From: Deana Rabbach
To: Andrei Obolenskiy; [email protected]; City Council Cc: Todd Rabbach; Diana Urcuyo; Sergio Urcuyo; Cris Branch; [email protected]; Tom Branch; [email protected]; Josephine Greer; [email protected] Greer; Elaine Ernst; Christina Francis; Sarah Kelley; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Zac Shess; Lyone Conner; [email protected]
Subject: 2026 General Plan Land Use Study Session: East Vivian Neighborhood Concerns – Rezoning Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2026 8:19:43 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Andrei, Mayor Shess, City Council & Mr. Fujimoto,
Andrei, I want to thank you for your continued updates regarding Pleasant Hill's General Plan and the proposed zoning changes affecting the East Vivian neighborhood.
I want to reiterate a point that I believe has been made abundantly clear through the numerous public comments, emails, letters, phone calls, and in-person meetings with City Council members and staff over the last year: East Vivian residents do NOT support high-density or mixed-use rezoning in our neighborhood. I would like to ask that this formally go on record for the 2026 General Plan Land Use Study Session hearing taking place on October 19, 2026.
The East Vivian Neighborhood's position has been consistent from the very beginning. We strongly oppose these zoning changes and want to preserve the single-family residential character of our community.
While we appreciate your efforts to explore removing the commercial component from the proposed mixed-use designation, removing commercial uses does not resolve our fundamental concern about increased residential density. A residential mixed-use designation that allows significantly higher-density development is not the outcome residents have been advocating for, nor should it be characterized as a compromise supported by the neighborhood.
To put it simply, residents do not want two-story or four-story apartment buildings constructed in their front yards, backyards, or immediately adjacent to their single-family homes. We purchased homes in an established residential neighborhood, and we want to preserve the character, privacy, and quality of life that make East Vivian a desirable place to live.
We recognize that California's housing laws place certain requirements on cities. However, we also believe the City Council has a responsibility to explore every available option to protect established single-family neighborhoods while meeting its housing obligations. State housing requirements should not automatically mean that East Vivian must be designated for substantially higher-density development.
I am also concerned by the repeated suggestion that these zoning changes are unavoidable. If that were truly the case, one has to question the purpose of the numerous planning sessions, community meetings, and discussions that have taken place over the past year. Surely, the intent of these efforts was to explore viable alternatives, listen to residents, and identify solutions that balance the City's housing obligations with the preservation of established neighborhoods.
We recognize that Pleasant Hill was under significant pressure to meet the state's Housing Element deadlines and submit a compliant housing plan, particularly given the legal challenges the City faced in January 2023. No one wants to see Pleasant Hill exposed to another lawsuit or the potential consequences of the state's Builder's Remedy provisions. We understand the urgency under which the City was operating, but that urgency should not mean that the zoning decisions made at the time are beyond reconsideration.
If the City's primary objective is to accommodate higher-density housing along major corridors with convenient access to public transportation, then why isn't Mangini Farms being prioritized as a potential location? With its available land and potential to accommodate more comprehensive development, it warrants serious consideration as an alternative to introducing high-density housing into an established single-family neighborhood. I drive by that large vacant plot of land regularly and, quite frankly, am baffled as to why such a substantial parcel of land is not being seriously considered as a potential solution to our City's housing requirements, particularly when established single-family neighborhoods like East Vivian are being asked to accommodate increased density. It simply defies logic that a property of this size would not be prioritized for consideration before fundamentally altering the character of existing residential neighborhoods.
We are not opposed to Pleasant Hill meeting its housing obligations or planning responsibly for future growth. What we oppose is placing the burden of that growth on established residential neighborhoods when other potential alternatives deserve thorough evaluation. East Vivian residents have consistently asked the City to explore those alternatives, and we expect those concerns to be meaningfully reflected in the final General Plan decisions.
As our District 2 representative, we are asking you to advocate for the position residents have consistently communicated, rather than advancing a compromise that does not reflect our wishes.
With the General Plan consultants expected to present their findings in October, we ask that the City Council give serious consideration to preserving East Vivian's existing single-family residential designation. There should be no uncertainty about where East Vivian residents stand at this point.
We appreciate your willingness to engage with our neighborhood, but we want to be absolutely clear: Our opposition is not simply to commercial development. It is to the high-density and mixed-use rezoning of our established single-family neighborhood.
We hope you will take that position into account as the City undergoes the Study Session.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
East Vivian Neighborhood Residents
Pleasant Hill, District 2
Deana & Todd Rabbach (Celia Drive)
Susanna & Rob Toso (Celia Drive)
Diana & Sergio Urcuyo (Celia Drive)
Cris and Tom Branch (Celia Drive)
Beverly Branch (Celia Drive)
Elaine & Dave Ernst (Celia Drive)
Josephine & Scott Greer (East Vivian Drive)
Sarah & Joshua Kelley (East Vivian Drive)
Christina & Tim Francis (Peggy Drive)
On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 6:21 AM Andrei Obolenskiy <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning Deana,
As your neighbor and district representative I understand the emotions and frustration that come with these 30,000-foot view decisions. It can feel insensitive when discussing neighborhoods, acronyms, and the overall general plan/zoning discussions.
However, I did have several town hall meetings to ask questions in an environment that allowed all of us to discuss the situation and provide understanding in regard to the state laws, under arching reasons why the properties listed in this email can’t be used and solicit feedback on potential solutions. These solutions need to ensure we are not fined 10’s of thousands of dollars per day, sued by pro-housing groups, or have our housing plan decertified by the state board HCD.
I can tell you it is a very sobering experience to go to the planning commissioner, and councilmember training seminars and learn how much our hands are tied. Around 1200 bills in and around housing are put forward each year so navigating is a challenge. Additionally, as discussed in the last council meeting the next cycle will be starting in a few years. From my understanding the housing cycle will begin in 2027 and the expectation will be to add more zoning. Let me be clear, all neighborhoods near major arterials will be affected by zoning. This is unavoidable. If this is to change it has to happen at a state level.
In the feedback I received from neighbors it was most important not to have commercial in the East Vivian interior. This was the compromise. I can tell you all that even if the zoning did not change a small developer could upzone the neighborhood parcel by parcel without it.
Putting 4-6 units on each site depending on current and pending legislation. The density difference change goes from 4-6 units per acre currently to tripe that adding ADU’s and JADU’s. This is with a ministerial approval which means the city has to approve these housing units. In contrast Mixed Use designation is usually 20-40 units per acre, requires city planning approval, architectural approval, and design review. It would require significant parcel consolidation, and have no commercial aspect. Based on feedback and the constrains of state laws this is the best proposal we have for the current situation.
Thank you,
___________________________________
Andrei Obolenskiy (he/him)
Vice Mayor 2026
City Councilmember District 2
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Office: 925.671.5270
From: Deana Rabbach <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:51 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Andrei Obolenskiy <[email protected]> Cc: Deana Rabbach <[email protected]>; Todd Rabbach <[email protected]>; Diana Urcuyo <[email protected]>; Sergio Urcuyo <[email protected]>; Cris Branch <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Tom Branch <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Josephine Greer <[email protected]>; [email protected] Greer <[email protected]>; Elaine Ernst <[email protected]>; [email protected]; DanielNeighbor Langon <[email protected]>; Christina Francis <[email protected]>; Neighbor Jessica & Lloyd <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sarah Kelley <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: East Vivian Neighborhood Concerns – Rezoning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing on behalf of myself and several East Vivian (District 2) neighbors copied on this email regarding last night’s City Council Study Session.
Several of us attended the session feeling hopeful but left disheartened and frustrated. We are residents who have raised—or are currently raising—our families in this single-family neighborhood. Some of us have lived here for only a few years, while others grew up in these very homes. The character and stability of this neighborhood are precisely why we chose to live here.
We have all been impacted by the rezoning process, yet none of us were aware it was underway until August 2025. While planning discussions may have occurred since 2019, the fact that the vast majority of affected residents were unaware of them highlights a significant gap in communication which has been recognized by City Council.
Based on the numerous public comments, emails, letters, phone calls, and inperson meetings with Council members and staff, it should be clear that East Vivian residents are NOT supportive of high-density or mixed-use rezoning in our neighborhood. Our position has been consistent from the beginning: we strongly oppose these changes and wish to preserve the single-family nature of our community. None of us want a 2-story or 4-story apartment building in our back yard or front yard. If there is any confusion about our neighborhood’s point of view, we are more than happy to schedule a District 2 meeting with the entire City Council.
We respectfully ask the Council to seriously consider the attached alternative sites to meet state housing requirements. Many residents have submitted viable options and would appreciate a clear explanation as to why those alternatives are not being pursued. For example, sites such as Mangini Delu—with approximately 25.9 acres of largely vacant land currently designated for low-density housing—appear to be a more suitable opportunity. We understand that prior plans for this site significantly evolved from 2019 to 2022 based on community input, why is that? We ask that our neighborhood be given the same consideration.
While we have heard that development in our neighborhood may be unlikely or challenging, the possibility alone is deeply concerning. It would only take one or two property sales to a developer to initiate changes that could fundamentally alter the character of our neighborhood.
We also want to emphasize the importance of accurately representing community feedback. There appears to be a disconnect between the input residents have consistently provided and how that input was conveyed during the Study Session.
Clear and faithful representation of community perspectives is essential to maintaining trust and fostering productive dialogue.
We respectfully request continued and direct engagement with District 2 residents, who are most impacted by these decisions, and we welcome the opportunity to meet with the full Council to discuss our concerns further.
Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration of our community’s voice.
Sincerely,
Deana & Todd Rabbach (Celia Drive)
Diana & Sergio Urcuyo (Celia Drive)
Cris and Tom Branch (Celia Drive)
Beverly Branch (Celia Drive)
Elaine & Dave Ernst (Celia Drive)
Daniel Langon (Celia Drive)
Josephine & Scott Greer (East Vivian Drive)
Andrea Bidwell & Will Pritchard (East Vivian Drive)
Sarah & Joshua Kelley (East Vivian Drive)
Christina & Tim Francis (Peggy Drive)
Cindy Sayles (Marta Drive)
From: Liz Harrison
To: Amanda Szakats; Andrei Obolenskiy; Belle La; Sue Noack; Zac Shess Cc: Ethan Bindernagel; janet.coleson; Lyone Conner; Liz Payne; Troy Fujimoto Subject: Fw: Public Comment for the 10/19 Rezoning Study Session Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 4:16:47 PM
Attachments: Outlook-Descriptio
Hello Mayor Shess and City Councilmembers,
Please see the email below, which was submitted for your consideration. As this message is related to an upcoming agenda item, it will be included as public comment for the meeting.
Thank you,
Liz Harrison
Administrative Analyst II & Deputy City Clerk
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Direct Phone: (925) 671-5283
[email protected]
From: Marshall Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 3:48 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment for the 10/19 Rezoning Study Session CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Hello,
First, I'd like to congratulate Council on successfully implementing the zoning changes that were called for in the Housing Element. Pleasant Hill, like the rest of the Bay Area, is facing an affordability crisis caused by decades of underbuilding housing. The zoning changes that Council adopted earlier this year were a vital first step in relieving the constraints on development that caused that crisis. I'd particularly like to thank my own Councilmember for her remarks at that meeting that we should pursue additional measures to increase the production of new housing.
A number of concerns were raised at that meeting by both Council and members of the public.
I won't be able to attend next week's meeting, and my thoughts on housing are always far too voluminous to fit into a three-minute speaking slot, so I'll provide my thoughts on those concerns here.
1) A number of members of the public expressed concern about a collection of parcels near Beatrice Road that were zoned for high-density residential, apparently several decades ago.
My recollection from the meeting is that these parcels are owned by the water district and used for flood control, and were likely re-zoned for high density residential during a previous housing cycle in order to allow the city to meet its RHNA numbers on paper despite the negligible probability of development. I agree that these parcels should be rezoned to something like open space (and indeed should never have been upzoned in the first place), but I do not believe that this is time sensitive. To be frank, if the water district wanted to put housing in this particular flood catchment, they would have done it many years ago. If Council chooses to make other changes that would require an EIR, it may make sense to make this change (and accompanying upzoning of other parcels to ensure no net loss), but this concern by itself is not urgent enough to require a mid-cycle Housing Element revision. 2) The last meeting saw a great deal of written public comment about the Morello and Paso Nogal sites, and I suspect that this meeting will also see discussion of this subject even though it's technically outside of the meeting's purview. I believe that the inclusion of these sites in our adopted Housing Element was, much like the upzoning of the flood catchment area several decades ago, a bad faith action by the city to get the Housing Element certified without actually demonstrating the capacity to meet our housing needs. Both sites have significant obstacles to development, which is why they haven't been developed. Public comment before the Housing Element was adopted indicated that a previous attempt to develop the Paso Nogal site had failed because the fire department was concerned that they could not service the site.
The sloped nature of the Morello site means that it would require a fairly high density for unsubsidized affordable housing to be financially viable, and despite the protestations of much of the community, the site wasn't actually rezoned for a particularly high density (if developed at maximum density, it would be visually very similar to the surrounding neighborhoods, i.e. scattered two-story buildings). As such, the city should not have counted that site toward its low-income numbers.
All of that being said (and I have said it all many times before), this is also not time-sensitive for the same reason that the flood catchment site is not time-sensitive. If these sites were going to be developed, it would have already happened. There are just too many constraints on their development for that to take place. We should not be panicking about the development of undevelopable sites.
3) Some residents expressed concern about some properties adjoining Gregory Lane, which currently front onto side streets and can now be reconfigured to front onto Gregory. I am sympathetic to staff and Planning Commission, which would presumably like to activate those streetscapes but cannot do so because previous generations of planners decided to have backyards facing onto a major thoroughfare. However, that ship has unfortunately sailed. It's not reasonable to make that transition by having individual properties change their orientation over several decades, since (as was pointed out at the meeting) this would result in the side streets being a confounding patchwork of the fronts and backs of buildings. I'm hopeful that this can be rectified without an EIR, since the main change involves the orientation of the buildings rather than their permitted uses, but that would be a question for staff. It should be noted that a number of properties along Shirley Drive are similarly expected to pirouette on their foundations, and Council should address those properties as well. 4) Although it didn't come up much during the previous meeting, Councilmember Obolenskiy indicated that he had heard substantial negative feedback regarding the change of Sherman Acres from pure residential to mixed use. As someone who has lived and worked in a residential to mixed use conversion, I want to again emphasize that this kind of change can be absolutely delightful when executed well, and that the issue with the rezoning was the execution rather than the concept. Instead of stripping the mixed-use designation entirely, Council should reduce the permitted uses to be more in line with the character of the neighborhood. Swap meets and nightclubs should not be allowed, but there's no issue with things like light offices. Indeed, I strongly support removing the current provision limiting office space to 35% of square footage, since offices are the exact kind of low intensity use that we should be encouraging.
5) During Council discussion at the last meeting, Councilmember La expressed support for finding additional opportunities to permit more housing, such as the former Bed Bath and Beyond site and the former Black Angus site. That discussion is technically not in the purview of this meeting, but may still come up due to no-net-loss requirements if Council chooses to downzone the sites that the meeting is about. Moreover, if Council chooses to take a course of action that requires an EIR, that may be an opportunity to add those sites even if adding them is not required by no-net-loss.
Council expressed the opinion at the previous meeting that those sites should be kept in reserve for the next RHNA cycle, and I disagree for two reasons. First, the city's RHNA numbers are, at least in part, based on the developable land in the city limits, so if we put housing on that land, it will affect our housing allocation during the next cycle. (Note that this also applies to the Mangini property, which will continue to inflate our RHNA numbers as long as it lies vacant.) Second, the main deliverable that Council should be focused on is not a certified Housing Element (a document that, while important, is ultimately a very impressive doorstop), but actual housing that people can actually live in. As HCD admished us while rejecting one of our Housing Element drafts, this is not a box-checking exercise. The sooner that housing gets built, the sooner people can live in it, and if that's inconvenient for the city's paperwork, then that's a price that's worth paying. It should also be noted that, unless no-netloss is a consideration, the city can upzone those sites without claiming them as Housing Opportunity Sites, which would still keep them free for the next cycle. Whether that's costeffective in terms of an EIR is, of course, a separate issue.
I am, again, sorry that I won't be able to attend the meeting in person, but you will all be in my thoughts. I encourage you to fight like tigers to make Pleasant Hill a pleasant, affordable place to live for future generations by allowing for the production of more housing and ensuring that the new mixed-use areas are sensible.
Thank you,
Marshall Lewis