A citizens group has challenged the Pleasant Hill City Council after they approved a drug rehabilitation center this week, alleging that the city restricted public comment at a crucial Planning Commission meeting and provided improper notice of a subsequent hearing. -DB
January 26, 2010
By Lisa P. White
PLEASANT HILL, Calif. — Although the City Council on Tuesday approved an alcohol and drug rehabilitation center, concerns remain about how the city handled the lengthy approval process.
Safe Neighborhoods Alliance Program, a group of neighbors who opposed the rehab center, filed complaints with the city and the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office alleging that the city violated the Ralph M. Brown Act and the state Public Records Act during consideration of a use permit for St. Theresa’s retreat, an 18-bed residential treatment center for women in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction.
In the November complaint, opponents say the city improperly restricted public comment during the Sept. 29 Planning Commission hearing, did not allow the public to discuss new information at that hearing and provided improper notice of a subsequent commission hearing.
The complaint also alleges that several Planning Commission members deliberated outside the public hearing process when they toured 2059 Pleasant Hill Road, the proposed location for the rehab center. Opponents also contend that the city was slow to fulfill some public records requests and denied the public access to other records altogether.
The neighbors also have accused city staffers of being biased in favor of Michael Jordan, who plans to open St. Theresa’s.
“The actions of this city government have caused a serious loss of faith that you are operating the way you are supposed to,” Jack Weir, president of the neighbors group, told the council on Monday.
In a letter to Deputy District Attorney Steven Bolen, City Attorney Debra Margolis said the city did not violate the Brown Act. But even if the city had violated the law, Margolis continued, the subsequent appeals hearing before the council provided the public opportunity to “address the City Council in an uncensored fashion to say whatever they wanted to say about the project.”
In a letter to the opponents, Bolen said that while he does not “necessarily agree” with the city’s position, he believed that sending the issue back to the Planning Commission for another hearing, “is a largely meaningless act” given the council’s appeals hearing.
Dorothy Englund, vice president of Safe Neighborhoods Alliance Program, has indicated that the group may ask the state Attorney General’s office to review Bolen’s opinion.
At the Monday meeting, the council members agreed to address the opponents’ allegations about the process, although it remained unclear how or when that would happen.
“I get that there were places in the process where the public’s confidence has been shaken,” Councilman David Durant said. “There are certainly things you’ve raised we need to take a hard look at.”
Copyright 2010 Bay Area News Group
One Comment
Altogether, the fact that is to be taken into consideration the most is the initiative of opening the drug rehab center. This cannot harm any of the public interests, since it is meant to work out such a serious issue of nowadays society – drug dealing problems. Narconon, one of the most successful rehab programs, received social and political support from the very beginning.
Altogether, the fact that is to be taken into consideration the most is the initiative of opening the drug rehab center. This cannot harm any of the public interests, since it is meant to work out such a serious issue of nowadays society – drug dealing problems. Narconon, one of the most successful rehab programs, received social and political support from the very beginning.
Comments are closed.