2. A community care facility, as defined at Health and Safety Code Section 1502, including:
residential facility; adult day program; therapeutic day services facility; foster family agency; foster family home; small family home; social rehabilitation facility; community treatment facility; full-service adoption agency; noncustodial adoption agency.
3. A residential care facility, as defined at Health and Safety Code Section 1568.01 as a residential care facility for persons with chronic, life-threatening illnesses who are 18 years of age or older, or are emancipated minors, and for family units.
4. A residential care facility for the elderly, as defined at Health and Safety Code Section 1569.2(k) as a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of age or over (or their authorized representative) where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, or personal care are provided based on their varying needs.
5. A pediatric day health and respite care facility, as defined at Health and Safety Code Section 1760.2 as a facility which provides an organized program of therapeutic social and day health activities and services and limited 24-hour inpatient respite care to medically fragile children 21 years of age or younger, including terminally ill and technology dependent children.
6. An alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility, as defined at Health and Safety Code Section 11834.02, licensed by the State.
Residential Care facility, large, unlicensed. A residential facility, not licensed by the State, in which seven or more individuals with a disability reside who are not living together as a family (as defined) and in which every person residing in the facility is an individual with a disability (except the licensee, members of the licensee’s family, or persons employed as facility staff).
School.
1. School, college and university. A public or private post-secondary institution for higher learning that grants associate or bachelor’s degrees and may also have research facility and/or professional schools that grant master and doctoral degrees. This may also include community Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1968 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.190 Land Use Classifications
12 colleges that grant associate or bachelor’s degrees or certificates of completion in business or technical fields. These institutions require at least a high school diploma or equivalent general academic training for admission. Includes community colleges, public or private colleges and universities, and technical schools.
2. School, private Privately owned and operated elementary, middle, secondary, or high school, or other institution providing academic instruction for students from kindergarten through 12th grade in compliance with the California Education Code.
3. School, technical, trade and vocational. A public or private post-secondary school providing occupational, job training, or recreational activities. Recreational activities include music, dance, or martial arts, or art lessons.
Senior housing. Housing that is available only to households in which the head of the household is 55 years of age or older, and which is not a residential care facility (small or large) as defined in this Chapter.
Utilities, major. Generating plant; electrical substation; above-ground electrical transmission line; switching building; refuse collection and transfer station; processing, recycling or disposal facility; water reservoir; flood control or drainage facility; water or wastewater treatment plant; transportation or communications facility (other than a communication facility as defined in this Chapter); and similar facility of a public agency or public utility.
Utilities, minor. Utility facilities that are necessary to support established uses and involve only minor structures such as electrical distribution lines and underground water and sewer lines, and small recycling collection facilities.
Wireless telecommunications facility. A facility that may include but is not limited to a support structure and attached antennas that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals. This includes antennas and all types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of such signals; telecommunications towers or similar structures built to support such equipment, wall-mounted facilities, microwave transmitting and receiving equipment, equipment cabinets and all other related accessory equipment.
18.190.060 Residential Land Use Classifications
Accessory dwelling unit. An attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary dwelling unit is situated.
An accessory dwelling unit also includes: (1) an efficiency unit, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1, and (2) a manufactured home, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 18007.
See Section 18.15.050 (Accessory Dwelling Units).
Accessory dwelling unit, junior. A unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing single-family structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure. See Section 18.15.050 (Accessory Dwelling Units).
Bed and breakfast. An establishment offering lodging (with or without incidental meal and/or beverage service) in a single-family residential building and in conjunction with a single-family residential use, for short-term stays of less than 30 consecutive calendar days.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1969 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.190 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
13 Boarding and lodging. The renting of a room or rooms within an existing single-family dwelling where:
(1) a bedroom or bedrooms are rented, with a separate rental agreement for each room, not for the entire dwelling; (2) for a minimum of 30 consecutive calendar days; (3) with the common use of kitchen facilities; and (4) those occupying the bedroom or bedrooms do not function as a family as defined in Section 18.195.070 (“F” Definitions).
Emergency shelter. Temporary housing, including interim intervention facilities (i.e., navigation centers, bridge housing, respite or recuperative care), with minimal supportive services for displaced persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay (Health and Safety Code Section 50801(e)).
Employee housing. Privately owned housing which houses up to six employees in living quarters and is provided in connection with any work, whether rent is involved. Employee housing is subject to the provisions of the Employee Housing Act. In compliance with the Government Code, employee housing, as defined herein, shall be deemed a single family land use and shall be regulated as such for the purposes of this Title.
Employee housing, agricultural. Housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarter or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household, or that is approved in compliance with Government Code Section 17021.8, shall be deemed an agricultural land use for the purposes of this Title.
Family day care home. A facility that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14 or fewer children, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 1596.78. A family day care home includes a detached single-family dwelling, a townhouse, a dwelling unit within a dwelling, or a dwelling unit within a multifamily dwelling in which the underlying zoning district allows for residential uses. A family day care home is where the day care provider resides and includes a dwelling that is rented, leased, or owned.
Group residential. Shared living quarters, in multi-family zoning districts, with or without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes boarding houses, dormitories, and private residential clubs, but excludes care facilities.
Home occupation. A home occupation is an ongoing activity in a dwelling which provides goods or services where such activity is incidental to the primary use of the dwelling for residential purposes.
See also “Cottage food operations.”
Low barrier navigation center. Housing or shelter in which a resident who is homeless or at risk of homelessness may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing.
Mobile or manufactured housing. A structure intended for human habitation manufactured or constructed under authority of 42 U.S.C. Sec 5403, Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, or California law (Health and Safety Code Sections 18007 and 18008). The structure is manufactured either in whole or in substantial part at an off-site location, transported to and assembled on-site, and placed on a permanent foundation.
Mobile home park. Any area of land or property that has at least two mobile homes, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, and/or lots that are held out for rent or lease.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1970 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.190 Land Use Classifications
14 Multi-family residential.
• Two-Unit Dwelling (Duplex). A residential building designed to accommodate two separate households/living units. These units are usually side by side, sharing a common wall, or stacked one above the other, with each unit having its own entrance and often its own yard or outdoor space.
• Three-Unit Dwelling (Triplex). A residential building designed to accommodate three separate households/living units, each with its own entrance and often separate facilities.
Triplexes can be arranged in various configurations, such as side-by-side, stacked, or a combination of these layouts.
• Four-Unit Dwelling (Fourplex or Quad). A residential building designed to accommodate four separate households/living units, each with its own entrance and amenities. These units can be arranged in different layouts, including all on one floor, stacked in two or more levels, or in a combination of these configurations.
• Multi-Unit Dwelling (Over Five Units). A residential building or complex containing more than five separate living units. This category includes apartment buildings, condominiums, and larger residential complexes with various layouts and shared amenities such as common areas.
Residential care facility, small, licensed. A facility serving six or fewer residents (not including the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or staff) and is licensed by the State. Any combination of two or more residential care facilities that are under the control and management of the same owner, operator, management company, licensee, or any affiliate of them, and are integrated components of one operation, are considered one facility.
Residential care facility, small, unlicensed. A residential care facility of six or fewer total residents managed under a single operator and designed for short-term stays by each resident as a transition from drug or alcohol rehabilitation or while on parole. Any combination of two or more residential care facilities that are under the control and management of the same owner, operator, management company, licensee, or any affiliate of them, and are integrated components of one operation, are considered one facility.
Senior housing. Housing that is available only to households in which the head of the household is 55 years of age or older, and which is not a residential care facility as defined in this Section.
Single-room occupancy. A single-room occupancy facility is a residential building that includes multiple single-room occupancy units. “Single-room occupancy unit” means housing consisting of single-room dwelling units that are the primary residence of their occupant or occupants. If the singleroom occupancy housing consists of new construction, conversion of nonresidential space, or reconstruction, the unit must contain either food preparation or sanitary facilities and may contain both.
If the single-room occupancy housing consists of acquisition or rehabilitation of an existing residential structure or hotel, neither food preparation nor sanitary facilities are required to be in the unit, but if the units do not contain sanitary facilities, the building must contain sanitary facilities that are shared by tenants.
Single-family residential. An attached or detached residential building designed to accommodate one household/living unit on a single lot. A single-family residential development may be “attached” to another single-family residential development on an adjacent property as allowed by the Building Code.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1971 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.190 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
15 Single-family residential with boarder or lodger. See “boarding and lodging” in this Section.
Supportive housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. “Target population” means persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people. Supportive housing is a residential use subject only to the same requirements as apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zoning district.
Transitional housing. Buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance. Transitional housing is a residential use subject only to the same requirements as apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zoning district.
18.190.070 Temporary Land Use Classifications
Temporary uses are short-term or temporary in nature that are classified separately for purposes of the land use regulations; provided, that the use does not exceed any time limits specified in the Temporary Use Permit as established in Chapter 18.50 (Use Permit, Temporary). If the event takes place partly or wholly on public property, see Chapter 6.20 (Special Event Permit) of this Title.
Agricultural sales. The seasonal sales of agricultural or horticultural products, including firewood.
Excludes Christmas tree and pumpkins sales, as defined in this Chapter.
Animal shows or sales. Exhibitions of domestic or large animals. This classification includes animal sales.
Arts and crafts shows, outdoor. Display and sale of painting, sculpture, hand crafts and similar objects.
Christmas tree sales. The seasonal display and sale of Christmas trees and Christmas wreaths.
Includes preparation of the site, fencing, trailers, tents, necessary storage, equipment, and related accessory services (i.e., netting, baling, flocking).
Civic and community events. Special events open to the public.
Commercial filming, limited. Commercial motion picture or video photography at the same location.
Eating and drinking use. Serving of prepared food or beverages for consumption on or off the premises on a site that is not permanently occupied by, or related to, an existing legally established onsite, eating and drinking establishment.
Farmers’ market. Recurring sales of agricultural, horticultural, and other food products that are seasonal in nature.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1972 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.190 Land Use Classifications
16 Live entertainment event. A non-recurring concert, carnival, circus, fair, or similar event.
Personal property sales. Sales of personal property by a resident. This classification includes garage sales.
Pumpkin sales. The seasonal display and sale of pumpkins. Includes preparation of the site, fencing, trailers, tents, necessary storage, and equipment.
Real estate sales. An on-site office for the marketing, sales or rental of residential, commercial or industrial development. This classification includes “model homes.” Recreational events. Events featuring sports, exercise, physical play, or competitions.
Group assembly events. A non-recurring event intended for the meeting or assembly of a, group, club, or membership organization conducted on a site that is not permanently occupied by a place of assembly use.
Retail sales, outdoor. Retail sales of merchandise in an open or covered outdoor area on the site of a legally established retail business.
Street fair. Provision of games, eating and drinking facilities, live entertainment, or similar activities not requiring the use of roofed structures.
Swap meet. Retail sale or exchange of new, hand-crafted, or secondhand merchandise.
Trade fairs. Display and sale of goods or equipment related to a specific trade or industry.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1973 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
17 Chapter 18.195
Definitions
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1974 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
18 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
Sections
18.195.010 “A” Definitions
18.195.020 “B” Definitions
18.195.030 “C” Definitions
18.195.040 “D” Definitions
18.195.050 “E” Definitions
18.195.060 “F” Definitions
18.195.070 “G” Definitions
18.195.080 “H” Definitions
18.195.090 “I” Definitions
18.195.100 “J” Definitions
18.195.110 “K” Definitions
18.195.120 “L” Definitions
18.195.130 “M” Definitions
18.195.140 “N” Definitions
18.195.150 “O” Definitions
18.195.160 “P” Definitions
18.195.170 “Q” Definitions
18.195.180 “R” Definitions
18.195.190 “S” Definitions
18.195.200 “T” Definitions
18.195.210 “U” Definitions
18.195.220 “V” Definitions
18.195.230 “W” Definitions
18.195.240 “X” Definitions
18.195.250 “Y” Definitions
18.195.260 “Z” Definitions
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1975 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
19 18.195.010 “A” Definitions
Acre, gross. A measure of total land area of any lot including future streets, parks, and other land dedications.
Acre, net. The gross area of a lot excluding:
1. Land to be dedicated for required easements for vehicles and rights-of-way, either public or private;
2. Land determined to be hazardous and unbuildable; and/or
3. Land to be dedicated for schools and parks or other facilities dedicated for public use.
Active frontages. Building frontages with occupied spaces that encourage engagement between the building tenants and the public realm. Active frontages allow visual or physical access to the active uses within the building from streets, sidewalks, and paseos.
Affordable housing cost. The maximum cost to rent or purchase a house as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code (Government Code Section 65915(d)(1).).
1. For extremely low-income households, the product of 30 percent times 30 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit;
2. For very low-income households, the product of 30 percent times 50 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit;
3. For low-income households whose gross incomes exceed the maximum income for very lowincome households and do not exceed 70 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size, the product of 30 percent times 70 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit. In addition, for any lower income household that has a gross income that equals or exceeds 70 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size, it shall be optional for any state or local funding agency to require that affordable housing cost not exceed 30 percent of the gross income of the household;
4. For moderate-income households, affordable housing cost shall not be less than 28 percent of the gross income of the household, nor exceed the product of 35 percent times 110 percent of area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit. In addition, for any moderate-income household that has a gross income that exceeds 110 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size, it shall be optional for any state or local funding agency to require that affordable housing cost not exceed 35 percent of the gross income of the household.
Affordable units. Living units that are required to be rented at affordable rents or available at affordable housing costs to specified households.
Alteration. Any modification, change, or adjustment made to a building or structure that affects its physical dimensions, design, function, or use.
Animal.
1. Animal, large domestic. An animal other than a rooster, a nondomestic animal or a small domestic animal as defined herein, and which is typically kept in a coop, corral, stable, or pen, Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1976 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
20 including but not limited to equine (e.g., horses, donkeys, and llamas), bovine, porcine, and ratite (e.g., ostrich, emu and rhea) species, other hoofed animals (e.g., goats or sheep) and any variety of fowl other than hens, which are considered small domestic animals as defined in this Section.
2. Animal, nondomestic. A wild animal not customarily confined or cultivated by man for domestic or commercial purposes but kept as a pet or for display.
3. Animal, small domestic. A small animal of the type generally accepted as a pet, including dog, cat, rabbit, songbird, fish, and the like, but not including chicken, rooster, duck, goose, pea fowl, goat, sheep, pig, hog, or the like.
Antenna. Any system of wires, poles, rods, panels, reflecting discs, or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency electromagnetic waves when such system is external and attached to the exterior of a structure or a pole.
Area median income (AMI). The area median income for Contra Costa County as published at Title 25, California Code of Regulations, Section 6932.
Attached, building or structure. A building or structure that shares a common wall, is physically connected to another building or structure, or two structures that are less than three feet away from each other as measured from the furthest projection on each structure.
Average percent of slope. The ratio between vertical and horizontal distances expressed in percent; the mathematical expression of which is based upon the formula described below:
Figure 18.__-_
Average Percent of Slope Calculation
18.195.020 “B” Definitions
Balcony. A platform that projects from the wall of a building, typically above the first level, and is surrounded by a rail, balustrade, or parapet.
Base density. The maximum number of dwelling units on a particular lot of land which complies with the General Plan and all applicable provisions of this Zoning Ordinance.
Basement. The portion of a building that is completely below grade. If any part of a building story is above grade, it will not be considered a basement. A basement does not count as a story when calculating the "number of stories" for development regulation purposes. However, sub-level floors, including basements, are included in floor area ratio (FAR) calculations. The addition of any access points, as required by the Building Code, does not change the classification of a basement, provided that all other portions of the floor remain below grade.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1977 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
21 Blockface. The properties abutting on one side of a street and lying between the two nearest intersecting or intercepting streets, or nearest intersecting or intercepting street, unsubdivided land, watercourse, or City boundary.
Figure 18.__-_
Blockface
Boarder. A person who rents a room within a living unit from a landlord.
Breezeway. A roofed, open-sided passageway connecting two structures, such as a house and a garage.
Building. Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls for the housing or enclosure of persons, animals, chattel, or property of any kind.
Building height. The vertical distance of a building as measured from grade to a base point on the building in compliance with Section 18.45.030 (Height Standards and Exceptions). See definition for “grade.”
18.195.030 “C” Definitions
Caretaker’s quarters. A dwelling unit on the site of a non-residential use, occupied by someone employed to care for a property or facility. Caretaker’s quarters are meant to serve only as a secondary or accessory use to the existing use on the property.
Collection buildings. Buildings with a gross floor area of 225 square feet or less used for the deposit and storage of recyclables.
Commercial cannabis use. Commercial cannabis use means and includes the commercial cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transportation, wholesale or retail delivery, wholesale or retail sale of cannabis and cannabis products, or any combination of such activities, whether or not carried out for profit, and any other activity that requires a license, or may require a license in the future, pursuant to the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, California Business and Professions Code, Division 10, section 26000 et seq. Without limiting the foregoing, the term “commercial cannabis use” also includes a medical marijuana dispensary, a patient collective or patient cooperative operating under the Compassionate Use Act (Health & Safety Code Section 11362.5) and/or the Medical Marijuana Program Act (Health & Safety Code Section 11362.7 et seq.), as each may be amended; a nonprofit licensee under Business and Professions Code section 26070.5; and a cannabis cooperative association under Business and Professions Code section 26220 et seq.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1978 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
22 Condominium project. A housing development of two or more units, the interior space of which are individually owned, with the balance of the property owned by the owners of the individual units. See also Civil Code Section 1351(f) and Government Code Section 65915(b)(4).
Construction cost index. The Engineering News Record San Francisco Building Cost Index. If the index ceases to exist, the City Manager shall submit another cost index which is in their judgment is the nearly equivalent to the original index as possible.
Consumer price index. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area or, if the index is discontinued, a successor index selected by the City Manager.
Container or storage unit. A container or storage unit includes, but is not limited to, any of the following if 15 cubic yards or larger: a debris or trash box, a cargo or storage container, a construction or transport trailer (when detached from the truck trailer). A container or storage unit is not permanently attached to the ground. A container or storage unit does not include an accessory structure as defined in this Chapter, or a trash container storage unit placed by the disposal company licensed by the City, when that container is used for regular, weekly garbage pick-up.
Cottage food operations. An enterprise that has not more than $50,000 in gross annual sales; operated by a “cottage food operator” (who operates in their private home and owns the operation); and having not more than one full-time equivalent employee, not including a family or household member; that involves preparation of “cottage food products” which are nonhazardous foods such as baked goods without cream or meat fillings; candy; chocolate-covered nonperishable foods; dried fruit; dried pasta; dry baking mixes; fruit pies; granola, cereals and trail mixes; herb blends and dried mole paste; honey; jams, jellies, preserves; nut mixes and nut butters; popcorn; vinegar and mustard; roasted coffee and dried tea; waffle cones and pizelles; other items added by the State Public Health Officer on an approved food products list (Health and Safety Code Section 113758). See also “home occupation.” Coverage, lot or site. The percentage of a site covered by a building, accessory structure, roof, soffit, trellis, and eave or overhang extending more than two feet from a wall, and by a deck or above ground pool more than 36 inches in height.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1979 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
23 Figure 18.__-_
Lot Coverage
Cultural resource. Improvements, buildings, structures, signs, features, sites, landscapes, trees, or other objects of scientific, aesthetic, educational, cultural, architectural, or historical significance to the citizens of the City, the Diablo Valley, the Northern California region, or the nation which may be eligible for designation or designated and determined to be appropriate for historic preservation by the Architectural Review Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
18.195.040 “D” Definitions
Daylight plane. An inclined plane, beginning at a stated height above grade at a side or rear property line, and extending into the site at a stated upward angle to the horizontal, which may limit the height or horizontal extent of structures at any specific point on the site where the daylight plane is more restrictive than the height limit or the minimum yard applicable at such point on the site.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1980 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
24 Figure 18.__-_
Daylight Plane
(The diagram is illustrative)
Deck. A platform, either freestanding or attached to a building, that is supported by pillars or posts (see also “balcony”).
Density bonus. As defined by Government Code Section 65915 et seq.
Density bonus housing agreement. A legally binding. recorded agreement between an owner/developer and the City to ensure that the requirements of this Zoning Ordinance and State law are satisfied. The agreement, among other things, shall establish the number of target bonus units, their size, location, terms and conditions of affordability, and production schedule. The agreement shall also require management and maintenance of the units. See Section 18.15.090 (Density Bonus).
Density bonus units. Residential dwelling units allowed to exceed the otherwise allowable maximum residential density for the development site in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and State law.
Detached, building or structure. A building or structure shall be considered detached from any other building or structure; provided, the distance is a minimum of three feet from any wall or projection, measured at the closest point. See definition for the term “attached.” Development agreement. A contract between the City and an applicant for a development project, in compliance with Chapter 18.180 (Development Agreement) and Government Code Section 65864 et seq. A development agreement is intended to provide assurance to the applicant that an approved Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1981 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
25 project may proceed subject to the policies, rules, regulations, and conditions of approval applicable to the project at the time of approval, regardless of any changes to City policies, rules, and regulations after project approval. In return, the City may be assured that the applicant will provide infrastructure and/or pay fees required by a new project.
Development standard. Any site or construction condition that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution or regulation.
Driveway. A paved area on a lot necessary to provide direct access for vehicles between a street and either:
1. An area on a residential lot containing four or fewer parking spaces;
2. An aisle between spaces in a parking lot;
3. A loading berth; or
4. A refuse storage area.
18.195.050 “E” Definitions
Electric vehicle (EV) charger. A device that supplies electric power to charge the battery of an electric vehicle.
Electric vehicle charging space (EV space). A space intended for charging electric vehicles.
Electric vehicle charging station (EVCS). One or more electric vehicle charging spaces served by an electric vehicle charger or other charging equipment. Where a multiport electric vehicle charger can simultaneously charge more than one vehicle, the number of electric vehicle charging stations shall be considered equivalent to the number of electric vehicles that can be simultaneously charged.
Environmental impact report (EIR). An environmental report used to assess the physical characteristics of an area and to determine what effects will result if the area is altered by a proposed action, prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Exterior architectural feature. The architectural element embodying style, design, general arrangement, and components of all the outer surfaces of an improvement including, but not limited to, the kind, color and texture of the building materials and the type and style of all windows, doors, lights, signs, and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement.
18.195.060 “F” Definitions
Family. One or more persons occupying premises and living as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding or lodging house, hotel, club, or similar dwelling for group use. A family shall not include a fraternal, religious, social, or business group. A family shall be deemed to include domestic worker.
Fence. A barrier made of wire, wood, metal, masonry, or other material used as a screen or enclosure for a yard, equipment, or open space. It includes a wall, gate, or structure used as a fence. A retaining wall, freestanding (monument) sign, or landscape structure is not considered a fence except for that portion which is used as a fence. See Chapter 18.65 (Fences, Walls, and Screening).
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1982 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
26 Floor area, gross. The total area of all floors in a building, excluding basements, as measured to the outside surface of exterior walls or to the centerline of common walls. It excludes any crawl space, area used exclusively for vehicle parking or loading, breezeway, attic without floor, and any open porch, deck, balcony, or terrace.
Floor area, net. The total area of all floors in a building as measured to the outside surface of exterior walls or to the centerline of common walls. It excludes any crawl space, area used exclusively for vehicle parking or loading, breezeway, attic without floor, and an open porch, deck, balcony or terrace.
It also excludes any corridors, hallways, stairways, elevator shafts at each floor level, service and mechanical equipment rooms, and attic areas having a height of more than seven feet, and, in industrial areas, storage sheds with less than 150 square feet of space, bunkers, electrical substations, smoking shelters, instrument shelters, and similar enclosures.
Floor area ratio (FAR). The gross floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by the lot area or site area.
Figure 18.__-_
Floor Area Ratio
(The diagram is illustrative)
For-sale project. A residential project, or portion thereof, which is intended to be sold to an owneroccupant upon completion.
Frontage types.
1. Frontage, building. The building facade facing a street or public open space.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1983 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
27 2. Frontage, site. The width of the site along a street or public open space.
3. Frontage, street. The property line or part of the site facing a street or public open space. The street frontage is the length of the front lot line or, in the case of a corner lot, the front lot line plus the corner side lot line.
18.195.070 “G” Definitions
General plan. The City of Pleasant Hill General Plan, including all its elements and all amendments, as adopted by the City Council under the provisions of Government Code Sections 65300 et seq., and referred to in this Zoning Ordinance as the "General Plan." Grade.
1. Grade, average. The average level on the surface defined as the shortest distance between finished grade at the highest and lowest sides of a structure.
2. Grade, existing. The level of the ground or pavement at a stated location as it exists prior to disturbance in preparation for a project regulated by this chapter.
3. Grade, finished. The lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line or, when the property line is more than five feet from the building, between the building and a line five feet from the building.
4. Grade, street. The top of the curb, or the top of the edge of the pavement or traveled way where no curb exists.
18.195.080 “H” Definitions
Height. The vertical dimension measured from finished grade, unless otherwise specified. See building height as defined in this Chapter.
Historic district. Any area containing a concentration of improvements which have a special character, historical interest or aesthetic value, which possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, or which represent one or more architectural periods or styles typical of the history of the City, and that has been designated an historic district.
Housing development project. Residential construction projects as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).
18.195.090 “I” Definitions
Illumination, direct. Illumination by means of light that travels directly from its source to the viewer’s eye.
Illumination, indirect. Illumination by means only of light cast upon an opaque surface from a concealed source.
Improved pedestrian connection. An elevated overhead pedestrian access bridge or sidewalk or below street grade pedestrian access tunnel below finished grade of Interstate 680.
Incentive or concession. The benefit offered by the City to facilitate construction of eligible affordable housing costs and units as defined by this Chapter. Examples of incentives/concessions include Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1984 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
28 adjustment of development standards, expedited processing of entitlements, relaxation of otherwise applicable entitlement conditions, and provisions for mixed-use activities. See Section 18.15.090 (Density Bonus).and Government Code Section 65915 et seq.
Inclusionary unit. A dwelling unit reserved for occupancy by a low- or very low-income household (as defined by Health and Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105) with a new residential development.
18.195.100 “J” Definitions
No terms defined.
18.195.110 “K” Definitions
Kitchen. Any part of a room or structure which is designed, built, used, or intended to be used for the preparation or cooking of food and must contain, at minimum, an oven or stove, a refrigerator, and a sink having a drain outlet of larger than one and one-half inches in diameter. A kitchen may also include a microwave, dishwasher, garbage disposal, or other appliances for cooking, preparing, or storing food.
A kitchen does not include bars, butler’s pantries, or similar rooms adjacent to or connected with a kitchen.
18.195.120 “L” Definitions
Land use. The purpose for which a site or structure is arranged, designed, intended, constructed, moved, erected, altered, or enlarged or for which either a site or structure is or may be occupied or maintained.
Landscape. To plant and maintain some combination of trees, ground cover, shrubs, vines, flowers, or lawn. Required landscaping may include natural features such as existing or imported rock and structural features including fountains, pools, artwork, screens, walls, fences, or benches. A landscaped area may also include a walkway or concrete plaza if it is an integral part of the elements of landscaping described above. Plants on rooftops, porches, or in boxes attached to buildings are not considered landscaping.
Landscaping, interior. A landscaped area(s) within a defined the perimeter of the parking or loading area as shown in Figure 18.__-_, or similar paved area, excluding driveways or walkways providing access to the facility (as applied to parking and loading facilities or to similar paved areas).
Landscaping, perimeter. A landscaped area adjoining the exterior boundary of a parking or loading area as shown in Figure 18.__-_, or similar paved area, excluding driveways or walkways providing access to the facility (as applied to parking and loading facilities or to similar paved areas).
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1985 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
29 Figure 18.__-_
Landscaping: Interior/Exterior
Living unit. One or more rooms designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, and include a kitchen, sleeping area, and bathroom facilities.
Lot. A site or parcel of land.
Lot area. The horizontal area within the property lines excluding public-access corridors, vehicular easements, and areas to be included in future street rights-of-way as established by easement, dedication, or ordinance.
Lot depth. The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line, or to the most distant point on any other lot line where there is no rear lot line.
Lot line types.
1. Front lot line. A lot line abutting the street or easement providing access to the lot. The front lot line of a corner lot is the shortest street line. If the street lines are the same length, any of the street-abutting lot lines may be considered the front lot line, unless one streetabutting lot line results in nonconforming setbacks. a Flag lots. The front lot line of a flag lot (see "flag lot" under "lot types”) is measured at the point where the "pole" meets the bulk ("flag") of the lot parallel to the rear lot line of the lot adjacent to the pole as shown in Figure 18 (Flag Lot Front Lot Line). b Irregular shaped lots. The front lot line of an irregular shaped lot shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1986 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
30 Figure 18.__-_
Flag Lot Front Lot Line
2. Interior lot line. A lot line not abutting a street.
3. Rear lot line. A lot line, not a front lot line, that is parallel or approximately parallel to the front lot line. Where no lot line is within 45 degrees of being parallel to the front lot line, a line 10 feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum possible distance from the front lot line shall be deemed the rear lot line for the purpose of measuring rear yard depth.
4. Side lot line. A lot line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line.
5. Street lot line. A lot line, other than the front lot line, abutting a street.
Lot types.
1. Corner lot. A lot bounded by two or more adjacent street lines that have an angle of intersection of not more than 135 degrees on a street or private driveway serving two or more additional properties or dwelling units (not counting accessory dwelling units). The front yard of a corner lot shall adjoin the shortest street property line; provided, that where street property lines are substantially the same length, the Zoning Administrator shall determine the location of the front yard based on existing or proposed access to the principal building on the lot. See Subsection
18.15.040.D (Corner and Double-Frontage Lot Setbacks) for additional development regulations for corner lots.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1987 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
31 2. Double-frontage lot. An interior lot having frontage on more than one street. Each frontage from which access is permitted shall be deemed a front lot line. See Subsection 18.15.040.D (Corner and Double-Frontage Lot Setbacks) for additional development regulations for doublefrontage lots.
3. Flag lot. A lot with a narrow strip of land, known as the "staff" or "pole," that provides access to the main, larger portion of the lot, which is often referred to as the "flag." The staff portion typically resembles a flagpole and connects the larger, buildable area of the lot to a public street or private road.
4. Interior lot. A lot other than a corner lot.
5. Irregular lot. A lot characterized by boundaries that may have varying lengths, non-parallel sides, or unusual angles, resulting in a form that does not conform to the other lot types defined herein. For the purposes of this Title, the lot lines of an irregular lot shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator.
6. Key lot. A key lot is an interior lot whose front yard abuts the rear yard of a corner lot.
Lot width. The average horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth from the required front yard setback and from the required rear yard setback or from the rearmost point of the lot depth in cases where there is no rear lot line. (See lot depth, lot width diagram.) Figure 18.__-_
Lot Depth and Width
(The diagram is illustrative)
Low-income household. A household whose income does not exceed the low-income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1988 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
32 Lower income household. A lower income household as defined in Civil Code Sections 51.3 and
51.12 (Government Code Section 65915(b)(1) and (c)(1), and Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5.).
18.195.130 “M” Definitions
Market rate units. New living units in residential projects which are not affordable units.
Maximum allowable residential density. The maximum number of residential units permitted by the General Plan on the date the application is deemed complete. See Government Code Section 65915(o)(2).
Mixed-use. A type of development where a variety of uses such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated project.
Mobile recycling unit. An automobile, truck, trailer, or van, licensed by the State Department of Motor Vehicles, which is used for the collection of recyclable materials, including the bins, boxes or containers transported by trucks, vans or trailers and used for the collection of recyclable materials.
Moderate-income household. A household whose income does not exceed the moderate-income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in compliance with Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (Government Code Section 65915(c)(2), Health and Safety Code Section 50093).
18.195.140 “N” Definitions
Natural feature. Any tree, plant life, water feature, or rock outcropping.
Noncommercial message or speech. Any message that is not commercial speech, which includes but is not limited to, messages concerning political, religious, social, ideological, public services, and informational topics.
Nonconforming sign, legal. A sign, outdoor advertising structure, or display of any character that was lawfully erected or displayed before the adoption of this Zoning Ordinance, or amendment thereto, but which does not conform with currently applicable requirements prescribed for the zoning district in which the sign is located.
Nonconforming structure, legal. A structure that was lawfully erected before the adoption of this Zoning Ordinance, or amendment thereto, but which does not conform with the currently applicable provisions and/or development standards established for the zoning district in which the structure is located (e.g., setbacks, structure height, distance between structures).
Nonconforming use, legal. A use of a structure of land that was lawfully established and maintained before the adoption of this Zoning Ordinance, or amendment thereto, but which does not conform with currently applicable use regulations for which the zoning district in which it is located.
Nonrestricted unit. All units within a housing development excluding the affordable target units, as defined in this Chapter.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1989 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
33 18.195.150 “O” Definitions
Off-street loading facilities. A site or portion of a site devoted to the loading or unloading of motor vehicles or trailers, including loading berths, aisles, access drives, and landscaped areas.
Open space types.
1. Private open space. An open area outside of a building adjoining and directly accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests.
2. Shared open space. An open area within a residential development reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the development and their guests.
3. Passive Open Space. An open area outside of a building or structure that is more natural in quality and does not provide facilities or access to users (such as walking paths or seating).
Passive open spaces may include, but are not limited to, bioswales, landscaped areas, and natural habitat.
4. Active Open Space. An open space area or recreational area that has any type of user facility (e.g., walking path, benches, restrooms, sports fields or courts). See also "park and recreational facility" definition in Section 18.190.050 (Public and Semi-Public Land Use Classifications).
5. Yard. An open space on the same site as a structure, unoccupied and unobstructed by structures from the ground upward except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, including a front yard, side yard, corner side yard, or rear yard.
Ordinary maintenance and repair. Any work, for which a Building Permit is not required by law, where the purpose and effect of such work is to correct any deterioration of or damage to a structure or any part thereof and to restore the same to its condition prior to the occurrence of such deterioration or damage. See definition for the term “alteration.”
Outdoor storage. Storage outside of a building of material not intended for immediate sale or exhibition.
Owner. The person(s) or entity(ies) that hold legal or equitable title to a dwelling or lot.
18.195.160 “P” Definitions
Rooftop equipment. Any structure located on the roof of a building which encloses mechanical equipment.
Permitted. Allowed without a requirement for approval of a Conditional Use Permit or Temporary Use Permit.
Planned development. A development (other than a community apartment project, a condominium project, or a stock cooperative) having either or both of the following features:
1. The common area is owned either by an association or in common by the owners of the separate interests who possess appurtenant rights to the beneficial use and enjoyment of the common area.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1990 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
34 2. A power exists in the association to enforce an obligation of an owner of a separate interest with respect to the beneficial use and enjoyment of the common area by means of an assessment which may become a lien upon the separate interests in compliance with Civil Code Section 1367 et seq. (Government Code Section 65915(b)(4); Civil Code Section 1351(k).)
Porch. A covered platform at an entrance to a dwelling, or an open or enclosed gallery or room, which is not heated or cooled and is attached to the outside of a building.
Preexisting. In existence prior to the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance.
Primary street. A main thoroughfare, including “arterial” through routes and mixed-use, multifunctional right -of-way (at least in part along their length), providing access to properties as well as other amenities.
Processing facility. A building or enclosed space used for the collection and processing of recyclable material, and/or used motor oil, by such means as flattening, mechanical sorting, compacting, baling, shredding, grinding, crushing, and cleaning.
1. A light-processing facility occupies less than 45,000 square feet and includes equipment for baling, briquetting, crushing, compacting, grinding, shredding and sorting of source-separated recyclable materials, except ferrous metals other than food and beverage containers, and repairing of reusable materials.
2. A heavy-processing facility is any processing facility other than a light-processing facility.
Project. Any proposal for new or changed use, or for new construction, alteration, or enlargement of any structure, that is subject to the provisions of this chapter.
Project site. The specific location on which a development, use, structure, or building is proposed.
Published standards. The standards for specific income levels for Contra Costa County, as published under Title 25, California Code of Regulations Section 6932.
18.195.170 “Q” Definitions
Qualifying household. A household meeting statutory or regulatory requirements to receive the benefits conferred by a statutory or regulatory program.
Qualifying resident. Senior citizens or other persons eligible to reside in a senior citizen housing development (Civil Code Sections 51.3 and 51.12.).
18.195.180 “R” Definitions
Reasonable accommodation. Providing individuals with disabilities, or developers of housing for individuals with disabilities, flexibility in the application of land use, zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures or waiving enforcement, if necessary, to ensure equal access to housing for individuals with disabilities in compliance with Chapter 18.125 (Reasonable Accommodation), and State and Federal fair housing laws.
Recreational Vehicle. In compliance with Health and Safety Section 18010, a motor home, travel trailer, truck camper, or camping trailer, with or without motive power, originally designed for human habitation for recreational, emergency, or other occupancy, which meets all the following criteria:
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1991 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
35 • It contains less than 320 square feet of internal living room area, excluding built-in equipment, including wardrobe, closets, cabinets, kitchen units or fixtures, and bath or toilet rooms; • It contains 400 square feet or less of gross area measured at maximum horizontal projections; • It is built on a single chassis; and
• It is either self-propelled, truck-mounted, or permanently towable on the highways without a towing permit.
Recyclable material. Reusable material including, but not limited to, metals, glass, plastic and paper which are intended for reuse, remanufacture, or reconstitution for the purpose of using the altered form.
Recyclable material does not include refuse or hazardous materials but may include used motor oil.
Recycling facility. A center for the collection and/or processing of recyclable materials.
Rehabilitation. Restoring a property to make it usable for modern purposes while preserving its important historical, architectural, and cultural features.
Rental projects. A residential project, or portion thereof, which is intended to be rented to tenants upon completion.
Resale control. A resale restriction placed on inclusionary units by which the price of such units and income of the purchaser will be restricted to assure affordability and occupancy by qualifying households and residents.
Residential project. Any planned zoning district, subdivision map, or discretionary land use entitlement which authorizes five or more living units or residential lots, or living units and residential lots which total five or more in combination. For the purpose of this Zoning Ordinance, contemporaneous construction of five or more living units on a lot, or on contiguous lots for which there is evidence of common ownership or control, even though not covered by the same land use entitlement, shall also be considered a residential project. Construction shall be considered contemporaneous for all units which do not have completed final inspections for occupancy and which have outstanding, at any one time, any one or more of the following: planned zoning district, subdivision map, or other discretionary entitlement, or Building Permits, or applications for such an approval or permits.
Residential structure types.
1. Accessory dwelling unit. An attached or detached dwelling unit that is located on a single lot with another, primary dwelling unit and provides complete facilities for independent living for one or more persons. These facilities include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation. See Section 18.15.050 (Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU and JADU)).
2. Accessory dwelling unit, junior (JADU). An accessory dwelling unit which is located within the living space of an existing primary single-unit dwelling, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code. See Section 18.15.050 (Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU and JADU)).
3. Dwelling. A building designed exclusively for residential occupancy, including single-family, duplex, and multifamily, but not including a hotel, motel, or boardinghouse.
4. Dwelling unit. One or more habitable rooms designed for occupancy by one or more persons for living and sleeping purposes and having a kitchen.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1992 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
36 5. Multi-family dwelling. A building used and designed to accommodate two or more separate households/living units. Each unit has its own entrances, bathrooms, kitchens, and living areas. See “Multifamily Residential” in Section 18.190.060 (Residential Land Use Classifications).
6. Single-family dwelling. A building designed to accommodate one household/living unit on a single lot. See “Single-Family Residential” in Section 18.190.060 (Residential Land Use Classifications).
Reverse vending machine. An automated mechanical device that accepts at least one or more types of empty beverage containers including aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles, and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip. A reverse vending machine may sort and process containers mechanically; provided, that the entire process is enclosed within the machine.
1. A single-feed revenue vending machine is designed to accept individual containers one at a time.
2. A bulk reverse vending machine is designed to accept more than one container at a time and to compute the refund or credit due on the basis of weight.
Room, habitable. A room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Housing Code for its intended use (e.g., sleeping, living, cooking, or dining), excluding such enclosed places as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, garages, and similar spaces.
18.195.190 “S” Definitions
Senior citizen housing development. A housing development as defined in California Civil Code Section 51.3(b)(4) (Government Code Section 65915(b)(3).).
Setback line. A line within a lot parallel to a corresponding lot line, which is the boundary of any specified front, side, corner side or rear yard, or a line otherwise established to govern the location of buildings, structures or uses. Where no minimum front, side, corner side or rear yards are specified, the setback line shall be coterminous with the corresponding lot line.
Shopping center. A unified group of retail businesses and service uses on a single site with common parking facilities. A shopping center may include pads for future buildings.
Short-term stay. The rental of a dwelling or a portion thereof by the owner to another person or group of persons for the lodging or sleeping for a term of less than 30 consecutive calendar days.
Sign. Any identification, description, illustration, or device illuminated or nonilluminated, which is visible to the general public and directs attention to a product, service, place, activity, person, institution, business or solicitation, including any permanently installed or situated merchandise; or any emblem, painting, flag, banner, pennant, or placard designed to advertise, identify, or convey information.
Sign types.
1. Animated sign. Any sign which uses mechanical or electrical movement or change of lighting, either natural or artificial, to depict action or to create a special effect or scene.
2. Banner. Any sign of lightweight fabric or similar material that is mounted to a pole or a building at one or more edges.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1993 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
37 3. Business identification sign. A sign that serves to identify only the name and address of the premises, business, building or portion of building upon which it is located and includes no other advertising such as product lists, phone numbers and hours of operation. Such a sign may include a logo or business symbol.
4. Commercial sign. A sign that is intended to attract attention to a commercial or industrial business, occupancy, product, good, service or other commercial or industrial activity for a commercial or industrial purpose.
5. Directional or informational sign. Any sign erected for the sole purpose of indicating the route to, direction of or location of a given goal, or which provides regulatory or service information of a non-advertising character. Directional and informational signs include but are not limited to: signs that denote the route to any City, community facility, historic place, or hospital; signs directing and regulating traffic; signs directing visitors to tourist-oriented businesses; notices of any utility or transmission company necessary for the direction or safety of the public; and signs, notices or symbols as to the time and place of civic meetings.
6. Directory sign. A pedestrian-oriented sign which identifies or lists the names and locations of tenants at a multi-tenant site.
7. Electronic readerboard. A changeable, moving message sign consisting of a matrix of lamps, light emitting diodes (LEDs), or similar devices which are computer-controlled.
8. Flag. Any fabric, banner, or bunting containing distinctive colors, patterns, or design, used as a symbol.
9. Flashing sign. An illuminated sign which exhibits changing light or color effect by blinking or any other such means so as to provide a nonconstant illumination.
10. Freestanding sign. A sign which is self-supporting in a fixed location and not attached to a building. It includes a sign connected or attached to a sign structure, fence, pole, wall, tree or other vegetation and which is not an integral part of a building.
11. Grand opening sign. A sign used by newly established businesses to inform the public of their location and services.
12. Incidental sign. A small sign less than one square foot pertaining to goods, products, services or facilities that are available on the premises where the sign occurs and intended primarily for the convenience of the public.
13. Logo. A trademark or company name symbol.
14. Master sign program. A coordinated sign plan which includes details of all signs (not including exempt or temporary signs) which are or will be placed on a site, including master identification, individual business and directory signs.
15. Multiple-story office sign. A wall sign used to identify an office building with three or more above-ground levels.
16. Neon or other gas tube illumination. Illumination affected by a light source consisting of a neon or other gas tube which is bent to form letters, symbols or other shapes.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1994 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
38 17. Noncommercial sign. A sign that does not name, advertise or call attention to a commercial or industrial business, commodity, product, good, service or other commercial or industrial activity for a commercial or industrial purpose.
18. Off-premises sign. An outdoor advertising sign advertising a business, product or service not offered on the premises where the sign is located.
19. Open house sign. A temporary portable sign providing direction to residential real property during the period it is on public display for purposes of sale or lease.
20. Panel sign. A wall sign with a background panel integrated into the sign. The background panel is typically treated with paint, tile, metal, wood, mosaic, decorative stone or similar materials to complement the sign design.
21. Portable sign. A sign not permanently attached to the ground or other permanent structure, or a sign designed to be transported, including, but not limited to, signs with wheels, A-frames, Hframes, menu and sandwich board signs, balloons used as signs, and umbrellas used for advertising.
22. Projecting sign. A sign which is either suspended from an overhang, canopy, or awning, or is suspended from a mounting attached directly to the building wall and hangs perpendicular to the building wall (also known as a blade sign or shingle sign).
23. Real estate sign. Any temporary sign pertaining to the sale, exchange, lease or rental of buildings or real property.
24. Roof sign. A sign installed on a roof or projecting above the eave of a building or mounted on an arcade or parapet.
25. Subdivision directional sign. A sign providing direction to a land development project within the city pursuant to this chapter.
26. Temporary sign. A sign with commercial or noncommercial text which is intended to be displayed for a limited time. Temporary signs shall include banners or light, rigid material which is not affixed in a permanent manner to the ground or to any structure. Awning signs shall not be considered temporary signs.
27. Theater/cinema sign. A sign, such as a marquee, designed for a theater or cinema, with changeable letters, brighter lights, or other attention-getting features.
28. Time/temperature sign. An electronic or mechanical device which shows time and/or temperature but contains no business identification or advertising. The surface area of the time/temperature display shall be included in the total aggregate sign area of the business.
29. Wall sign. A sign attached directly to an exterior wall of a building or dependent upon a building for support with the exposed face of the sign located in a place substantially parallel to such exterior building wall to which the sign is attached or supported by. An overhang, attached framework, or other substantial architectural appurtenance may be considered an extension of the building wall.
30. Window sign. A sign attached to, suspended or placed within five feet behind, placed or painted upon, the window or glass door of a building which is intended for viewing from the exterior of such building.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1995 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
39 Site. A lot, or group of contiguous lots not divided by a street, other right-of-way, or City limit, and under single ownership or unified control.
Specific plan. A plan for a defined area that is consistent with the general plan and with the provisions of the California Government Code authorizing specific plans.
Stepback. A step-like recession in the profile of a multistory building. A stepback requires the building to take a step back from the street for every increase in height of the structure. Stepbacks can also be a design technique to reduce the visual impact of tall buildings.
Story. The portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor next above. The topmost story is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling of the roof above.
Story, half. A half-story is defined below
• When the finished floor level directly above a useable or unused underfloor space is six feet or less above finished grade.
• When the finished floor level is directly above a story or half story, any story six feet or less is a half-story.
Structure. Anything constructed or erected that requires a location on the ground, including a building, a deck, or a swimming pool, but not including fences or walls that are eight feet in height or less and access drives or walks.
Structure, accessory. An accessory structure is a structure placed on a site, other than the principal, permanent residential structure. An accessory structure must be located on a site with an existing or proposed primary structure. Temporary containers or storage units regulated by Section 18.15.050 (Container or Storage Unit), fences or walls eight feet or less in height, decks attached to the principal permanent residential structure, freestanding decks 18 inches or less in height above ground, in-ground pools, and permanent basketball hoops shall not be considered accessory structures.
Swimming pools and hot tubs. Water-filled enclosures having a depth of 18 inches or more used for swimming or recreation.
18.195.200 “T” Definitions
Target unit. A dwelling unit within a housing development which will be reserved for sale or rent to and is made available at an affordable rent or affordable ownership cost to, very low-, low-, or moderateincome households, or other qualifying households, such as senior citizen and student housing development.
18.195.210 “U” Definitions
No terms defined.
18.195.220 “V” Definitions
Very low-income household. A household whose income does not exceed the very low-income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1996 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Chapter 18.195 Definitions
40 Housing and Community Development pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 50105 (Government Code Sections 65915(b)(2) and (c)(1).
18.195.230 “W” Definitions
No terms defined.
18.195.240 “X” Definitions
No terms defined.
18.195.250 “Y” Definitions
Yard types.
1. Corner side yard. A side yard on the street side of a corner lot. The depth of the corner side yard is the minimum horizontal distance between the corner side property line and a line parallel to it on the site. If a public or private vehicular easement exists, the measurement is from the edge of the easement closest to the structure. If a corner side yard abuts a vehicular access easement that serves only one property, then said yard shall be treated as an interior side yard for setback purposes.
2. Front yard. A yard extending across the full width of a site, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the front property line and a line parallel to it on the site. If a public or private vehicular easement exists, the measurement is from the edge of the easement closest to the structure.
3. Rear yard. A yard extending across the full width of a site, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the rear property line and a line parallel to it on the site. On a corner lot, the rear yard extends only to the corner side yard. If a public or private vehicular easement exists, the measurement is from the edge of the easement closest to the structure.
4. Side yard. A yard extending from the rear line of the required front yard, or the front property line of the site where no front yard is required, to the front line of the required rear yard, or the rear property line of the site where no rear yard is required, the width of which is the horizontal distance between the side property line and a line parallel thereto on the site, except that the corner side yard shall extend to the rear lot line.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1997 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications Chapter 18.195 Revised Preliminary Draft – April 2025
41 Figure 18.__-_
Yard Types
18.195.260 “Z” Definitions
No terms defined.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1998 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 EllinwoodCree
T
k
rib of Grayson
Trib of Hidden Valley
Trib of Murderers
Grayson Creek
MurderersCr e ek
E Branch Grayson
Cr e e k
Single-Family
Residential (R-6)
Single-Family
Residential (R-7)
Single-Family
Residential (R-10)
Single-Family
Residential (R-10A)
Single-Family
Residential (R-15)
Single-Family
Residential (R-20)
Mangini Delu Residential
(RMD)
Very Low Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFVL)
Low Density MultiFamily Residential (MFL)
Medium Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFM)
High Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFH)
Very High Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFVH)
Neighborhood Business
Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
Mixed-Use (MX)
High Density Mixed-Use
(MX-HD)
Very High Density
Mixed-Use (MX-VHD)
Neighborhood Business
(NB)
Retail Business (RB)
Professional and
Administrative Office
(PAO)
General Commercial (C)
Limited Industrial (LI)
Planned Unit
Development or Precise
Plan (PUD/PPD)
Hillside Planned Unit
Development (HPUD)
Parks and Recreation
(REC)
Open Space (OS)
City Boundary
Creeks and Streams
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles ¯
Proposed 2040 Zoning
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 1999 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 EllinwoodCree
T
k
rib of Grayson
Trib of Hidden Valley
Trib of Murderers
Grayson Creek
MurderersCr e ek
E Branch Grayson
Cr e e k
Single-Family
Residential (R-6)
Single-Family
Residential (R-7)
Single-Family
Residential (R-10)
Single-Family
Residential (R-10A)
Single-Family
Residential (R-15)
Single-Family
Residential (R-20)
Mangini Delu Residential
(RMD)
Very Low Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFVL)
Low Density MultiFamily Residential (MFL)
Medium Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFM)
High Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFH)
Very High Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFVH)
Neighborhood Business
Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
Mixed-Use (MX)
High Density Mixed-Use
(MX-HD)
Very High Density
Mixed-Use (MX-VHD)
Neighborhood Business
(NB)
Retail Business (RB)
Professional and
Administrative Office
(PAO)
General Commercial (C)
Limited Industrial (LI)
Planned Unit
Development or Precise
Plan (PUD/PPD)
Hillside Planned Unit
Development (HPUD)
Parks and Recreation
(REC)
Open Space (OS)
City Boundary
I 680 FWY
Streets
Creeks and Streams
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles ¯
Proposed 2040 Rezones
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2000 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 EllinwoodCree
T
k
rib of Grayson
Trib of Hidden Valley
Trib of Murderers
Grayson Creek
MurderersCr e ek
E Branch Grayson
Cr e e k
Single-Family
Residential (R-6)
Single-Family
Residential (R-7)
Single-Family
Residential (R-10)
Single-Family
Residential (R-10A)
Single-Family
Residential (R-15)
Single-Family
Residential (R-20)
Mangini Delu Residential
(RMD)
Very Low Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFVL)
Low Density MultiFamily Residential (MFL)
Medium Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFM)
High Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFH)
Very High Density MultiFamily Residential
(MFVH)
Neighborhood Business
Mixed-Use (MX-NB)
Mixed-Use (MX)
High Density Mixed-Use
(MX-HD)
Very High Density
Mixed-Use (MX-VHD)
Neighborhood Business
(NB)
Retail Business (RB)
Professional and
Administrative Office
(PAO)
General Commercial (C)
Limited Industrial (LI)
Planned Unit
Development or Precise
Plan (PUD/PPD)
Hillside Planned Unit
Development (HPUD)
Parks and Recreation
(REC)
Open Space (OS)
City Boundary
I 680 FWY
Streets
Creeks and Streams
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles ¯
Proposed 2040 Rezones
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2001 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 1 Planning Commission
staff report June 25, 2024
Subject: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PROPOSED
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CITY
OF PLEASANT HILL GENERAL PLAN 2040, INCLUDING THE
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY-WIDE
Project Planner : Haley Croffoot, 925-671-5297, [email protected] I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
The Planning Commission is being asked to review and provide preliminary feedback on proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (PHMC Title 18) on topics related to:
• Enactment and Applicability – Proposed Part 1 (existing Chapters 18.05, & 18.10)
• Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts – Proposed Part 3 (existing Chapters 18.50, 18.52, 18.55, 18.60, 18.65, 18.67, 18.70, & 18.145) • Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures – Proposed Part 4 (existing Chapters 18.70, 18.85, 18.90, 18.95, 18.100, 18.105, 18.110, 18.111,
18.112, 18.115, 18.120, & 18.130)
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are part of a comprehensive zoning ordinance update necessary to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to update current ordinance provisions as necessary. This is the first of three Study Sessions that will cover amendments to every section of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Background
General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decisionmaking and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2002 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 2 Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023- 2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20) and introduced new mixed-use district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
Public Notice
A notice of this public hearing was provided on the City Hall electronic sign, A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library, posted at the Senior Center, and notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website and the City’s pleasanthill2040.com website, and emailed directly to individuals who subscribed for General Plan/Housing Element related updates.
III. ANALYSIS
The proposed modifications are not all content based modifications. Modifications include providing increased clarity and readability of the ordinance (including language choice and streamlining text where appropriate) and rearranging sections of the ordinance to avoid repetitive statements or to be relocated into more logical locations of the ordinance. Staff has provided an overview of the more substantive modifications for Commission review and feedback in the sections below.
A. Proposed Ordinance Outline
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include a restructuring and reorganization of the existing ordinance into six new Parts. Additionally, all Chapters are listed alphabetically within each Part to improve usability. A revised outline of the Ordinance is included as Attachment A. All Parts will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council.
B. Enactment and Applicability (Proposed Part 1)
Part 1 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include chapters related to Purpose and Organization (Chapter 18.05), and Applicability and Interpretation (Chapter
18.10), of the Ordinance. These new chapters directly align with the existing Chapters 18.05 and 18.10. The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature simply clarify and refine the City’s existing provisions. The proposed amendments also include a revised “Organization of the Zoning Ordinance” (Chapter 18.05.030) section that reflects proposed Ordinance outline. Finally, Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2003 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 3 Part 1 also includes a new table that consolidates all zoning districts with related densities and FAR standards, consistent with the General Plan.
C. Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Proposed Part 3) Part 3 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes general provisions that apply to all zoning districts as follows:
• General Site and Development Standards
• Adult Businesses
• Cannabis
• Creek Setbacks
• Fences, Walls, and Screening
• Off-Street Parking and Loading
• Performance Standards
• Signs
• Tree Preservation
• Water-Efficient Landscaping
• Wireless Telecommunications
General Modifications: This section of the Ordinance has been expanded to include separate Chapters for frequently referenced provisions such as Tree Preservation, or provisions that were currently imbedded under “Additional Site Development Regulations”, (existing Chapter 18.50) such as Creek Setbacks, and Cannabis. Some of the more substantive changes include clarifying how the City measures structure and building heights (from “existing grade” instead of “ground surface”), updating the City’s traffic safety visibility area (proposed Section
18.45.070) to rectify existing discrepancies between the City’s written provisions and associated diagrams, and re-organizing the City’s temporary sign provisions.
Additionally, information regarding screening of mechanical units was added to the existing fences and walls section (proposed Chapter 18.65) to create a new “Fences, Walls, and Screening” Chapter. Finally, the existing Solar Energy System provisions (existing Section 18.50.160) has been eliminated from the code since the same provisions are already regulated by the Building Code and implemented by the Building Division.
Noise: In accordance with Program P of the General Plan, Staff is evaluating the City’s current noise level provisions. Any proposed revisions to the existing noise standards will be brought back to the Commission at a later date.
Off-Street Parking Provisions: Additional modifications are proposed to the OffStreet Parking and Loading Standards including clarifying when the required offstreet parking and loading facilities should be provided for alterations and expansions to existing structures (proposed Section 18.70.010.B). Additionally, in compliance with State law, a provision has been added that exempts qualifying projects from providing the required number of parking spaces when located with one-half mile of public transit (as defined by state law), unless the City finds that Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2004 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 4 not imposing the required parking would have substantially negative impacts (proposed Section 18.70.030.B).
The parking requirement for Day Cares and Personal Improvement Services is proposed to reference the Use Permit (which is required for these uses in all zones) as the mechanism for determining the required parking to avoid confusion for potential applicants. Currently, the parking requirement for these uses is not commonly applied to these uses during the review process. Finally, Staff is looking into reducing parking standards for multi-family residential developments in compliance with Program L of the Housing Element and will bring this item back to the Commission for consideration at a later date.
Bicycle parking requirements have also been increased in accordance with Program N of the General Plan. Commercial uses are now required to provide a minimum bicycle parking equivalent to five percent of the automobile parking spaces (current requirement is two percent). Additionally, multi-family developments will now be required to provide a minimum bicycle parking equivalent of one bike stall for every five automobile parking stalls (the current ratio is 1:10).
Sign Provisions: Proposed modifications to the Sign Chapter (proposed Chapter
18.80) include consolidating, and reorganizing sections and subsections for improved usability and adding clarity to the temporary sign regulations.
Additional parameters for calculating sign area for freestanding signs were also incorporated (proposed Section 18.80.070).A) for clarity.
Tree Preservation: Finally, proposed modification to the City’s Tree Preservation Chapter (proposed Chapter 18.90) includes adding palm trees, in addition to Eucalyptus, as exempt from preservation (proposed Section 18.90.030.B.2) and restricting the Heritage Tree Program to only include native or indigenous tree species.
D. Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures (Proposed Part 4) Part 4 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines the processing procedures for all permits and entitlements that are required by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
• Adult Use Development Permit
• Architectural Reivew Permit
• Development Plan Permit
• Minor Exception
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Sign Permit
• Temporary Sign Permit
• Master Sign Program
• Use Permit
• Temporary Use Permit
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2005 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 5 • Variance
• Zoning Permit
Each Chapter generally includes the purpose of the entitlement of each permit, the review authority, filing and processing procedures, required findings, and lapse of approval and revocation regulations. Where applicable, associated conditions of approval are also outlined. The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature and are proposed to add clarity and refinement to the City’s existing regulations. The changes also introduce consistency in the information provided for each permit or entitlement.
Some of the more substantial changes include adding clarification for what types of projects trigger Architectural Review Permits, specifically single-unit projects (proposed Section 18.110.010.B) and clarifying what findings are required.
Similarly, the applicability of a Development Plan was also clarified as the existing language was unclear if a Development Plan was applicable to residential projects (proposed Section 18.115.010). Additionally, more clarification was added to the similarities and differences in Use Permits and Minor Use Permits (proposed Chapter 18.145).
In compliance with Program WW of the Housing Element, Staff has amended the Reasonable Accommodation provisions to eliminate any requirements or findings related to the project’s impacts on, or compatibility with, surrounding uses since these are considered constraints to providing reasonable accommodations for special needs housing (proposed Sections 18.125.040 and 18.125.060).
Finally, Staff notes that some permits or entitlements may be approved by the Zoning Administrator, such as Minor Exceptions (proposed Section
18.120.050.B). In these situations, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision, and therefore the final action on a project, would be considered by the Planning Commission. Additionally in other situations such as a Sign Permit, a Zoning Administrator decision is appealed to the Architectural Review Commission, who would make the final action (Section 18.135.030.D). Staff is seeking feedback on whether the final action should instead be with City Council.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Commission should review the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parts 1, 3 and 4, and provide input and feedback to staff. Once input is received on all parts of the Zoning Ordinance, staff will return to the Commission and present a Preliminary Draft of the Ordinance through a public hearing to request a formal recommendation to the City Council.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2006 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 6 Conduct the study session and provide feedback to staff on the proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance on topics related to: Enactment and Applicability (Part 1); Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Part 3); and Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures (Part 4).
VI. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Proposed Zoning Ordinance Outline
Attachment B Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Redlined Draft) Attachment C Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Clean Draft) Attachment D Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Draft)
Attachment E Part 4 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Draft)
Attachment F Part 4 - Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures (Clean Draft) Attachment G Public Notice
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2007 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 1 Planning Commission
staff report August 27, 2024
Subject: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PROPOSED
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CITY
OF PLEASANT HILL GENERAL PLAN 2040, INCLUDING THE
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY-WIDE
Project Planner : Haley Croffoot, 925-671-5297, [email protected] I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
The Planning Commission is being asked to review and provide preliminary feedback on proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (PHMC Title 18) on topics related to:
• Zone District Regulations and Development Standards – Proposed Part 2 (existing Chapters 18.20, 18.22, 18.25, 18.30, 18.35, 18.40, & 18.45) • Zoning Ordinance Administration – Proposed Part 5 (existing Chapters
18.65, 18.75, 18.80, 18.120, 18.125, 18.130, 18.135)
• Definitions and Land Use Classifications – Proposed Part 6 (existing Chapters 18.15 and 18.140)
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are part of a comprehensive zoning ordinance update necessary to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to update current ordinance provisions as necessary. This is the second of three Study Sessions that will cover amendments to every section of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Background
General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decisionmaking and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2008 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 2 Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023- 2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20) and introduced new mixed-use district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update Study Sessions: On June 25, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted the first of three Study Sessions on the comprehensive zoning ordinance update and provided feedback on topics related to:
• Enactment and Applicability – Proposed Part 1 (existing Chapters 18.05, & 18.10)
• Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts – Proposed Part 3 (existing Chapters 18.50, 18.52, 18.55, 18.60, 18.65, 18.67, 18.70, & 18.145) • Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures – Proposed Part 4 (existing Chapters 18.70, 18.85, 18.90, 18.95, 18.100, 18.105, 18.110, 18.111,
18.112, 18.115, 18.120, & 18.130)
Staff will be addressing all comments on all Parts at the third Study Session, anticipated for mid-October 2024.
Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Update: On August 13, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-24 recommending that the City Council approved proposed miscellaneous zoning ordinance amendments that were determined to be necessary to comply with State law and to clarify and streamline existing processes. These specific amendments being processed prior to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update to ensure the City’s Zoning Ordinance remains in compliance with required regulations. If adopted, these changes will be incorporated into the comprehensive zoning ordinance update.
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
Public Notice
A notice of this public hearing was provided on the City Hall electronic sign, A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library, posted at the Senior Center, and notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website and the City’s pleasanthill2040.com website, and emailed directly to individuals who subscribed for General Plan/Housing Element related updates.
III. ANALYSIS
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2009 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 3 The proposed modifications are not all content-based modifications. Modifications include providing increased clarity and readability of the ordinance (including language choice and streamlining text where appropriate) and rearranging sections of the ordinance to avoid repetitive statements or to be relocated into more logical locations of the ordinance. Staff has provided an overview of the more substantive modifications for Commission review and feedback in the sections below.
A. Proposed Ordinance Outline
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include a restructuring and reorganization of the existing ordinance into six new Parts. Additionally, all Chapters are listed alphabetically within each Part to improve usability. A revised outline of the Ordinance is included as Attachment A. All Parts will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and ultimately considered by the City Council.
B. Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Proposed Part 2) Part 2 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include all zoning district regulations and development standards for the following districts:
• Residential
• Mixed-Use
• Commercial, Office, and Industrial
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Precise Plan Districts (PPD) • Hillside Planned Unit Development (HPUD)
• Overlay Districts
General Modifications: All zoning district regulations and development standard language has been updated and organized for clarity. Specifically, the land use table for each zone has been updated to clarify that permitted uses require approval of a zoning permit. Additionally, the new land uses (employee housing, mobile/manufactured housing, single family attached, and Places of Assembly), have been incorporated into the land use tables.
Residential Zoning Districts: Amendments are proposed to the residential zoning districts chapter to ensure these provisions comply with the recent General Plan update. Specifically, the summary of residential zoning districts has been updated with the new corresponding General Plan densities. As a result, the minimum lot area of the R-6 zone has increased from 6,000 square feet to 6,313 square feet to comply with the new General Plan density range of the Single-Family High Density designation. Additionally, the new Mangini Delu Single Family Zoning District (R-MD) has been incorporated into the ordinance. The R-MD zoning district generally mirrors the provisions of the R-6 zoning designation.
A more substantial change to the residential land use regulations (Table 18.15-1) is the introduction of multi-family development within single-family zones. Twounit (duplex) developments are already permitted under the two-unit provisions of Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). Staff is proposing to allow multi-family developments of up Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2010 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 4 to four units maximum within the single-family zone with approval of a conditional use permit. This amendment is in response to the following Housing Element Implementation Programs:
• HEIP I: Variety of Housing Types in Low Density Areas - The City shall encourage alternative housing types such as duplexes, small-lot developments, small unit sizes, and single-family attached units in low density higher resource single-family zones
• HEIP R: Missing Middle Housing - The City shall review and amend the General Plan and zoning code and applicable development standards to encourage and promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, specifically missing middle-density housing types (e.g., triplexes, courtyard buildings, townhomes, live/work) to create a diversity of housing types and densities and increase the availability of affordable housing to reduce displacement risk for residents overpaying for housing.
Staff is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission on this proposed amendment.
Additionally, large residential care facilities are also proposed to be permitted in single-family zones with approval of a conditional use permit. Finally, employee housing, a newly proposed use classification, is also proposed to be a permitted use in all residential zones. All changes are being proposed to comply with the General Plan and Housing Element Implementation Program O (Municipal Code Updates), which requires the City to amend the code and define and permit such uses as proposed.
Staff is proposing minor changes to the development standards for residential uses, including increasing the maximum building height from 50 feet to 75 feet for the Multi-Family Very High Density zone, and increasing the maximum lot coverage standard from 40-percent to 50-percent for the multi-family very low and multi-family low density zones. Additionally, the scenic route setback has been reduced from 50 feet to 25 feet for all residential zones. These changes are being proposed to facilitate development that is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan and Housing Element. Staff is also proposing to add clarity to several “additional development standard” such as stepback provisions and open space requirements to improve usability.
Minor changes are also proposed to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions, Accessory Structure standards, and Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Projects (SB 9) for clarity. No substantial changes to content are proposed to these provisions.
Mixed-Use Districts: Since this section was recently adopted at the beginning of this year, only minimal changes are proposed. Staff is proposing to increase the proposed building heights for the mixed-use zones to ensure the envisioned densities can be achieved.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2011 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 5 Commercial, Office, and Industrial Zoning Districts: The amendments proposed to the Commercial, Office, and Industrial zones are primarily to provide clarity.
Specifically, the additional development standards were modified to clarify when certain standards are required in commercial districts adjacent to residential zones/uses. Minimal substantive changes to content are being proposed.
C. Zoning Ordinance Administration (Proposed Part 5)
Part 5 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance establishes the general administrative authority and procedures for decision making of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes Chapters related to:
• General Provisions
• Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map • Appeals and Calls for Review
• Development Agreement
• Enforcement
• Nonconforming Provisions
• Notice Requirements
General Modifications: General modifications have been made to Part 5 to streamline and add clarification to the existing processes and procedures, as well as ensure compliance with State provisions.
General Provisions: Staff is proposing to add clarity to the review and approval authority provisions for projects with multiple discretionary permit applications, as well as the environmental review process and procedures, including updating relevant time frames in compliance with State Law and Housing Element Implementation Program DDD (Permit Streamlining Act), which states “The City shall adopt a policy to ensure compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code § 65920 et seq.) and timing requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000 et seq.)”.
Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map: The existing ordinance does not outline a process for a General Plan Amendment; therefore, Staff is proposing to include a new section outlining the application process, which is similar to Zoning Ordinance amendments. Other changes to this section are proposed to add clarity and ensure transparency in the City’s processes.
Appeals and Calls for Review: Staff is proposing to amend the current appeals process so that the decision of an appellate body on an appeal is final and cannot be appealed a second time. For example, if a decision by the Zoning Administrator is appealed to the Planning Commission, the decision of the Planning Commission will be final, and no further appeal to the City Council will be possible. Staff is proposing this change to streamline the appeals process.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2012 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 6 D. Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Proposed Part 6) Part 6 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes definitions of all Land Use Classifications and Definitions of terms used throughout the ordinance. These Chapters are currently located in separate Parts of the ordinance and are proposed to be combined into a single Part with this update to improve usability.
Land Use Classifications: Staff is proposing to introduce several new land use classifications, as well as combine other similar land use classifications where appropriate. New land use classifications for “emergency medical care facility”, “School, college and university”, “School, technical, trade and vocational”, “Caretaker’s quarters”, “Employee housing”, “Employee housing, agricultural”, “low barrier navigation center” (defined as “housing or shelter in which a resident who is homeless or at risk of homelessness may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing”), and “mobile or manufactured housing” are being proposed to address gaps in the ordinance and/or comply with State law terms and requirements. Additionally, many of these new land use classifications are outlined in Housing Element Implementation Program O (Municipal Code Updates), which requires the City to amend the code and define and permit such uses.
Additionally, “religious assembly” uses have been reclassified as “place of assembly” per State regulations and expanded to include civic auditoriums, theaters, banquet halls, community and civic centers, meeting halls and clubs, thus eliminating the current definition for “clubs and lodges”. Similarly, “large care facilities” have been eliminated from the residential use classifications section and combined with the existing care facility definitions under “Public and Semi-Public Land Use Classifications” for clarity. The definition for “Family day care homes” has been simplified per State law regulations. Finally, the definition of “multi-family residential” uses has been expanded to include separate definitions for duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and developments with five or more units. These new sub-categories are also reflected in the land use classification tables and provide additional clarity for staff and applicants when processing multi-family development applications.
Definitions: Several new definitions are being proposed, and several others are proposed to be modified to provide clarity, address gaps in the code, and comply with State law. New proposed definitions include the definition of “alteration”, which is necessary when applying legal non-conforming provisions, and “attached building or structure”, which provides additional clarity to the existing definition of a detached structure. Additional definitions are being proposed regarding electric vehicle charging stations in compliance with State Law. Finally, new definitions related to flag lots, irregular shaped lots, and determining lot lines for each scenario have been clarified in the ordinance to provide clarity for both staff and property owners.
Additional definitions are proposed to be modified include adding clarity to the different “affordable housing costs” income levels, clarifying the definition of Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2013 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 7 “basement”, as well as updating all density bonus related definitions to comply with State law.
Finally, several other definitions have been determined to be out of date or not applicable and are proposed to be removed. These include “boardinghouse”, “conditioned/habitable space for accessory structures”, and “frontage, building”.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Commission should review the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parts 2, 5 and 6, and provide input and feedback to staff. Once input is received on all parts of the Zoning Ordinance, staff will return to the Commission and present a Preliminary Draft of the Ordinance through a public hearing to request a formal recommendation to the City Council.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the study session and provide feedback to staff on the proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance on topics related to: Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Part 2); Zoning Ordinance Administration (Part 5); and Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Part 6).
VI. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Proposed Zoning Ordinance Outline
Attachment B Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Strikeout-Underline)
Attachment C Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Clean) Attachment D Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Strikeout-Underline) Attachment E Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Clean) Attachment F Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (StrikeoutUnderline) Attachment G Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Clean) Attachment H Public Notice
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2014 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 1 Planning Commission
staff report October 8, 2024
Subject: COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY
WITH CITY OF PLEASANT HILL GENERAL PLAN 2040,
INCLUDING THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT, CITY-WIDE
CITY-WIDE
Project Planner : Haley Croffoot, 925-671-5297, [email protected] I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
The Planning Commission is asked to review and provide preliminary feedback on a comprehensive update to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (PHMC Title 18), which includes all Parts as follows:
• Part 1 – Enactment and Applicability
• Part 2 – Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards • Part 3 – Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts • Part 4 – Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures • Part 5 – Zoning Ordinance Administration
• Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications
The proposed comprehensive update is necessary to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to address compliance with State law, and clarify and streamline existing processes. This is the third of three Study Sessions with the Planning Commission. Comments from the first two Study Sessions have been incorporated into each part as applicable.
B. Background
General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decisionmaking and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2015 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 2 Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023- 2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20) and introduced new mixed-use district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update Study Sessions: On June 25, 2024, and August 27, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted the first and second of three Study Sessions on the comprehensive zoning ordinance update and provided feedback on all Parts. A total of 21 written public comments were received (Attachment O), and a total of three members of the public spoke between the two meetings. This is the third Study Session to review modifications to each Part in response to comments received at the two prior Study Sessions. Staff Reports from each Study Session have been attached for reference (Attachment M and N).
Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Update: On September 9, 2024, the City Council introduced an ordinance amending various portions of the Zoning Ordinance that were determined to be necessary to comply with State law and to clarify and streamline existing processes. The processing of these specific amendments prior to completion of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update ensures that the City’s Zoning Ordinance remains in compliance with required regulations. The ordinance will return to the City Council for a second reading on October 7, 2024. If adopted, these changes will be incorporated into the comprehensive zoning ordinance update.
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
Public Notice
A notice of this public hearing was provided on the City Hall electronic sign, A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library, posted at the Senior Center, and notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website and the City’s pleasanthill2040.com website, and emailed directly to individuals who subscribed for General Plan/Housing Element related updates.
III. ANALYSIS
Staff has provided an overview of the substantive modifications for Commission review and feedback in the sections below. However, not all the proposed modifications are content-based modifications. Modifications also include providing increased clarity and readability of the ordinance (including language choice and streamlining text where Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2016 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 3 appropriate) and rearranging sections of the ordinance to avoid repetitive statements or relocating them into more logical locations of the ordinance.
A. Enactment and Applicability (Proposed Part 1)
Part 1 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include chapters related to Purpose and Organization (Chapter 18.05), and Applicability and Interpretation (Chapter
18.10), of the Ordinance. The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature simply to clarify and refine the City’s existing provisions.
At the June 25, 2024, Study Session, the Planning Commission expressed general support for the organization and content of Part 1. The Commission requested that Staff add clarification to the table establishing the base zoning districts and corresponding General Plan land use designations where there are no associated densities and/or floor-area-ratios (FAR) established in the 2040 General Plan.
Staff has added clarification to the table for the applicable zoning districts.
B. Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards (Proposed Part 2) Part 2 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include all zoning district regulations and development standards for the following districts:
• Residential
• Mixed-Use
• Commercial, Office, and Industrial
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Precise Plan Districts (PPD) • Hillside Planned Unit Development (HPUD)
• Overlay Districts
In response to comments received by the public and Planning Commission at the August 27, 2024, Study Session, Staff has made the following modifications:
Mangini Delu Residential Zone:
• The term “single-family” has been eliminated from the title of the Mangini Delu Residential Zoning District since the zone allows for a mix of residential development types.
• The Mangini Delu Residential Zoning District has been broken up into two separate districts, Mangini Delu Residential-East (RMD-East) and Mangini Delu Residential-West (RMD-West). RMD-East designation is intended for lower intensity development adjacent to the existing singlefamily residential neighborhood while RMD-West allows for higher intensity development, still within the 4.6 to 13 dwelling unit per acre density range established by the General Plan. The development standards for each zone have also been updated to reflect the intended development intensity.
• Similarly, the summary description of new Mangini Delu Residential Zoning Districts has been updated to reflect the two new zones.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2017 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 4 Additionally, the previous reference to “apartment complexes” has been removed and the summary now includes language referencing the required Master Plan.
Density Bonus: The exiting Density Bonus section of the ordinance has been revised and simplified. The proposed language establishes a general framework for Density Bonus projects and refers to the applicable California Government Code section for details and specific requirements. Staff is proposing to restructure the section in this manner to ensure continued compliance with the frequent updates to Density Bonus provisions at the state level.
The City Attorney is currently reviewing the revised Density Bonus section, and further modifications related to California State Law may be required. Any required changes will be incorporated prior to the subsequent City Council Study Session.
Park and Recreation Zoning District: A new “Park and Recreation” zoning district is being introduced, which will apply to all Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District (PHRPD)-owned facilities. Many of these properties are currently zoned Single-Family Residential. The new Park and Recreation Zoning District focuses on the preservation and support of these facilities. The proposed development standards still mirror those within the Single-Family Residential District to ensure development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The allowed land uses have been limited to only those related to parks and recreation facilities.
Finally, City review of development and activity within this zoning district has been divided into three separate tiers of review as follows:
1. Exempt Activities: Tree removals (including protected trees), and routine maintenance and repair of parks and facilities that do not include an expansion of floor area.
2. Activities Requiring a Zoning Permit: All activities which otherwise comply with the permitted land uses and development standards. This includes new facilities and parks, or alterations to existing facilities that include an expansion of floor area. The Zoning Permit would be reviewed at the Staff Level, would not require any Public Hearings, and could not be appealed.
However, these activities would still be required to obtain Building and Grading Permits, as applicable.
3. Activities requiring Other Entitlements: Any activity or development that does not comply with the proposed development standards would be required to obtain a Development Plan, Architectural Review, and/or Use Permit (including any other permits). These entitlements would be subject to the standard discretionary review process. Additionally, any map related activities such as subdivisions or lot line adjustments would be subject to the Subdivision Map Act and City processes and procedures.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2018 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 5 Currently, PHRPD development is processed and reviewed in the same manner as any private development proposal. The proposed amendment would streamline the process for certain PHRPD projects by not requiring a second public review process with the City. The PHRPD has an elected Board of Directors, and has its own public review process; thus, public input on those projects would remain if this amendment were adopted. However, the proposed amendment would still allow City review of certain projects, primarily if the proposal were to exceed established development standards.
C. Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Proposed Part 3) Part 3 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes general provisions that apply to all zoning districts as follows:
• General Site and Development Standards
• Adult Businesses
• Cannabis
• Creek Setbacks
• Fences, Walls, and Screening
• Off-Street Parking and Loading
• Performance Standards
• Signs
• Tree Preservation
• Water-Efficient Landscaping
• Wireless Telecommunications
At the June 25, 2024, Study Session, the Planning Commission expressed general support for the structure and content of Part 3 and asked for a few clarifications to specific sections to which Staff made revisions as follows:
Traffic Safety Visibility Area (Figure 18.45-7): The Traffic Safety Visibility Area diagram has been updated for clarity and to correct misinformation on the existing diagram.
Structure Projections and Encroachments into Setbacks (Section 18.45.080): Staff has removed reference to “courts” throughout this section to avoid redundancy and confusion.
Corner Lot and Key Lot Fence and Wall Standards (Figure 18.65-1): The Corner Lot and Key Lot Fence and Wall Standards diagram has been updated for clarity and to correct unclear information on the existing diagram.
Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards: Program L of the Housing Element encourages the City to consider parking reductions to encourage residential development. Since the June 25, 2024, Study Session, Staff has researched parking standards for neighboring and comparable jurisdictions (see table below) as well as Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data to determine if a Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2019 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 6 reduction from the current parking provisions for multi-family residential development is warranted.
Parking Requirements for Multi-Family Uses
Pleasant Hill
(Existing)
ITE
General
Urban/Suburb
an (not close
to transit)
Martinez Concord Walnut
Creek Lafayette Foster City Hercules
Studio 1.5 spaces
1.35 per
unit
1 1 1.25 1 1
1.5 1 bedroom 1.5 spaces 1.5 1.5 1 1.5
2 bedrooms
2 spaces
2 2 1.2 2
3 bedrooms 2 2.25 1.5 2
4+
bedrooms
2 + 0.5
per add.
bdrm
2.25 1.5 2
Guest
Parking 1 per 2 units 1 per 4 units
1 per 3
units None 1 per 2 units
1 per
4 units
1 per 2
units
Based on research from neighboring and comparable jurisdictions and ITE data, Staff is currently proposing to modify or condense the following parking requirements for multi-family uses:
Proposed Parking Requirement for Multi-Family Uses in Pleasant Hill Current Proposed
Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 1.25 spaces per unit
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit Unchanged
2+ bedrooms 2 spaces per unit Unchanged
Guest Parking 1 per 2 units 1 per 4 units
The proposed parking requirements represent a reduction from the current standards for Studio and Guest Parking, with 1 Bedroom and 2+ Bedrooms unchanged. With the reductions, these changes would meet the intent of Housing Element Program L, while still mirroring requirements in comparable jurisdictions and meeting or exceeding ITE data.
D. Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures (Proposed Part 4) Part 4 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines the processing procedures for all permits and entitlements that are required by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
• Adult Use Development Permit
• Architectural Review Permit
• Development Plan Permit
• Minor Exception
• Reasonable Accommodation
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2020 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 7 • Sign Permit
• Temporary Sign Permit
• Master Sign Program
• Use Permit
• Temporary Use Permit
• Variance
• Zoning Permit
At the June 25, 2024, Study Session, the Planning Commission expressed general support for the structure and content of Part 4 and had no comments. Therefore, no significant changes have been made to Part 4 since the last Study Session.
E. Zoning Ordinance Administration (Proposed Part 5)
Part 5 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance establishes the general administrative authority and procedures for decision making of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes Chapters related to:
• General Provisions
• Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map • Appeals and Calls for Review
• Development Agreement
• Enforcement
• Nonconforming Provisions
• Notice Requirements
In response to comments received from the public and Planning Commission at the August 27, 2024, Study Session, Staff has further clarified the “Right to Appeal, Call for Review, Time Limits” section (18.175.020) noting that a project is limited to one appeal. No limitations are proposed for the number of calls for review. For example, a decision of the Zoning Administrator that is appealed to the Planning Commission may not be appealed to the City Council, however the City Council may choose to call it up for review.
F. Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Proposed Part 6) Part 6 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes definitions of all Land Use Classifications and Definitions of terms used throughout the ordinance. These Chapters are currently located in separate Parts of the ordinance and are proposed to be combined into a single Part with this update to improve usability.
In response to comments received by the public and Planning Commission at the August 27, 2024, Study Session, Staff has provided a diagram illustrating the front property line location for flag lots. New definitions for “active open space” and “passive open space” to provide clarity for open space requirements for new development.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2021 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 8 IV. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
The Commission should review the proposed Preliminary Draft of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update and provide input and feedback to staff. The City Council will also review the Preliminary Draft of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance at an upcoming study session.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the study session and provide feedback to staff on the proposed amendments to all Parts of the City’s Zoning Ordinance as follows: Part 1 – Enactment and Applicability; Part 2 – Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards; Part 3 – Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts; Part 4 – Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures; Part 5 – Zoning Ordinance Administration; and Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Redlined Preliminary Draft) Attachment B Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Clean Preliminary Draft) Attachment C Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
Attachment D Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Clean Preliminary Draft)
Attachment E Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
Attachment F Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Clean Preliminary Draft)
Attachment G Part 4 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
Attachment H Part 4 - Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures (Clean Preliminary Draft)
Attachment I Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
Attachment J Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Clean Preliminary Draft) Attachment K Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
Attachment L Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Clean Preliminary Draft)
Attachment M June 25, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments)
Attachment N August 27, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments)
Attachment O Public Comments (all received to date)
Attachment P Public Notice
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2022 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: November 04, 2024
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CITY’S ZONING ORDINANCE
(PHMC TITLE 18). THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE
GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS OF THE RECENTLY ADOPTED
2040 GENERAL PLAN AND 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT, AS WELL
AS TO ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND CLARIFY
AND STREAMLINE EXISTING PROCESSES.
SYNOPSIS
The City Council is requested to provide preliminary feedback on a comprehensive update to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (PHMC Title 18), which includes all Parts as follows:
• Part 1 – Enactment and Applicability
• Part 2 – Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards • Part 3 – Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts • Part 4 – Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures • Part 5 – Zoning Ordinance Administration
• Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications
The proposed comprehensive update is necessary to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to address compliance with State law, and clarify and streamline existing processes. The proposed comprehensive update includes comments from the Planning Commission and the public from three previous Planning Commission Study Sessions on June 25, 2024, August 27, 2024, and October 8, 2024.
DISCUSSION
Background
General Plan: The City adopted the 2040 General Plan (“General Plan”) on May 18, 2023. The General Plan is a long-range planning document that guides decision-making and establishes rules and standards for future development and improvements citywide. The General Plan included Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2023 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Housing Element: The City also adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element for 2023-2031 on May 18, 2023 (certified by the State on November 22, 2023). Like the General Plan, the Housing Element also included several implementation programs which outline necessary amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Update: On January 8, 2024, the Pleasant Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 967 approving the rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as Zoning Ordinance amendments to residential land use and development standards (Chapter 18.20) and introduced new mixed-use district standards (Chapter 18.22), as well as related changes to other sections of the Ordinance.
Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Update: On October 7, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 970 amending various portions of the Zoning Ordinance that were determined to be necessary to comply with State law and to clarify and streamline existing processes. The processing of these specific amendments prior to completion of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update ensures that the City’s Zoning Ordinance remains in compliance with required regulations. The ordinance will go into effect on November 6, 2024, at which point the approved changes will be incorporated into the comprehensive zoning ordinance update.
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update Study Sessions: The Planning Commission has conducted three Study Sessions on the comprehensive zoning ordinance update (June 25, 2024, August 27, 2024, and October 7, 2024). Comments from all three study session have been incorporated in the Preliminary Draft Ordinance. Staff Reports from each Study Session have been attached for reference (Attachments N, O, and P).
Public Comment Received To Date: A total of 27 written public comments have been received to date (Attachment Q), and a total of six members of the public spoke between the three Study Sessions.
Analysis
Staff has provided an overview of the substantive modifications for Council review and feedback in the sections below. Modifications also include providing increased clarity and readability of the ordinance (including language choice and streamlining text where appropriate) and rearranging sections of the ordinance to avoid repetitive statements or relocating them into more logical locations of the ordinance. Staff has also provided (Attachment A), a list of proposed ordinance modifications that are not limited by State Law and allows City Council greater flexibility for additional modifications.
1. Enactment and Applicability (Proposed Part 1)
Part 1 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes chapters related to Purpose and Organization (Chapter 18.05), and Applicability and Interpretation (Chapter 18.10), of Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2024 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 the Ordinance. Part 1 includes a revised “Organization of the Zoning Ordinance” (Chapter 18.05.030) section that reflects a proposed Ordinance outline.
The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature to clarify and refine the City’s existing provisions.
2. Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards (Proposed Part 2) Part 2 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will include all zoning district regulations and development standards for the following districts:
• Residential
• Mixed-Use
• Commercial, Office, and Industrial
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Precise Plan Districts (PPD) • Hillside Planned Unit Development (HPUD)
• Overlay Districts
• Parks and Recreation Zoning District
• Open Space Zoning District
General Modifications: All zoning district regulations and development standard language has been updated and organized for clarity. Specifically, the land use table for each zone has been updated to clarify that permitted uses require approval of a zoning permit. Additionally, the new land uses (employee housing, mobile/manufactured housing, single-family attached, and Places of Assembly), have been incorporated into the land use tables.
Residential Zoning Districts: Amendments are proposed to the residential zoning districts chapter to ensure these provisions comply with the recent General Plan update.
Specifically, the summary of residential zoning districts has been updated with the new corresponding General Plan densities. As a result, the minimum lot area of the R-6 zone has increased from 6,000 square feet to 6,313 square feet to comply with the new General Plan density range of the Single-Family High Density land use designation.
A more substantial change to the residential land use regulations (Table 18.15-1) is the introduction of multi-family development within single-family zones. Two-unit (duplex) developments are already permitted under the two-unit provisions of Senate Bill 9 (SB 9).
Staff is proposing to allow three-unit and four-unit multi-family developments within the single-family zone, with approval of a conditional use permit (two-unit developments are already permitted, subject to SB 9 provisions). This amendment is in response to the following Housing Element Implementation Programs:
• HEIP I: Variety of Housing Types in Low Density Areas - The City shall encourage alternative housing types such as duplexes, small-lot developments, small unit sizes, and single-family attached units in low density higher resource single-family zones
• HEIP R: Missing Middle Housing - The City shall review and amend the General Plan and zoning code and applicable development standards to encourage and Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2025 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes, specifically missing middle-density housing types (e.g., triplexes, courtyard buildings, townhomes, live/work) to create a diversity of housing types and densities and increase the availability of affordable housing to reduce displacement risk for residents overpaying for housing.
Large residential care facilities are proposed to be permitted in single-family zones upon approval of a conditional use permit, and to comply with state law, emergency shelters are also proposed to be permitted by right in the Mixed-Use Vey High Density zone.
Finally, employee housing, a new proposed use classification, is also proposed to be a permitted use in all residential zones, in compliance with state law.
All changes are being proposed to comply with the General Plan and Housing Element Implementation Program O (Municipal Code Updates), which requires the City to amend the code and define and permit such uses, as proposed.
Residential Development Standards: Staff is proposing minor changes to the development standards for residential uses, including increasing the maximum building height from 50 feet to 75 feet for the Multi-Family Very High Density zone, and increasing the maximum lot coverage standard from 40 percent to 50 percent for the multi-family very low and multi-family low density zones. These changes are to better accommodate projects that have this level of density. Staff is also proposing to add clarity to several “additional development standards” such as stepback provisions and open space requirements to improve usability.
These changes are being proposed to facilitate development that is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan and Housing Element.
Mangini Delu Residential Zones: Two new residential zoning districts are proposed to implement the Mangini Delu Residential General Plan land use designation - Mangini Delu Residential-East (RMD-East) and Mangini Delu Residential-West (RMD-West).
RMD-East designation is intended for lower intensity development adjacent to the existing single-family residential neighborhood and allows multi-family development with a maximum of four units and a density range of 4.6 to 13 dwelling units an acre per the General Plan. RMD-West allows for higher intensity development, still within the 4.6 to 13 dwelling unit per acre density range established by the General Plan. The development standards for each zone have also been updated to reflect the intended development intensity. However, as referenced in the summary of each district, a master plan must be established prior to any development within the RMD-East and/or RMDWest zones.
Scenic Route Setback: Additionally, the scenic route setback has been modified from 50 feet to 25 feet for all residential zones, in large part as a 50-foot setback significantly limits use of private yard usability. Thus, a 25-foot setback still provides scenic setback protections while providing private property owner greater flexibility in use of private property.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2026 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Density Bonus: The exiting Density Bonus section of the ordinance has been revised and simplified. The proposed language establishes a general framework for Density Bonus projects and refers to the applicable California Government Code section for details and specific requirements. Staff is proposing to restructure the section in this manner to ensure continued compliance with the frequent updates to Density Bonus provisions at the state level.
Mixed-Use Districts: Since this section was recently adopted at the beginning of this year, only minimal changes are proposed. Staff is proposing to increase the proposed building heights for the mixed-use zones to ensure the envisioned densities can be achieved.
Commercial, Office, and Industrial Zoning Districts: The amendments proposed to the Commercial, Office, and Industrial zones are primarily to provide clarity. Specifically, the additional development standards were modified to clarify when certain standards are required in commercial districts adjacent to residential zones/uses. Minimal substantive changes to content are being proposed.
Park and Recreation Zoning District: A new “Park and Recreation” zoning district (REC) is being introduced, which will apply to all Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District (PHRPD)-owned properties. Many of these properties are currently zoned Single-Family Residential. The new Park and Recreation Zoning District focuses on the preservation and support of these facilities. The proposed development standards still mirror those within the Single-Family Residential District to ensure development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The allowable land uses within this proposed zoning district have been limited to only those related to parks and recreation facilities.
City review of development and activity within this zoning district has been divided into three separate tiers of review as follows:
1. Exempt Activities: Tree removals (including protected trees), and routine maintenance and repair of parks and facilities that do not include an expansion of floor area.
2. Activities Requiring a Zoning Permit: All projects and activities which otherwise comply with the permitted land uses and development standards. This includes new facilities and parks, or alterations to existing facilities that include an expansion of floor area. The Zoning Permit would be reviewed administratively at Staff level, would not require any Public Hearings, and could not be appealed. However, these projects and activities would be subject to building and/or grading permit processes, as applicable.
3. Activities requiring Other Entitlements: Any activity or development that does not comply with the proposed development standards would be required to obtain a Development Plan, Architectural Review, and/or Use Permit (including any other permits). These entitlements would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process. Additionally, any map-related activities, such as subdivisions or lot Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2027 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 line adjustments, would be subject to the Subdivision Map Act and City processes and procedures.
Currently, PHRPD development is processed and reviewed in the same manner as any private development proposal. The proposed amendment would streamline the process for certain PHRPD projects by not requiring a second public review process with the City. The PHRPD has an elected Board of Directors, and has its own public review process; thus, the opportunity for the public to provide input on those projects would remain if this amendment were adopted. However, the proposed amendment would still allow for City review of certain projects, primarily if the proposal were to exceed established development standards.
Open Space Zoning District: A new Open Space zoning district (OS) is also being introduced to implement the Open Space land use designation in the General Plan. The new Open Space zone is intended to protect natural resources and maintain the landscape’s natural character. Land use and development is limited to habitat conservation, watershed protection, and cultural and historic resource protection.
3. Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Proposed Part 3) Part 3 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes general provisions that apply to all zoning districts as follows:
• General Site and Development Standards
• Adult Businesses
• Cannabis
• Creek Setbacks
• Fences, Walls, and Screening
• Off-Street Parking and Loading
• Performance Standards
• Signs
• Tree Preservation
• Water-Efficient Landscaping
• Wireless Telecommunications
General Modifications: This section of the Ordinance has been expanded to include separate Chapters for frequently referenced provisions such as Tree Preservation, or provisions that were currently imbedded under “Additional Site Development Regulations”, (existing Chapter 18.50) such as Creek Setbacks, and Cannabis. Some of the more substantive changes include clarifying how the City measures structure and building heights (from “existing grade” instead of “ground surface”), updating the City’s traffic safety visibility area (proposed Section 18.45.070) to rectify existing discrepancies between the City’s written provisions and associated diagrams, and re-organizing the City’s temporary sign provisions.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2028 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards: Program L of the Housing Element encourages the City to consider parking reductions to encourage residential development.
Staff researched parking standards for neighboring and comparable jurisdictions (see table below) as well as Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data to determine if a reduction from the City’s current parking provisions for multi-family residential development is warranted. See below:
Existing Parking Requirements for Multi-Family Uses
Pleasant Hill
(Existing)
ITE
General
Urban/Suburb
an (not close
to transit)
Martinez Concord Walnut
Creek Lafayette Foster City Hercules
Studio 1.5 spaces
1.35 per
unit
1 1 1.25 1 1
1.5 1 bedroom 1.5 spaces 1.5 1.5 1 1.5
2 bedrooms
2 spaces
2 2 1.2 2
3 bedrooms 2 2.25 1.5 2
4+
bedrooms
2 + 0.5
per add.
bdrm
2.25 1.5 2
Guest
Parking 1 per 2 units 1 per 4 units
1 per 3
units None 1 per 2 units
1 per
4 units
1 per 2
units
Based on research from neighboring and comparable jurisdictions and ITE data, Staff is currently proposing to modify or condense the following parking requirements for multifamily uses:
Proposed Parking Requirement for Multi-Family Uses in Pleasant Hill Current Proposed
Studio 1.5 spaces per unit 1.25 spaces per unit
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit Unchanged
2+ bedrooms 2 spaces per unit Unchanged
Guest Parking 1 per 2 units 1 per 4 units
The proposed parking requirements represent a reduction from the current standards for Studio and Guest Parking, with 1 Bedroom and 2+ Bedrooms unchanged.
With the reductions, these changes would meet the intent of Housing Element Program L, while still mirroring requirements in comparable jurisdictions and meeting or exceeding ITE data.
Sign Provisions: Proposed modifications to the Sign Chapter (proposed Chapter 18.80) include consolidating and reorganizing sections and subsections for improved usability and adding clarity to the temporary sign regulations. Additional parameters for Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2029 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 calculating sign area for freestanding signs were also incorporated (proposed Section
18.80.070).A) for clarity.
Tree Preservation: Lastly, proposed modification to the City’s Tree Preservation Chapter (proposed Chapter 18.90) include restricting the Heritage Tree Program to only include native or indigenous tree species, such as any native Oak tree, Red Alder, Bigleaf Maple, California Bay or Laurel, California Black Walnut, or California Sycamore.
4. Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures (Proposed Part 4) Part 4 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines the processing procedures for all permits and entitlements that are required by provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
• Adult Use Development Permit
• Architectural Review Permit
• Development Plan Permit
• Minor Exception
• Reasonable Accommodation
• Sign Permit
• Temporary Sign Permit
• Master Sign Program
• Use Permit
• Temporary Use Permit
• Variance
• Zoning Permit
Each Chapter includes the purpose of the entitlement of each permit, the review authority, filing and processing procedures, required findings, and lapse of approval and revocation regulations. Where applicable, associated conditions of approval are also outlined. The changes proposed to this Part are primarily minor in nature and are proposed to add clarity and refinement to the City’s existing regulations. The changes also introduce consistency in the information provided for each permit or entitlement.
Some of the more substantial changes include adding clarification for what types of single-family projects trigger Architectural Review Permits (proposed Section
18.110.010.B) and clarifying the required findings. Additionally, more clarification was added to the similarities and differences in Use Permits and Minor Use Permits (proposed Chapter 18.145).
5. Zoning Ordinance Administration (Proposed Part 5)
Part 5 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance establishes the general administrative authority and procedures for decision making of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes Chapters related to:
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2030 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 • General Provisions
• Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map • Appeals and Calls for Review
• Development Agreement
• Enforcement
• Nonconforming Provisions
• Notice Requirements
General Provisions: Staff is proposing to add clarity to the review and approval authority provisions for projects with multiple discretionary permit applications, as well as the environmental review process and procedures, including relevant time frames in compliance with State Law (Permit Streamlining Act) and Housing Element Implementation Program DDD, which states “The City shall adopt a policy to ensure compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code § 65920 et seq.) and timing requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000 et seq.)”.
Amendments – General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map: The existing ordinance does not outline a process for a General Plan Amendment; therefore, Staff is proposing to include a new section outlining the application process, which is similar to Zoning Ordinance amendments. Other changes to this section are proposed to add clarity and ensure transparency in the City’s processes.
Appeals and Calls for Review: Staff is proposing to amend and streamline the current appeals process so that the decision of an appellate body on an appeal is final and cannot be appealed a second time. For example, if a decision by the Zoning Administrator were appealed to the Planning Commission, the decision of the Planning Commission would be final, and no further appeal to the City Council would be possible. It is important to note that Staff proposes no limitations on City Council calls for review, thus preserving the ability of any City Council member to call up an action by a Planning Decision Body for City Council review.
6. Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Proposed Part 6) Part 6 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes definitions of all Land Use Classifications and Definitions of terms used throughout the ordinance. These Chapters are currently located in separate Parts of the ordinance and are proposed to be combined into a single Part with this update to improve usability.
Land Use Classifications: Staff is proposing to introduce several new land use classifications, as well as combine other similar land use classifications where appropriate. New land use classifications for “emergency medical care facility”, “School, college and university”, “School, technical, trade and vocational”, “Caretaker’s quarters”, “Employee housing”, “Employee housing, agricultural”, “low barrier navigation center” (defined as “housing or shelter in which a resident who is homeless or at risk of homelessness may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing”), and Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2031 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 “mobile or manufactured housing” are being proposed to address gaps in the ordinance and/or comply with State law terms and requirements. Additionally, many of these new land use classifications are outlined in Housing Element Implementation Program O (Municipal Code Updates), which requires the City to amend the code and define and permit such uses.
Additionally, “Religious assembly” uses have been reclassified as “Place of assembly” per State regulations and expanded to include civic auditoriums, theaters, banquet halls, community and civic centers, meeting halls and clubs, thus eliminating the current definition for “Clubs and lodges”. Similarly, “Large care facilities” have been eliminated from the residential use classifications section and combined with the existing care facility definitions under “Public and Semi-Public Land Use Classifications” for clarity.
The definition for “Family day care homes” has been simplified per State law regulations.
Lastly, the definition of “Multi-family residential” uses has been expanded to include separate definitions for duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and developments with five or more units. These new sub-categories are also reflected in the land use classification tables and provide additional clarity for staff and applicants when processing multifamily development applications.
Definitions: Several new definitions are proposed, and several others are proposed to be modified to provide clarity, address gaps in the code, and comply with State law. New proposed definitions include the definition of “alteration”, which is necessary when applying legal non-conforming provisions, and “attached building or structure”, which provides additional clarity to the existing definition of a detached structure. Additional definitions are proposed regarding electric vehicle charging stations in compliance with State Law. Lastly, new definitions related to flag lots, irregular shaped lots, and determining lot lines for each scenario have been amended in the ordinance to provide clarity for both staff and property owners.
Additional definitions are proposed for modification, including adding clarity to the different “affordable housing costs” income levels, clarifying the definition of “basement”, as well as updating all density-bonus-related definitions to comply with State law.
Lastly, several other definitions have been determined to be out of date or not applicable and are proposed for removal. These include “boardinghouse”, “conditioned/habitable space for accessory structures”, and “frontage, building”.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board and at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center. In addition, a notice was published in the Contra Costa Times Newspaper on October 17, 2024, and published on the City’s City Hall Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2032 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 electronic sign, A-Frames at the Police Station and Pleasant Hill Library and notice of the meeting has also been posted on the City website, and the City’s pleasanthill2040.com website.
Finally, the agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
No formal action is required. Staff recommends that the City Council review the Preliminary Draft of the comprehensive zoning ordinance update and provide feedback to Staff to be incorporated into the Public Review Draft Ordinance.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will incorporate comments received from the City Council and the public into a Public Review Draft Ordinance. The Public Review Draft will be presented to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation, and ultimately City Council for adoption at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS
A List of Proposed Ordinance Modifications not Limited by State Law B Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Redlined Preliminary Draft) C Part 1 - Enactment and Applicability (Clean Preliminary Draft) D Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Redlined Preliminary Draft)
E Part 2 - Zone District Regulations and Development Standards (Clean Preliminary Draft) F Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft) G Part 3 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Clean Preliminary Draft) H Part 4 - Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts (Redlined Preliminary Draft) I Part 4 - Permit And Entitlement Processing Procedures (Clean Preliminary Draft) J Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Redlined Preliminary Draft) K Part 5 - Zoning Ordinance Administration (Clean Preliminary Draft) L Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Redlined Preliminary Draft) M Part 6 - Definitions and Land Use Classifications (Clean Preliminary Draft) N June 25, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) O August 27, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) P October 8, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (no attachments) Q Public Comments (all received to date)
R Public Notice
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2033 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2034 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2035 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2036 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2037 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2038 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2039 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2040 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2041 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2042 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2043 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2044 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2045 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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= Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2046 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 • 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)
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2047 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2048 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2049 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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)
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2050 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2051 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2052 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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:
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]
First, we appreciate that this description specifically calls out preserving natural open space while allowing for development. This is consistent with all the public discussions that occurred during the city’s development of the General Plan, particularly for Mangini-Delu and its creek corridor.
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.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2053 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2054 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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:
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 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 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.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2055 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2056 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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:
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 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 lowdensity 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 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,
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2057 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2058 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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’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 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 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 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2059 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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,
Christine and Kevin Finkas
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2060 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2061 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 You can send your letters to
Project Planner: Haley Croffoot,[email protected] 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:
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 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 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 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2062 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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.
(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.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2063 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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’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 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 low-density and higher-density residential development while preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods”
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2064 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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.
Bushra Toma
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2065 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2066 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2067 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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 of my concerns.
Sincerely,
Veronica Ortiz Andres
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2068 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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’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 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 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.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2069 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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.
Health and happiness,
Anamarie Courey
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2070 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2071 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2072 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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:
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.
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 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2073 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2074 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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:
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 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, Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2075 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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.
Best,
Renee Walter
240 Linda Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2076 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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:
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 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 lowdensity 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 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 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,
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2077 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Catherine and Paul Boccellari
206 Steven Circle, Pleasant Hill
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2078 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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” Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2079 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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,
Irene Menegas
488 Malaga Way
Pleasant Hill
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2080 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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:
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 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 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.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2081 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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,
Jeremy Magruder
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2082 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2083 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2084 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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:
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.
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.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2085 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2086 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 • 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]
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2087 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Murderer’s creek 10/24/2021:
Murderer’s Creek 10/24/21:
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2088 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Beatrice Road area 10/24/21:
Beatrice Road area 10/24/21:
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2089 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2090 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2091 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2092 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2093 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2094 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2095 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2096 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2097 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2098 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2099 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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 Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2100 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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)
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2101 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2102 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2103 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2104 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2105 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 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
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2106 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Re: PC October 8th Study Session - Draft Ordinance Revisions Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 5:48:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Thanks Haley -
New & revised building heights were shown in the earlier Drafts - the question here is HOW CITY Staff arrived at these numbers - since we believe that many of them are too low to encourage QUALITY developments . . . . .
The Parking standards appear to be largely unchanged - which fails to address the concerns regarding shopping centers raised by Wendy Gollop in the last Study Session. Also I think there may be an inherent conflict between an 18' (?) required building setback & a desire for 19' (?) long driveways to allow for parking vehicles in front of one's garage. And in today's world, I would also question whether 2-car garages are needed for smaller homes - those having 1, 2 or maybe even 3 bedrooms ?
I want to see the Commissioners have an actual discussion as to the appropriate figures to be used in both instances !!
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 5:08 PM Haley Croffoot <[email protected]> wrote:
Jack,
Thank you for your email. We are anticipating circulating the preliminary draft of the ordinance earlier to allow for ample review time.
The preliminary drafts will include building height standards and parking requirements. We also plan on providing the revised zoning maps at the City Council Study Session, but they will not be available for the October 8th Planning Commission Study Session.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2107 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Thanks,
Haley Croffoot, AICP
Senior Planner, Planning Division
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Office: 925.671.5297
Email: [email protected]
From: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:48 PM
To: Haley Croffoot <[email protected]>; Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]> Subject: PC October 8th Study Session - Draft Ordinance Revisions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
As noted by one of the Commissioners during the last Study Session on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Revisions, the time allowed for the Commissioners & the Public to review these extensive & complex documents was insufficient. At a bare MINIMUM, I believe that we all should have three BUSINESS days between the time these documents are posted / distributed and the start of the Planning Commission's meeting. Better yet would be to have FIVE business days given the above parameters.
To me, the two most significant issues that should be addressed at this time are the Building Heights allowed for various Residential & Mixed-Use Zones and an Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2108 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 update of the Parking requirements for all occupancies (changes NEEDED are NOT shown thus far) ! The City Staff should be prepared to justify the regulations that are being proposed / needed for both of these topics.
We are still waiting to hear when the revised Planning & Zoning Maps will be available for review . . . . .
Thanks for your attention to these details in advance of the PC Study Session on October 8th !
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2109 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 From: Shereen Motarjemi
To: Troy Fujimoto; Haley Croffoot; City Council
Subject: Proposed zoning provisions for Nov 4 mtg
Date: Friday, November 1, 2024 12:30:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Hello,
The City Council has requested input on proposed zoning ordinance revisions at their Nov 4th study 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 & spoken at 35 GPAC & City Council meetings to arrive at a promise that the entire Mangini-Delu 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 parking, traffic, & circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties.
Yours Truly,
Shereen Motarjemi
100 Mercury Way
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2110 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 From: Annette Gelinas
To: Troy Fujimoto; Haley Croffoot; City Council
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Nov 4 Study Session
Date: Friday, November 1, 2024 2:15:43 PM
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 study 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 & spoken at 35 GPAC & City Council meetings to arrive at a promise that the entire Mangini-Delu 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 parking, traffic, & circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties.
Regards,
Annette Gelinas
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2111 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 From: Bruce Irion
To: Troy Fujimoto; Haley Croffoot; City Council
Subject: Items for Proposed Zoning Ordinance Revisions
Date: Friday, November 1, 2024 3:15:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I have two items I'd ask the City Council consider on proposed zoning ordinance revisions at their Nov 4th study session.
1) I would like to see wording in Section 18.15.010 paragraph B(4) modified to require a "comprehensive, site wide" Master Plan for Mangini-Delu.
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 & spoken at 35 GPAC & City Council meetings to arrive at a promise that the entire Mangini-Delu 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 parking, traffic, & circulation issues as well as protecting the creek corridor across both properties.
2) I would like to hear the City Council discuss the proposal to hold joint public hearing sessions with the Rec & Park for Rec & Park project permits.
Staff has proposed to give Rec & Park considerable autonomy for their projects. Proponents, including Rec and Park, have pointed to duplicate public hearings and potential bias in holding duplicate public hearings as justification to eliminate required city hearings. At the last Planning Commission meeting, several residents spoke out in concern saying that while having similar interests, City and Rec & Park have different lenses when viewing permits. 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.
In seeking a solution to both viewpoints, we had suggested joint public hearings with Park & Rec and the Planning Commission. This would achieve the streamlined permitting requested by Rec and Park while providing the City review requested by residents.
Thank you!
Bruce Irion
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2112 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
NOTICE
OF
STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCIL
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE – PRELIMINARY DRAFT & PROPOSED REZONING MAP
Citywide, City of Pleasant Hill
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Pleasant Hill that the City Council will hold a study session to review a preliminary draft of the comprehensive update to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (PHMC Title 18), and the proposed Zoning Map. The comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance includes all Parts as follows:
• Part 1 – Enactment and Applicability;
• Part 2 – Zoning District Regulations and Development Standards; • Part 3 – Regulations Applicable to all Zoning Districts; • Part 4 – Permit and Entitlement Processing Procedures; • Part 5 – Zoning Ordinance Administration; and
• Part 6 – Definitions and Land Use Classifications.
The proposed comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance is necessary to implement the goals, policies and programs of the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and 2023-2031 Housing Element, as well as to address compliance with State law, and clarify and streamline existing processes. The proposed Zoning Map includes the rezoning of certain properties to comply with the underlying General Plan designation. The Council will review the preliminary draft of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and proposed zoning map and provide comments to Staff.
The STUDY SESSION will be held by the CITY COUNCIL starting at 7:00 p.m. on MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2025, in the CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill. Interested persons will be heard at this time at the meeting. More information on how to participate, 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 Haley Croffoot, Senior Planner, at (925) 671-5297 or [email protected].
Troy Fujimoto
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2113 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto; quy tran
Subject: CC 21 April Study Session - Attachment "Y" - Proposed Zoning Map Date: Sunday, April 6, 2025 8:25:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
Please reconsider the proposed Zoning for the following areas shown in Attachment "Y" Proposed Zoning Map to be included in the 2040 Update to the City's General Plan:
1- The proposed rezoning of the properties on the East side of Shirley Drive between Harriett & Doray from single-family residential to Mixed Use is a very poor choice for the future of the residents immediately West of there. The depth of these properties is very shallow; allowing Mixed-Use will bring noise, parking issues, trash handling, site lighting & other problems that do not currently exist. Also, multiple new driveways would be needed from Contra Costa Blvd. for access.
2- On the other hand, the properties on the East side of Susan Lane (immediately West of the Gregory Gardens Shopping Center) already suffer from their neighbor's business activities.
These properties would be more valuable if they were rezoned the same as the shopping center such that they might be combined with a larger scale redevelopment. The increased negative impacts of doing this on the residences to the West would be minimal. 3- The City should reopen discussions with the Rec & Park District Board regarding the future use of their Winslow Center property. The existing building there is in poor condition & has been living on borrowed time for more than a decade now. This property would be much more valuable if it were combined with the Mangini-Delu farm properties in an overall development. A land swap is within the realm of possibilities, and it would be desirable to have the RPD maintain the creek riparian zone.
Furthermore, the best Master Plan for this site would be to have low density housing on the sloping land to the East of the creek & higher density housing to the West with a height limit there up to 65' (NOT 35' as previously shown) ! This would allow for more Open Space around the buildings without increasing the total density !! 4- The rezoning of the JC Penney Home Store (aka Site "B") to Mixed-Use is NOT noted in the Staff Report section on Quadrant "B" (page 9). Oddly, the Wells Fargo Bank building itself is not included, but the parking areas that serve this building are included. A comprehensive development for this entire Site could be attractive. Also, references to JFKU are obsolete in a forward-looking 2040 Update since they closed operations there at least five years ago . . . . .
It does appear that the 13 Sites included in the Housing Element portion of the 2040 General Plan have already been rezoned & therefore are not being restudied at this time.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2114 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 Each of the issues listed above were raised verbally if not in my numerous Public Comment emails without having the benefit of a real discussion. Sometimes you will get better insights from the long-time residents than from the "professionals" who prepared these Maps but do not live in this environment on a daily basis . . . . . Please have an actual discussion for each of these points during the April 21st Study Session.
Jack Prosek
48 year Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2115 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto; Sue Noack
Subject: Zoning Ordinances - Chapter Numbering
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:00:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Folks -
I guess that there is something really basic about writing City Zoning Ordinances that I really don't understand . . . . . that the same Chapter numbers would be used for different purposes in various Parts of these documents.
In Part 2 you have "Chapter 18.45 - Parks and Recreation Zoning District" and "Chapter
18.50 - Open Space Zoning District" while in Part 3 you have "Chapter 18.45 - General Site and Development Standards" and "Chapter 18.50 - Adult Businesses".
And then in Part 5 you have "Chapter 18.190 - Nonconforming Provisions" and "Chapter
18.195 - Noticing Requirements" while in Part 6 you have "Chapter 18.190 - Land Use Classifications" and "Chapter 18.195 - Definitions".
In administering these Ordinances, I would have thought that each Chapter would have its own unique number - not overlapping numbers in the successive Parts ! All this comes after years of efforts in updating these nearly final documents . . . . . renumbering at this point might well affect various cross-references in the various Parts.
Please advise where this is going !
Jack Prosek
PH Resident
zz
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2116 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: CC 21 April Study Session - Attachments "A" thru "X" - Draft Ordinance Updates Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 11:11:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
The following comments apply to the Study Session on the Draft Ordinance Updates (Attachments "A" thru "X") that are to be discussed at the April 21st meeting of the Pleasant Hill City Council (CC). Rather than retyping all the text, I am simply going to refer everyone to the emails that contained my earlier comments - all of which are readily available in Attachment "DD" - Public Comments.
Friday June 21, 2024 - Chapter 18.70 - Off-Street Parking and Loading Saturday June 22, 2024 - Chapter 18.45 - General Site Standards ...
Sunday June 23, 2024 - Section 18.45.040 - Screening Mechanical Equipment ... moved to Section 18.65.040
Friday August 23, 2024 - PC Meeting 8-27-2024 ... major revisions to the Chapter Numbering - the former Chapter 18.20 is now 18.15 and the former 18.22 is now 18.20.
The major issues addressed here were the revised restrictions in building heights in new Chapters 18.15 & 18.20 and the need for additional parking at the DVC Campus, especially if the North Overflow Parking Lot is developed for dwelling Units (P. M-1 in Chapter 18.20.040).
Saturday September 14, 2024 - Building Heights & Parking requirements (again) Tuesday September 17, 2024 - Building Heights & Parking Requirements (& again) Tuesday October 1, 2024 - PC Study Session - October 8th - Building Heights & Parking Requirements (& yet again)
Monday October 7, 2024 - Chapter 18.45 ... Part 2 - Parks and Recreation Zoning District
It is truly disappointing to see how very little impact that all my volunteer work has had on these documents. Little more than glorified "typos" were changed . . . . .
Meanwhile, here we are already 27% of the way thru the 8-year time period for the RHNA Cycle 6 and we have yet to see any meaningful progress - Applications, Design Submittals, Study Sessions or Public Hearings before either the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) or the Planning Committee (PC) - on any of the 13 Sites for Lower Income residents that were included in the Approved Housing Element (HE). These include:
ten Sites "C" thru "L" - privately owned commercial properties with redevelopment potential
Site "A" - the DVC North Overflow Parking Lot - owned or at least controlled by a public entity.
two vacant Sites identified as Morello Terraces & Paso Nogal - both are steeply sloped & have a long history of landslide problems in the immediate vicinity.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2117 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 In addition, there is real potential for redevelopment of Site "B" - the JC Penney Home Store - either as Residential or Mixed-Use, but this was not acceptable for Lower Income residents according to the State HCD. Furthermore, there does not seem to be any forward progress on the development of the Mangini - Delu farm properties - which is not surprising since the City Council still is wrestling with exactly what they want to accept there . . . . .
I attribute this lack of progress to the overly restrictive Ordinances that Pleasant Hill has - existing & being proposed for the future. More specifically I see the building height limits for both Residential & Mixed-Use developments, the 25% commercial space minimum for Mixed-Use projects & the building orientation restrictions as the MAJOR deterrents to the quality projects that we all would like to see in the pipeline. Even if the City Council does approve a deviation from the Ordinance limits, a project can be stopped or downgraded by "public-interest" lawsuits. Just witness what happened to "Stumpy" - my nickname for the pylon sign for the businesses at DVC Plaza. They were hoping to attract customers off the I680 freeway, but the height was cut from about 55' down to 35'. One needs only to look across the freeway to see the many new residences that are going ahead next door in the City of Concord.....
Yet again, I hereby request that the City Council schedule an open forum Town Hall style meeting during which all these issues can be freely discussed - unlike the more restrictive environment mandated by the Study Session during the regular City Council meetings where Public Comments are routinely ignored.
Jack Prosek
48 year Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2118 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 From: Jack Prosek
To: Haley Croffoot
Cc: Troy Fujimoto; quy tran
Subject: Re: CC 21 April Study Session - Attachment "Y" - Proposed Zoning Map Date: Monday, April 14, 2025 10:30:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Haley -
Here are some additional questions regarding the proposed Zoning Map & the Planning Map that was approved by the City Council at their Special Meeting on 18 May 2023 which I presume is the latest version.
5- The Winslow Center property at the SE corner of Taylor Blvd. & Pleasant Hill Road is shown as light blue Institutional on the Planing Map & R-10 dark yellow on the Zoning Map - why is this not green for Parks like all the other RPD properties ? 6- The Hope Center Church property is shown as dark blue Office on the Planning Map & red Retail Business on the Zoning Map - why is this not light blue Institutional on the Planning Map like the other Church / Private School uses around the City ? 7- The designations on the Zoning Map for our new Library site & the new park land just north of it are confusing as well - dark blue Office rather than Institutional & Park.
These are just three examples from the very small portions of the City that I am most familiar with where corrections are needed in one or both of these Maps. I would bet that there are many more . . . . . further input & study is needed if we are to have worthy documents.
Is there an easy way to get full-color copies of these two Maps ? Jack Prosek
48 year Resident / Homeowner
zz
On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 8:25 AM Jack Prosek <[email protected]> wrote:
Haley -
Please reconsider the proposed Zoning for the following areas shown in Attachment "Y" Proposed Zoning Map to be included in the 2040 Update to the City's General Plan:
1- The proposed rezoning of the properties on the East side of Shirley Drive between Harriett & Doray from single-family residential to Mixed Use is a very poor choice for the future of the residents immediately West of there. The depth of these properties is very shallow; allowing Mixed-Use will bring noise, parking issues, trash handling, site lighting & other problems that do not currently exist. Also, multiple new driveways would be needed from Contra Costa Blvd. for access.
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2119 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025 2- On the other hand, the properties on the East side of Susan Lane (immediately West of the Gregory Gardens Shopping Center) already suffer from their neighbor's business activities. These properties would be more valuable if they were rezoned the same as the shopping center such that they might be combined with a larger scale redevelopment. The increased negative impacts of doing this on the residences to the West would be minimal. 3- The City should reopen discussions with the Rec & Park District Board regarding the future use of their Winslow Center property. The existing building there is in poor condition & has been living on borrowed time for more than a decade now. This property would be much more valuable if it were combined with the Mangini-Delu farm properties in an overall development. A land swap is within the realm of possibilities, and it would be desirable to have the RPD maintain the creek riparian zone.
Furthermore, the best Master Plan for this site would be to have low density housing on the sloping land to the East of the creek & higher density housing to the West with a height limit there up to 65' (NOT 35' as previously shown) ! This would allow for more Open Space around the buildings without increasing the total density !! 4- The rezoning of the JC Penney Home Store (aka Site "B") to Mixed-Use is NOT noted in the Staff Report section on Quadrant "B" (page 9). Oddly, the Wells Fargo Bank building itself is not included, but the parking areas that serve this building are included. A comprehensive development for this entire Site could be attractive. Also, references to JFKU are obsolete in a forward-looking 2040 Update since they closed operations there at least five years ago . . . . .
It does appear that the 13 Sites included in the Housing Element portion of the 2040 General Plan have already been rezoned & therefore are not being restudied at this time.
Each of the issues listed above were raised verbally if not in my numerous Public Comment emails without having the benefit of a real discussion. Sometimes you will get better insights from the long-time residents than from the "professionals" who prepared these Maps but do not live in this environment on a daily basis . . . . . Please have an actual discussion for each of these points during the April 21st Study Session.
Jack Prosek
48 year Resident / Homeowner
zz
Item 10.1
City Council Meeting Agenda - Page 2120 of 2120 - Monday, April 21, 2025