a balance sheet; it is where we build our lives. We are no longer racing against the immediate pressure of state deadlines, providing us a rare opportunity to pause and ensure our path forward is the best one for our city. I urge you to adopt a Community-First Framework:

Direct Engagement: Host three workshops facilitated by City staff and consultants, allowing residents to ask questions and provide informed feedback directly to those who shaped the plan.

Transparent Notification: Establish a formal policy of direct, plain-language notification for any property owner (and those within 500 feet) affected by a proposed General Plan amendment or rezoning.

Collaborative Vision: Work with our State Senators and Representatives to explore a more community-centered approach with HCD, ensuring that our updates meet our housing obligations without sacrificing the established character of our neighborhoods.

Is it "too hard" or "too expensive" to get this right? I believe this community is our greatest asset, and it is worth the effort to ensure our future is built on a solid, transparent foundation. Please, have the courage to correct these mistakes fairly for every district.

Respectfully,
Kris C.

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

Form submitted on: 3/15/2026 9:43:42 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 146.70.230.147
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff 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, March 15, 2026 1:29:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18884 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:: Aaron Torop
Street Address:: 283 Boyd Road
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 7275427515
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Support for Rezoning Plan
Question or Comment:: Hi,
I am a rabbi who lives in Pleasant Hill. I want to voice my support for the rezoning plan that will allow us to build more housing in Pleasant Hill and help keep the city more affordable. It is so important for our communities to be diverse, accessible, and affordable. There is simply not enough housing stock across our county, and anything we can do to encourage more units is important.

As a Rabbi, Judaism strongly believes in the right of people to have access to shelter. Our tradition teaches that we must provide shelter for all - especially those who do not have enough to afford the same kind of houses many of us do. Our commitment to our neighbors - and keeping them our neighbors - calls us to find new ways to help house everyone in our community.

Thank you,
Rabbi Aaron Torop
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/15/2026 1:29:33 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 4.79.52.48
Referrer Page: https://www.phillca.gov/1666/Comprehensive-Zoning-Ordinance-Amendment Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137 From: Tara Legaspi
To: Zac Shess; City Council
Cc: [email protected]; Lesley Pope
Subject: Request to Rezone Beatrice Rd Properties to Single-Family & Reconsider Cleaveland/Beatrice Housing Plan Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:45:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Members of the Pleasant Hill City Council,
Our neighborhood continues to have serious concerns regarding the decision to rezone the Beatrice Rd/Cleaveland Rd area for multi-level condominium development.

This parcel, owned by Contra Costa County, currently functions as a flood zone adjacent to Grayson Creek. The property was added late in the Housing Element process as a reactionary attempt to meet state housing requirements. Unfortunately, this decision was made without meaningful notice or input from the surrounding community and without engagement with the property owners, including the property owners adjacent to the proposed development and Contra Costa County who owns the vacant land. Our household had been monitoring the Housing Element discussions as they unfolded and never saw any mention of developing this much-needed natural resource.

Residents of Beatrice Rd, Roberta Ave, and Soule Ave respectfully request that the City Council reconsider this decision. As an act of goodwill and in recognition of the lack of community engagement in the original rezoning decision, we ask the Council to rezone all affected properties, including the five single-family homes on the end of Beatrice Rd and Soule Ave, to single-family zoning.

We understand that if the 149 housing units currently proposed for this site are removed from the Housing Element inventory, the City will need to identify alternative locations to accommodate comparable housing capacity.

We believe there are several more appropriate opportunities that would support housing development while avoiding irreversible impacts to existing single-family neighborhoods:

1. Black Angus Site Opportunity
The City could explore redevelopment of the Black Angus site and pursue grant funding for infrastructure improvements, including a pedestrian bridge along the Highway 680 overpass to better connect future housing to the Pleasant Hill BART station.

2. Revitalization of Large Vacant Commercial Sites
Pleasant Hill has several large commercial properties that have remained vacant or underutilized for years. Locations such as the former Bed Bath & Beyond site and the Rite Aid property could be redesigned to include mixed-use development with housing above retail.

3. Mixed-Use Redevelopment Along Contra Costa Boulevard Contra Costa Boulevard already serves as a commercial corridor and is far better suited for mixed-use housing development that would not fundamentally alter established single-family neighborhoods.

Our community recognizes the importance of providing housing and meeting state requirements. However, the current proposal places a disproportionate burden on a small residential neighborhood while bypassing locations that are better suited for higher density development.

We respectfully urge the City Council to remove the Beatrice Rd/Cleaveland Rd development plans from consideration. At a minimum, we ask that the Council vote on Monday to rezone the five single-family homes at the end of Beatrice Rd and Soule Ave back to single-family zoning as a gesture of good faith.

We also encourage the Council to work collaboratively with residents to develop a thoughtful, long-term vision for housing in Pleasant Hill, one that balances state requirements with neighborhood preservation, infrastructure realities, and community input.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Tara Legaspi
520 Beatrice Rd, Pleasant Hill
From: Dom Legaspi
To: City Council; Haley Croffoot
Cc: tarajlegaspi; Zac Shess
Subject: Public Comment for Mar 16 Council meeting
Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 9:13:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Greetings,
I am writing regarding the upcoming study session on the recently approved rezoning, particularly the parcels in the Beatrice/Cleaveland area. While I understand the region’s need for additional housing, the decision to rezone existing single-family parcels in a longestablished neighborhood remains deeply concerning. For years, residents of Poet’s Corner have consistently opposed redevelopment of the vacant land near Grayson Creek, and the underlying reasons have not changed. This area sits squarely within a FEMA-designated 100- year floodplain, and the creek already overflows during heavy rains. The Housing Element’s assumption that flood risk can simply be mitigated through development overlooks the cumulative impacts downstream and the real drainage constraints that residents have already experienced firsthand.

Addressing those flood risks would likely require significant infrastructure investment that only becomes economically feasible with dense, multifamily construction. That type of development would fundamentally alter the character of the surrounding neighborhood, bringing substantial traffic increases, years of construction disruption, and pressure to create new access routes across Grayson Creek through narrow residential streets such as Beatrice, Roberta and Soule. Streets in this area were never designed to support that level of density or through-traffic.

I am also concerned that multiple occupied single-family homes were rezoned away from single-family, including my own. It is difficult to see a planning justification for rezoning these parcels unless the intent is to enable eventual redevelopment that would displace existing residents. The Beatrice/Cleaveland area also supports a thriving riparian corridor with mature oak trees that are part of Pleasant Hill’s natural identity. As the Council considers potential adjustments to the rezoning plan, I urge you to heed the wishes of your citizens. Please correct the zoning of the existing developed and occupied parcels back to single-family and take meaningful steps to preserve the character, safety, and environmental integrity of the Poet’s Corner neighborhood.

Thank you,
Dom Legaspi
520 Beatrice Rd
From: [email protected]
To: Ethan Bindernagel; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Lyone Conner Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 6:44:05 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.

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=18885 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:: Samantha Roberts
Street Address:: 635 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant hill
Phone Number:: 9257837012
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Rezoning
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. I write as a concerned resident who cares deeply about this city. I believe that you, as our elected officials, also care deeply about Pleasant Hill and about the responsibility you carry to serve this community and help it thrive.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 6:43:50 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 67.169.165.12
Referrer Page: http://m.facebook.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 16, 2026 6:48:20 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.

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

Upload File Attachment here Pleasant Hill Community Proposed Underutilized Sites for Review.pdf * indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18886 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:: Samantha Roberts
Street Address:: 635 Maureen Lane
City: Pleasant hill
Phone Number:: 9257837012
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Potential rezoning sites
Question or Comment:: Dear Mayor Shess and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the City Council Study Session scheduled for March 16, 2026, concerning potential amendments to the General Plan. As the City considers next steps, I would like to submit a list of potential sites that could be evaluated for future housing opportunities, or alternatively, sites for which the City could clarify why they were previously considered but ultimately not used, or not used at a higher density.

Many Pleasant Hill residents have spent considerable time reviewing parcels throughout the city to contribute constructively to the conversation around housing. The goal of this effort has been to identify vacant or significantly underutilized properties that may be better suited for accommodating additional housing while helping preserve the character and stability of established neighborhoods.

Attached is a list of parcels identified through this process, along with brief explanations for why each site was included. These parcels represent more than 80 acres of land that are either vacant or significantly underutilized within the City. Importantly, the list includes fewer than a dozen site groupings, though several contain multiple APNs. In the staff report, the areas proposed for Council consideration total approximately 48 acres. Therefore, not all of these sites would necessarily need to be changed if the City were to approach HCD with a proposal to “swap” certain sites. Importantly, these sites are either vacant or significantly underutilized, creating an opportunity for the City to meet its housing needs while also increasing the tax base through more viable commercial uses and reduced vacancy. At the same time, this approach helps preserve some of our most valued neighborhoods. Additionally, the sites are more evenly distributed across the city, with locations in each Council district. This approach would better align with Program F of the Housing Element, which seeks to increase allowable densities and residential capacity in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), while also distributing housing opportunities more evenly rather than concentrating changes in either lower income or racially concentrated districts.

In addition, we have heard Senator Grayson indicate that his office is willing to work with the City and communicate with HUD to explore whether adjustments to the Housing Element could better reflect the needs of the community while still meeting state housing requirements.

This work was undertaken by community members in the hope that it could contribute to a more balanced and thoughtful approach to meeting the City’s housing obligations. Residents understand the importance of creating additional housing opportunities and have worked to identify options that could help achieve that goal while minimizing disruption to long-established neighborhoods and have the potential to provide additional commercial opportunities.

With that in mind, I respectfully ask that the Council and City staff carefully review the sites included in the attached list, along with any other similar opportunities that may exist. We also ask that the City provide clear communication and outreach to the community regarding how these parcels are evaluated and why certain sites may or may not be considered suitable for higher-density or mixed-use development.

By examining underutilized land more closely and engaging openly with residents, the City has an opportunity to respond to community concerns while still advancing important housing goals.

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

Upload File Attachment here: Pleasant Hill Community Proposed Underutilized Sites for Review.pdf Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 3/16/2026 6:47:59 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 146.75.154.193
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.phillca.gov/Forms.aspx?FID=137

Page 1 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

It would be helpful to know how many acres within the City are currently designated as PUD. Is there a publicly available list of all All
PUD

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

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

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

Page 4 of 4 ends

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

Members of the Pleasant Hill City Council:

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

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

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

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

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18887 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Christina Francis
Street Address:: 1972 Peggy Drive
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety & Policy: From a policy standpoint, rezoning active flood control land for medium-density housing seems like a liability-heavy exercise that ignores the geographical reality of the site.

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

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

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

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

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.phillca.gov/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=18877 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.) and are available for public viewing.:

Name:: Mark Gomez
Street Address:: 116 Julian Way
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Mark & Kalene Gomez
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

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

Dear Ms Croffoot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also have to question section 18.22.040.A, which requires that "Buildings that incorporate over 50,000 square feet of office space shall include employee showers, clothes changing rooms, and lockers".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose and Intent Zoning Districts:
“Protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, overcrowding, excessive traffic, excessive on-street parking, insufficient parking” and “Minimize the out-of-scale appearance of large homes, parking areas, and other development relative to their lot size and to other homes in a neighborhood.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention.

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

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

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

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

Upload File Attachment here: PH City Council - Community Involvement.docx Additional Information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name:

Street Address:

City*
Phone Number:

Email:*
Subject:*
Question or Comment:

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

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

Name::

Street Address::

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

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

Upload File Attachment here: PH City Council - Community Involvement.docx Additional Information:

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