Pleasant Hill City Council
April 17, 2023

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
APRIL 17, 2023
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM
The meeting will be held both in person at
City Hall, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
and remotely via Zoom in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act Watch on YouTube at: www.pleasanthillca.org/councilmeeting To provide comments via teleconference, click on the meeting link and enter the meeting ID and Passcode:

Meeting link: www.zoom.us
Meeting ID: 828 6954 8975
Passcode: 485798
The meeting ID and Passcode will change each meeting. See more information on Public Participation Options below.

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 1 April 17, 2023
City Offices, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Telephone (925) 671-5267

MAYOR TIMOTHY FLAHERTY COUNCILMEMBER SUE NOACK

VICE MAYOR MATTHEW RINN COUNCILMEMBER ZAC SHESS

COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN VINSON
Options for observing the meeting and participating in public comment are provided below.

Public Communication. The public is welcome to address the City Council on items on the Consent Calendar or other items not listed on the agenda but within the Council’s jurisdiction during the general Public Comment period.

There is an opportunity for the public to comment on other agenda items at the time they are discussed. Comments are generally limited to three minutes.

Public Participation Options
1) Watch the Meeting via Youtube Livestream at www.pleasanthillca.org/councilmeeting. 2) Submit Written Comments by 4 pm the Day of the Meeting to [email protected] (comments received by deadline will be provided to the City Council before the meeting). Please specify that the correspondence is for public comment at the Council meeting. 3) Make Public Comment During the Meeting
When the Mayor invites public comment (or public comments on specific agenda items), you may participate in one of the following three ways:
a. Via Zoom
Go to www.Zoom.us using your computer/smart device and enter the Meeting ID and Passcode provided near the top of this page. We ask that you state your name and city of residence for the record when you start your comments. Please use the "Raise hand" feature in Zoom. You will not be seen or heard until it is your turn to speak. You will be invited into the meeting and asked to speak when it is your turn.

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 April 17, 2023
b. Via Phone
Call (669) 900-6833 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID and Passcode. Press *9 to “raise your hand” to alert staff that you wish to speak.
c. In Person
Members of the public may attend the meeting in person and may speak on any matter within the City Council's jurisdiction. Please fill out a speaker's card, available at the entry to the Council Chambers, and turn it in to the City Clerk Recorder.

If, due to a disability, a reasonable accommodation is needed to participate in this meeting, please refer to the Providing Accessible Communication to the Public Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and AB 2449 document online at www.pleasanthillca.org/accessiblecommunications and contact the ADA Coordinator 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 671-5221 or via California Relay at 711.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available to the public in the City’s Public Records Portal at https://cityarchive.pleasanthillca.org/WebLink/ (click on City Council Agenda Packets) or by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 925- 671-5221.

City Council Meeting Recordings and Broadcasts.

Recorded City Council meetings are broadcast on Comcast Channel 28, Wave Channel 1029, and AT&T UVerse Channel 99 on the Wednesday following the meeting. Video recordings are generally available within 48 hours of the meeting, and may be viewed on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/MeetingVideos and selecting “City Council” from the meeting groups.

Agendas are Available for Review on the City Hall official noticing bulletin board (100 Gregory Lane), at the Pleasant Hill Police Department (330 Civic Drive), the Pleasant Hill Senior Center (233 Gregory Lane), and on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/agendas. Agenda packets will be available to the public on the City’s website at the same time as they are made available to the City Council.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 Proclamations Recognizing Paula Barto as Police Professional Staff Member of the Year and Andrew Mundy as Police Officer of the Year 2022

5.2 Proclamation Designating April as Arab American Heritage Month

5.3 Contra Costa Fire Protection District Update
City Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 April 17, 2023

6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
(Brief updates on pending City business without discussion by the City Council.)

7. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

7.1 Reports from Councilmembers on Meetings or Conferences Attended at City Expense (A) Contra Costa Mayors Conference Hosted by the City of Concord on April 6, 2023 (B) Other Meetings Attended at City Expense

7.2 Announcements from Councilmembers

8. PUBLIC COMMENT:

The public is welcome at this time to address the City Council on items on the Consent Calendar or other items not listed on the agenda but within the Council’s jurisdiction. There is an opportunity for the public to comment on other agenda items at the time they are discussed.

Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. To provide public comments, please see the Public Participation Options above.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under “Consent Calendar” are considered by the Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate Council discussion of these items unless requested by a Councilmember prior to the time Council votes on the motion to adopt.

9.1 Approve Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of April 3, 2023

9.2 Approve Appointment Recommendations to the Commission on Aging, Diversity Commission and Planning Commission

10. ACTION CALENDAR

10.1 Additional “Pre-Map” Public Hearing to Consider Composition of Districts for District-Based Elections and Schedule for Future Hearings
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA (Section 21605) and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(3) and 15378. Conducting public hearings for public input regarding transitioning to by-district elections and discussing a schedule for future hearings meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA.

10.2 Adopt Resolution No. __ -23 Denying an Appeal and Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a Variance Request (PLN 22-0294) for a Six-Foot-Tall Fence Within a Required Front Yard in an R-10 Residential Zoning District at 2029 Westover Drive Class 11 Exemption - Small accessory structure.

11. ADJOURNMENT
Next City Council Meeting: May 1, 2023

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 17, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: APPROVE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2023

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve the minutes.

ATTACHMENT(S):

April 3, 2023 – Tentative Minutes
Prepared by: Carol Wu, City Clerk Recorder

9.1 Packet Pg. 4

MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING – CITY COUNCIL
April 3, 2023
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 April 3, 2023
Mayor Flaherty called a Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 7:00 PM, complete proceedings of which were electronically recorded. The meeting was a hybrid of both in person and teleconferenced attendees. The meeting agenda was posted on the City Hall outdoor bulletin board at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA on March 31, 2023, by Deputy City Clerk Juanita Davalos.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Timothy M. Flaherty Mayor Present
Matthew Rinn Vice Mayor Present
Sue Noack Councilmember Present
Allen Vinson Councilmember Present
Zac Shess Councilmember Present

4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Mayor Flaherty stated that no closed sessions were held and there is nothing to report.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 Proclamation Designating April 23 – 29, 2023 as Library Week Mayor Flaherty presented a proclamation to Patrick Remer, Senior Community Library Manager, declaring the week of April 23-29, 2023 as Library Week.

Mr. Remer provided an update on the events held at the new Pleasant Hill Library.

6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
June Catalano, City Manager, reported that:
 The City contracted for translation services to disseminate the district-based election information to the community in various languages;
 The Commission on Aging is conducting an online survey regarding “Aging Well in the Community;” and
 The Diversity Commission is planning a Juneteenth celebration to be held on Sunday, June 18, 2023.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
Attachment: April 3, 2023 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 April 3, 2023

7. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

7.1 Reports from Councilmembers on Meetings or Conferences Attended at City Expense
Vice Mayor Rinn and Councilmember Shess reported their attendance at the League of California Cities/East Bay Division meeting held in Walnut Creek, California.

7.2 Announcements from Councilmembers
Councilmember Noack reported her attendance at the Mt. Diablo School District Task Force meeting to discuss safety issues, increased racism and bullying in the schools, and infrastructure issues due to the heavy rainy season.

Councilmember Vinson announced that the Town Hall meeting on the master bicycle plan was postponed to a future date to be determined.

Vice Mayor Rinn announced that Off the Grid will return to Pleasant Hill on Wednesday, April 5, 2023. Vice Mayor Rinn reported his participation at Career Day at Pleasant Hill Middle School.

Mayor Flaherty reported his participation in delivering food to seniors with Meals on Wheels of Contra Costa County. Mayor Flaherty announced that he issued a Mayor’s proclamation declaring the month of April as Fair Housing month in Pleasant Hill in partnership with the Contra Costa Association of Realtors.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Flaherty opened public comment.

Mayor Flaherty reported that the City Council received a written comment from Michelle Simone.

The following members of the public participated via teleconference to make a comment:
 Andrei Obolenskiy
 Frank Hall
Mayor Flaherty closed public comment.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: April 3, 2023 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 April 3, 2023

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion (Noack/Rinn) to Approve all consent items excluding item 9.4, which was pulled for further discussion, carried as follows:

AYES: Noack, Rinn, Shess, Vinson, Flaherty

9.1 Approve Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of March 20, 2023

9.2 Approve Checks Dated: March 17, 2023; March 24, 2023

9.3 Accept Update on Contra Costa Transportation Authority and TRANSPAC

9.5 Adopt Ordinance No. 962 Amending and Replacing in its Entirety Chapter 3.60 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Regarding the Composition of the City of Pleasant Hill's Diversity Commission

9.6 Adopt Resolution No. 25-23 Designating Authorized Agents for Disaster/Emergency Reimbursement Claims

9.4 Approve Appointment Recommendations to the Measure K Oversight Committee and Planning Commission – Item Pulled from Consent Mayor Flaherty reported that Oliver Greenwood was recommended for appointment, but has withdrawn his application from consideration. Mayor Flaherty said that David Field is being recommended to the Measure K Oversight Committee and Planning Commission.

Motion (Flaherty/Noack) to Approve item 9.4, carried as follows:

AYES: Noack, Rinn, Shess, Vinson, Flaherty

10. ACTION CALENDAR

10.1 Second Public Hearing to Consider Composition of Districts for By-District Elections and Schedule for Future Hearings
Janet Coleson, City Attorney, introduced the item, the second public hearing, to receive input from the community concerning transitioning to by-district elections.

Councilmembers engaged in discussions regarding an additional pre-map public hearing to be held on April 17, 2023, and potential dates and times for post-map hearings.

Jim Priest, Best Best & Krieger, was present via teleconference to answer questions.

The following members of the public provided a written comment:
 Amanda Szakats

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: April 3, 2023 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 April 3, 2023
 Kevin Kennedy
The following members of the public appeared in person to provide a comment:
 Quy Tran (also provided a map at the meeting)
 Yehudit Lieberman
 Marian Shostrom
 Tim Ernst
 Roxanne Carrillo Garza
 Susan Hedgpeth
The following members of the public participated via teleconference to make a comment:
 Andrei Obolenskiy
 David Kludt
 Eric Tubbs
 Karen Yapp
 Michelle Simone
The City Council provided direction to staff.

11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Flaherty adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. The next Regular City Council meeting will be held on Monday, April 17, 2023, beginning at 7:00 p.m.

CAROL W. WU, CITY CLERK RECORDER

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: April 3, 2023 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3323 – (925) 671-5270 www.pleasanthillca.org

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Councilmembers
FROM: Interview and Nominating Committee
Mayor Tim Flaherty, Councilmember Allen Vinson
DATE: April 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Approve Appointment Recommendations to the Commission on Aging, Diversity Commission and Planning Commission
The Interview and Nominating Committee recommends the following appointments and requests the City Council’s confirmation:

APPOINTMENTS TERMS/EXPIRATION DATES
Commission on Aging
Bill Musick Unfilled term through April 2024
Linda Fisher May 2023 through April 2027
Dana Simmons May 2023 through April 2027
Diversity Commission
Zhanna Thompson Unfilled term through September 2024
Planning Commission
Darien Key Unfilled term through April 2023 and
May 2023 through April 2027

9.2 Packet Pg. 9

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 17, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL “PRE-MAP” PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER

COMPOSITION OF DISTRICTS FOR DISTRICT-BASED ELECTIONS

AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE HEARINGS

PURPOSE
The purpose of this agenda item is to hold an additional “pre-map” public input hearing following the second of four required public hearings to receive input from the community concerning transitioning to by-district elections, and set a schedule for future hearings.

Background:

On March 6, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-23 declaring its intention to transition to district-based elections. This action was taken in response to the January 19, 2023 letter received from Kevin Shenkman of the Law Offices of Shenkman and Hughes that claimed the City’s at-large system of voting dilutes the ability of Latino and Asian voters to elect candidates of their choice or to otherwise influence the outcome of the City’s elections. This letter is the first step before a potential lawsuit can be filed claiming the City has violated the California Voting Rights Act. On March 20, 2023, the City Council held the first of four required public hearings and on April 3, 2023, the Council held the second required public hearing.

Analysis:

If the City follows the “safe harbor” process set forth in Assembly Bill 350, a lawsuit can be avoided and the plaintiffs’ fees and costs will be capped at approximately $34,000. Pursuant to Elections Code § 10010, the City must hold at least four public hearings in connection with the establishment of electoral districts. The City is required to hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 30 days before any maps of the boundaries for the proposed voting districts are drawn. These first two “pre-map” hearings are for the purpose of developing the criteria that will be used for drawing the maps. At these “pre-map” public hearings, the community is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts. On March 20th and April 3rd, the Council held the first and second required hearings. At the second hearing, the Council directed that a further “pre-map” public hearing be held on April 17, 2023. Although not legally required, the Council added this hearing to solicit additional input and comment prior to the map drawing process.

10.1 Packet Pg. 10
As part of the “pre-map” hearing process, the Council may provide direction as to specific factors, such as pertinent communities of interest or geographic landmarks it wishes the demographers to focus consideration on in the preparation of draft maps. The City’s demographer will also evaluate any publicly submitted maps for compliance with the California Voting Rights Act and Federal Voting Rights Act and present those maps for Council’s consideration at the third and fourth “post-map” public hearings.

The proposed maps will be provided at least seven days prior to each of these “post-map” public hearings. The third and fourth “post-map” public hearings must be held within 45 days of each other. During the third and fourth public hearings, the Council will also consider the sequencing or timing of the elections, if required.

To increase public awareness of the transition to district elections, the City has been and will continue to use a variety of public communication channels to engage members of the community, including sending a postcard to every residence in the City prior to publication of the draft districting maps. Information will also be distributed by publishing newspaper notices five days before each hearing; social media posts; emails sent to a distribution list of members of the public who have submitted written comment, City commissioners, and subscribers to the City’s Outlook newsletter and the City’s bi-weekly Update newsletter. Districting information will continue to be featured on the City’s website at the following web address:
www.pleasanthillca.og/districts, which is populated with information in eight languages (including English) about how the public can participate and answers to frequently asked district questions. The City has enabled closed captioning translations into all of the languages supported by Zoom. The Community Relations Manager has also enabled an automated translation button on the webpage.

The next public hearing to receive and consider input from the public concerning the composition of voting districts is scheduled for May 1, 2023. This will be the third required public hearing, and the first “post-map” public hearing. Draft maps will be published on April 24, 2023, for the Council and community’s review. There are additional “post-map” hearings scheduled for Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. and Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. The May 22, 2023 hearing is the fourth and final public hearing scheduled. Revised maps will be available seven days prior to the May 22, 2023 hearing on May 15, 2023. The public is also encouraged to provide input via email to [email protected]. Input may also be dropped off at the City Clerk’s Department or mailed to the City Clerk at the following address:

City of Pleasant Hill
Attn: City Clerk
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

FISCAL IMPACT
The services of an expert demographer are needed to prepare the maps at a cost of approximately $15,500. There will be additional costs incurred by the work of the City Attorney’s Office during

10.1 Packet Pg. 11
the process. Finally, under the law’s “safe harbor” provision, the City will be responsible for the potential plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs for a maximum amount of approximately $34,000 paid to Mr. Shenkman. As well, the City has executed a contract for translation and interpretation services for a not to exceed amount of $20,000. Informational mailer costs are estimated at $12,000 and costs for “promoted” social media engagement once the maps are drawn are estimated at $500.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA (Section 21605) and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(3) and 15378. Conducting public hearings for public input regarding transitioning to by-district elections and setting a schedule for future hearings meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Conduct this additional “pre-map” public hearing, receive and consider input from the public, and confirm the proposed schedule for the “post-map” hearings or provide further direction to staff.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page. A Public Hearing Notice was published in the East Bay Times on March 15, 2023, March 29, 2023, and April 12, 2023. A news release was posted on social media, and in the City’s bi-weekly Update e-newsletter.

ATTACHMENTS:

Public Hearing Notice
Correspondence
Prepared by: Janet E. Coleson, City Attorney
Danielle Navarro, Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

10.1 Packet Pg. 12

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE

PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL
(Transition to District-Based Elections for City Council Members) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on April 17, 2023, the Pleasant Hill City Council will conduct a third public hearing to receive comment from the public regarding the drafting of maps for district-based elections for Members of the City Council, pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).

In accordance with California Elections Code section 10010(a)(1), the City Council conducted the first public hearing at its regular meeting on March 20, 2023 regarding the establishment of district boundaries for district-based elections. The City Council conducted the second public hearing at its regular meeting on April 3, 2023. The City Council will conduct a third public hearing at its regular meeting on April 17, 2023. The meeting begins at 7 p.m. The public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts. Those desiring to be heard on the item will be given an opportunity to do so during such hearing.

After conducting the April 17th public hearing, the City will have a demographer prepare electoral division map(s) consistent with federal and state law outlining the proposed boundaries of the electoral divisions. The City anticipates having the draft maps available on April 24, 2023 with the first map hearing tentatively scheduled for May 1, 2023 at the regular City Council meeting. Two additional publicly noticed hearings will be held in May to discuss the draft maps. The public is invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft map(s). Those desiring to be heard on the item will be given an opportunity to do so during such hearings.

The City Council will then conduct a final public meeting and will take steps in June to adopt an Ordinance transitioning the City from an at-large to district-based method of electing Members of the City Council, approving the establishment of electoral division map boundaries, and approving the sequence of future Council elections, if applicable.

All public hearings will be conducted in the City Council Chamber, located at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, California, 94523. Agendas will be posted in advance of the meetings in compliance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and can be viewed at www.pleasanthillca.org/agendas.

Interested parties may subscribe to receive agenda notices at www.pleasanthillca.org/NotifyMe.

This notice is available in English, Farsi, Russian, Simplified and Traditional Chinese, Tagalog, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/districts. If you are aware of a community member needing this notice to be translated to another language or, if in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, you need special assistance to participate in a City Council meeting, contact the City Clerk’s Office at (925) 671-5221 at least 72 hours before the meeting or time when such special services are needed. For more information on the City providing accessible communication to the public, please visit the City’s website at:
https://www.pleasanthillca.org/812/ADA-Accessibility.
_______________________________
Danielle K. Navarro, City Clerk
Publish Date: April 12, 2023

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Public Hearing Notice (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) Correspondence

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) This page left intentionally blank

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) 1 Danielle Navarro
From: Danielle Navarro
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 12:31 PM
To: Allen Vinson; Matt Rinn; Susan Noack; Tim Flaherty; Zac Shess Cc: June Catalano; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Janet Coleson Subject: thank you (re district mapping process) - Susan Hedgpeth From: Susan HEDGPETH <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 12:28 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: EXTERNAL: thank you (re district mapping process) Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers,
I attended last night's City Council meeting. I wanted to thank you for a few things you decided at the meeting. 1) to have a Saturday meeting about the district mapping, 2) to add additional dates for public comment about the mapping, 3) to send postcards to every resident of Pleasant Hill, 4) to post info prominently at the library and (I think) on the marquee outside City Hall, and 5) to provide translation services to those residents who might need them.

Thank you.

Susan Hedgpeth
2212 Lisa Lane

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) 1 Danielle Navarro
From: Danielle Navarro
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:30 AM
To: Allen Vinson; Matt Rinn; Susan Noack; Tim Flaherty; Zac Shess Cc: June Catalano; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Janet Coleson Subject: Public Comment: April 17 Districting Hearing - Michelle Simone Attachments: Schools Ranking Map.png; Safest Areas Map.png; Police Hotspots Map.png From: Michelle Simone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 8:50 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: April 17 Districting Hearing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear City Council Members and Demographer,
I am writing to share with you two additional maps from the website Neighborhood Scout that help shed light on the experiences of communities within the City of Pleasant Hill. These maps offer insight that could aid the demographer in drawing district lines. I think you will find that they assist with understanding the needs of our residents and highlight localized issues in our community.

The first map shares crime data. This map clearly shows that the majority of incidents occur along Contra Costa Blvd, particularly in East Pleasant Hill. This information is important because it identifies these neighborhoods as having similar experiences where additional resources may be needed to address safety concerns.

To support this data, I have also included a similar map that indicates hotspots from the Pleasant Hill Police Department. This additional information helps provide a more comprehensive view of criminal activity in our city and the affected neighborhoods.

The second map is a "school ranking" map. This map shows that East Pleasant Hill has schools rated differently than the rest of Pleasant Hill. This information is crucial for understanding how different communities experience our education system and can help us identify where resources and improvements may be needed.

To support this data, you can visit the Great Schools website which has ranked Fair Oaks Elementary School at 2/10 and Ygnacio Valley High School at 3/10 or visit the California School Dashboard. According to the Dashboard, seventy percent of students going to Fair Oaks were socioeconomically disadvantaged and fortythree percent were Hispanic in 2021. Seventy-two percent of students attending Ygnacio Valley High School are socioeconomically disadvantaged and eighty percent are Hispanic. In comparison, College Park High School located in Pleasant Hill is twenty-three percent socioeconomically disadvantaged. https://www.greatschools.org/california/pleasant-hill/472-Fair-Oaks-Elementary-School/ https://www.greatschools.org/california/concord/511-Ygnacio-Valley-High-School/ https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/07617546004055/2021

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) 2 https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/07617540737809/2021 https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/07617540731646/2021 By examining these maps, we can begin to understand which communities share the same experiences and which may have unique needs. It is essential that we take this information into account as we make district line decisions that affect our city and its residents.

Thank you for taking the time to review the school and safety data. I hope that these maps will be helpful in identifying communities of interest to assist with creating fair and representative district maps for Pleasant Hill.

Sincerely,
Michelle Simone
Pleasant Hill Resident

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3)

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3)

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3)

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) 1 Danielle Navarro
From: Danielle Navarro
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 9:27 AM
To: Allen Vinson; Matt Rinn; Susan Noack; Tim Flaherty; Zac Shess Cc: June Catalano; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Janet Coleson Subject: postcards? - Susan Hedgpeth
Mayor Flaherty and Councilmembers,
Geoff will respond to the correspondence below.

Danielle
From: Susan HEDGPETH <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 10:20 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: postcards?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers,
At the meeting on Monday 4/3 (10 days ago) you made a commitment to send postcards to all Pleasant Hill residents, informing them of the district mapping process and inviting them to contribute their thoughts.

My understanding is that there is only one more meeting where comments about communities of interest can be made before the demographer makes his maps -- Monday 4/17 -- which is coming up fast.

Would you please respond and let me know when the postcards were sent out -- I have not yet received one.

Thank you.

Susan Hedgpeth
2212 Lisa Lane

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) 1 Danielle Navarro
From: Danielle Navarro
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Allen Vinson; Matt Rinn; Susan Noack; Tim Flaherty; Zac Shess Cc: June Catalano; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Janet Coleson Subject: upcoming dates for input on district maps - Susan Hedgpeth Mayor Flaherty and Councilmembers,
Geoff will response to the correspondence below.

Danielle
From: Susan HEDGPETH <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:11 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; CityManager <[email protected]> Subject: upcoming dates for input on district maps
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear City Councilmembers and City Manager,
I was checking your website for information about the upcoming dates for meetings about the district maps. I'm looking at this page:
https://www.pleasanthillca.org/1557/District-Based-Election-Process I don't see anything about the additional meeting that was agreed upon for May 22. It was my understanding that you had decided on that additional date. If I am correct, please add it.

Also, I believe you are planning to continue the discussion (regarding an ordinance to cover the logistics of future elections?) on June 5 and I don't see that date listed either.

I think all Pleasant Hill residents should be informed of the full scope of this process, from beginning to end, including all the meetings where they can learn more and make comments if they wish.

Thanks for your attention.

Susan Hedgpeth
2212 Lisa Lane

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) 1 Danielle Navarro
From: Danielle Navarro
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 12:33 PM
To: Allen Vinson; Matt Rinn; Susan Noack; Tim Flaherty; Zac Shess Cc: June Catalano; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette; Janet Coleson Subject: District map feedback for city council & demographer - Maya Lane Attachments: supporting images.pdf
From: Maya Lane <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 12:30 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: District map feedback for city council & demographer CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello, my name is Maya Lane and I am a resident of the Pleasant Valley neighborhood in Pleasant Hill. I would like to provide input on the district boundaries being drawn for the city of Pleasant Hill.

Pleasant Valley is a small close-knit “pocket” neighborhood (sometimes referred to as "Poets Corner adjacent"), bordered by the following streets/landmarks: Astrid Dr. to the North, Esther Dr. to the East, EBMUD trail & North Fork Grayson Creek to the West, and Oak Park Blvd. to the South. Large physical boundaries are North Main St & the 680 freeway to the east and Pleasant Hill Middle School and the new library properties (including a planned park) to the west.

Many houses in my neighborhood have direct access to the EMBUD trail through their backyards and residents frequently access the trail network (to the east of the 680) for dog walking, biking, walking, and to access the library, Pleasant Oaks Park, Pleasant Hill Elementary and Middle School, and downtown Pleasant Hill. Children in the Pleasant Valley neighborhood attend Pleasant Hill Elementary, which is located at the SW border of the Poets Corner neighborhood. We do all our errands, shopping and general day to day activities on the western side of the 680. It’s safe to say the general orientation of the neighborhood is toward the Civic/Park area and Poets Corner neighborhood.

I strongly feel that the Pleasant Valley neighborhood should be placed in a district with the Oak Park Properties Civic/Park area and the Poets Corner neighborhood. I am also strongly against a district that would place Pleasant Valley in a district otherwise completely composed of neighborhoods on the eastern side of the 680 freeway. (I’m referring specifically to a draft map that has been circulating by community members showing Pleasant Valley in an “East” district, placing it with neighborhoods solely to the east of the 680 that share no communities of interest with our neighborhood.) Here’s why I believe Pleasant Valley should share a district with Poet’s Corner and the library/civic/park area, and not be tacked on to a district oriented to the eastern side of the 680 freeway.

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) 2 School:

The children in Pleasant Valley attend Pleasant Hill Elementary, which draws 100% from neighborhoods on the western side of the 680 freeway. Placing Pleasant Valley in a district with Poets Corner would keep our community whole, whereas placing us in a district composed of neighborhoods on the eastern side of the 680 freeway would cut us off from our school community.

Flood Plain
Pleasant Valley is directly adjacent to North Fork Grayson Creek, and is in a high risk flood zone due to its proximity to the creek. This is a huge issue in our neighborhood and in other communities living adjacent to North Fork Grayson creek and Murderers Creek. Many homes in these areas experience disruptive flooding several times a year. This is a community of interest that needs to be placed in the same district so our representation can reflect the whole community that is affected by ongoing flooding due to these creeks. The communities on the Eastern side of the 680 are not in the same high risk flood zone, nor do they live adjacent to these creeks. This is why it is very important we are not separated from the community of interest that is impacted by living in proximity to these creeks.

Development/Planning:

We are directly affected by all development and activities happening (or that will happen) in the Civic & Park project, as well as Pleasant Hill Middle School and at Pleasant Oaks Park. We are one of a few communities impacted by activity coming from those spaces, and would be directly impacted by any developments that would impact the flood plain and/or developments that would increase noise/light pollution, etc.

Any development or changes in those areas will directly impact our neighborhood, therefore the communities adjacent to the new library/park should be in the same district so we share representation at city hall. Separating Pleasant Valley from this community of interest would be detrimental to our ability to have equal say in any development/planning in these areas, and could potentially marginalize our neighborhood. It should be noted that Pleasant Valley does not have any common development/planning interests with the neighborhoods to the Eastern side of the 680 freeway due to the large natural barrier of North Main St. and the freeway.

Please keep my community whole by placing Pleasant Valley in a district with the library/park and Poets Corner where we have many overlapping communities of interest. Please do not separate us from our community.

I have attached a document with the following screenshots:
 Pleasant Valley neighborhood + landmarks and outline of communities of interest.  Elementary school boundary
 High risk flood zone.

Thank you,
Maya Lane

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) Here’s a map showing the Pleasant Valley neighborhood along with other landmarks. I’ve loosely drawn a line around the communities of interest I described in my letter (other areas could obviously be included, but I think these areas should be in the same district).

See below:

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) Pleasant Hill elementary attendance zone pulls from southern Pleasant Hill and Northern Walnut Creek. It does not make sense to separate Pleasant Valley from the rest of the school community. See below:

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3) Map showing the flood plain:

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3)

10.1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 3)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 17, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. __ -23 DENYING AN APPEAL AND

UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY A VARIANCE REQUEST (PLN 22-0294) FOR A SIX-FOOT-TALL FENCE WITHIN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD IN AN R-10
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 2029 WESTOVER DRIVE

SYNOPSIS
This is a public hearing to consider an appeal submitted by Christine and Kevin Finkas, appealing the Planning Commission’s (“PC”) decision to deny a Variance request to allow a non-permitted six-foot-tall fence to remain within the front yard setback area, where three feet is the maximum allowable height. Per Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Section 18.20.040.I, the maximum height of any fence or wall in the front and corner side yard is three feet. The subject fence has a setback of 9 feet, 9 inches, where the subject zoning district requires 20 feet minimum for any fence that exceeds three feet in height.

BACKGROUND
In April of 2022, staff observed a fence was under construction in the front yard area of the subject property. Staff spoke with the property owners and advised them that, based on preliminary measurements, the fence was not in compliance with ordinance provisions and would need to be modified. After further discussions with City staff, the owners completed construction of the fence and submitted a Variance application, for review by the Planning Commission, requesting approval of the fence which is three feet over the allowable height and encroaches9 feet, 9 inches into the required front yard setback.

On December 8, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a special hearing to consider the subject Variance request. The Commission continued its review of the Variance request to the January 10, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, and provided the following comments and direction:
 The Commission continued this item to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, on January 10, 2023, in part to provide the applicants additional time to review the staff report, including all attachments thereto;
 The Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to determine if modifications could be made to the fence that would resolve the existing non-conformity related to setback, height, and design;

10.2 Packet Pg. 30
 The Commission discussed the possibility of a Minor Exception, which could allow up to a 12-inch increase in allowable fence height within the front yard setback area, for a total height of four feet.

On December 22, 2022, Planning staff met with the applicants to discuss the direction provided by the Planning Commission, namely, determining if modifications could be made to the fence that would resolve the existing non-conformity related to setback, height and design. After the meeting on December 22, 2022, the applicant provided a cost estimate for consideration by the Planning Commission (Attachment F). The estimate includes two options: Option 1) complete removal of the existing non-conforming fence and gate; Option 2) alteration of the fence and gate to achieve maximum four-foot height. Option 2 would require the applicants to apply for consideration of a Minor Exception for a 12-inch increase in allowable fence height. The applicants communicated that modifying the fence in any way was cost prohibitive for them at the time.

On January 10, 2023, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing and pointed to the difficulty in making the appropriate findings to support the Variance request, in part due to the potential alternate solutions that could negate the need for the variance. . In addition, Commissioners discussed the lack of consistency with Citywide Residential Design Guidelines, as the non-conforming fence does not incorporate any plane changes, and lacks a transparent design, resulting in a closed-off appearance along the property’s Westover Drive frontage. Accordingly, the Commission denied the Variance request, citing that it could not make the required findings.

The Commission’s decision was subsequently appealed in a timely manner on January 23, 2023.

DISCUSSION
Analysis
Fence Development Standards
The maximum height of any fence or wall is six feet, which further reduces to three feet within the required front and corner side yards. For single-family residences on corner lots, a five-foot setback from the corner side property line is required for a wall or fence over three feet in height.

Furthermore, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Section 18.50.100, states, “visibility at street intersections shall not be blocked above a height of two and one-half feet or greater above the top of the curb by vegetation or structures, including but not limited to fences and walls. This restriction applies to all land within a triangular area bounded by the edge of pavement 35 feet back from the point of intersection.”
Fence Design
The existing, non-permitted fence consists of horizontal wood planks, mounted to 4x4 wood posts, with narrow expansion gaps in between each plank. A gate at the pathway leading to the front door is framed in tube steel, with horizontal wood planks to match the fence. The fence is placed in line with the front elevation of the home. The modern fence design has a single, planar, vertical surface with no plane changes, or articulation. The expansion gaps are minimal and create a visually solid appearance.

The following design guidelines apply to the project:

10.2 Packet Pg. 31
 RDG II.10.b Fences and Walls: Front yard fences should have a transparent appearance, such as the use of picket, rail, grid or wire type fencing. The existing, non-permitted fence does not have a transparent appearance. It is constructed of minimally separated horizontal wood planks, mounted to a steel tube structure, which renders a solid, nontransparent appearance.  RDG II.10.c Fences and Walls: The design of fences and walls in the front yard should create a visual openness. Fences and walls that isolate the front of the dwelling from the streetscape are strongly discouraged. The existing, non-permitted fence does not maintain visual openness, as the design closes off the front of the dwelling from the street thereby isolating the front of the home from the adjacent streetscape.  RDG II.10.e Fences and Walls: Vertical elements, fence height changes, or change in plane should be incorporated into the design of fences and walls especially for long runs.

The fence design does not incorporate any plane changes, as it maintains a uniform height of six feet for a run of approximately 45 feet along the Westover Drive frontage.

Applicant’s Variance Justification
The applicants have submitted a Variance analysis of the request (Attachment F). The applicants’ analysis states that their property was impacted by the Pleasant Hill Road Improvement Project, which began after they purchased the home in late 2017. They argue that the project widened the road from two lanes (one lane in each direction) to four lanes (two lanes in each direction) resulting in increased traffic volume along Pleasant Hill Road and subsequently increased light and noise pollution. The City Engineering Division disagrees with this claim, however, and confirms that the roadway project, which was implemented to calm traffic, did not increase the number of lanes, did not make any noticeable change to the overall layout and dimensions of the Pleasant Hill Road and Westover Drive intersection, and did not add any additional traffic lights or street lights to the preexisting conditions. Therefore, the applicants’ rationale that the roadway improvement project made a significant impact on the property cannot form the basis of a Variance request. More discussion on the required findings are found in the section below.

Variance Findings
In order to grant a Variance, the City Council must make the following findings:
i. The Variance is based on the existence of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning designation.

The Planning Commission reviewed the size, shape, topography, location and surroundings of this property compared to other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning designation, and found that the size and shape of the project site is similar to others in the vicinity. Further, the Commission found the shape is generally rectangular (with an angled rear lot line that follows Grayson Creek) and typical of corner properties in the neighborhood, and that the topographical characteristics of the project site are typical of some of the properties in the vicinity, which is generally flat with a creek bank along the rear property boundary. Lastly, the Commission found that the location of the property with respect to the adjacent roads and public right-of-way is not unique, as there are many

10.2 Packet Pg. 32
homes in the vicinity and throughout the City located on corner lots, including near major street intersections. Thus, the Commission determined that there are no special physical circumstances applicable to the site that prevent the property owners from building a fence in compliance with the City’s applicable development standards. ii. The Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located.

The Planning Commission found that allowing a Variance for a six-foot-tall fence in the front yard would constitute the granting of a special privilege because it would be inconsistent with the limitations applicable to other properties in the vicinity and within the R-10 zoning district. Further, there are no special circumstances associated with the subject site to form a basis for granting a special privilege, as there are numerous homes located on corner properties and adjacent to street intersections within the vicinity and zoning district.
iii. The variance substantially meets the intent and purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located.

The Planning Commission found that the Variance request does not substantially meet the intent and purpose of the zoning district, as it would double the allowed fence height from three to six feet, and more than halve the required setback for a six-foot-tall fence from 20 feet to 9 feet, 9 inches. Therefore, granting the Variance would present a substantial deviation from the intent and purpose of the zoning district, which is to maintain an openness across front yards that expand views and promote an open and connected neighborhood environment.

Planning Commission Action
At the December 8, 2022 meeting date, the Commission heard the request and continued it to January 10, 2023, to allow the applicant additional time to consider a reduced fence height, work with staff on the request, and allow additional time to review the staff analysis of the proposed variance. Subsequently, at the January 10, 2023 meeting, the hearing was resumed, the applicant and the public offered additional input, and the Commission deliberated before denying the request (6-1, Khalfin).

After making its decision, the Commission subsequently asked staff to research a possible zoning ordinance amendment that would specifically address the placement and height of front yard fences on corner properties throughout the City. In response, a study session was held on March 28, 2023, during which the Commission reviewed a potential ordinance amendment related to citywide front yard fences on corner lots. A discussion of front yard fences on corner properties was provided to the Commission for consideration (Attachment D), and no further direction was provided by the Commission to pursue any modifications to existing regulations applicable to fences within the front yard setback.

Applicant Appeal
The applicant submitted a timely appeal request on January 23, 2023.

Public Comments

10.2 Packet Pg. 33
The applicants have provided a petition with over 75 signatures from neighbors in support of the existing, nonconforming front yard fence. In addition, other public comments received by the Planning Division are attached to this staff report (Attachment F).

SUMMARY
A solid wood fence was constructed within the required front yard with a height of six feet and a setback of 9 feet, 9 inches, both in violation of applicable standards. In addition, the nonconforming six-foot-tall fence encroaches upon the street corner visibility triangle – an area where vegetation, structures, walls and fences are limited to a height of two-and-one-half feet above the top of the curb. The property owners sought an after-the-fact Variance to allow the fence to remain as-is, and have subsequently appealed the Planning Commission’s denial of their request.

The solid fence is not consistent with Citywide Design Guidelines, because it is not built with a transparent appearance (such as a picket fence), does not have variation in the horizontal plane, and creates visually impenetrable barrier between the front of the home from the streetscape, which is also inconsistent with the intent of the underlying zoning district In reviewing the required Variance findings, the Planning Commission determined there were no special circumstances applicable to the property and that approval of a Variance would constitute the granting of a special privilege and undermine the intent and purpose of the zoning district.

Lastly, the Variance analysis provided by the applicants does not satisfy the required Variance findings. In addition, despite the lack of a valid basis for a variance, the analysis incorrectly claims that the Pleasant Hill Road Improvement Project constructed by the City increased the number of lanes on Pleasant Hill Road. The project did not add any new lanes, add new traffic or street lights, or make any significant changes to the layout of the road and intersection that resulted in increased traffic volumes.

CEQA
The project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15311 of the guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 1 (Class 11 – small accessory structures) as the project scope involves the placement of a small structure, accessory to the primary residence.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council Agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, in the City Clerk’s office, at the Pleasant Hill Library, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page and are available in the City Clerk’s office. In addition, notice of the public hearing (Attachment H) was provided to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site. A sign was also placed on the project site.

10.2 Packet Pg. 34

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the proposed resolution denying the appeal and thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Variance, subject to the recommended findings and conditions.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Provide direction to staff to grant the appeal to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Variance, and direct staff to prepare a Resolution for consideration by the City Council at the next meeting, with appropriate findings and conditions of approval.

2. Request further information from staff and/or the applicant and continue the hearing to a later date.

Prepared by: Andrew Shiflet, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Troy Fujimoto, City Planner
Ethan Bindernagel, Community Development Director and Assistant City Manager
June Catalano, City Manager
Attachments: A City Council Proposed Resolution (Denial of Appeal) and Findings B Planning Commission Resolution 02-23 and Findings, dated Jan. 10, 2023 C Appeal form (Date Stamped “Received January 23, 2023) D Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, dated March 28, 2023 E Project Plans
F Written Description, Variance Analysis, Estimate, and Neighbor Petition G Site Photographs
H Public Hearing Notice
I Public Comments
J Additional Applicant-provided Materials

10.2 Packet Pg. 35
RESOLUTION NO. __-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL,

DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE REQUEST (PLN 22-0294) FOR A SIX-FOOTTALL FENCE WITHIN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD IN AN R-10 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 2029 WESTOVER DRIVE
WHEREAS, the property owners, Kevin and Christine Finkas, submitted a Variance application, for an existing, non-permitted, six-foot-tall fence within the required front yard, where three feet would otherwise be allowed, in an R-10 residential zone district; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a “special” public hearing on the Variance request was held by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2022, and continued to January 10, 2023, where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a continued public hearing on the Variance request (PLN 22-0294) was held by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2023, where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission evaluated the Variance request for compliance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and Planning and Land Use Ordinances, and denied the request; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 18.130 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, the applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Variance application PLN 22- 0294, requesting that the City Council review the proposal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of their request; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public hearing on the appeal of the denial of Variance application PLN 22-0294 was held by the City Council on April 17, 2023, where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council evaluated the Variance request for compliance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and Planning and Land Use Ordinances; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill, in accordance with Sections 18.110 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, denies the Variance request based upon the following findings:

Variance Findings
i. The Variance is based on the existence of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning designation.

10.2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: A - City Council Proposed Resolution (Denial of Appeal) and Findings (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 2029 Westover Drive, PLN 22-0294 Page 2
April 17, 2023
The Planning Commission reviewed the size, shape, topography, location and surroundings of this property compared to other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning designation, and found that the size and shape of the project site is similar to others in the vicinity. Further, the Commission found the shape is generally rectangular (with an angled rear lot line that follows Grayson Creek) and typical of corner properties in the neighborhood, and that the topographical characteristics of the project site are typical of some of the properties in the vicinity, which is generally flat with a creek bank along the rear property boundary. Lastly, the Commission found that the location of the property with respect to the adjacent roads and public right-of-way is not unique, as there are many homes in the City located on corner lots, including near major street intersections. Thus, the Commission determined, and the City Council concurs, that there are no special physical circumstances applicable to the site that prevent the property owners from building a fence in compliance with the City’s applicable development standards.
ii. The Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located.

The Planning Commission found, and the City Council concurs, that allowing a Variance for a six–foot-tall fence in the front yard would constitute the granting of a special privilege because it would be inconsistent with the limitations applicable to other properties in the vicinity and within the R-10 zoning district. Further, there are no special circumstances associated with the subject site to form a basis for granting a special privilege, as there are numerous homes similarly located on corner properties and adjacent to street intersections within the vicinity and zoning district. iii. The variance substantially meets the intent and purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located.

The Planning Commission found, and the City Council concurs, that the Variance request does not substantially meet the intent and purpose of the zoning district, as it would double the allowed fence height from three to six feet, and more than halve the required setback for a six-foot-tall fence from 20 feet to 9 feet, 9 inches.

Therefore, granting the Variance would present a substantial deviation from the intent and purpose of the zoning district, which is to maintain an openness across front yards that expand views and promote an open and connected neighborhood environment.

CEQA Finding
In accordance with Section 15061(b.4) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, CEQA is not applicable to projects that are denied by a public agency.
[Signatures on the Following Page]

10.2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: A - City Council Proposed Resolution (Denial of Appeal) and Findings (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 2029 Westover Drive, PLN 22-0294 Page 3
April 17, 2023
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of April, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
TIMOTHY M. FLAHERTY, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. NAVARRO, City Clerk

10.2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: A - City Council Proposed Resolution (Denial of Appeal) and Findings (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) RESOLUTION NO. 02-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST (PLN 22-0294) FOR A SIX-FOOT-TALL FENCE WITHIN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD IN AN R-10 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 2029 WESTOVER DRIVE
WHEREAS, the property owners, Kevin and Christine Finkas, are requesting approval of a Variance, for a six-foot-tall fence within the required front yard, where three feet would otherwise be allowed, in an R-10 residential zone district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission evaluated the proposed Variance for compliance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and Planning and Land Use Ordinances; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a “special” public hearing on the Variance request was held by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2022, and continued to January 10, 2023, where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a continued public hearing on the Variance request (PLN 22-0294) was held by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2023, where all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasant Hill, in accordance with Sections 18.110 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, denies the Variance request based upon the following findings:

Variance Findings
i. The Variance is based on the existence of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning designation.

Staff have reviewed the size, shape, topography, location and surroundings of this property compared to other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning designation. The size and shape of the project site is similar to others in the vicinity.

The shape is generally rectangular (with an angled rear lot line that follows Grayson Creek) and typical of corner properties in the neighborhood. The topographical characteristics of the project site are typical of some of the properties in the vicinity, which is generally flat with a creek bank along the rear property boundary. Lastly, the location of the property with respect to the adjacent roads and public right-of-way is not unique, as there are many homes in the City located on corner lots, including near major street intersections. Thus, there appears to be no special physical circumstances applicable to the site. Accordingly, the Planning Commission does not find that the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of

10.2.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: B - Planning Commission Resolution 02-23 and Findings, dated January 10, 2023 (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 2029 Westover Drive, PLN 22-0294 Page 2
January 10, 2023
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning designation.
ii. The Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located.

The Planning Commission finds that approving a Variance for a six-foot-tall fence in the front yard could constitute the granting of a special privilege. Doing so would be inconsistent with the limitations applicable to other similarly situated properties in the vicinity and within the zoning district. Further, the Commission finds that there are no special circumstances associated with the subject site to form a basis for granting a special privilege, as there are numerous homes located on corner properties and adjacent to street intersections.
iii. The variance substantially meets the intent and purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located.

The Planning Commission finds that the Variance request would not substantially meet the intent and purpose of the zoning district, as it would double the allowed fence height from three to six feet, and more than halve the required setback for a six-foot-tall fence (from 20 feet to 9 feet, 9 inches). Therefore, the Commission finds approving the Variance would present a substantial deviation from the intent and purpose of the zoning district, which is to maintain an openness across front yards that expand views and promote an open and connected neighborhood environment.

CEQA Finding
In accordance with Section 15061(b.4) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, CEQA is not applicable to projects that are denied by a public agency.

ADOPTED by the Planning Commission, City of Pleasant Hill, on the 10th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Chiang, Cheney, Johnson, Vavrek, Vinson, Wyler
NOES: Khalfin
RECUSE: None.

ABSENT: None.
_______________________________________
TROY FUJIMOTO, Secretary
Planning Commission

10.2.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: B - Planning Commission Resolution 02-23 and Findings, dated January 10, 2023 (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.c
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: C - Appeal form (Date Stamped "Received January 23, 2023) (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 1 Planning Commission
staff report March 28, 2023
Subject: MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

CITY-WIDE
Project Planner : Haley Croffoot, 925-671-5297, [email protected] I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
This is a follow-up study session for the Planning Commission to provide preliminary input and direction to staff on remaining proposed zoning ordinance amendments not discussed at the previous study session, including:
x Fence height regulations on corner lots
x Automobile service uses
B. Background
On January 24, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the potential zoning ordinance amendments and expressed support for a majority of the text changes as proposed. The Commission continued the discussion on a few of the more complex topics to a future study session. A copy of the January 24, 2023 Staff Report is included as Attachment B and the proposed text amendments are included in Attachment A.

This item was scheduled for the March 14, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, however, this meeting was cancelled without discussion and moved to the March 28, 2023 meeting date.

II. ANALYSIS
Staff is seeking to remedy certain sections of the ordinance that are unclear or inconsistent with current practice. The remaining proposed amendments for consideration are summarized below:

Fence Regulations
Section 18.20.040.I, Fences and walls
This amendment is proposed for consideration at the Commission’s request after a recent variance application. Staff seeks the Commission’s input and feedback regarding a potential amendment to allow six-foot tall (maximum) fences within the front yard setback for corner lots.

8.1 Packet Pg. 89

10.2.d
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: D - Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, dated March 28, 2023 (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 2 Current regulations allow up to a three-foot tall fence within the front yard setback for all lots (including corner lots). Some items to consider regarding this proposal from a design and “neighborhood feel” perspective is that allowing six-foot tall fences parallel to the front property line and within the front yard setback area could disrupt the neighborhood aesthetic pattern and could create an unwelcoming pedestrian environment and neighborhood street presence. In addition, corner lots typically abut non-corner (interior) lots; thus, a corner lot would effectively “wall” itself off from the remainder of the neighborhood, and create visual incongruity with adjacent successive lots held to a three-foot front yard fence height provision.

Other reasons raised during the most recent fence variance request, and through other past fence height deviation requests, are noted below:
x Safety concerns related to nearby vehicle circulation, given lot location on a corner (signalized or unsignalized).

Staff Comments: While an intersection may have more vehicle activity, including turning movements, a reinforced three-foot tall fence would provide the same level of protection as a reinforced six-foot tall fence. Similarly, a six-foot tall, non-reinforced fence would have the same level of protection as a three-foot tall non-reinforced fence. In addition, an interior property along an arterial street would experience much higher levels of vehicle activity than a corner lot that is located along on a quiet residential street.
x Lighting impacts (from traffic signals or streetlights, including those from vehicles).

Staff Comments: It has been noted that corner lots are more likely to be impacted by the lighting associated with signalized intersections compared to interior lots.

However, owners of interior lots located adjacent to streetlights could also claim similar lighting impacts, particularly to interior and corner lots that do not have signalized intersections or abut street lights. In addition, street lights and signals typically exceed six feet in height, such that a six-foot tall fence would appear to have no effect for light blockage.

Staff observes, given the spread design of headlights, that residences are susceptible to vehicle headlights, whether at an intersection, on a bend of a road, or on a straight road. However, vehicles turning at an intersection are more likely to shine onto several nearby properties. A six-foot tall fence might better shield a residence from these intermittent light sources, though blackout shades or other window treatments could be an equally effective means to negate those effects. x Noise impacts from its location near an intersection.

Staff Comments: A six-foot tall fence could certainly reduce noise levels if built appropriately (certain board weight or density, no gaps or openings between boards, etc.); however, as noted previously, there are non-corner lots on busier streets that would experience higher levels of vehicle activity and likely similar, if not higher,

8.1 Packet Pg. 90

10.2.d
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: D - Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, dated March 28, 2023 (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 3 noise levels. Thus, these lots could also petition for additional noise buffering solutions.
x Providing privacy for the residence.

Staff Comments: A six-foot tall fence will offer more privacy than a three-foot tall fence. However, all residential properties in the City have a three-foot tall maximum height limitation within the front yard setback. Thus, it is not clear to staff why a corner lot should be afforded a six-foot tall fence in the front yard, when corner lots also have a rear or side yard where a six-foot tall fence is allowed, and can provide outdoor privacy areas.

Staff also researched how adjacent jurisdictions regulate fence heights within the front yard setback on corner lots. The findings are summarized below:

A. City of Walnut Creek: The City of Walnut Creek limits fence heights within the front yard setback area and some street side yard setback areas to not exceed three feet in height. There are no separate regulations for corner lots. Fence height regulations can be exceeded through the approval of a minor use permit (at a public hearing) with the following findings:
o The installation or construction of a fence, under the conditions of the particular case, will not:
ƒ Infringe upon the visual openness of surrounding
properties;
ƒ Detract, impair or destroy the characteristics of the established area,
ƒ Be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the area or
neighborhood of such structure.

B. City of Concord: The City of Concord limits fence heights within the front yard setback to three feet in tall. There is no process available to exceed the threefoot height limitation for fences within the front yard setback.

C. City of Martinez: The City of Martinez limits fence heights within the front yard setback to three and one-half feet tall. There are no special considerations for fences within the front setback of a corner lot. Applicants may apply for a variance to increase the fence height. The Zoning Administrator would review the variance request and is required to make the following findings:
o Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title; o There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district;
o Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district;

8.1 Packet Pg. 91

10.2.d
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: D - Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, dated March 28, 2023 (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 4 o The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district;
o The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

In summary, Staff does not believe that corner lots are either uniquely or inherently disadvantaged to warrant a set of fence regulations that differ from those applicable to interior lots. Staff is seeking input from the Commission on this potential amendment and will prepare draft language, if directed.

Auto Service Uses
Section 18.15.040, Commercial land use classifications
The City’s current commercial land use classifications for automobile service and repair does not separate less intensive services, such as window tinting, vehicle body film protection, audio system installation, and alarm installation from more intensive automobile services, such as auto body, collision, or brake shops. The existing use classification is included below:

Automobile, vehicle and equipment repair. Repair of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, motor homes or recreational vehicles, or boats, including the sale, installation, and servicing of related equipment and parts. This classification includes auto repair shop, body and fender shop, wheel and brake shop, and tire sales and installation, but excludes vehicle dismantling or salvage and tire retreading or recapping.

Staff recognizes that in some zones, less intensive services may be acceptable, whereas a full service automobile repair shop may not be an appropriate or compatible use. Staff is seeking the Commission’s feedback to introduce a new use classification that includes automotive detailing and equipment installation, such as window tinting, vehicle body film protection, audio system installation, and similar less intensive services, separate and apart from the automobile repair shops and brake shops. Staff will prepare draft language, if directed.

Section 18.25.030, Commercial land use regulations
If a new use classification for automobile detailing and equipment installation is supported, the commercial land use regulation table will require an update accordingly. Staff is seeking the Commission’s direction on the appropriate level of review for the proposed commercial use in all commercial zones. This amendment is proposed to align with other potential amendments and address a current gap in the ordinance. Staff will prepare the amendment, if directed.

III. CONCLUSION
The Commission should review the proposed amendments, and provide input and feedback to staff. Once input is received, staff would return to the Commission subsequently with all proposed amendments through a public hearing to request a formal recommendation to the City Council for its consideration.

8.1 Packet Pg. 92

10.2.d
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: D - Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, dated March 28, 2023 (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 5 IV. RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the study session and provide feedback to staff on the proposed amendments, as requested.

V. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Marked Up Draft Ordinance (Exhibit A)
Attachment B Planning Commission Staff Report, January 24, 2023 (Staff Report Attachment available in Attachment A, above)

8.1 Packet Pg. 93

10.2.d
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: D - Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, dated March 28, 2023 (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.e
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: E - Project Plans (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) Salas Landscaping + Design
224 Rosebud Ave - Hollister, CA 95023 | 408.466.8399
Project Name:

Finkas Residence
Location:
2029 Westover Dr
Pleasant Hill CA
Owners:

Christine Finkas
Kevin Finkas
[email protected] | License C-27 #1031145
Phone:
408.460.2161
E-mail Addresses:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Prepared By:

Misael Salas
[email protected]
Plans By:

Salas Landscaping, Inc.

Plan Version Date:
12/18/2022
Plan File Name:

N/A
Front Fence Option 1

ESTIMATE
Planting and Irrigation $23,211 grading- includes mulch Complete removal of existing front fence horizontal slats (removal/ unscrewing of existing fence slats will damage slats and will no be able to re-use). All new horizontal slats installed as per design. Aprox 55 linear feet. $10,841
Front Fence Option 2
Remove 2' of Fence and make fence finish height at 4' maximum. Aprox. 55 linear feet. Brand new metal gate frame, powder coated black with lever latch box frame and welding work. Labor to be billed to home owner $95/ per employee - Estimate 24hr x 2 employees = 48 x $95 = $4,560. $4,560
We look forward to the opportunity to work with you on your landscape project! Our 20+ years of experience will ensure your utmost satisfaction. $
$
Subtotal:

Discount:

Tax (0%):

Project Total:

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) Friday January 6, 2023
Below is the estimate for the fence repair and replacement: Option 1 and 2 Option 1: Modify fence from 6’ in height to 4’
• Remove top section of fence boards
• Cut excess length of existing posts
• Re-install fence framing
• Re-install fence boards
• Take down steel gate and modify steel framing to make it 4’ tall and re-install fence boards Total: $4,375
Option 2: Install new fence and salvage fence boards
• Demo existing fence and haul away debris. salvage fence boards • Did new post holes in new location and install new posts • Install new 2x4 fence framing
• Install fence boards
• Modify steel gate to 4’ tall and install fence boards Total: $7,850
Feel free to contact us anytime if you have any questions.

If you would like for us to add your project to the schedule, we have openings starting in mid April.

Thank you for allowing us to provide you with an estimate. 1 10.2.f
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.f
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: F - Written Description, Variance Analysis, Cost Estimate and Neighbor Petition (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.g
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: G - Site Photographs (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

NOTICE OF

PUBLIC HEARING

CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE REQUEST (PLN 22-0294) FOR A SIX-FOOT-TALL FENCE WITHIN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD IN AN R-10 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
2029 WESTOVER DRIVE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Pleasant Hill that the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal, submitted by Christine and Kevin Finkas, of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Variance request, PLN 22-0294. The applicant is requesting approval of an after-the-fact Variance by the City Council to allow a fence height of six feet within the required front yard, where three feet would otherwise be allowed. The existing, unpermitted fence has a front setback of nine feet, nine inches, where 20 ft. would otherwise be required for a six foot high fence.

The project site is located at 2029 Westover Drive. The site is zoned R-10, Single-Family Residential (10,000 sq. ft. lots). Assessor Parcel Number: 152-111-023-7.

Pursuant to Section 15311 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, this project is determined to be Class 11 categorical exemption, because the project involves the construction of a small accessory structure.

A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the CITY COUNCIL starting at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, April 17, 2023, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill and through Video/Teleconference via Zoom Conference Meetings. Interested persons will be heard at this time at the meeting, both in-person and those participating through Zoom. More information on how to participate via zoom, including providing live comments during the meeting, will be provided on the posted City Council Agenda.

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(B) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at a Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Pleasant Hill at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.

For information on this matter, please call or email Andrew Shiflet at (925) 671-5211 or [email protected].

Troy Fujimoto
Zoning Administrator

10.2.h
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: H - Public Hearing Notice (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) -----Original Message-----
From: Lily Clayman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2023 2:15 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: 2029 Westover
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To whom it may concern,
I was walking this morning and saw that there is an ongoing case regarding the aforementioned property. I wanted to write in my support of the property owners. The fence is a huge improvement to the neighborhood an esthetics and provides a young family the privacy and protection they need when living on such a busy street. The planning commission should consider re-evaluating their ordinance for fences on busy streets or consider granting a deviation for this fence.

Thank you for your consideration.

Lily
Lily Clayman
(559)230-7769

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 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.):

Name:: Brooke & George Smith
Street Address:: 541 Westover Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: 2029 Westover Drive - Fence
Question or Comment:: We would like to SUPPORT the appeal regarding the fence at 2029 Westover Drive. We think it is beautiful and the height in no way obstructs or interferes at all.

The fence has improved that property and enhanced our neighborhood. They did an outstanding job on their landscaping. PLEASE let them keep the fence in its current state. Being on that corner, the fence is necessary and well done. Thank you, Brooke & George Smith Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 4/10/2023 10:40:07 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 67.188.250.162
Referrer Page: https://www.pleasanthillca.org/64/City-Council Form Address: http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Forms.aspx?FID=137

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 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.):

Name:: Sheila Weston
Street Address:: 529 Westover Ln.

City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 925 891-4193
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Planning appeal 2029 Westover Dr.

Question or Comment:: I am a neighbor and fully support the homeowner's request to be allowed to keep the fence in question. It does not affect any sight lines, it shields the occupants from traffic and vehicle lights in this busy intersection and it looks good. I urge the council to vote in the homeowners' favor. Thank you.

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

Form submitted on: 4/11/2023 12:47:22 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 67.188.19.106
Referrer Page: https://pleasanthillca.org/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff Form Address: http://pleasanthillca.org/Forms.aspx?FID=137

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) -----Original Message-----
From: Laura Hill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Andrew Shiflet <[email protected]>
Subject: Fence issues at 2029 Westover
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Hello —
I was very surprised to hear that there is an issue with the fence at 2029 Westover — in front of the house that is on the corner of Westover and the busy (and brightly lit) Pleasant Hill Road. I honestly didn’t realize that the planning committee had any jurisdiction on how people managed their front yards! We moved into a house without an HOA for a reason! I live at 1989 Westover — just a few houses down the street. I literally don’t understand the issue as the fence they have built is very nice looking and has a lovely little garden planted in front. While I can understand, perhaps, not wanting every house to be behind walls, surely an exception needs to be made for the poor house on the corner which runs a much greater risk of problems from non neighbors driving by on Pleasant Hill road. These include possible danger to the couple’s three young children (very easy access to snatch and grab), recklessly driven cars smashing into the front of the house, and the very bright lights that have recently been installed on Pleasant Hill Road which shine right through the houses windows — all night long.

While I’m unable to attend the meeting (I’ll be out of town), I’ve talked to many neighbors who all agree that there is absolutely no problem with the fence and that, in fact, we find it a quite attractive entrance to the neighborhood. And while I understand that the complainant (whoever they are - do they even live on the street?) found the fence to be “unfriendly,” I have to wonder if he or she ever bothered to talk to Kevin and Christine, because you won’t find a friendlier, nicer, more helpful and courteous family on the block! All they are trying to do is protect their family and keep out the bright lights.

While I would certainly appreciate the planning committee getting involved with people who are having all night parties, or leaving smelly trash everywhere, or filling their yards with rusted out hulks, it really does not seem reasonable that the committee should get involved with a family’s desire to erect and very nice fence to protect their house. And I have to wonder who it was that complained and what his/her issue was? Certainly that person is not being a very good neighbor! Sincerely,
Laura Hill
1989 Westover Drive
650 996 3864

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 1 Danielle Navarro
From: Danielle Navarro
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 4:20 PM
To: Allen Vinson; Matt Rinn; Susan Noack; Tim Flaherty; Zac Shess Cc: June Catalano; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette
Subject: Fence Variance Appeal at 2029 Westover Dr. - Vicki Werner From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 4:00 PM
To: June Catalano <[email protected]>; Danielle Navarro <[email protected]>; Juanita Davalos <[email protected]>; Geoff Gillette <[email protected]> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

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

Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.)
Name:* Vicki Werner
Street
Address:*
21 Westover Ct
City* Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Phone
Number:

Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Fence Variance Appeal at 2029 Westover Dr.

Question
or
Comment:

I wanted to share my support for allowing the fence to stay “as is”. The light from the street lights is very bright and the adjacent road is noisy and busy. I would want to do the same thing if I lived at that location. I do not see any negative impact by letting it stay the current height.

Upload File
Attachment
here
[ ]

* indicates required fields.

View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=16822 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 2 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.):

Name:: Vicki Werner
Street Address:: 21 Westover Ct
City: Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Phone Number::

Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Fence Variance Appeal at 2029 Westover Dr.

Question or Comment:: I wanted to share my support for allowing the fence to stay “as is”. The light from the street lights is very bright and the adjacent road is noisy and busy. I would want to do the same thing if I lived at that location. I do not see any negative impact by letting it stay the current height.

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

Form submitted on: 4/11/2023 4:00:04 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.228.24.160
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Forms.aspx?FID=137

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 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.):

Name:: Stacy & Tom Monroe
Street Address:: 521 Westover Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 925-408-3627
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: 2029 Westover Drive
Question or Comment:: We are writing on behalf of Christine and Kevin Finkas at 2029 Westover Drive in support of their 6’ front fence. The property is cared for, aesthetically pleasing and is a huge improvement to the entrance of the street and of our community. In addition, they have 3 young children on a busy corner lot the fence helps protect. We believe the City should allow the Finkas to keep the fence as is.

On the other hand, the City should take a look at the property at 100 Lockwood Lane which is the exact opposite of the above. This home backs up to Pleasant Hill Road and the corner of Westover Drive. The trees are dead, the entire yard is weeds and the fence along Pleasant Hill Road is falling over except for the portion that was replaced a couple of years ago by the City. This property has been an eyesore for many years both from the main road and entrance into our community. The owners and current resident(s) do not maintain the property sufficiently and we are very concerned because during the hot summer months it presents a fire hazard from all the dry debris.

We can’t attend the Monday 4/17 meeting, but please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Thank you for your consideration,
Stacy & Tom Monroe
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 4/12/2023 10:35:14 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 108.66.132.189
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Forms.aspx?FID=137

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 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.):

Name:: Jenifer Osterholt
Street Address:: 530 WESTOVER LN
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 9254571505
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: PLN 22-0294
Question or Comment:: We are writing on behalf of Christine and Kevin Finkas at 2029 Westover Drive in support of their 6’ front fence. The property is cared for, aesthetically pleasing and is a huge improvement to the entrance of the street and of our community. In addition, they have 3 young children on a busy corner lot the fence helps protect. We believe the City should allow the Finkas to keep the fence as is.

On the other hand, the City should take a look at the property at 100 Lockwood Lane which is the exact opposite of the above. This home backs up to Pleasant Hill Road and the corner of Westover Drive. The trees are dead, the entire yard is weeds and the fence along Pleasant Hill Road is falling over except for the portion that was replaced a couple of years ago by the City. This property has been an eyesore for many years both from the main road and entrance into our community. The owners and current resident(s) do not maintain the property sufficiently and we are very concerned because during the hot summer months it presents a fire hazard from all the dry debris.

We can’t attend the Monday 4/17 meeting, but please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jenifer and Chris Osterholt
530 Westover Ln.

Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(925) 457-1505
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 4/12/2023 11:04:19 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 67.188.19.8
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Forms.aspx?FID=137

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) The following form was submited via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submited 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 Sec�on 6250, et seq.):

Name:: Jayne Kroner
Street Address:: 537 Westover Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 925.586.4624
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Finkas Fence Westover Drive
Ques�on or Comment:: Please review document atached.

Upload File Atachment here: Finkas Fence April 2023.docx To Whom It May Concern,
My husband and I strongly support Chris�ne and Kevin Finkas at 2029 Westover Drive in their request for a variance allowing the new fence of 6 foot to remain standing. Along we every known neighbor on Westover Lane and the surrounding area, we applaud the lovely upgrades the Finkas-es recently made to their front yard. This property is the entrance to our neighborhood and the atrac�ve new look they have given to their home benefits us all. In addi�on, they have 3 young children on a busy corner lot which the fence helps to protect. Our neighborhood is a special place where neighbors really do look out for each other If is difficult for any of us to understand why the City would punish a young family who has beau�fied their new home while create a more private and secure yard for their 3 young children. We believe the City should allow the Finkas to keep the fence as is.

Thank you for your considera�on,
Jayne and Kevin Kroner
537 Westover Lane.

Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 4/12/2023 4:26:48 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 69.181.160.183
Referrer Page: https://pleasanthillca.org/64/City-Council Form Address: http://pleasanthillca.org/Forms.aspx?FID=137

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) 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.):

Name:: Carole Wedl
Street Address:: 517 Westover Lane
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number:: 925-457-5463
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Support for variance @ 2029 Westover Drive, PH Question or Comment:: Dear Councilmembers,
My husband and I strongly support Kevin and Christine Finkas of 2029 Westover Drive in their request for a variance to allow their new fence to remain as it is. Along with every neighbor I know on Westover Lane and the surrounding area, we applaud the lovely upgrades the Finkases recently made to their front yard. Their property is the entrance to our neighborhood, and the attractive new look they have given to their home benefits us all. In fact, we appreciate that they've made us all look a little better.

Our neighborhood is a special place where neighbors really do look out for each other. It is difficult for any of us to understand why the City would punish a young family who has beautified their new home while creating a more private and secure yard for their 3 young children. Please remember that they live on the corner of a busy intersection (Pleasant Hill Rd @ Westover Drive) and just want to keep their children as safe as possible.

Thank you for your consideration,
Carole and Don Wedl
517 Westover Lane
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:

Form submitted on: 4/12/2023 3:33:45 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 76.103.32.116
Referrer Page: No Referrer - Direct Link
Form Address: http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Forms.aspx?FID=137

10.2.i
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: I - Public Comments (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) The Finkas Family Fence
2029 Westover Drive

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) Our first home, 2029
Westover Drive, is at
the busy intersection
of Westover Drive
and Pleasant Hill
Road with only one
direct neighbor, Al
Saadeh, whom we are
friends with.

At this busy corner,
there is heavy
pedestrian and car
traffic, making our
kids susceptible to
several different
dangers.

Also, bright lights
from the traffic and
new street lights
shine into our home
daily.

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) In April 2022, we decided to make some
landscape updates to our yard, which included a
6’ high fence. Regrettably, we were unaware of
the need for a permit for the fence.

What we were certain of was that the fence would provide our family with a sense of security that our girls can play comfortably outside while we are gardening or washing our cars out front with a barrier for protection.

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) This is a screenshot from the code enforcement visit recording from April 15, 2022. We only had the gate left to complete. The gate posts and framing are made of metal and all other posts are standard pressure treated wood posts.

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) This is a similar view of the completed
fence but at night.

The headlights from oncoming cars and
the bright lights from the new LED street
lights installed after the Pleasant Hill Road
Improvement project completed in 2021
shines into our bedrooms at night at the
front and side of our house.

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) Living at this corner, we have seen:
- cars running red lights,
- drunk driver crashing into the median in the middle of the night, and - sideshows/street racing/cars doing donuts at the intersection.

In 2018, an accident happened at the intersection just in front of our home. Thankfully, it wasn’t a serious one as you can see from the photos provided here.

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) Site Layout Drawing
Per City:

Our property has a 20’
setback that begins at
30’ from the marker on
Westover Drive.

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) In order for us to have a
6’ high fence, it would
need to be 50’ away from
the center of the street,
where the dotted yellow
line is.

This would leave us with
approximately 5’ of space
from our house.

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) A recent view of the
fence and its proximity
to the street.

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) Listing photo from 2017 with the old Ash tree out front per letter from the original owner’s (Ken and Nancy Clark’s) kids.

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) Request for City Council
- Please consider the shape and location of our lot and the difficulty we would have conforming to the letter of the existing ordinances while trying to keep our children safe. - Taking our particulars into account, please grant us an exemption and allow us to keep our fence at its current height and location.
- Please consider the need for an ordinance update for homes/corner homes at busy streets.

We are certainly not the only ones who would like a buffer from street traffic (see next slides).

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal) We hope you can agree that feeling safe and living comfortably is paramount to thriving and we hope that our family can continue to thrive in Pleasant Hill.

Thank you for your time,
The Finkas Family
Kevin, Christine, Sofia (8), Amelia (5) and Claire (5)

10.2.j
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: J - Additional Applicant-provided Materials (Finkas Fence Variance Appeal)