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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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