Attachment J – City Responses to Various Questions

Transcription

ATTACHMENT
City Responses to Various Questions
Pertaining to the Project
J
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Monday, August 10, 2009 5:19 PM
'Dorothy Englund'
Greg Fuz
RE: St. Theresa's Retreat - Attachments
Dorothy,
We did not include the actual email from Dr. Jordan, only his attachment that has the reasonable accommodation
request, if you wish to see the emaill can send that to you. As far as Dr. Gracer, we have not had any communication
with him, thus, you will not find anything in the attachments.
Troy
From: Dorothy Englund [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 20094:49 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: St. Theresa's Retreat - Attachments
Troy,
Could you send me a quick email to let me know if the City has included Dr. Jordan's July 22, 2009 email in any of the
attachments to Staff's Report? Also, has Dr. Richard Gracer communicated with the City and has the City included any of
those communications in the attachments? If so, please let me know which attachments I should scan to find these
records.
Thank you for your help on this.
Dorothy
5
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Troy Fujimoto
Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:59 AM
'Dorothy Englund'
Greg Fuz; Steve Wallace; Debra Margolis; June Catalano
Letter Responding to Recent City Emails
August 5 Letter to DE.pdt; Public Records Request Summary - 8-6-09.pdt
Dorothy,
Attached is a letter responding to some of your latest emails that you have sent to the City, in addition, also attached is
summary of the public records requests (and status) received by the City on this project.
Troy
******************
Troy Fujimoto
Planning Division
City of Pleasant Hill
925-671-5224
6
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Monday, August 03, 2009 4:08 PM
'Jodeen Percey'
[email protected]
RE: Pleasant Hill Road Signage
Jodeen,
Based on your email, I went out to double check the signs that we have out in the City. Please note that we have more
than these two signs, we have 5 altogether, including one at City Hall, but the other four signs are located to capture
drivers coming into the area. We have one sign facing southbound Pleasant Hill Road traffic near the area of 2115
Pleasant Hill Road, we have a sign facing northbound Pleasant Hill road traffic at the intersection of Cumberland Drive
and Pleasant Hill Road, and then we have one facing westbound traffic on Oak Park Boulevard (near the intersection of
Pleasant View Drive), this ensures that we capture all main roads that lead into the area. Thus northbound traffic will
see the sign either at the intersection of Cumberland and Pleasant Hill Road, or if they are coming from Oak Park
Boulevard, the a-frame will be seen as they pass Pleasant View Drive. The sign fronting the project site is pointed in the
direction of oncoming traffic, which in this case happens to face southbound Pleasant Hill Road traffic.
Thanks,
Troy
From: Jodeen percey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 31,20094:17 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Pleasant Hill Road Signage
Hello Troy...
I noticed the two sandwich signs between Oak Park Blvd. and Gregory Ln. are both facing oncoming traffic
from the North. I am hoping one of them could be turned for the oncoming traffic heading south to see.
Thank you,
Jodeen Percey
14
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Monday, August 03, 2009 8:54 AM
'Dorothy Englund'
Greg Fuz
Question - Combined Time for Presentation
Dorothy,
Last week you asked me if there was a way that your group (SNAP) could combine your public comment time into one
block of time (15 minutes) to make a presentation, and that I would get back to you on that idea. While we think it will
probably be a good idea, however, that question will have to go the PCchair and then agreed to by the Commission
before if could be said if you could or not and unfortunately, that would not happen until the night of the meeting.
However, in preparation, you could still send me your groups presentation and then we can have it ready to go for that
night, for your groups use in the event that the Commission agrees to that idea.
Troy
******************
Troy Fujimoto
Planning Division
925-671-5224
15
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Monday, August 03, 2009 8:54 AM
'Dorothy Englund'
Greg Fuz
Question - Combined Time for Presentation
Dorothy,
Last week you asked me ifthere was a way that your group (SNAP)could combine your publiccomment time into one
blockof time (15 minutes) to make a presentation, and that I would get back to you on that idea. Whilewe think it will
probably be a good idea, however, that question will have to go the PCchair and then agreed to by the Commission
before if could be said if you could or not and unfortunately, that would not happen until the night of the meeting.
However, in preparation, you could still send me your groups presentation and then we can have it ready to go for that
night, for your groups use in the event that the Commission agrees to that idea.
Troy
******************
Troy Fujimoto
Planning Division
925-671-5224
4
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:55 AM
'Dorothy Englund'
[email protected]; [email protected]; Greg Fuz
RE: St. Theresa's Retreat - August 18, 2009 Public Hearing
Dorothy,
The environmental consultant is scheduled to attend this meeting and will be making a presentation. As far as direct
questions from the public to the consultant, questions from the public will go through the Commission (Chair) who can
choose to then ask the question to the relevant person(s).
Troy
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8: 10 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: St. Theresa's Retreat - August 18, 2009 Public Hearing
Troy,
Will a representative from Lamphier-Gregory be attending the public hearing on August 18, 2009? If so, will the
representative make a presentation and will the City provide an opportunity for the representative to respond to
questions from the public?
ThanksDorothy
20
Tro Fu"imoto
Troy Fujimoto
Wednesday, July 29,200912:29
PM
'Heidi Taylor'
RE: St. Theresa Retreat - Public Notice and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Heidi,
The Planning Commission has not made a decision on the project request since the public hearing has not yet occurred.
The staff report identifies potential issues and then potential ways that it could be addressed through conditions of
approval, if an approval is granted. The staff report includes a recommendation that the Commission provide direction
to staff, and if the direction includes providing conditions of approval to address various issues, based on that direction,
staff would prepare conditions of approval for consideration by the Commission. Thus, conditions of approval for the
project are not provided in the current staff report.
If the Commission decides to approve the project, that decision will not occur without first reviewing conditions of
approval, which if that is their direction would be provided for their consideration (and for public review) at a
subsequent meeting. If this does not answer your question, let me know.
Troy
From: Heidi Taylor [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:21 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: RE: St. Theresa Retreat - Public Notice and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Bottom line:
The planning commission says St. Theresa's Retreat is okay to operate with certain conditions.
where are those conditions listed?
If yes,
Heidi
LAW OFFICE OF HEIDI TAYLOR
2255 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 205
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Phone (925) 687-8656
Fax (925) 825-1218
[email protected]
From: Troy Fujimoto [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 20094:57 PM
To: Heidi Taylor
Hello Heidi,
A negative declaration
have a significant
by definition
is a written
effect on the environment
statement
briefly describing
and does not require preparation
22
the reasons that a proposed
of an environmental
project will not
impact report, thus,
a mitigated negative declaration (which is what you originally asked) is a negative declaration prepared when the initial
study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but revisions to the project plans or proposal,
made or agreed to by the applicant before the environmental documents are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where there is not significant effect on the environment and that there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a
significant effect on the environment.
Ok now that I said that, to try and make it more clear, the mitigated negative declaration, combined with the initial
study, are documents that analyzes and reviews a project proposal from all environmental impacts and then identifies
any potential impacts from a project, and includes mitigation measures that would reduce those potential impacts to a
point that it is no longer significant (if necessary).
If this is still unclear, let me know and I can provide further clarification if necessary.
Troy
PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Sent: Tuesday, July 28,20093:00
Hi Troy,
Can you tell me what a "Mitigated Negative Declaration"
is?
Heidi
Phone (925) 687-8656
Fax (925) 825-1218
[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28,20092:56 PM
To: Alicia Vigil; Alyssa Zusman; Amy & Mike Turner; Anne Blodgett; Ben Parades; Bill & Pat Breedlove; Brendan
Kenneally; Brian & Robin Dooley; Brian Mulry; Carla Burks; Carol Johnson; Carole Travis; Cathy Chin; [email protected];
Chris Urhausep; Clyde Miller; Craig Nelson; Cynthia Hudson; Dan Leer; David & Suzanne Grube; Debbie Wilson; Dee Ann
Barklow; Demetria Dectimanis; Doris Ong; Dorothy Englund; Ed and Charlotte Pell; Eileen Brinker; Elizabeth Watkinson;
Emin Gerba; Frank & Jennifer Brooks; Gary Jensen; [email protected]; Greg & Karen Santos; Heidi Taylor; Henri
Spitert; Holly Sprague; J Halevy; Jack & Anne Belvedere; Jacques De Jager; Jamie Cortez; Janet Sullivan; Janice Kelso;
Jennifer Mastrogiorgio; Jennifer Thoits; Jeremy Ficken; Jim Giblin; Jodeen Percey; John & Gtory O'Keefe; John Galloway;
John Vukovojac; Johnny & Susan Dailey; Judi Halevy; Julia Taylor; K.R. Hornbergen; Karen De Jager; Katherine Nelson;
Kathryn Lindenauer; Keith Hunt; Ken Bosso; Kim Lemyre; Kristy Minka; L Borton; Larry Nelson; Laura Birnbaumer;
Leanne Hamaji; Lenore Krause; Linda Leng; Marcy Dixon; Mark Russell; Marvin Cave; Mary Eisenhow; Matt & Melanie
Martin; Matthew & Sophie Ryan; Maureen Kyer; Melanie & Perry Jurow; Melinda Nelson; Michael Barraco; Mike
Stephens; Milt Giulieri; Nancy Deverel; Nicolas Malatoul; Norman Vanhole; Nuru Neemuchwalla; Pam Frank; Paula & Don
Clar; Phil & Ellen Javete; Richard Schneer; Roderick Roe; Ron Cancilla; Sarah Blair; Scott & Pam Malin; Scott Dixon;
Stephanie Robuts; Stephen Sanford; Steve & Suzannah Amable; Ted Carmon; Telzey Gairley; Trina Lee; Vanesse
Mirande; Vera Lawrence; Veronica Paschall; Vincent Stark
Subject: St. Theresa Retreat - Public Notice and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attached is the notice for the upcoming August 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting regarding the proposed St.
Theresa Retreat at 2059 Pleasant HillRoad.
23
Troy
******************
Troy Fujimoto
Planning Division
925-671-5224
24
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:57 PM
'Heidi Taylor'
RE: St. Theresa Retreat - Public Notice and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Hello Heidi,
A negative declaration by definition is a written statement briefly describing the reasons that a proposed project will not
have a significant effect on the environment and does not require preparation of an environmental impact report, thus,
a mitigated negative declaration (which is what you originally asked) is a negative declaration prepared when the initial
study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but revisions to the project plans or proposal,
made or agreed to by the applicant before the environmental documents are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where there is not significant effect on the environment and that there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a
significant effect on the environment.
Ok now that I said that, to try and make it more clear, the mitigated negative declaration, combined with the initial
study, are documents that analyzes and reviews a project proposal from all environmental impacts and then identifies
any potential impacts from a project, and includes mitigation measures that would reduce those potential impacts to a
point that it is no longer significant (if necessary).
If this is still unclear, let me know and I can provide further clarification if necessary.
Troy
Sent: Tuesday, July 28,20093:00 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Hi Troy,
Can you tell me what a "Mitigated
Negative
Declaration"
is?
Heidi
Phone (925) 687-8656
Fax (925) 825-1218
[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:56 PM
To: Alicia Vigil; Alyssa Zusman; Amy & Mike Turner; Anne Blodgett; Ben Parades; Bill & Pat Breedlove; Brendan
Kenneally; Brian & Robin Dooley; Brian Mulry; Carla Burks; Carol Johnson; Carole Travis; Cathy Chin; [email protected];
Chris Urhausep; Clyde Miller; Craig Nelson; Cynthia Hudson; Dan Leer; David & Suzanne Grube; Debbie Wilson; Dee Ann
Barklow; Demetria Dectimanis; Doris Ong; Dorothy Englund; Ed and Charlotte Peli; Eileen Brinker; Elizabeth Watkinson;
Emin Gerba; Frank & Jennifer Brooks; Gary Jensen; [email protected]; Greg & Karen Santos; Heidi Taylor; Henri
25
Spitert; Holly Sprague; J Halevy; Jack & Anne Belvedere; Jacques De Jager; Jamie Cortez; Janet Sullivan; Janice Kelso;
Jennifer Mastrogiorgio; Jennifer Thoits; Jeremy Ficken; Jim Giblin; Jodeen Percey; John & Gtory O'Keefe; John Galloway;
John Vukovojac; Johnny & Susan Dailey; Judi Halevy; Julia Taylor; K.R. Hornbergen; Karen De Jager; Katherine Nelson;
Kathryn Lindenauer; Keith Hunt; Ken Bosso; Kim Lemyre; Kristy Minka; L Borton; Larry Nelson; Laura Birnbaumer;
Leanne Hamaji; Lenore Krause; Linda Leng; Marcy Dixon; Mark Russell; Marvin Cave; Mary Eisenhow; Matt & Melanie
Martin; Matthew & Sophie Ryan; Maureen Kyer; Melanie & Perry Jurow; Melinda Nelson; Michael Barraco; Mike
Stephens; Milt Giulieri; Nancy Deverel; Nicolas Malatoul; Norman Vanhole; Nuru Neemuchwalla; Pam Frank; Paula & Don
Clar; Phil & Ellen Javete; Richard Schneer; Roderick Roe; Ron Cancilla; Sarah Blair; Scott & Pam Malin; Scott Dixon;
Stephanie Robuts; Stephen Sanford; Steve & Suzannah Amable; Ted Carmon; Telzey Gairley; Trina Lee; Vanesse
Mirande; Vera Lawrence; Veronica Paschall; Vincent Stark
Subject: St. Theresa Retreat - Public Notice and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attached is the notice for the upcoming August 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting regarding the proposed St.
Theresa Retreat at 2059 Pleasant Hill Road.
Troy
******************
Troy Fujimoto
Planning Division
925-671-5224
26
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Monday, June 29, 2009 3:27 PM
'Gregory Santos'
RE: St. Theresa's Retreat Impact Study
The outdoor activitiesthat we are aware of (and this informationcomes from the applicant, since he knowswhat types
of activities he will propose) include outdoor cooking (grilling)and eating, meditation, gardening (similar type of
yardwork), reading, and an outdoor smoking area.
As far as how many are outside, there is a likelihood that the everyone (especially when there are eating) could at some
point be outdoors.
Let me know if you have other questions.
Troy
From: Gregory Santos [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:35 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: RE: St. Theresa's Retreat Impact Study
Hi Troy,
Thanks for the prompt response Troy. Do you know what are the proposed outdoor activities and how many people are
expected to be outside? Do these Estimates come from Mr. Jordan, or is there some other source, such as information
from similar facilities?
Gregory Santos
[email protected]
(925) 408-7103
To: Gregory Santos
Subject: RE: St. Theresa's Retreat Impact Study
Gregory,
The simple answer to your question is that proposed outdoor activities for the facility, including the potential amount of
persons that may be outdoors will be considered as part of the review of the project.
Troy
From: Gregory Santos [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: St. Theresa's Retreat Impact Study
6
Hi Troy,
Thank you for coming to our home to view the facilities location in relation to my home. I am writing to you
because you have this firsthand experience with our situation and our proximity to the proposed St. Theresa's
Retreat facility.
On Father's Day Mr. Jordan had a large gathering at the facility. I would estimate there were 15 or more
people at the site and some or all of the event took place outside. From inside my house I could hear laughter
and the tidal ebb and flow of volume you would expect from a large gathering.
conversations were quite clear. I was uncomfortable with being an unintended
attend to projects inside my house.
From outside my house, the
eavesdropper and decided to
I want to be clear that this is not a complaint;
it is a concern. Family gatherings and parties with friends are a
part of a healthy home and they occur on special occasions. I expect this in my neighborhood and I have no
complaints with any of my neighbors to date.
My concern is that the facility, as proposed, will always have a large number of people present. Should they
conduct their meetings, dine, or otherwise spend significant time outside I will be forced to overhear them. I
also do not know Mr. Jordan's stance anonymity or client confidentiality,
but I can assure you, they would
have none in an outside setting. This makes me very uncomfortable and unable to enjoy the use of my
property as I otherwise should be able to. I would also expect this to be a concern for his clients, since
confidentiality
would be difficult to maintain in an outside setting.
Again, a gathering, on occasion is normal, expected and appropriate,
equivalent of a gathering every day twenty-four hours a day.
but what Dr. Jordan proposes will be the
Will what I describe and its impact on my and my neighbors' peace and welfare be factored
study?
Gregory Santos
[email protected]
(925) 408-7103
7
in the impact
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Monday, June 22, 2009 4:13 PM
'Nelson, Stacie P.'
RE: Saint Theresa's Retreat, Inc.
Hi Stacie,
Thank you for the additional information, we will look into the additional information that you provided and take your
comments into consideration as we move forward with the processing of the project request. In addition, I did get your
email from May 20, as far as responding to each item you brought up, we will be doing our best to respond to all of the
questions and comments received, while it may not be in bullet point fashion, it is our intent that the staff report will
provide responses to the questions to the greatest extent possible. Let me know if you anymore questions or concerns.
Troy
From: Nelson, Stacie P. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:29 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Saint Theresa's Retreat, Inc.
Dear Mr. Fujimoto: I am attaching a "fact sheet" prepared by California Assembly member Jared Huffman on May 15,
2008. In this fact sheet, Assemblyman Huffman confirms that a city is to encourage alcohol and drug treatment programs
only to the extent commensurate with local need. I am wondering if the City is preparing a study of our local need so that
the City complies with the clear Legislative intent of the fair housing laws before it makes a decision regarding Saint
Theresa's Retreat, Inc. What we do know is that the ADP does not have the authority to restrict or deny a license
because the facility is not commensurate with local need. Therefore, an analysis for compliance with the fair housing law
regarding local need must be done by the City when either a variance or conditional use permit is sought. As I mentioned
in earlier information I provided,* Contra Costa County has virtually no waiting list for private pay clients -- the type of
clients Dr. Jordan states he intends to take. Therefore, the only evidence I have seen regarding our local need tells me
that this facility is not needed.
I find the fact sheet useful as well because it provides some other agencies, in addition to the League of California Cities
to where I directed the City already, that may have more recent and unbiased information regarding the impact of these
facilities on residential neighborhoods, including the California Police Chief's Association, California Peace Officers'
Association, City of Sausalito, Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members and the City of Newport Beach. It
seems that before any decision is made these organizations, as well as Assembly member Huffman, should be contacted.
Finally, I think it is important for the City to review the Legislative history and intent behind Health and Safety Code
Sections 11834.01-11834.50. These are the provisions wherein the California Legislature determined that residential
facilities of six or fewer are to be treated for all purposes as single family residences. It is important to consider that our
Legislature has already determined that six is the number that most likely mirrors a single family home and thus would not
impact the character/nature of a single family neighborhood. That fact alone tells us that a request to house more than six
persons will have some impact on the character of the property such that it will have an impact on the residential
neighborhood and alter its character. Thus, Dr. Jordan's request of 20 must be denied as the California Legislature has
necessarily determined that even seven people will have more impact than any other single family residence in a single
family residence neighborhood. Twenty people, not even taking into account the very experimental nature of Dr. Jordan's
proposal, will certainly not fit in our zoning scheme and general plan for this area and will certainly impact our
neighborhood.
Thank you for your continued hard work in examining these issues for our City and its residents. Stacie Nelson
12
* I also wanted to take this opportunity to follow up on the correspondence I sent you to on May 20, 2009 regarding the
Parts A and B posted on the City's website. I just want to confirm that you have received it as I have not heard from you.
If you have received it, please let me know if the City intends to respond to the additional questions/concerns raised
therein.
«AB2903%20Fact%20Sheet[1
].pdf»
***
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have
received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this
message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.
***
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing,
any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed
herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.\.O\.03
pdcl
13
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Tuesday, June 16, 20094:28 PM
'Dorothy Englund'
RE: St. Theresa's Retreat
Hi Dorothy,
Yes I just received the copies of the surveys from the 1999 League of California Cities survey, it actually just came in
yesterday.
As far as the City's smoking ordinance, there is nothing specific that has a distance requirement from offices or nursing
homes. The only distance requirement is that smoking is not allowed within 20 feet of a main entrance, exit or operable
window of a place of employment (except while actively passing on the way to another destination and the smoke does
not enter where prohibited...)Section 9.45.050PHMC.There are exceptions for restaurants, bars, guest rooms (hotels)
and theatrical productions. If you are asking about state smoking restrictions, their regulations are more about places of
employment and within enclosed areas, so I have not been able to find more than that.
As far as your question on zoning, the R-4 that the state ADP person was talking about may have been referring to
building code designation? But I am not sure, the State does not control zoning, that falls onto the local entities,
whether County or City, in this case, it would be the City. We do not have maps that show State zoning, since they do
not zone lands. The City currently does not have any "R-4" zoning.
We can inquire into Futures Associates and see if they will share more information than what is available on the
website. As far as the request for a workshop, you can make a request to the City and you can address it to the City
Manager (June Catalano) or the Public Works and Community Development Director (Steve Wallace).
Troy
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:15 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: St. Theresa's Retreat
Mr. Fujimoto,
I just want to check in to find out if you were able to obtain copies of the surveys completed by the 72 cities that
participated in the 1999 League of California Cities Survey.
Also, you mentioned a few months back that you were going to look into smoking restrictions (how many feet away
from offices or nursing homes is an acceptable distance for cigarette smokers). Did you find any information on that
subject? I know the Mt. Diablo Unified School District has smoking restrictions as well. I don't know if schools or day
care centers have state-mandated smoking restrictions or whether these are self-imposed. I believe in the case of
schools, the issue isn't just the exposure to second-hand smoke but also the potential problems created by
impressionable children routinely witnessing adults smoking in a social or other setting. Were you able to find any
information on the smoking restrictions?
I am also confused about the State's R-4 zoning and how that impacts us in Pleasant Hill. Does the City maintain maps
that show how we are zoned according to State parameters? Based on what I was able to find out, it appears the R-4
has something to do with areas that are close to existing public transportation (like BART)or areas where the City
intends to provide public transportation in the future. What areas of Pleasant Hill are currently zoned R-4?
17
I am continuing my research on some of the studies Dr.Jordan and the California Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs referenced. I emailed the California Endowment and Futures Associates, Inc. to request information a few
weeks ago, and have not heard back from them. Perhaps the City will have more success as Iexpect these private
entities may be more responsive to a public agency than a private citizen. I have also scoured San Diego State
University's website to try to find information on their 2003 "Public Opinion Survey." Iwas able to find information on
several grants and research projects dating back several years (even prior to 2003) but I couldn't find any record of the
2003 "Public Opinion Survey." Iwill email Mr. Ellison at the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP)
and request a copy of the study or other information that ADPused to prepare its promotional materials.
Finally, I have asked the City to facilitate a workshop on St. Theresa's Retreat at last week's Planning Commission
meeting and at last night's City Council meeting. Do I need to direct my request to someone on staff as well?
Thank you for your assistance.
Dorothy Englund
18
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:56 AM
'eric t'
RE: ADP presentation and licensing procedures
Eric,
Thank you for your email, let me see if I can answer your questions, they are below within your original email in
parenthesis. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Troy
From: eric t [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:27 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: RE: ADP presentation and licensing procedures
Troy,
At the meeting last week you gave a time line for the approval and licensing of the treatment facility. I understood this to
imply (and I think you also stated the same) that the city's involvement would end with the city council's review in the
fall. I would figure that Dr. Jordan wouldn't be investing any more money into his facility until he received his
conditional use permit; at such time he would proceed with the building/remodeling process. At which time the city
building inspectors should become involved, hence more city involvement (You are correct, he would still need building
permits for any improvements and yes that would be through the City, the planning permit process would end with the
City Council).
Part of the state licensing process that Mr. Ellison listed also required fire department approval. Is that CCCdistrict or
state fire marshal review - do you know? (Fire Dept approval would be through Contra Costa Fire District, not the State
Fire Marshall) He couldn't start the Facility without an occupancy permit from the city upon completion of the
remodeling, fire department inspection, and then receiving an operating permit from the state (ADP). Do I havethe
extended sequence (to your understanding) correct? (He would need an occupancy permit from the City, and this would
not be issued until he has final sign off from the Fire Dept. As far as timing of the State permit, I believe that he will
need fire clearance and provide that clearance to ADP before he can open, I am not sure if the ADP license will be held
up until then or if the license would be conditional, I can try to look further into this for you)
Will the city building inspectors then be enforcing the accessibility requirements of T-24 (not ADA)? (Yes they will be
enforcing the requirements of Title 24) From understanding that building construction (the convent) over the years, Dr.
Jordan will have a hard time making it compliant (economically).
Also, from the news article on the meeting
...
"The city can't deny the permit simply because neighbors object to having alcoholics and drug addicts living near them,
as the potential clients are protected under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, according to Troy Fujimoto,
senior planner for Pleasant HilL"
CC Times 5/29/09.
The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1988 provides protection from discrimination for facilities serving persons recovering
from problems related to the use of alcohol or other drugs. The ADA protection only specifically includes alcoholism as
an employee protection in the workplace. Since the employee protection act section of the ADA claims that Alcoholism
is a disability, alcoholics are due ADA protection regarding employment. It does not extend to facilities intended to
serve them, as the ADA does not address specific disabilities for protection in housing. That's my understanding in my
22
experience in enforcing clauses of the ADA in building construction. I was kind of surprised that the City Attorney didn't
step in here; and with the reasonable accommodation ordinance to define it as standard operating procedure. (I would
have to check or let our City Attorney respond to this one)
Mr. Ellison also referenced Type 4 construction in his presentation - type 4 or R4 occupancy hasn't been in the building
code since the early '70s when it was used to describe congregate residences, such as convents or group residence
homes. (According to our CBO, the R4 occupancy was recently introduced into the building code, I am not sure of the
specifics other than that) It was combined into the Rl occupancy classification for apartments/ multi-family. My
concern is that in the RlO Zoning along PH road the Rl occupancy sets a precedent for other Rl occupancies away from
the established commercial/dense residential corridors. (This would not trigger any precedents for allowing apartments
or condo's to locate within single-family residential districts, if this is your concern)
Thanks for listening,
Eric R. Thergesen, Architectural Consultant
707 Charlton Drive, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Office / Fax: (925) 937-2683
Email: [email protected]
For Mediation Purposes only. Protected by Orders of the Special Master and California Evidence Code Sections 1119, et seq. and 1152, et seq.
This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential information that is privileged or that constitutes attorney work product intended
for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and
any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. You are also asked to notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail, delete this transmission, and destroy all copies in any
form. Thank you.
23
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Wednesday, May 27,20098:13 AM
'Demetria Dertimanis'
David Boatwright
RE: 20 person congregate facility Pleasant Hill Road
Hello Demetria,
Thank you for your comments, it will be made a part of the project record. In response to some of your questions, the
project request does not involve a rezoning of land, the property will remain as it is currently zoned, however, the
project will require a conditional use permit for the proposed use. If the conditional use permit is granted, the approval
will run with the land, meaning that the use permit will stay with the site, the applicant cannot take the use permit and
use that same use permit elsewhere in the city, thus, if the site is sold, the use permit will remain at the property and
the new owner can take over the use of the use permit (provided that they are operating under the existing use permit
parameters, if they are not, an amendment will have to be completed, or if the use stops for a period of over 180 days
then the use permit expires). This project and the decision made on the project will not impact any future requests in
the City. If you have any other questions, please let me know.
Troy
From: Demetria Dertimanis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:04 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto; David Boatwright
Subject: 20 person congregate facility Pleasant Hill Road
I strongly oppose any changes to the residential zoning for this facility. What are the future ramifications once
zoning has been changed? What happens when that site is sold? What happens when other zoning changes are
requested because we made this exception? This is a neighborhood. I bought a house in a residential
neighborhood. I want it to stay a residential neighborhood. It doesn't matter who wants to change it or for what
reason, I do not want the zoning changed.
Thank you,
Demetria Dertimanis
30
Tro Fu.imoto
Troy Fujimoto
Friday, May 22, 2009 11:09 AM
'Emin Gerba'
RE: Community Development policies and procedures
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I think you may be talking
about our general plan which
etc. and there is a section
called
the safety and noise
is also within
our zoning ordinance
a section
on noise.
online on our city website.
Here are some links
to
start
General
is
a safety
Plan,
there
contains
policies,
goals,
programs,
element,
we can start
there.
There
Both of these sections
can be found
with:
and noise
element
that
starts
on page 57.
http://www.ci.pleasant-hill.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=132
Zoning
Ordinance,
there
are noise
standards
in Section
18.50.060
PleasantHill18.html
htt
Let me know if
you have any other
questions.
Troy
Original
Message----From: Emin Gerba [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday,
May 22, 2009 10:15 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject:
Re: Community Development policies
and procedures
Hi Troy,
At a recent planning
comission
meeting there were some papers distributed
regarding
an
application
by a fitness
studio for a zoning permit.
They cited City Development plan
ordinances
regarding
noise & safety,
etc. I was hoping to review those ordinances.
Thanks,
Emin Gerba
Dev Director
(AppStore,
(ph) 415-536-6927
(mobile)
650-861-0527
On May 21,
2009,
at
4:01
Webstore)
PM, "Troy
Fujimoto"
<Tfuiimotoici.pleasant-hill.ca.us>
I am not sure I know exactly
what you are requesting,
and want to make
sure so I am not giving
you incorrect
information.
Are you looking
for
the larger
City policies,
goals,
programs, etc, regarding
development
in
the City or are you looking
for more of the specifics
such as setbacks,
parking
rqmt, building
height,
lot coverage,
etc?
You can call me if
that's
easier
(925-671-5224)
Troy
31
wrote:
Original
Message----From: E Gerba [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:48 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject:
Community Development policies
Hello
and procedures
Troy,
I am trying to educate myself further
regarding
existing
rules and
policies
regarding
property development in Pleasant
Hill. Can you please
let me know where I can find a copy of Pleasant
Hill Community
Development policies
and procedures?
Thank you,
Emin
32
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Friday, May 08, 2009 7:48 AM
'Nelson, Stacie P.'
RE: St. Theresa's Retreat
Hello Stacie,
We have determined that the project is subject to CEQAand we are currently working on the initial study for the project
proposal to determine if the project will have a significant impact on the environment. As you mayor may not know,
the initial study will look at many different environmental issues including aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral
resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities to
determine if there will be any significant impacts on the environment. Ifthere are, an additional review will be
completed to propose mitigation measures to reduce to a less than significant level or an environmental impact report
may be needed if identified impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.
As far as to the extent that consultants are assisting on this review, they are assisting on the public services portion,
reviewing other similar area facilities and their impacts on public services and other impacts in general. The consultant
is also assisting on the noise analysis portion including analyzing potential impacts of the project from a noise
perspective. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Troy
Sent: Thursday, May 07,2009 11:02 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: St. Theresa's Retreat
Dear Mr. Fujimoto: I am writing to inquire into the status of the CEQA determination regarding St. Theresa's Retreat. I
note that on the April 2009 Project Status Report it indicates that it is in progress. I would appreciate it if you could let me
know what that actually means and if you could let me know the exact parameters of the CEQA determination (i.e. what
are the consultants studying). Thank you for your time. Stacie Nelson
Stacie Polashuk Nelson
510.466.6884
[email protected]
Reed Smith
LLP
1999 Harrison Street
Suite 2400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.763.2000
Fax 510.273.8832
***
44
***
herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03
pdcl
45
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:55 PM
'Nelson, Stacie P.'; Greg Fuz
Debra Margolis
RE: St. Theresa's Retreat Care Facility
Hello Stacie,
Thank your for your input. We are pleased to receive any information, input, questions, comments throughout the review
process and will consider all the information in the staff analysis. You can send any information directly to myself.
Pertaining to your question on posting correspondences, while we do not post public correspondence, I can assure you
that any correspondence will be kept in the project file (that is available for review by the public) and will also be
provided to the Planning Commission for consideration. If you have any other questions, please let me know.
Troy
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 20099:55
AM
To: Troy Fujimoto; Greg Fuz
Cc: Debra Margolis
Subject: St. Theresa's Retreat Care Facility
Dear Messrs. Fujimoto and Fuz: I see that Mr. Jordan has prepared responses to the questions and concerns raised by
the Pleasant Hill residents regarding his experimental 20 bed facility in the middle of single family residence neighborhood
-- which many cities prohibit per se via their zoning laws. I am wondering if the residents have an opportunity to prepare
responses and further questions to his responses as many of his responses are non-responsive and/or raise many
additional questions. If so, please advise how we can do so and will they be posted as Mr. Jordan's were? Thank you for
your time. Stacie Nelson
Stacie Polashuk Nelson
510.466.6884
[email protected]
Reed Smith
LLP
1999 Harrison Street
Suite 2400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.763.2000
Fax 510.273.8832
***
***
herein.
Disclaimer
48
Version
RS. US .1.0 1.03
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:26 AM
'L Borton'
RE: Rehab Center
Hello L Borton,
Thank you for your input on this important project. We are in the process of collecting input and comments such as
yours. Regarding your question as to when a decision will be made on this matter, we do not have a specific date yet,
but it is estimated that this permit request would be heard by the Planning Commission (who would render a decision)
in a couple of months (approx. 3 months). If you would like to be kept abreast of any meeting notices, you can provide
me a mailing address which will ensure that you will be mailed any notices on upcoming meetings regarding this project.
Troy
From: L Borton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:44 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Rehab Center
Dear Mr. Fujimoto,
A drug/alcohol rehab center should never ever be placed in a residential area, especially where there are many
older persons and children. The able men and women are away at work leaving only mostly moms, retired
people, and children in this area. There is also an elementary school less than one mile from 2059 Pleasant Hill
Road and children walk or ride their bikes to school.
This is a quite, safe, rare crime( if any) neighborhood
into this environment is wrong.
for children and Introducing potentially dangerous people
Placing a drug/alcohol rehab facility near a hospital, medical center, and/or police station makes more sense
because there would be more people about and more people about will help inhibit any criminal intentions. A
quiet middle class neighborhood might be too tempting for a person with drug or alcohol problems or
their visitors to be mischievous, if they are wont to do.
Please safe guard our families by not allowing this drug/alcohol rehab center to operate at 2059 Pleasant Hill
Road. Do not allow criminal elements into our neighborhood.
When will we know what decision is made on this matter?
73
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Monday, March 09, 2009 2:07 PM
'qifusmom @sbcglobal.net'
Greg Fuz
RE: St. Theresa's Retreat Permit Use - Dr. MichaelJordan
Hi Cathy,
The applicants middle name is Joseph (Michael Joseph Jordan). As far as the County where he is licensed, the applicant
states that he is not licensed per County, but he is licensed by the State of California. If it helps his office is in Walnut
Creek. Let me know if you have anymore questions.
Troy
From: Cathy Chin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:34 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto; Greg Fuz
Subject: St. Theresa's Retreat Permit Use - Dr. Michael Jordan
In reading the FAQ for St. Theresa's Retreat Permit Use, it identifies a Dr. Michael Jordan as the applicant. I
am trying to find out more on the applicant however I need a middle initial/name and the California county
where he is licensed to complete my search.
In a search of the Medical Board of California (for Contra Costa County) I found two Michael Jordan: Michael
Colin Jordan (license cancelled) and Michael Joseph Jordan (license renewed and current).
I would appreciate it if you could forward me the complete applicant's name.
Regards,
Cathy Chin
Pleasant Hill Resident
74
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Troy Fujimoto
Friday, March 06, 2009 1:28 PM
'Stark, Vincent J'
RE: Ph congregate care facility meeting 3/11 630pm
FAQS
- Revised.pdf
Vincent,
As someone that has had a recent interest in this project and corresponded with me over email, I wanted to send
(and attached to this email) a recently prepared frequently asked questions (FAQ's) document (prepared by City
staff) that hopefully will provide you with additional information on the Use Permit request for a congregate
care facility at 2059 Pleasant Hill Road.
Please note that FAQ document can also be found at the City of Pleasant Hill website at the following web
address: http://www.ci.pleasant-hill.ca.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2001.
An announcement of the project
information meeting that is scheduled to be held on March 11,2009 at 6:30 pm can also be found on the City
website front page at www.ci.pleasant-hill.ca.us.
under "News and Announcements".
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Troy Fujimoto
Project Planner
From: Stark, Vincent J [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 20099:08 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Ph congregate care facility meeting 3/11 630pm
Troy,
I am unable to attend the above meeting as I will be out of town that day. I still want my voice heard so please feel free to
share this with the City planning group or City Council. I live on 8 Plato Court, in Pleasant Hill and have two young
children.
I can not stress how much I am AGAINST any type of Alcohol/ Drug Rehab facility being in our Neighborhoods. There is a
very high repeat incidence of people going through this type of rehab. They often go back into drug and alcohol use and
often criminal activity even after completing a program. Once these people are introduced to our family neighborhoods we
have opened the door to potential criminal activity jeopardizing the safety of our community and most importantly of our
children.
This type of facility has NO PLACE in our neighborhoods. The city planning committee and city council should represent
the Pleasant Hill Citizens and REJECT any permit of operate these types of facilities in our neighborhoods? In my opinion
any approval of such permit is irresponsible to our family based communities.
Please share this e-mail with the appropriate decision making parties.
Sincerely,
Vincent Stark
75
Vincent J Stark
Unum
Senior Account Executive
San Francisco Office
CA License No. OB41526
800-367 -6166
925-316-3952 Direct
925-316-3937 Fax
[email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 20098:33 AM
To: Stark, Vincent J
Subject: RE: Ph congregate care facility meeting 3/11 630pm
Hi Vincent,
The property owner does have a minor use permit application with the City to open a 20-person congregate care facility,
which in essence is an Adult Non-Medical Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Treatment Facility for women. Incidentally, this is
also the formal description of the permit that the property owner will also be requesting from the State of California.
This request has never been heard before the City Council, thus, no decision by the Council has been made at this point.
For your information, the request will be heard by the Planning Commission and only be heard by the City Council if the
item is appealed or called up for review.
Regarding the status of the approval, as I mentioned previously, he has applied to the City (Planning Division) for the
necessary Use Permit and is currently being processed. The project informational meeting is one of the first steps in the
processing of this permit request. At this meeting, City staff will be collecting information and hearing any issues that
the public may have pertaining to the project request. Formal review of the request by the Planning Commission will
probably not occur for a couple of months. Public noticing of that meeting will also occur.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Troy
From: Stark, Vincent J [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 10:09 AM
To: [email protected].
Subject: FW: Ph congregate care facility meeting 3/11 630pm
Troy,
Last I heard the owner of this property was trying to place a Drug/ Alcohol rehab center at this location. Is this still the
case? I thought this was previously shot down by City Council. Can you e-mail details on exactly what they are trying to
put at this location and status of this approval?
Sincerely,
Vince Stark, 8 Plato Ct Pleasant Hill, CA
Vincent J Stark
Unum
Senior Account Executive
76
San Francisco Office
CA License No. 0841526
800-367-6166
925-316-3952 Direct
925-316-3937 Fax
[email protected]
From: Stark, Vincent J
Sent: Saturday, February 21,2009 11:10 AM
To: [email protected];
Stark, Vincent J
Subject: Ph congregate care facility meeting 3/11 630pm
Troy fujimoto [email protected].
925 671 5224
Sent from my AT&T Windows Mobile phone.
77
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Troy Fujimoto
Friday, March 06, 2009 1:27 PM
'[email protected]'
RE: St. Theresa's Retreat Road Signs
FAQS - Revised.pdf
Jodeen,
As someone that has had a recent interest in this project and corresponded with me over email, I wanted to send
(and attached to this email) a recently prepared frequently asked questions (FAQ's) document (prepared by City
staff) that hopefully will provide you with additional information on the Use Permit request for a congregate
care facility at 2059 Pleasant Hill Road.
Please note that FAQ document can also be found at the City of Pleasant Hill website at the following web
address: http://www.ci.pleasant-hill.ca.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2001.
An announcement of the project
information meeting that is scheduled to be held on March 11, 2009 at 6:30 pm can also be found on the City
website front page at www.ci.pleasant-hil1.ca.us.
under "News and Announcements".
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Troy Fujimoto
Project Planner
From: Jodeen Percey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25,200910:14 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: St. Theresa's Retreat Road Signs
Troy....
I and others have received multiple calls, e-mails, and comments regarding the signs at various locations
announcing the City of Pleasant Hill Project Information Meeting for Public Input for a 20-Person Congregate
Care Facility. One such comment I have already forwarded to you. Some have thought it was about a Nursing
Facility. Not all residents have received the notice to explain that the congregate care facility is for a 20-person
residential adult non-medical alcoholsm and/or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility.
I am requesting the city to replace the signs with ones that will better inform the community of what the
congregate care facility will be used for.
Therefore, I am requesting a postponement of the Informational Meeting so that the city has enough time to
repost the signs and the community has appropriate time to prepare their questions or comments.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jodeen Percey
cc; city council
78
Tro Fu.imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:04 AM
'Vera Lawrence'
Greg Fuz; Martin Nelis; Debra Margolis; Steve Wallace
RE: Alcohol and Drug Facility
Ms. Lawrence,
Thank you for the information and your input. I can certainly appreciate your concerns. When the public notices and aframe signs were prepared, the description for the applicant's proposal was based on the City's zoning ordinance
definition for the proposed use. Per the City ordinance the definition of a congregate care facility is "a residential
facility...which provides assistance, supervision, and protection for those activities and tasks necessary for independent
living" which is what the applicant is proposed to provide. There was no intent to mislead or deceive the residents
regarding the proposed project. The City welcomes and encourages public input and participation at the March 11
meeting and all other subsequent meetings related to the project.
Please also note that this is the first of several public meetings that are expected to be held in connection with this
project. At this first meeting, no decisions will be made regarding the project. The purpose of this meeting is to receive
questions, comments and any other input from the neighborhood and general public regarding the proposed project to
help ensure that all questions and concerns are identified for analysis. All of the subsequent meetings will also be
noticed with the same type of signage throughout the neighborhood to make all interested parties aware of this project.
I hope that I have answered your questions and concerns. Please let me know if I can provide any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Troy Fujimoto
From: Vera Lawrence [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 20097:46 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Alcohol and Drug Facility
Dear Mr. Fujimoto,
I think the city is misleading the public with their Congregate Care Facility signs. I was
shocked when I first read them. What does ConQreQate Care Facilitv mean? In the first place,
congregate is a verb which means: "To come or bring together in a crowd: assemble." They
have used it as adiective.
It sounds like it is going to be a church facility -- such as a Congregational Church Care
Facility. Everyone I have spoken to about the signs has not the slightest idea what
Congregate Care means. It sounds perfectly harmless. With this verbiage people will not get
alarmed to what is really going on.
It is misleading and deceptive. How in the world do they get away with using this
terminology? The city should put on the sign exactly what this facility will be. It is going to be
an alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facility.
89
The city stated it in the Project Informational Meeting letter they mailed out. That is not
enough. Only a chosen group of people received that letter. Evervone that sees their signs
should know exactly what the facility will be. They might not live in the neighborhood but
their children attend P.H. Elementary School or one of several day care facilities which are
close to the proposed facility.
I am sure the city will say that the verbiage is legally and politically correct -- even if it is
grammatically incorrect. That is not the point. I am sure the city doesn't want to deceive
anyone, and they want to be forthright and honest with the citizens of Pleasant Hill who will be
negatively affected in many ways if this facility is approved by the city. As the Senior Planner
for the City of Pleasant Hill, I am sure that you can very soon correct this deceptive verbiage
on the signs.
Thank you for your consideration.
Vera L. Lawrence
90
Tro Fu"imoto
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Troy Fujimoto
Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:44 PM
'[email protected]'
Greg Fuz; Steve Wallace; Debra Margolis; Martin Nelis
RE: St. Theresa's Retreat Road Signs
Jodeen,
Thank you for the information and your input. I can certainly appreciate your concerns on the signage. The description
on the signs were meant to reflect the actual City permit that they are applying for, which is a congregate care facility.
There was no intent to mislead the residents as we want people to be at the March 11 meeting. We still plan to hold the
meeting on the 11th, however, this is only the first meeting on this project and we fully expect that there will be others
to follow, especially since no decision will be made at this meeting and the purpose is only to collect information.
Regarding the mailed notice, while this meeting did not necessarily require mailed notice, we followed the same rules as
if we were required to provide mailed notice, and we did the mail-out to property owners and residents within 300 feet
of the property and those that have requested to be kept apprised of the project. For future mail-outs, we can consider
a wider mail-out, that would require direction from the City Council.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Troy
From: Jodeen Percey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10: 14 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: 51. Theresa's Retreat Road Signs
Troy....
I and others have received multiple calls, e-mails, and comments regarding the signs at various locations
announcing the City of Pleasant Hill Project Information Meeting for Public Input for a 20-Person Congregate
Care Facility. One such comment I have already forwarded to you. Some have thought it was about a Nursing
Facility. Not all residents have received the notice to explain that the congregate care facility is for a 20-person
residential adult non-medical
alcoholsm and/or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility.
I am requesting the city to replace the signs with ones that will better inform the community of what the
congregate care facility will be used for.
Therefore, I am requesting a postponement of the Informational Meeting so that the city has enough time to
repost the signs and the community has appropriate time to prepare their questions or comments.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jodeen Percey
cc; city council
91

Attachment J – City Responses to Various Questions

Transcription

Similar documents

WHOSE HOUSE WITH AMANDA KELLER – TROY CASSAR

Jan. Color Stories.qrk

Photo Show 2007 - Troy University

EAST TROY ELECTRIC RAILROAD All Aboard!

the powerpuff girls: second chances

Performance Car DEC Issue WRX-GLDDGR

Powerpuff Girls #6 Preview

Open living room