Q - Public Comments — Pleasant Hill City Council, November 4, 2024

From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Ordinance Revisions - Chapter 18.45 General Site Standards Date: Saturday, June 22, 2024 12:57:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
This email is limited to my comments on the proposed General Site and Development Standards for the City of Pleasant Hill. Please distribute this email to the Planning Commissioners for their Study Session on Tuesday June 25th. pages 6 & 7 Height Standards and Exceptions - I am really surprised to see that Elevators & Penthouses are among the listed Exceptions to the height limits. Over the last 40+years I have attended a number of Planning Commission hearings where the proposed building heights were being questioned by the Residents & I never heard any of the City Staff Planners point out these Exceptions. In particular, this applies to the office building at 400 Taylor Blvd., both as originally designed & thru three major revisions. page 7 para. 18.45.030 A.6. Penthouse - you might want to clarify that this applies to mechanical / electrical / elevator equipment penthouses, and not for a residence or commercial space penthouse.
pages 7 & 8 para. 18.45.030 B.2. Flat Roofs - for Flat Roofs more than 1 or 2 stories above grade I believe that the Building Codes require a guardrail or parapet wall that extends 42" above the roof edge, so the height measurement should be to the top of that structure in every case. Also, Flat Roofs (really, Low Slope Roofs) should always have a slope of at least 1/4" / ft. to the nearest storm water drain for proper drainage. page 9 para. 18.45.040 A.1. Fractions - for the example given, a 50' strip divided by 30 equals 1.67 (not 1.37); maybe the example you want to use in this case is a 40' strip divided by 30 equals 1.33.
page 13 Section 18.45.070 Screening of Mechanical Equipment - since this Section has been deleted in its entirety, are these requirements covered elsewhere in the Standards or Regulations ?
page 13 Section 18.45.070 Traffic Safety para. A., B.1. & B.2. - I don't know of any alleys in the City of Pleasant Hill, but these regulations would severely restrict fences & outbuildings in a typical backyard.
page 14 Section 18.45.070 para. C. Height Limit - the use of two standards (30" & 36") is confusing at best; can a residence have a 1' to 2' high landscape retaining wall & then measure the 36" from the higher grade on the inside ??
page 14 Section 18.45.070 Traffic Safety - Figure 18.45-7 appears to be missing . . . . . page 15 Section 18.45.090 Underground Utilities - when my subdivision was built about 60 years ago, the telephone wiring was all underground. About 25 years later, Pacific Bell came thru & installed overhead wiring on the same poles that already held both electrical power & Cable TV wiring because they had experienced numerous service interruptions & excessive maintenance costs with the original underground installation.

Some years ago I thought that the City had a regulation that no fences or landscape plants could be within 5' of the curb on any street that did NOT have a public sidewalk. If this is still applicable, I would note that there are numerous violations of the provision all over the City ! Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Ordinance Revisions - Chapter 18.70 Off-Street Parking ad Loading Date: Friday, June 21, 2024 6:02:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
This email is limited to my comments on the proposed Off-Street Parking regulations for the City of Pleasant Hill. Please distribute this email to the Planning Commissioners for their Study Session on Tuesday June 25th.
page 40 para. A - the provision to "insulate surrounding land uses from adverse impacts" is the key provision of this entire document !
page 41 para. B.1.a. - the "change of use" also is an important provision - one that the City Planners totally ignored when office spaces on Civic & Norse Drives were converted from offices to college classrooms !
page 44 Section 18.70.030 - Table 18.70-xx - the parking requirements for Single Family Residential reflect an outdated 60 yo standard. As was repeatedly discussed at various City Hearings, this is grossly inadequate for the small sf lot housing developments now being proposed such as those on Monticello at Oak Park & at 401 Taylor. Mature subdivisions consistently show that the standard suburban 2-car garage rarely ever houses more than one car; the other half is used for lawn & garden equipment, bicycles, freezer chests, overflow storage, etc. When the lot sizes go significantly below 6000 sf, there is inadequate street parking for guests & service vehicles. In the case of the aforementioned housing developments, this was resolved by requiring 18' minimum long driveways for these 3500 sf +/- lots.
page 45 Section 18.70.030 - Table 18.70-xx - the requirements for Schools, Public or Private, do not recognize the vast differences between Elementary, Middle, High Schools & Colleges.

For Elementary & Middle Schools, it is suggested that you have one space per employee onsite plus 0.5 guest spaces per classroom. On the other hand, upwards of half the number of Students do drive to the High Schools in this area & the College Student vehicles are mostly driven by single occupants, although they are not onsite every day classes are being held.

Perhaps this requirement should be something like the number of employees daily plus 25% for HS students and 33% for College students. (but my understanding is that the City has little to no jurisdiction over any of the Public Schools).
page 48 Section 18.70.040 Shared Parking Facilities - whenever a landlord chooses to assign more than 15-20% of the required number of parking spaces to specific businesses, there should be a provision to increase that requirement by 25% to account for the underutilization of the available parking - given that 20% of the spaces might go unused during peak times.
page 50 Section 18.70.060 - one quarter of a mile is a very tight criteria for a "regional transit hub"; I would have expected to see this to be between 1/2 & a full one mile for the allowable reduction. Also expected to see some reduction for dwelling units within 1/2 mile of a bus stop that has daily service at 30-40 minute intervals.
page 51 Section 18.70.090 - para A.1 - as I read the EV parking space requirements in subparagraphs a. & b., a facility that has 199 spaces requires five spaces while one with 201 spaces needs fifty - 10 times as many - is that the intent ? page 53 Section 18.70.100 Parking Space - Table 18.70-yy - there are no entries in dimension columns for Residential Garages. The 19' length for Uncovered Residential Spaces exceeds the 18' driveway lengths that I believe were approved for the Oak Park & 401 Taylor Housing projects. Do you need to add the size requirements for angular spaces in Nonresidential sites ?
pages 53-57 - Section 18.70.100 - a second paragraph "A" follows "D" on page 55 - does this Section need to be renumbered ?
page 55 Section 18.70.100 - para D. Wheel Stops - are these required at ALL single family & multi-family residential properties ? (they are a very serious tripping hazard, especially for Senior Citizens !).

That's it for this Chapter . . . . .

Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Ordinance Revisions - Section 18.45.040 Screening Mechanical Equipment Date: Sunday, June 23, 2024 5:32:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
This email is limited to my comments on the proposed Equipment screening requirements for the City of Pleasant Hill. Please distribute this email to the Planning Commissioners for their Study Session on Tuesday June 25th.

Well, now I found that Screening of Mechanical Equipment is covered by the renumbered Section 18.65.040 on page 37 which explains Section 18.45.070 was deleted.

The Title for Section 18.65.040 should be revised to read "Screening of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment".
para. A. - in the first sentence, add "and electrical" after mechanical. para. A. - The list of equipment to be screened should be expanded to include plumbing equipment, electrical switchgear & communications equipment & antennas. para. A. - If "plumbing lines" need to be screened, then you also should include hot & chilled liquid piping & electrical conduits & raceways.
para. A. - revise the second sentence of the text which now reads "Equipment to be ... equipment ...". (also note that plumbing lines & ductwork would not ordinarily be considered to be "equipment").
para. A. - do backflow prevention valve assemblies also need to be screened ? para. C. - concrete (or concrete block) is unlikely to be used for screens other than at ground level, but other materials would likely include various metals & plastics which would have a longer lifespan than wood.
para. C. - 50% openings in the screen would be a lot; should this be a lower figure - say 20- 30% ?
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
From: Bruce Irion
To: Troy Fujimoto
Cc: Haley Croffoot; David Blau
Subject: Definition of "Public Transit"
Date: Friday, June 21, 2024 6:12:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I note that the proposed regulatory revisions in front of the Planning Commission for their 6/25 meeting contain a section that says:

B. Parking Minimum Exception. In compliance with California Government Code Sections 65585
and 65863.2, qualifying projects shall be exempt from providing the number of parking spaces
required by this Chapter when located within one-half miles of public transit, as defined in Part
6 Chapter 18.205 (Definitions). However, the City may impose of enforce minimum parking
requirements if the City makes written findings, within 30 calendar days of receipt of a complete
application, that not imposing the parking minimum required by this Chapter would have
substantially negative impacts on the City’s ability to meet its share of specified housing needs
of existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of housing development.
[Source: NEW, State legislation]
I could not find Part 6 Chapter 18.205 but in reviewing AB 2097 to try to understand what being "within one-half mile of public transit" means I found the following:

Public transit is defined as any major transit stop that is included in regional transit plans or the intersection of two or more bus routes with a frequency of service of 15minutes
For Pleasant Hill, I am presuming this translates to within 1/2 mile of the PH BART station as none of the bus lines servicing Pleasant Hill have frequency of service less than 30minutes.

Am I interpreting this section and definition correctly? Thanks,
Bruce Irion

25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 | www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | @PHcreeks Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks is a Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

June 25, 2024
City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail: [email protected]
RE: Study Session #1—Zoning Ordinance Amendments—Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) Dear Commissioners:

We are writing to provide input and support for the process of updating Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) to be consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan. We are concerned that the current draft amendments include the same creek setbacks that were adopted in 2009, which are outdated, inadequate, and inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, we respectfully request revision of Chapter 18.60 to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan and with best practices for protecting our creeks and enhancing the community benefits they provide, including clean water, wildlife habitat, flood protection, and natural beauty. Below are (1) relevant sections of the 2040 General Plan, (2) specific comments and considerations, and (3) recommended next steps.

1. 2040 General Plan. Relevant goals of the 2040 General Plan include:
• ENV-2: Protect the quality of water resources in Pleasant Hill. • ENV-3: Preserve and restore streams, wetlands, and riparian areas to function as open space and wildlife corridors.
• PFS-3: Provide a resilient, sustainable stormwater management system that reduces runoff volume and minimizes flood potential from existing and future development.

Relevant policies include:

ENV-3.1 Creek Protection Zone Establishment for New Development. Establish creek protection zones for creeks that extend a minimum of 25 feet (measured from the top of a bank and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of each bank), with wider buffers where significant habitat areas or high potential wetlands exist. The City shall prohibit development within a creek protection zones, except as part of greenway enhancement, including habitat conservation, bike and walking paths, wildlife habitat, and native plant landscaping). City approval is required for the following activities within the creek protection zones:

1. Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure;

2. Excavation, filling, or grading;

3. Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or

4. Alteration of any embankment.

ENV-3.2 Creek Contamination and Sedimentation Prevention. Require new development to use site preparation, grading, and construction techniques that prevent contamination and sedimentation of creeks and streams.

ENV-3.3 Creek Bank Stabilization. Require new development proposals to include appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization, and any additional steps necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation but preserve natural creek channels and riparian vegetation.

ENV-3.4 Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Reclamation. Reclaim degraded streams, wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife migration corridors, where possible, in cooperation with the Flood Control District, and other local and regional organizations.

ENV-3.5 Reclamation with New Development. Require new development adjacent to creek protection zones to include the reclamation of adjacent creeks, wetlands, and riparian areas.

Please note that this is not a comprehensive list of all the provisions in the 2040 General Plan that should be considered.

2. Specific Comments and Considerations.

Below is a screenshot of the proposed creek setback requirements (Packet Pg. 147). Please note that these proposed requirements are a continuation of prior City creek setbacks adopted in 2009 and do not reflect any updates based on the 2040 General Plan. Pleasant Hill has an opportunity and obligation to review these standards and update them consistent with the 2040 General Plan.

The 2009 setbacks do not reflect current knowledge of the complexities and environmental values of the creeks of Pleasant Hill. Our hardworking creeks serve many functions. We have small upland tributaries, larger connector creeks and major stems that need to convey significant amounts of storm water. Our creeks serve as important habitat and corridors for wildlife. More than 100 species of native and migratory birds, Chinook salmon, river otters, beavers, and Western pond turtles have been documented in Pleasant Hill’s creeks. The creek system’s stormwater functions will be greatly impacted by climate change and greater urban density. We need to plan for much greater resiliency. Therefore, the current "one size fits all" approach is not consistent with our community’s needs or our new 2040 General Plan.

Updated creek setbacks should take a number of issues into account, including the following • The codes in nearby cities and Contra Costa County (“County”) take bank slope angles along with depth into effect and have larger setbacks. For instance, the County uses a line from the toe (bottom) of the creek bank sloping at a 2.5 to 1 ratio (horizontal to vertical) to intersect with the top of the bank to determine the starting point of the required setback (in their case a minimum of 30 feet).1 This is a much safer approach as it provides for a buffer in case of erosion and increases climate resiliency.
• At a minimum, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (“CCFCD”) should be consulted regarding safer, more environmentally friendly setbacks given our now better understanding of climate risks and the need for riparian restoration, consistent with the CCFCD's 50 Year Plan.2 1 See https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41701/Creek-Structure-SetbackPamphlet_March_2024-PDF?bidId= 2 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6853/50---Year-Plan-3-20-09-BOS-compressedPDF?bidId= • Orinda and Lafayette also have different setbacks for creeks with slopes of greater than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) than for lesser slopes. This means that on creeks with vertical banks the required setback does not start at the top edge of the bank as it can in Pleasant Hill. A buffer zone is added based on the slope angle and creek depth. Please note that vertical creek banks using a 1:1 ratio for depth/required setback are potentially unstable, according to CCCFCD. A vertical bank can easily erode at its base causing the top to collapse. For reference, we have included links to Orinda's guidelines3 and Lafayette's guidelines4 in the footnotes. • Pleasant Hill should consider stream channel types as do other municipalities. An ephemeral upstream channel may have different setback needs than much larger downstream channels. • It is possible to retain current exemptions for legally constructed but non-conforming structures should new setbacks be considered (keeping current requirements that non-conformity not be increased). Our city is mostly built-out and the standards should reflect that, but our new standards should also consider that there are large creek-side areas still undeveloped, on both private and public land.

3. Recommended Next Steps:
• We request that Pleasant Hill’s creek setback standards be updated to implement the goals, policies, and programs of the City’s recently adopted 2040 General Plan as well as current best practices for development adjacent to creeks and riparian areas.
• We encourage the Planning Commission and City staff to consult and collaborate with community stakeholders, adjacent cities, and the County (including the CCCFCD) regarding creek setbacks. • We also encourage collaboration on a watershed-wide basis to improve our riparian areas with flood conveyance and environmental values.
• We request that the City appoint a staff person to coordinate this revision process. • We request the opportunity for the public to review a copy of the “City of Pleasant Hill Creek System” map, as referenced in Section 18.60.010B.

We look forward to working with the City and other stakeholders to update the City’s Creek Setback standards. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, and thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,
Alan Bade
Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks / SEE
[email protected]
3 Chapter 17.4 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BASE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS | Code of Ordinances | Orinda, CA | Municode Library
4 635561390008430000 (lovelafayette.org)
Hours
Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Friday 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Closed 12:00-1:00 p.m.

Records Counter is closed on Fridays
Phone numbers:

Main number: (925) 313-2000
Fax number: 313-2333
Administrative Services: 313-2340
Buchanan Airport: 681-4200
Byron Airport: 608-8383
Capital Projects: 957-2471
County Clean Water Program: 313-2360
Custodial: 313-7096
Design/Construction Division: 313-2320
Engineering Services Division: 313-2170
Facilities Maintenance: 313-7052
Finance Division: 313-2344
Fleet Services: 313-7021
Flood Control District: 313-2270
Information Technology Division: 313-2261
Kids at Work: 313-2380
Maintenance Division: 313-7000
Materials Management: 313-2000
Print and Mail: 646-5521
Purchasing: 957-2499
Real Property Division: 957-2467
Records Section: 313-2356
Special Districts Section: 313-2170
Transportation Engineering: 313-2370
Traffic Section: 313-2370
Watershed Program: 313-2236
Public Works Website:
www.cccpublicworks.org
CREEK

STRUCTURE

SETBACK

REQUIREMENTS

FOR NATURAL
(UNIMPROVED)

CHANNELS
Contra Costa
County
Public Works
Department
255 Glacier Dr.

Martinez, CA
(925) 313-2000

CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
AREA
CREEK

PROPERTY

CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
LINE
Example aerial view of property traversed by
a natural (unimproved) channel.

Provide CSS line determinations (by the
method explained on the other side of this
pamphlet) for at least three locations of the
channel. The red stars ( ) show a few potential locations at which to calculate the setback distance.

Note: There may be other regulations that
need to be investigated before working near
natural (unimproved) channels, such as the
County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance.

An exception to the CSS may be granted
provided that the requirements outlined in
Section 92-6.002 are satisfied. You will need
to verify that the creek banks are stable and
not susceptible to erosion by submitting supporting technical data.

CREEK
Other Useful Information “FAQ for Property Owners Near Creeks” by Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
Warren Lai,
Director
Deputy Directors • Stephen Kowalewski, Chief • Allison Knapp • Carrie Ricci • Joe Yee March 2024
If your property is traversed by, or is adjacent to, a natural (unimproved) channel, you must determine the CSS area, as required by
the County Title 9 Ordinance Code and the
County General Plan. No permanent structures of any kind, other than drainage structures, may be constructed within, under, or over the structure setback area (Ordinance
Sections 914-14.010 and 74-6.010).

The CSS area will need to be shown on the
site plan for building permits.

If you are subdividing the property, you will
be conditioned to relinquish “development
rights” over the structure setback area of the
creek. When you “relinquish development
rights” over an area, it means that you are
forfeiting your right to construct buildings or
structures within that area. The CSS area will
need to be shown on the final/parcel map
and the improvement plans.
“Top of bank” is defined as the following:

I) The point where the water surface plus sufficient freeboard for the design average recurrence interval runoff (see Section 914-2.010 on how to determine the design average recurrence interval runoff) intersects
the existing ground, OR
II) The point where a line with slope of 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical, extending from the toe of the channel, intersects the existing ground.

Whichever point is the greatest vertical distance
above the channel invert will be the point used in
determining the setback line, per Section 914-

14.012.*
What is a creek structure setback?
How do I determine the CSS area?
You may wish to consult a registered Civil
Engineer and/or a licensed Land Surveyor for
assistance in determining the CSS area.

Chapter 914-14 of the County Title 9 Ordinance Code, entitled “Rights-of-Way and Setbacks,” outlines the procedure for defining
a structure setback area.

Per Section 914-14.012 of Title 9, the structure setback line is determined by measuring a horizontal distance from the top of bank on
each side of the watercourse. Section 914-

14.012 provides the following table:

Height of top of bank
above channel invert
Horizontal distance between top of bank and
setback line
Less than 20’ 30’
20’-29.99’ 35’
30’-39.99’ 40’
40’-49.99’ 45’
50’ and greater 50’
For examples on how to determine the CSS
line, see the two diagrams above, where
H = Height of top of bank above channel
invert
X = Horizontal distance between top of bank
and setback line
See the back for an aerial view of the CSS
area.
*Policy 8-89 of the County General Plan,
Chapter 8, “Conservation Element,” states
that the creek setback area shall be a minimum of 100 feet; 50 feet on each side of the centerline of the creek. The setback line will
need to meet this policy, in addition to meeting the Title 9 CSS requirements.

Case I. Design average recurrence interval Creek structure setback line* Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
Case II.

Creek structure setback line*
Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
\\pw-data\grpdata\engsvc\Forms\PUB\PUB-5 Creek Structure Setback pamphlet_2024 March_v4 Lafayette Municipal Code Ordinance No. 512
Article 5. Creek Setback Requirements
6-1841 Structure setback.
(a) As defined by Section 6-312 and Section 6-355, buildings and structures shall be set back from an unimproved creek channel as follows:
(1) Channel Depth of Zero through 21 Feet. If the side slopes of the channel are steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), the width of the structure setback is determined by a line measured from the toe of the slope a distance of twice the channel depth plus the appropriate top-of-bank setback as follows:

Channel Depth Top of Bank Setback
(Feet) Minimum Width (Feet)
0 — 6 12 each side
6 — 12 15 each side
12 — 18 18 each side
18 — 21 21 each side
If the side slopes of the channel are flatter than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) the structure setback is the appropriate setback indicated in the table above, measured from the top of the bank. (2) Channel Depth Exceeding 21 Feet. If the depth of a channel exceeds 21 feet, the width of the structure setback is determined by measuring from the toe of the slope a distance of three times the channel depth. (b) If a parcel is subject to subdivision easements or setback requirements under Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Sections 914-14.002 through 14.014 which are inconsistent with Section 6-1841(a), those subdivision requirements control.
(c) No permanent structure other than fences and drainage and erosion protection improvements may be constructed within the setback area. Landscaping (including trees and shrubs) is permitted within the setback area. (Ord. 512 § 1 (Appx. A (part)), 2000)
(Lafayette 4-00)
From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Study Session - PC meeting 8-27-2024 - Ordinance Amendments Date: Friday, August 23, 2024 3:57:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
So, the documents for the Planning Commission meeting on August 27th were finally posted around noon today - this gives the members of the Public a very short window of opportunity to review these enormously complex document revisions, especially in light of the renumbering & other revisions to the documents that were presented at earlier meetings.

Some of the crucial changes are not even noted . . . . .

From the General Organizational Structure and Outline pages 2 & 3, it appears that Chapter 18.20 has been moved to Chapter 18.15 and Chapter 18.22 has been moved to Chapter 18.20. The earlier versions of these Chapters are shown in the current Staff Report to have been approved as such by the City Council on January 8, 2024 ! Also note that the title for the new Chapter 18.15 does not include Residential District R-MD - the proposed new District for the Mangini-Delu farm properties - even though regulations for the land use is included on page 7 under paragraph 18.15.010 B-4 and in Table 18.15-2.

18.15.030 Table 18.15-2 (formerly known as Schedule 18.20.030 ?):

We note that the allowable Building Height has been increased for Residential Zone MFVH (formerly MRVH) from 60' to 75' which is an improvement. However, the allowable Building Heights for zones MFM (MRM) and MFH (MRH) remain stuck at the earlier figures which we still believe are too low to attract quality developments.

18.20.030 Table 18.20-2 (formerly known as Schedule 18.22.030 ?):

We note that the allowable Building Height has been increased for 3 of the 4 Mixed Use Zones (excluding MX-N) which is an improvement. However, the allowable Building Heights for all four Zones still may be too low to attract quality developments. My email dated October 30, 2023, for the November 1st Special Meeting of the Planning Commission recommended that these be increased to 45', 60' & 70' for the MX-N, MX & MX-HD Zones respectively.

18.20.040 - paragraph "M-1" (formerly known as 18.22.040 paragraph "N-1" ?):

My email dated October 30, 2023, for the November 1st Special Meeting of the Planning Commission noted that "this Development Regulation appears to prevent the future use of the DVC North / Overflow Parking Lot (Site "A") to meet a portion of their needs for Student & Staff parking - is that your intent ???". My email went on further to BOLDLY point out that the available parking including the spaces in the existing North / Overflow parking lot was woefully inadequate to meet their daily needs in the pre-pandemic era & it should be anticipated that the same condition will reappear when normalcy fully returns. That situation produced an extreme violation of paragraph A-2 of Chapter 18.15.010 Purpose and intent of Residential Zoning Districts which reads "Protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, overcrowding, excessive traffic, excessive on-street parking, insufficient parking and other adverse environmental effects". Many of the Residential neighborhoods that surround the DVC Campus were literally flooded with DVC students who chose to use the streets that we paid for as their preferred parking lots ! I hereby request that the Planning Commissioners actually discuss each & every one of the points made above.

Jack Prosek
PH Resident
zz
From: Bruce Irion
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: David Blau; annette gelinas; Shereen Motarjemi; Planning Commission; City Council Subject: Comments on Land Use Regulations
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 6:39:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission
We offer the following comments to the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. These comments directly or indirectly relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:

The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”. Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. The description of housing types for residential designations between Mangini-Delu’s 4.6 to 13 DU/acre are as follows:

R-7 and R-6 – Single Family High Density Residential (4.6 to 6.9 DU/acre) - allows for single-family and low-density multi-family residential developments (e.g., duplexes, triplexes) and other compatible uses
MFVL – Very Low-Density Multi-Family Residential (7 to 12 DU/acre) – allows for very low-density multi-family residential uses including duplexes, townhomes, and attached or detached single-family homes on small lots.

MFL- Low Density Multi-Family Residential (12.1 to 20 DU/acre) – allows for low-density multi-family residential uses including duplexes, townhouses, single family attached homes with zero lot line, (including) manufactured housing or cluster housing.

For housing densities between 4.6 and 20 DU/acre, none of the land uses include “apartment complexes” in their description. This term does not appear until you get to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (20-30 DU/acre). Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description.

We also note there is no reference to the Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment. We believe there should be reference to a future Master Plan which includes consideration for concerns voiced by the public. We further note that Table

18.15-1, Land Use Regulations, includes a column for R-MD. Given that ManginiDelu spans a range of Land Uses and that the promised Master Plan would presumably define new parcels under existing Land Uses, is it prudent to include RMD in the table? For the wide range of housing densities, it is impossible to capture all the land use regulations accurately. We believe it would it be more accurate to include a footnote that Land Use Regulations for Mangini-Delu will be consistent with parcel land use designations defined by the Master Plan.

We believe our comments are more consistent with public hearings and comments to date and we appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,
David Blau, Annette Gelinas, Shereen Motarjemi, & Bruce Irion From: Shereen Motarjemi
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comment on R-MD
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 7:19:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:

Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.

I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.

The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.

Sincerely.

Shereen Motarjemi
100 Mercury Way
From: Karen Pierce
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Land Use Regulation Revisions
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 7:38:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To Planning Commission and City Staff:

I would like to comment about the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:

Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higherdensity residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods” The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.

I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.

Sincerely,
Karen Lee
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

From: Christine Finkas
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Aug 27, 2024
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 8:30:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.

Sincerely,
Christine and Kevin Finkas
From: Clifton Crawford
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting & Mangini Property Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 8:36:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

We live just down the street from Mangini farm and while we hate to see it go....we understand that development means $ for city.......HOWEVER, we do not believe zoning regulations should EVER be changed and certainly not in this case. The original zoning was established for good reasons and changing them only indicates either greed or desperation. DO NOT DO IT!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shereen Motarjemi <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 7:09 AM
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting & Mangini Property To: Shereen Motarjemi <[email protected]>
Hello Friends & Neighbors,
The city has posted notice of a Planning Commission meeting for this Tuesday, Aug 27th. The meeting will be held in person at City Hall or virtually as follows:

Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, August 27th, 6:30PM, City Hall (or)
Meeting link: www.zoom.us
Meeting ID: 886 7016 0924
Passcode: 614614
Staff has proposed a number of revisions to Land Use Regulations. While most are administrative or mandated by new state laws, they have proposed several revisions dealing with Mangini-Delu which we feel are not fully consistent with discussions to date.

We urge you to send letters to the Planning Commission voicing your opinions. We have attached a proposed letter that captures our concerns that you are free to use as a template.

Sincerely,
Bruce, David, Annette, Shereen
You can send your letters to
Project Planner: Haley Croffoot,[email protected] To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.

Sincerely.
(add your name)
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

From: Bushra Toma
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Mangini-Delu
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 12:37:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.

Sincerely.

Bushra Toma
Sent from my iPhone
From: Julie Golinski
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Upcoming Planning Meeting on Tuesday
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 3:04:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

I’d like to comment on the revisions to the proposed zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B as follows:

R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the ManginiDelu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW] The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”. Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between lowdensity and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes.

Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.

I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include a reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date, and I would appreciate your consideration of my concerns.

Best.

Julie Golinski
From: Veronica Ortiz Andres
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting: R-MD – Mangini Delu Date: Sunday, August 25, 2024 5:08:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

I want to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:

R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of various housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from singlefamily homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW]
The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”.

Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single-family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the descriptions of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.

I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration of my concerns.

Sincerely,
Veronica Ortiz Andres
From: Anamarie Orgera
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting & Mangini Property Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:53:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.

Health and happiness,
Anamarie Courey
From: Jack Weir
To: Planning
Cc: Jack Weir
Subject: August 27 Planning Commission Meeting
Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:27:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

I am unable to attend the meeting in person or via zoom, but would like to submit this comment:

In regards to rezoning of the Mangini farm property on Pleasant Hill Road, I urge the commission to adopt that rezoning plan that allows for the least density and least traffic impact.

Given the city’s current “passive traffic enforcement policy” we are encountering rampant violation of traffic signals at virtually all intersections. Drivers routinely ignore red lights and often accelerate as they proceed dangerously and illegally through the intersection.

And the recent installation of “speed bumps” versus traditional school intersection crossing guards puts parents and schoolchildren at serious risk.

Additional traffic from development of the Mangini property will heighten the threat to pedestrians and cyclists at the Pleasant Hill Road/Taylor Boulevard intersection.

During the prior development proposal of the property the consultant ignored traffic impact and we neighbors were able to halt the development proposal. In the subsequent years traffic has increased dramatically as has the danger of red light violations.

Please consider these factors in your deliberations.

Thank you,
Jack Weir
former Pleasant Hill council member
From: Jack Weir
To: Planning
Cc: Jack Weir
Subject: Rezoning of the Mangini Farm
Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:34:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

In considering the rezoning of the Mangini farm on Pleasant Hill Road please note that the city’s current “passive traffic enforcement” policy has led to rampant violation of traffic signals at virtually all city intersections, including that of Pleasant Hill Road and Taylor Boulevard. I witness these dangerous acts every day in my travels around the city.

Also, replacing school crossing guards with “speed bumps” may save little money but the risk to our parents and schoolchildren walking or biking ti school is dire.

Please approach any proposed rezoning of the Mangini property with these factors in mind.

Thank you,
Jack Weir
Former Pleasant Hill councilman
From: Mark de Wit
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Mangini-Delu property - Planning Commission Meeting August 27, 2024 Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:06:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

Like many of my neighbors I have concerns regarding development of the ManginiDelu property further impacting the quality of life in our wonderful community.

Already negatively impacting the neighborhoods in the area was the construction of the commuter-option “improvements” to Pleasant Hill Road from Gregory Lane to Taylor Boulevard. As you may be aware, there is a considerable volume of traffic along this stretch with a high percentage of vehicles speeding at greater than 40 mph, commonly at 45-50 mph at all times of the day and night. It is now more dangerous than ever for pedestrians in general and for school-age children going to and from school. Unfortunately, the neighborhood-option was not selected due to a focus on accommodating commuters racing across town, rather than protecting the character of our residential neighborhoods, which was the City’s highest priority in the General Plan when I became a resident of Pleasant Hill in 1999.

Now the City has another opportunity to protect quality of life in our community with wise and sensible development of the Mangini-Delu property. I share my neighbors’ concerns and offer my comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:

The description says, “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”. Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between lowdensity and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes.

Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.

Like my neighbors, I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan. The City Council promised this plan would include considerations for parking, traffic, public safety, building height/architectural character, and creek preservation voiced repeatedly in public comment.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns. Please protect the character of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Sincerely.

Mark de Wit
248 Steven Circle
From: Renee Walter
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Mangini Delu - Pleasant Hill
Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 4:27:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning
Commission: 8/26/24
I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:

Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.

Best,
Renee Walter
240 Linda Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
From: Catherine Boccellari
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Comments re Revisions to Zoning Ordinances
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:46:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higherdensity residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods” The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the descriptions of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.

Sincerely,
Catherine and Paul Boccellari
206 Steven Circle, Pleasant Hill
From: [email protected]
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Aug 27, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting, Mangini Deli site Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 1:20:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

My husband and I have lived on Malaga Way behind the Mangini Delu site for over 30 years.When we bought our home, that property was zoned for four houses to the acre, as is our current neighborhood.We recognize the increased need for housing and are not opposed to reasonable development that maintains the character of our neighborhood.We are very concerned about the possibility of introducing apartment complexes onto this site.

Therefore, I’d like to offer comments for the proposed revisions to zoning ordinances before the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. My comments relate to the description of Mangini-Delu on page 7 of Attachment B which reads as follows:

R-MD – Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District. The purpose of the R-MD zoning district is to allow for the development of a variety of housing types on the Mangini-Delu property while preserving natural open space. The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higherdensity residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for a range of housing types from single-family homes to small apartment complexes. The R-MD zoning district implements the Mangini-Delu Residential (MDR) land use designation in the General Plan. [Source: NEW]
The description says “The R-MD zoning district is intended to serve as a transition from low-density to higher-density residential development in the city by allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre”.Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods.” The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes.

Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.

Sincerely,
Irene Menegas
488 Malaga Way
Pleasant Hill
From: Jeremy Magruder
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: Revisions to Mangini-Delu zoning and community Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:20:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To City Staff and the Planning Commission:

Given that Mangini-Delu is surrounded by R-10 development, any transition from low-density to higher-density residential development must occur within the site – there is no higher-density development around Mangini-Delu to transition to. Therefore, it would be more consistent and more in character with past discussions to say the following:
“By allowing densities between 4.6 to 13 dwelling units per acre, the R-MD zoning district is an opportunity to showcase how transitions can be made between low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character and sightlines of surrounding neighborhoods”
The R-MD description describes the range of housing types as “from single family homes to small apartment complexes”. None of the description of residential designations below 20 dwelling units per acre include apartment complexes. Therefore, it would be more in character to use the term “duplexes and townhouses” in the Mangini-Delu housing description rather than apartment complexes.

I would also like to see the Land Use Regulations include reference to the detailed site Master Plan promised for Mangini-Delu in the General Plan.

I believe my comments are consistent with public hearings and comments to date and would appreciate your consideration for my concerns.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Magruder
From: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 1:06 PM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Cc: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>
Subject: PC October 8th Study Session - Ordinance Revision Documents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
Congrats on getting the Staff Report & the extensive related documents for the Ordinance Revision posted a full SIX Business Days prior to the Planning Commission's Study Session on October 8th. I might have thought that the package also would have included Proposed Zoning Ordinance OUTLINE since the June document has a different numbering system than the one seen by the City Council at their September 9th meeting. This was included as Attachment "A" for the August 27th PC Study Session.

The new Staff Report for this meeting does indicate that some revisions were made regarding the Mangini-Delu properties & a very minor reduction in Parking requirements for smaller dwelling units. The 35' height limit for the M-D West area prevents having 4 or 5 story buildings there that would allow more of the site to be open for landscaping & parking. However, I have seen no additional information so far regarding the very restrictive Building Heights or the other Parking concerns that have been raised by the Public ! So once again I have to ask HOW CITY Staff arrived at these numbers for the Building Heights - since we believe that many of them are too low to encourage QUALITY developments . . . . .

The Parking standards are largely unchanged - which fails to address the concerns raised by the Public in the last Study Session.

I am asking that the Commissioners have an actual discussion as to the appropriate figures to be used in both instances !!
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
From: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 2:58 PM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>
Cc: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>
Subject: Chapter 18.45 Parks and Rec Zoning - New Ordinances CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Haley -
Listed below are my comments on Chapter 18.45 which contains the Ordinances for the new Parks and Recreation Zoning District.

18.45.010 - A.1. - the reference to the RPD's Master Plan in the City Ordinance is questionable since this document may be modified by others without participation by the City. Previously existing links to the current document, known as "The BIG Picture" dated May 2020, have disappeared & the document is no longer prominently displayed on the RPD's website. Furthermore, not all of the Master Plan objectives are included in the proposed Scope of Work to be done under their current Bond Measure "S" while some of this Scope was not in "The BIG Picture" as needs & community interests have changed during the four year period since its adoption !!

18.45.040 - A.1. - we believe that "protected" trees should not fall under A. Exempt Activities.

18.45.050 - A. - we do not believe that decisions by the Zoning Administrator should be exempt from the appeals process. Too much power is being granted to a sole individual with no oversight !
Please add this email to the Public Comment documents for the Planning Commission's Study Session on Tuesday October 8th.

Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
25A Crescent Drive #245, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 | www.pleasanthillcreeks.org | @PHcreeks Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks is a Project of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE) a non-profit public charity exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

October 08, 2024
City of Pleasant Hill Planning Commission
Via Electronic Mail: [email protected]
RE: Study Session—Zoning Ordinance Amendments—Chapter 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) and other amendments.

Dear Planning Commissioners,
We would like to submit the following comments regarding updates to Section 18.60 (Creek Setbacks) and other amendments. We submitted comments at the June 25, 2024 Study Session requesting that the proposed setbacks be made consistent with the goals and policies of the newly adopted General Plan 2040. Sadly, we note that inconsistencies remain.

Section 18.60: specifically, no provision for the following policy is made:

1. Construction, alteration, or removal of any structure;

2. Excavation, filling, or grading;

3. Removal or planting of vegetation (except for removal of invasive plant species); or

4. Alteration of any embankment.

Creek Setbacks: we note a continuation of the 2009 creek setbacks.

These setbacks are outdated in regards to expected increases in storm runoff with climate change. Updating the 2009 creek setbacks is a matter of public safety. They are substantially less protective than creek setbacks in our surrounding municipalities and those of Contra Costa County, as described in our 06/25/24 Study Session comments.

Many of our creek banks are near vertical and susceptible to undercutting. As urban densities increase, so will impervious coverage. The 2040 GP should modernize our creek setbacks to meet these new conditions. We have witnessed storms in recent years that severely tax our creek systems. Pleasant Hill narrowly avoided significant flooding, as evidenced by our attached photos.

Sections Env-3.1 through Env-3.9: We are pleased to note that the 2040 GP has many references to discouraging the use of invasive non-native plants in the Environment Element (Sections Env-3.1, Env-3.6, Env-3.9) as well as the Health and Safety Element (Sections 3.12 and 3.14 Wildfire Risk Reduction). In the wildfire risk reduction policies, the planting of fireprone non-native species is prohibited. We ask that similar prohibitions are implemented along our creeks. Species such as Arundo donax (Giant reed), Tree of Heaven, English ivy and others are creating significant, costly management issues for local agencies in our watershed and major efforts are underway for their removal. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains a list of highly invasive and sometimes illegal invasive plants separated by geographic area1. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has a similar list for wetland and riparian areas2
.

New Park and Recreation Zoning District:

We note that many of our creeks are located on Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District lands.

We are concerned about changes to the public review process included in the new Park and Recreation Zoning District. Review at the Staff Level only with no appeals does not provide for adequate public input on potentially major projects as envisioned by the Park District’s “Big Picture”. Properly noticed projects with greater public input lead to better projects overall. The Rec and Park District currently does traffic studies, noise analysis, and public noticing through the City’s review process. There are no provisions to require the new zoning district to include the same review processes that Pleasant Hill residents are currently accustomed to. If the District chooses not to, projects will be built with little public review other than voting on a bond measure. We work collaboratively with our current Rec and Park Board but these zoning changes will extend far into the future.

Many of the City’s heritage trees are on land owned by the Rec and Park District. It is counter to the tree preservation goals in the 2040 General Plan to allow protected tree removals without City and public review. This is a weakening of the tree protection goals adopted in the 2040 General Plan.

While we think the new zoning district is a good idea, we feel the new zoning district should be subject to the same restrictions and review process as all other entities in the City of Pleasant Hill.

Recommendations:
• Env-3.1: A “creek protection zone” as detailed in our adopted GP needs to be included in the zoning ordinance.
1 https://www.cal-ipc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/InvasivePlantChecklistforCaliforniaLandscaping.pdf 2 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stream_wetland/app1in clrefs.pdf
• 18.60-A: More protective, greater creek setbacks are a matter of public safety as we increase urban density and will improve environmental values and increase climate resilience.
• Env-3.1, Env-3.6, Env-3.9: We ask that prohibitions against invasive non-native plants be adopted. Resources such as Cal-IPC, the RWQCB, the California Native Plant Society, the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District have specific guidance. • Park and Recreation District: We ask that this be subject to standard City review as all other entities in Pleasant Hill.
• Creek Setbacks: Our current setbacks are inadequate. We encourage the Planning Commission and City staff to consult and collaborate with community stakeholders, adjacent cities, and the County (including the CCCFCD) regarding creek setbacks. We request that the City appoint a staff person to coordinate this revision process. • We again request the opportunity for the public to review a copy of the “City of Pleasant Hill Creek System” map, as referenced in Section 18.60.010B.

Thank you for consideration of these comments. We hope these issues will be discussed in this Study Session and look forward to collaborating with the City and other stakeholders.

Thank you,
Alan Bade
Co-Founder, Friends of Pleasant Hill Creeks / SEE
[email protected]
Murderer’s creek 10/24/2021:

Murderer’s Creek 10/24/21:

Beatrice Road area 10/24/21:

Invasive Plant Checklist for
California Landscaping
2018.05.08
California’s Model Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance and the CALGreen Building Standards strongly discourage the use of invasive plants in landscaping. This checklist is designed to serve as a reference to help landscape designers in California avoid the use of invasive plants. Three sources are referenced: the California Dept. of Food & Agriculture (CDFA), which regulates plants in the state; the PlantRight initiative, which brings together a diverse range of stakeholders, including the nursery and landscaping industry, to prevent the use of invasive plants in horticulture; and the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), which assesses the environmental impact of invasive plants.

The California Dept. of Food & Agriculture has authority to designate noxious weeds in California. These plants are illegal. See www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/IPC.

In general, CDFA is restricted from listing horticultural plants as noxious weeds.

PlantRight is a collaborative, science-based, and voluntary program led by the nonprofit Sustainable Conservation, with a steering committee representing the green industry, agencies, universities and environmental groups. PlantRight’s list is entirely voluntary. It includes plants from the CalIPC Inventory that all stakeholders agree should not be used in landscaping in regions where they cause environmental damage. See www.plantright.org.

The California Invasive Plant Council is a nonprofit organization that maintains a list of environmentally harmful plants based on a transparent science-based criteria system. Cal-IPC supports land managers working to stop the spread of invasive plants, but also supports landscape professionals in preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants. Cal-IPC listing is for informational purposes and carries no any regulatory authority. See www.cal-ipc.org.

The following checklist includes all plants from each list that are known from horticulture. Plants from the CDFA Noxious Weed List are illegal and marked with a red X. Plants for which PlantRight has reached consensus with all partners including the nursery industry are marked with a green X. All other species are only listed by Cal-IPC.

Regions based on Sunset Climate Zones were developed by PlantRight (see source online).

Notes
E Edible This plant species has edible fruit and is grown for human consumption. Though birds may spread seeds, these plants can be grown relatively safely if fruit is harvested.

Particular care should be taken near riparian areas. Fruitless varieties may be available for landscaping, and can be grown safely.

F Forage This plant species is used for forage and is already widespread in California. Additional use is unlikely to increase the plant’s spread.

T Turfgrass This plant species is used for turfgrass and may be used safely for sports fields and landscaping if properly tended within borders.

Region Sunset Zones
 Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
 Central Valley 7-9
 Desert 10-13
 North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
 South Coast 18-24
X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
 Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
 Central Valley 7-9
 Desert 10-13
 North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
 South Coast 18-24
Checklist of Invasive Plants
Regions
Acacia dealbata silver wattle 
Acacia melanoxylon blackwood acacia 
Agrostis stoloniferaTcreeping bentgrassT 
Ailanthus altissima tree-of-heaven X
Arctotheca calendula fertile capeweed X
Arctotheca prostrate South African capeweed 
Arundo donax giant reed X
Asparagus asparagoides bridal creeper 
Asphodelus fistulosus onionweed X
Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush 
Briza maxima big quakinggrass 
Carpobrotus chilensis iceplant 
Carpobrotus edulis highway iceplant X 
Centaurea debeauxii meadow knapweed X
Chrysanthemum coronarium garland chrysanthemum 
Cordyline australis giant draceaena 
Cortaderia jubata jubatagrass X 
Cortaderia selloana pampasgrass X 
Cotoneaster franchetii cotoneaster 
Cotoneaster lacteus Parney's cotoneaster 
Cotoneaster pannosa silverleaf cotoneaster 
Cotula coronopifolia common brassbuttons 
Crataegus monogyna English hawthorn 
Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora montbretia 
Cynara cardunculus artichoke thistle X
Cynodon dactylonT Bermuda grassT 
Cynoglossum officinale beggar's-lice  


Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom X
Cytisus striatus Portuguese broom 
Dactylis glomerataF orchard grassF 
Delairea odorata Cape-ivy X
Digitalis purpurea foxglove 
Dipsacus fullonum common teasel 
Echium candicans pride-of-Madeira 
Egeria densa Brazilian egeria 
X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
 Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
 Central Valley 7-9
 Desert 10-13
 North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
 South Coast 18-24
Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth X 
Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive 
Erica lusitanica Spanish heath 
Erodium cicutarium filaree 
Eucalyptus camaldulensis red gum 
Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian bluegum 
Euphorbia esula leafy spurge X
Euphorbia oblongata oblong spurge X
Festuca arundinaceaT alta fescueT 
Ficus caricaE edible figE 
Foeniculum vulgareEfennelE 
Gazania linearis gazania 
Genista monspessulana French broom X
Hedera canariensis Algerian ivy 
Hedera helix English ivy 
Helichrysum petiolare licorice plant 
Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean mustard 
Holcus lanatus common velvet grass 
Hypericum canariense Canary Island St.

Johnswort
X
Hypericum perforatum klamathweed X
Ilex aquifolium English holly 
Iris pseudacorus yellowflag iris X 
Isatis tinctoria dyer's woad X
Kochia scopariaFkochiaF 
Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy 
Linaria genistifolia ssp. Dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax X Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax 
Lobularia maritime sweet alyssum 
Lolium multiflorumFItalian ryegrassF 
Ludwigia hexapetala creeping waterprimrose X
Ludwigia peploides creeping waterprimrose 
Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife X
Marrubium vulgare horehound 
Mentha pulegium pennyroyal 
Mesembryanthemum crystallinum crystalline iceplant  Myoporum laetum ngaio tree 
Myosotis latifolia common forget-me-not 
Myriophyllum aquaticum parrotfeather 
Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco 
X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
 Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
 Central Valley 7-9
 Desert 10-13
 North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
 South Coast 18-24
Olea europaeaE European oliveE 
Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle X
Pennisetum setaceum green fountain grass X 
Phalaris aquatic hardinggrass 
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm 
Phytolacca Americana common pokeweed 
Plantago lanceolata buckhorn plantain 
Poa pratensisT Kentucky bluegrassT 
Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed X
Prunus cerasifera cherry plum 
Pyracantha angustifolia, P. crenulata, P.
coccinea
firethorn 
Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup 
Retama monosperma bridal veil broom X
Ricinus communis castor bean 
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust 
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry 
Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel 
Saccharum ravennae ravennagrass X
Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean sage X
Saponaria officinalis bouncing-bet 
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree 
Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree 
Sesbania punicea scarlet wisteria X
Silybum marianum milk thistle 
Spartium junceum Spanish broom X
Stipa tenuissima Mexican feathergrass X 
Tamarix parviflora smallflower tamarisk X
Tamarix aphylla athel 
Tamarix ramosissima, T. gallica, T. chinensis saltcedar X Tanacetum vulgare common tansy 
Triadica sebifera Chinese tallow tree X 
Verbascum thapsus wooly mullein 
Vinca major bigleaf periwinkle X 
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm 
Watsonia meriana watsonia 
Zantedeschia aethiopica calla lily 
X - illegal per CDFA regulation
X - on PlantRight’s voluntary list
E – edible
F – forage
T – turfgrass
Prepared by California Invasive Plant Council, www.cal-ipc.org Region Sunset Zones
 Sierra and Coastal Mountains 1-3
 Central Valley 7-9
 Desert 10-13
 North/Central Coast and Delta 14-17
 South Coast 18-24
Record of Changes
2017.09.07 – Corrected Cordyline australis regions. Updated Cal-IPC description and logo. 2018 05.08 – Corrected Crocosmia regions.

Hours
Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Friday 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Closed 12:00-1:00 p.m.

Records Counter is closed on Fridays
Phone numbers:

STRUCTURE

SETBACK

REQUIREMENTS

FOR NATURAL
(UNIMPROVED)

CHANNELS
Contra Costa
County
Public Works
Department
255 Glacier Dr.

Martinez, CA
(925) 313-2000

CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
AREA
CREEK

PROPERTY

CREEK STRUCTURE SETBACK
LINE
Example aerial view of property traversed by
a natural (unimproved) channel.

Note: There may be other regulations that
need to be investigated before working near
natural (unimproved) channels, such as the
County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance.

The CSS area will need to be shown on the
site plan for building permits.

Whichever point is the greatest vertical distance
above the channel invert will be the point used in
determining the setback line, per Section 914-

Chapter 914-14 of the County Title 9 Ordinance Code, entitled “Rights-of-Way and Setbacks,” outlines the procedure for defining
a structure setback area.

Per Section 914-14.012 of Title 9, the structure setback line is determined by measuring a horizontal distance from the top of bank on
each side of the watercourse. Section 914-

14.012 provides the following table:

Case I. Design average recurrence interval Creek structure setback line* Point of
intersection
Existing
ground
Toe of slope
Case II.

Channel Depth Top of Bank Setback
(Feet) Minimum Width (Feet)
0 — 6 12 each side
6 — 12 15 each side
12 — 18 18 each side
18 — 21 21 each side
If the side slopes of the channel are flatter than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) the structure setback is the appropriate setback indicated in the table above, measured from the top of the bank. (2) Channel Depth Exceeding 21 Feet. If the depth of a channel exceeds 21 feet, the width of the structure setback is determined by measuring from the toe of the slope a distance of three times the channel depth. (b) If a parcel is subject to subdivision easements or setback requirements under Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Sections 914-14.002 through 14.014 which are inconsistent with Section 6-1841(a), those subdivision requirements control.
(c) No permanent structure other than fences and drainage and erosion protection improvements may be constructed within the setback area. Landscaping (including trees and shrubs) is permitted within the setback area. (Ord. 512 § 1 (Appx. A (part)), 2000)
(Lafayette 4-00)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Dear Planning Commissioners,
I'd like to comment on the parking requirements associated with Mixed Use- Neighborhood Business.

In Table 18.70 (packet page 385), it states that one parking place is required per 100 sq ft of gross floor area for eating and drinking establishments. However, there are no off street loading requirements. While this may be fine for single establishments, very often many restaurants are aggregated into a single shopping center. This creates a situation where many, many large truck deliveries are arriving at a Mixed Use-NB shopping center.

Indeed in our experience, restaurants have by far the most deliveries of any business in the shopping center. They need fresh, in-season ingredients and order them from large corporate suppliers. The beverage suppliers are separate deliveries. We often witness conflicts in deliveries where one truck needs to wait because there are multiple trucks already in the parking lot..

The problem arises particularly when a large number of restaurants are aggregated. And in fact, this aggregation is stated as a goal in our new General Plan. There should be some threshold as to when a certain number of restaurants require additional loading zone spaces especially in a MU-NB shopping center.

Another issue is that shopping centers only require 1 parking space per 250 sq ft of floor area. It is my understanding that the shopping center can be mostly restaurants (as desired in the new GP) and we'd still only have the 1/250 sq ft requirement. This will be wholly inadequate. There should be some threshold when the aggregate usage for a business class changes the parking requirement.

Thank you, Alan Bade
Pleasant Hill resident
From: Bruce Irion <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 5:29 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>; Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: David Blau <[email protected]>; annette gelinas <[email protected]>; Shereen Motarjemi <[email protected]>; Alan Bade <[email protected]>; Wendy Gollop <[email protected]>; Heather Rosmarin <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Suggestion for joint review of Rec and Park projects CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

In review of zoning ordinances, staff has proposed to exempt the Rec and Park District from requirements to go through the city’s public review process for many building and maintenance projects including removal of heritage trees.

Those in support of the change argue that Rec and Park has an elected board voted on by the citizens they serve. They are subject to the same public review and notice requirements as the city. Requiring city reviews duplicates those already held by the Rec and Park District and may give a slanted view of public opinion as arguably city review might be dominated by those opposing a project and unsatisfied by the public reviews held by the Rec and Park District.

Those opposed to exempting the Rec and Park District from city reviews point out that while Rec and Park and the City have many views in common, they have different objectives and do not view projects through the same lens. In addition, to simply require Rec and Park to abide by non-discretionary single family residential zoning requirements, ignores that Rec and Park projects may involve large parking lots, pickle ball courts, and lighting stands that would not be seen in single family housing projects but would create resident concerns for noise, traffic, lighting and other nuisances.

When forced to choose between good arguments on both sides, why not choose both? We propose to hold joint public review sessions with Rec and Park and the City Planning Commission. This will avoid duplicate public reviews and streamline permitting for Rec and Park projects. Most of the time we suspect they can arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. And if not, the City Council can arbitrate and make the deciding vote.

We believe this solution should satisfy all involved.

David Blau
Annette Gelinas
Shereen Motarjemi
Bruce Irion
From: Bruce Irion <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 9:46 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>; Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: David Blau <[email protected]>; annette gelinas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Master Plan must be comprehensive!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

We note that in the last proposed zoning ordinance revisions, staff has proposed to divide the Mangini-Delu site into east and west sides and called for R6/7 single family housing adjacent to existing single family homes. Given that the 4.6 to 13 DU/acre is higher than any of the surrounding neighborhoods, it is commendable to consider how best to transition to higher density housing.

However, in calling out a division between east and west sections of Mangini-Delu, we expect that city and staff will require a comprehensive Master Plan encompassing both sections. Concerned M-D neighbors have attended & spoken at 35 GPAC & Council meetings to arrive at a promise that the entire M-D property will be addressed as one. A zoning decision should not alter that commitment. A comprehensive, detailed master plan for the entire 26 acres is the only way to properly address & solve the traffic & circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties. To do anything else would be to piece-meal the process, a clear violation of environmental and public review requirements
David Blau
Annette Gelinas
Shereen Motarjemi
Bruce Irion
From: CHARLES DAMIANAKES
To: Troy Fujimoto; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Mangini-Delu property
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 12:36:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: CHARLES DAMIANAKES <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: 10/29/2024 2:14 PM PDT
Subject: Mangini-Delu property
The City Council has requested input on proposed zoning ordinance revisions at their Nov 4th session.

I would like to see Section 18.15.010 paragraph B(4) modified to require a comprehensive Master Plan for Mangini-Delu as follows:
"Allowed uses and development standards in the RMD zoning districts shall be established in a comprehensive, site wide adopted master plan or specific plan before development takes place, unless provided otherwise in this Chapter"
Staff has recommended to split the Mangini-Delu site into east and west zones and while commendable to want to ease transition to higher density housing, this
should not be used to piece-meal the Master Plan. Concerned neighbors have attended and spoken at 35 GPAC and Council meetings to arrive at a promise
that the entire M-D property will be addressed as one. A zoning decision should
not alter that commitment. A comprehensive, detailed master plan for the entire
26 acres is the only way to properly address and solve the parking, traffic, and
circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties.

Soteria "Terrie" Damianakes
From: Haley Croffoot
To: Haley Croffoot
Subject: RE: Mangini-Delu property
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 3:33:29 PM
From: CHARLES DAMIANAKES <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Mangini-Delu property
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

The City Council has requested input on proposed zoning ordinance revisions at their Nov 4th session.

I would like to see Section 18.15.010 paragraph B(4) modified to require a comprehensive Master Plan for Mangini-Delu as follows:
"Allowed uses and development standards in the RMD zoning districts shall be established in a comprehensive, site wide adopted master plan or specific plan before development takes place, unless provided otherwise in this Chapter" Staff has recommended to split the Mangini-Delu site into east and west zones and while commendable to want to ease transition to higher density housing, this should not be used to piece-meal the Master Plan. ConcernedM-D neighbors have attended and spoken at 35 GPAC and Council meetings to arrive at a promise that the entire M-D property will be addressed as one. A zoning decision should not alter that commitment. A comprehensive, detailed master plan for the entire 26 acres is the only way to properly address and solve the parking, traffic, and circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties.

Soteria "Terrie" Damianakes

Pleasant Hill City CouncilNovember 4, 2024

Pleasant Hill City Council
November 4, 2024