Pleasant Hill architectural review commission asks Greystar for studies before approving removal of two Woodcreek ponds

Pleasant Hill — The Pleasant Hill Architectural Review Commission voted unanimously on March 19 to continue review of ENT20230045, a proposal by Woodcreek Apartments’ manager Greystar California Inc., and asked the applicant to return with feasibility data and safety measures before the commission acts.

At the meeting, planning staff recommended approving a planting plan for Pond 3 but urged restoration of Pond 7 to a water feature. Jill Toney, director of construction for Greystar California Inc., said the two ponds were dredged and partially filled in 2023 to reduce significant water loss and cited a biologist report dated March 6, 2023, that she said showed minimal environmental impact. Toney told the commission that water usage savings measured over a six‑month period preceding July 2024 totaled 529,618 gallons and that the backfill-only bid for clean soil was about $160,000.

“The wasting of potable water and the cost associated with that waste of water was the reason why the ponds were decided to be removed,” Toney said, adding that the work stopped once the applicant learned a city permit was required.

Residents and an HOA representative urged restoration. Barbara Covello, who said she has lived at Woodcreek for more than 30 years, told the commission the ponds were a primary reason she moved to the property and called the drained, unfilled pits an “attractive nuisance” that poses a hazard to children and pets. Rosie Madaw, speaking for an HOA across the street, said Woodcreek’s after‑the‑fact filling without a permit undermined neighborhood character and warned that approving one filled pond could set a precedent for more removals.

Commissioners pressed for numbers and options rather than a binary choice. Commissioner Kapoor made a motion, seconded by another commissioner, directing the applicant to come back with a study evaluating concrete (hard) bottoms for Ponds 3 and 7, a comparative analysis with the other nine ponds on site if concrete bottoms are deemed unviable, a soil study for the pond that was backfilled, and a more robust landscape plan for Pond 7 should restoration to a water feature prove infeasible. The motion also requested interim fencing to address safety concerns. The item was continued to the first ARC meeting in May (May 7, 2026). The vote recorded in the meeting was Yes: Commissioner Kapoor; Yes: Commissioner Weir; Yes: Chair Michelle Nelson.

Staff described the application as an after‑the‑fact permit because the two ponds were drained in 2023 before the city’s review; records show one pond was refilled with dirt and another left drained. Planning staff noted the proposal should comply with the city’s multifamily design guidelines and suggested the applicant consider features such as benches, boulders or pathways to integrate any new landscape with surrounding open space. Staff recommended acceptance of a CEQA exemption as part of the permit review process, subject to conditions including soil testing if the commission allows filling and planting.

Toney said Greystar is willing to perform soil testing and to incorporate benches, rock features and pet‑safe plantings from the city’s master plant list if the commission requires them. She also said that some residents prefer restored water features while others want accessible green space, and that utility charges partially billed to residents average about $140 per month. Toney said the property was purchased under bond financing and that the owner is the California Community Housing Authority; at the end of the bond term, the property will revert to the City of Pleasant Hill.

Commissioners emphasized the need for clear feasibility data and a timeline: several members said Pond 3 could be landscaped if justified, but Pond 7’s size and its visual relationship to the neighboring development argued for restoration or at least a careful study of a hard‑bottom retrofit and the equipment required to sustain a water feature. Several commissioners also requested a quicker turnaround than the two‑year gap since the matter was last before the commission.

The commission’s request is procedural: it asks the applicant to return with specified studies and plans by the May meeting and does not itself order immediate changes to the site. If the applicant does not meet conditions in a future approval or if violations are found, staff indicated there are enforcement avenues for an after‑the‑fact permit. The commission’s next step will be to review the studies and either schedule a decision or set additional conditions when the item returns on May 7.