The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10242006 - D.1 • Janet Pepe. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Joanne Meads. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Susan Allen, Pleasant Hill. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Michael & Jennifer Canney, Pleasant Hill. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Goninersdude. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Aleeta Slattery, Pleasant Hill. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN D.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date October 24, 2006' Matter of Record On this date, John Gioia, Chair of the Board of Supervisors,'invited the public to speak. The following persons presented testimony: James Jardine, Discovery Bay. Voicing complaints against Hofmann Homes and County Building Inspectors negligence in performing job duties. Comments received via County e-mail: Sue Hilburn, Martinez. Feels future non-smoking ordinance too extreme. 77 • ary Crothers. Please keep Pleasant Hill (P.H.) Elementary School zoned educational, not housing. • Danielle Mitchell. Keep Oak Park Elementary school as a school and recreation site, not-housing. • Fred & Enevy Leach , Pleasant Hill. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Dani Yarnell, Pleasant Hill. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Evangeline Jordan. Pleasant Hill. Property 1745 Oak Park Blvd. remain educational and recreational facility, not housing. Michael & Colleen Marquez, Pleasant Hill. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Donald Peirce. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Eric E. Worrell, P.E., Pleasant Hill. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Catherine F. Kelly, Pleasant Hill. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Mr. & Mrs. Manuel Moreno. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Thom Le, Pleasant Hill. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. • Mike & Cynthia Shim, Pleasant Hill. Please keep P.H. elementary school zoned educational and recreational facility, not housing. �_ y ?� cd' "" �, �„"' �� I � �� D.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date October 24, 2006 Matter of Record On this date, John Gioia, Chair of the Board of Supervisors, invited the public to speak. The following persons presented testimony: James Jardine, Discovery Bay. Voicing complaints against Hofmann Homes and County Building Inspectors negligence in performing job duties. Comments received via County e-mail: Sue Hilburn, Martinez. Feels future non-smoking ordinance too extreme. The following people submitted comments requesting that the Pleasant H:II Elementary school site be zoned for educational and recreational facilities rather than zoned for housing: Mary Crothers, Pleasant Hill. Danielle Mitchell, Pleasant Hill. Fred & Enevy Leach, Pleasant Hill. Dani Yarnell, Pleasant Hill. Evangeline Jordan, Pleasant Hill. Michael & Colleen Marquez, Pleasant Hill Donald Peirce. Pleasant Hill. Eric E. Worrell, P.E., Pleasant Hill. Catherine F. Kelly, Pleasant Hill. Mr. & Mrs. Manuel Moreno, Pleasant Hill. Thom Le, Pleasant Hill. Mike & Cynthia Shim, Pleasant Hill. Janet Pepe, Pleasant Hill. Joanne Meads, Pleasant Hill Susan Allen, Pleasant Hill. Michael & Jennifer Canney, Pleasant Hill. Goninersdude, Pleasant Hill. Aleeta Slattery, Pleasant Hill. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN �CD CD Q M co co ul m (ID (ID ti 0 (P tr cr It 01 cp m CD o CD (n CIN C? con CD cv CD EP ca 77 'In- CD � ca N �+- W Y t3 N ¢ N T G 07 O 073 ca 7' N _ O co N dl cOjs N p U N .�+ S9 �. T.'1.� ccs do U CO N A, coo / 1/ 10-23-06 Contra Costa_County Board of Supervisors: John.1VI Gioia Gayle Uilkema Mary N. Piepho Mark DeSaulnier Federal D Glover Re: 3 minute presentation to Supervisors at October 24`h, 2006 meeting Subject: Improper construction inspections on "NEW HOMES"by County Building Inspection Dept. This is a County Wide Problem! Property Owner: James Jardine Property Address: 140 Cottage Grove, Discovery Bay, Ca Builder: Hofmann Homes, Inc. Dear Supervisors: My name is James Jardine and I presented you this problem a year ago. I purchased a new home constructed by Hofinann Homes and it is built very poorly as a result of negligent inspections by County Inspectors. I contacted Mary Piepho's office and at first was helped by one of her representatives. That representative left her office and Mary Piepho abandoned me. I explained and demonstrated to her and her office that the Building Officials were not performing their duties properly which resulted in her constituents and me personally buying a very improperly constructed home. These same inspectors are performing inspections on your constituent's new homes in your Districts. Hofmann Homes are constructing new homes in your Districts. All Supervisors of Contra Costa should be alarmed and concerned. A year ago, after my presentation to the Board of Supervisors, you had an Assistant County Administrator assist me and arranged a meeting with Carlos Baltodano, Director of Building Inspections and Kevin Durnford, Inspector Supervisor. This resulted in that Department's two inspection reports attached dated August 4, 2005 and November 28, 2005 that points out a total of seven pages of construction defects overlooked by building inspectors of the County. I proceeded to photograph and document continued construction defects being built into Hofinann Homes built after mine. I presented and reviewed photos of defects with Kevin Dumford which was amazed that construction defects already addressed with Hofmann Homes were still allowed and overlooked by his inspectors. Hofmann Homes has still not corrected the defects they built into my home as of this day. I have repeatedly sent letters to both Hofmann Homes and the County Building Dept. asking that they move forward with corrections. Nothing has been done. In the meantime, you as Supervisors are allowing and approving Hofinann Homes new home projects as these problems continue unchecked. I am asking the Board of Supervisors for their collective assistance. These very same inspectors are performing inspections within each and every District and you as individual Supervisors must surely be concerned. I am offering and will make myself available to review this in much greater detail. I will present you with outside engineer reports documenting gross construction defects. These defects present health and safety issues that could result in numerous Contra Costa County residents being killed or injured as a result of an earthquake let alone the disclosure problem upon sale of your home. I ask for your help. Sincerel i Ja e act Information: mail: 24800 Mission Blvd., Hayward, Ca 94544 Phone Number: 510-886-5600 Attached are: 8-4-05 and 11-28-05 Building Inspection Office reports 10 ESU!!"'.�'„Y6€�el115��1:L1V11 uanos tsanoaano Department Director of Building Inspection f..� Costa _ County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street,3rd Floor, North Wing ` Martinez,California 94553-1295 (925) 646-4108 s�q FAX (925)646-1219 STA COU ,, November 28, 2005 Mr. Greg Young The Hofmann Company 1960 Huntington Court Fairfield, CA 94533 Re: 140 Cottage Grove Drive, Discovery Bay, CA Dear Mr. Young; On October 27, 2005, I met with Mr. Jardine to go over some issues regarding the new home at 140 Cottage Grove Drive in Discovery Bay, CA The following is a list of discrepancies, which have been broken down into four categories. Items I. 1 thru I. 23 are construction issues brought forth by the homeowner, which call for a timely response from The Hofmann Company. Items A. lthru A. 9 are allegations made by the homeowner to be resolved between himself and the developer. Items C. 1 thru C. 1 I are matters that have been clarified and verified with plans and documents. Finally, item W. 1 constitutes a warranty issue, which likewise, need to be worked out between the developer and homeowner. Please respond to each discrepancy by its item number with regards to the method you will use to address it. Construction Issues 1. 1 The stucco stone is not installed correctly as per manufacturer's installation instructions. 1. 2 Some of the weep screed were missing on the porch stucco stone columns. 1. 3 The roofing system was observed with improper installation and fastening of valley and roof field tiles, improper installation of ridge and end caps, improper flashing and roof jacks installation. Page 1 of 5 1 ' I. 4 The batten end gaps appear in some cases to be larger than called for, and the felt paper may have been exposed beyond manufacturer's recommendations. I. 5 The gutters were installed incorrectly with improper use of non corrosive resistant nails which were installed mid height in the trough portion of the gutters. 1. 6 The gutter supports that extend from the roof sheathing and from under the roofing system and to the outer edge were not properly installed. 1. 7 The top edge of stucco trim above exterior doors and windows in some cases did not have the stucco built up and tapered. 1. 8 The weep screed damaged during home construction on side and rear did not demonstrate the repair of the damaged galvanized protective coating. 1. 9 The front porch columns construction and flashing is improper and not constructed per approved plans. The required bituthane required per detail 2-A2A is missing. I. 10 Each post is not wrapped with 1X wood each side. Please see detail 2-A2A of plans. I. 11 The exterior stucco shall be a 3 coat, 7/8" Min. Thickness as called out on "Elevation Notes" on page A2A of plans and details 6-D1 and 9-D1. 1. 12 The top flashing of attic vent is missing at rear wall. This can be seen from inside attic space. I. 13 The laundry room ceiling vent is missing top portion of flu pipe to connect to roof jack. I. 14 The glu lam beam in attic storage area needs repair (with approval of Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department. I. 15 The natural gas line in the attic needs to be secured. I. 16 The drain pan under condenser on HVAC-unit in attic is tilted away from outlet to drain piping, which could result in water overflowing onto ceiling. I. 17 Individual roof rafters that are stick built on site do not have proper end bearing support. I. 18 Hip rafters in upper roof over bedroom#3 are not constructed properly. "U" hangers are missing and one rafter has a seat cut mid-span on bottom of rafter with a filler piece installed to hide damaged rafter. Page 2 of 5 I. 19 Per plans page S 1 "Misc. Notes:" item#7 requires all nails exposed to weather shall be hot-dipped galvanized nails. 1. 20 Page PT-1 of approved plans, under "Notes:' item#1:No vegetation over six feet in height shall be planted within 20 feet of the building perimeter. Hoffman planted several trees over six feet in height within the 20-foot perimeter. 1. 21 The front yard does not have the 5% slope and does not appear it can be achieved in the as built condition. 1. 22 The connection at the wall in the storage attic(the wall at left side of door) needs to be nailed properly to the shear wall. 1. 23 Per plans page S 1 under "Anchorage Notes:" nails placed into pressure treated mudsill during the installation of required hold-downs, appear not to be the .required hot-dipped galvanized nails. Allegations A. 1 Spot-checking of proper nailing required of structural members per nailing schedule on plan page D 1 has not been followed. A 2 Per plans page S 1, under"General Notes:" Did The Hofmann Company adhere to items 96, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 20? A. 3 Per plans page S 1, under"Lumber Notes", Did The Hofmann Company adhere to items#2 (garage door), 11, & 13? A. 4 Per plans page S 1, under"Framing Notes", Did The Hofmann Company adhere to items #10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, (2x4's used) and 19? A. 5 Per plans page S1, under"Nailing Schedule(Minimum)" was not followed upon spot checks. A. 6 Per plans page S1, under"Shear Wall Schedule", the notes call for special nailing into blocking below shear walls in addition to other required nailing. A. 7 Since anchor bolts will come in contact with pressure treated wood, are these anchor bolts hot-dipped galvanized. It is required for corrosion protection? A. 8 Shear wall nailing has not been achieved on interior wall between attic storage area and bonus room per schedule P-3 of shear,wall schedule on plan page S 1. A 9 Per plans page S1, under"Reinforcing Notes:". per item 97, "Did The Hofmann Company have the engineer review work within the 48 hours required prior to pouring structural concrete?" Page 3 of 5 1i Clarified and Verified Items (no need to respond) C..11 The girder truss GT-4C over the garage is missing in addition to the "U" hangers used for the connection of the truss to the ridge rafter. For clarification see approved roof truss layout plan. C. 2 The girder truss GT-3 over bedroom#3 is not located properly. For clarification see approved roof truss layout plan. C. 3 The girder/coll. Truss GT-1D appears to be missing. For clarification see approved roof truss layout plan. C. 4 The roof truss-2 and RT 2A-2D are replaced with lumber rafters that measure 1 '/s" width and 12.5" depth. See page A4 of the plans. See change to the approved plans on S2.3. The 2x14 lumber rafters are permitted for framing. C. 5 The plans call for 14" TZPro 250 JST with LSSU125 hangers, of which are all missing. Please see approved plans on S2.3. The required Issu.28 hangers are installed. C. 6 The A-35 clips throughout the framing appear to be repeatedly missing proper nailing. See engineer's letter from Max Cheng& Associates, Inc., dated October 28,2002. C. 7 The detail S3-17 does not appear to have been applied to interior wall common to attic storage area and bonus room. Please note that on the approved set of plans, detail S3-17 does not apply to interior wall. C. 8 The blocking between TJI's/rafters is not per detail S3-12. See engineer's letter from Max Cheng & Associates, Inc., dated October 28, 2002, item #4 under "General Detail". C. 9 Per plans page S1, under"Pre-Fabricated Truss Notes", "Did The Hofmann Company adhere to items#4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11?" See approved truss calcs. C. 10 Per plans page S 1, under"Concrete Notes:" "Was proper mix of concrete verified? Was item#2 inspected by the Building Official as required and is that inspection noted?" This has been investigated and the compressive strength report indicates that the proper mix was verified. See Kleinfelder report dated 11/17/2005. Page 4 of 5 C. 11 Electrical sub-panel in garage requires 5/8 sheetrock installed per detail D1-10. Limited investigation determined that sheetrock fire taping was not performed on the interior joints of this sheetrock wrapped detail. Instructions for fire taping were followed per approved plans. Warranty Issues W 1 Kelly Moore Paints require a primer coat prior to application of their finish coat product as per their "Product Application Chart" and is required in the wording of all three of Kelly Moore's warranty documents. Please respond to each discrepancy by its item number with regards to how The Hofmann Company'intends to address each issue, including a timeline for accomplishing the corrections. Furthermore, any additional issues that arise between now and Hofmann's receipt of this letter will be added as an addendum and become a part of this report. However, issues that are not the purview of the Contra Costa County Building Department, will need to be pursued through other avenues. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, 1 Kevin Durnford Inspector Supervisor KD:mag enclosures cc:Carlos Baltodano Julie Enea James Jardine Page 5 of 5 Last uounty {1/�p1+�r� Carins Battodano Contra 1 1 L a Director of Buliding Inspection Building Inspection Office Costa 1191 Central Boulevard Suite C Brentwood.California 94513 County (925)427-8850 Fate:(925)427-8838 {r e August 4, 2005 . Mr. James Jardine 140 Cottage Grove Drive Byron, CA 94514 Dear Mr. Jardine, This letter is a follow up of the meeting of August 2, 2005 at your _ residence.-This meeting was requested by you to address-some alleged construction discrepancies at your recently purchased home from the Hofmann Development Company. Present at this meeting beside you and your engineer were Eugene LaMar and.Dave Bra.bec from the Hofmann Company and myself. Prior to the start of the meeting, I stated that I was present as a- representative.of the Building Department only and .that I would listen to both parties and address the alleged construction deficiencies. Furthermore,'I stated that if any of the alleged deficiencies deviated from the Building Department's policies and approved set of plans, the developer would have to revise them accordingly. Following are the alleged discrepancies with the developer's responses and my comments: 1) The final the roofing material was not installed per manufacture's specifications. Mr. LaMar confirmed that a report was being prepared by the roofing contractor to address your concerns with a proposal to either repair or replace the roofing material. The Building Department's policy is that if the repair is less than 25% of the total roof area, no permit would be required. However, if the entire roof needs to be replaced a re-roofing permit is required- 2) A beam located in the attic was over notched during construction. Mr. LaMar confirmed the over notched beam and his engineer is preparing a repair proposal, which will be given to you for your review. The Building Department will require a building permit for this repair. 3) The exterior adhered veneer was not attached according to the manufacture's instructions. Mr. LaMar stated that the veneer had been installed according to the detail on the approved set of plans, which I confirmed. However, he also acknowledged that the manufacture required solid backing behind open stud bays and offered to replace the veneer. The Building Department will require a building permit for this repair. 4) The exterior lath corner bead in some areas did not have the required minimum 1/8" stucco coverage. Mr. LaMar stated that he was going to investigate this alleged claim and address it as directed by the investigation_ 5) The paint was not applied according to the manufacture's specifications. Apparently both parties have different instructions on how to apply the paint; one requiring a primer application and the other not. I suggested that they consult directly with the manufacture's representative to resolve this matter. 6) The scraping and removal of a portion of protective galvanized coating on an exterior lath weep Screed. Mr. Brabec stated that during the grading of the backyard some of the protective coating was accidentally scrapped from a small portion of the weep screed; which they subsequently treated for weather Protection. In conclusion, as a Building department representative, I did not find any deviation from the approved building plans.in regards to the above mentioned discrepancies. The only item related to structural components is the over notched beam. The developer agrees to address the stated concerns and to rectify the discrepancies in accordance with their warranty policies. Please feel free to contact if I may be of further assistance regarding the above matter. Sincerely, (2� G o Thomas rincipal Building Inspector Cc: JoAnne Flynn, District III Supervisor Office Carlos Baltodano Eugene LaMar, Hofmann Company Greg Young <ccOQcontra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: 10/17/2006 10:45 AM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacom m ents_form.ht m Username: Sue Hilbun UserAddress: 351 Eastgate Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 UserTel: UserEmail: AgendaDate: 10/17/06 ,S Option: Selected AgendaItem: C.26 Ll(� , tpf T �/•t� Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 ( ompatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; NET CLR 1.1.4322) Date: 17 Oct 2006 Time: 10:45 :46 Comments: I am concerned about C.26 and future votes by the Board of Supervisors. I have worked for Health Services for the past two decades. I believe that smokers' rights are non-existant. Many clients at the hospital are heard making comments about going elsewhere as the new no-smoking on campus policy goes into effect on 11/16/06. Signs at the facility state that one cannot even smoke in their private vehicle if it's parked on hospital property. This seems a bit extreme, don't you think? Many clients are here waiting for a loved-one who is in surgery or who is having a baby. In the old days, a man would stand outside and have a cigar to celebrate the birth of a child. Now they will be cited for such an act. Please consider being so stringent.. I certainly don't want Martinez to become another Chico. Prohibition didn't work and I am hoping that the smoking ordinances do not send long-time Martinez residents packing. .I would appreciate your comments on this matter. `ISC, co M hi D(e , <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: Subject: Data posted to form 1 of 10/15/2006 08:07 PM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht M Username: Mary Crothers UserAddress: 19 Elliott Drive UserTel: 925 858-9530 UserEmail: farcro@aol.com AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4. 0 (compatible; MSIE 6. 0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.1.4322) Date: 15 Oct 2006 Time: 20:07:05 Comments: Please keep the P. Hill Elem. school site zoned for educational purposes. P. Hill doesn't need more housing, traffic, and congestion. It does need education. <cc0@contramapanet. To: <comments@ cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: Subject: Data posted to form 1 of 10/16/2006 07:20 AM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendac6mments_form.ht m Username: Danielle Mitchell UserAddress: 203 Astrid Drive UserTel: 925-930-2947 UserEmail: daniellemitchell2@hotmail.com AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;. MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.0.3705; NET CLR 1.1.4322; Inf.oPath.1; NET CLR 2.0.50727) .Date: 16 Oct 2006 Time: 07:20:21 Comments: Please use the former Oak Park Elementary school as it was originally designed as a school and recreation site. I am against using the property for more . housing especially medium to ,high density. i' <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: 10/16/2006 08:04 PM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.u s/depart/cao/agendacom ments_form.ht m Username: Fred & Enevy Leach UserAddress: 10 Carrie Ct Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 UserTel: UserEmail: AgendaDate: Option: Selected AgendaItem- Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.0.3705; NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0) Date: 16 Oct 2006 Time: 20:04:10 Comments: Please keep the P.H. Elementary. School property entitled or rezoned for use as an educational and recreational facility. We, like all families, care very much about the future of our children, please help us keep Pleasant Hill a great place to live. <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: Subject: Data posted to form 1 of ' 10/17/2006 09:02 AM -http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_f6rm.ht m Username: Dani Yarnell UserAddress: 424 Maureen 'Lane, Pleasant Hill UserTel: 925-825-5865 UserEmail: dhyarnell@aol.com AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: - Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.O; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.1.4322) Date: 17 Oct 2006 Time: 09:01:58 Comments Dear Board of Supervisors: It is my express desire that the former Oak Park Elementary School site in Pleasant Hill be' used as it was originally intended as a school and recreation site. I am absolutely AGAINST using the property for more housing. As a resident of the county,, I would appreciate your taking this into consideration when the matter arises. Thank you. "Vangie Jordan" To: <comments@ cob.cccounty.us> a 8R <airevj@pacbell.net> cc: 10/17/200602:18 PM Subject: Property 1745 Oak Park Blvd. Dear Board of Supervisors, 1 apologize-if this is a duplicate. 1 tried to"send" my comments from another page and this blank screen popped up. I think its telling me to write more..... I am a property owner, resident, and parent in Pleasant Hill close to the above-stated property. I understand this P.H. Elementary School property is for Sale so I'd like it to be entitled or rezoned for use as an educational and recreational facility rather than medium to high density homes. The schools here are impacted and there are not enough sports facilities to accommodate our popular sports programs. There are plenty of houses for sale in Pleasant Hill right now and they are NOT selling.We don't need new homes built here. We need to maintain the facilities that are servicing families. Thank You, Mrs. Evangeline Jordan 24 Pineview Court Pleasant Hill <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty,us> net> cc: 10/17/2006 07:43 PM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacom ments_form.ht m Username: Michael and Colleen Marquez UserAddress: 301 Soule Ave. UserTel: 925-280-103.4 UserEmail: cdcmarquez@sbcglobal.net AgendaDate: Option: Selected' AgendaItem: PHES Remote Name: Remote User- HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows: NT 5:1; SVi; NET CLR 1.1.4322; SpamBlockerUtility 4.8.0) Date: 17 Oct 2006 Time: 19:43:32 Comments: We are writing to express our strong desire to have the P.H. Elementary School property entitled or rezoned for use as an educational and recreational facility rather than high density homes. We want Pleasant Hill to grow in a manner that will make a better community for our children. Please represent our desires, and rezone this important property before 'it gets gobbled up by a big developer of high density homes. If there is any hope .to recapture the property as a high. school - that provides resources for the use of our entire P.H. Community. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael and Colleen Marquez 301 Soule Ave. Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 925-280-1034 (1 <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: Subject: Data posted to form 1 of 10/18/2006 08:52 AM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht m Username: Donald Peirce UserAddress: 416 Monti Cir. UserTel: 925 827 3352 UserEmail: dpeirce840@juno.com AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem• Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.1.4322) Date: 18 Oct 2006 Time: 08:52:11 Comments: We want the P.H.Elementary shool proprty entitled for use as an educational facility, not housing. <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> " net> cc: Subject: Data posted to form 1 of 10/18/2006 11:17 AM http://www.co.6ohtra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht m Username: Eric E. Worrell, P.E. UserAddress: 146 Flame Drive, Pleasant. Hill, CA 94523 UserTel: 925-689-4579 UserEmail: eew@eew.com AgendaDate:' Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; NET CLR 1.1.4322) Date: 18 Oct 2006 Time: 11:17:46 Comments: Please do not rezone the Pleasant Hill Elementary School Property to subsidize a religious school while eliminating the opportunity to build 96 affordable and environmentally sound homes for the young families of Pleasant Hill. Pleasant Hill and the rest of Contra Costa County should be seeking all 'feasible opportunities for infill development that will allow young people to stay near where they grew up. If 'Pleasant Hill does not take responsibility for providing affordable homes for the young people who grew up here, we will instead be responsible for the further destruction of precious farmland, in Oakley, Brentwood, Byron, and beyond, and unnecessary traffic between those outlying areas and the areas where jobs are located. The mailer I received from the organization promoting this Christian school was full of misleading information. 1) I doubt that medium to high density housing development on this site would create more traffic than the proposed school and recreational facilities. 2) The mailer fails to inform the reader that the city would be reducing the value of the property, through the proposed rezoning, and therefore would be providing an unconstitutional gift of public funds to a religious organization. 3) 'As the property would be owned by a religious organization, the city would then have all the impacts of the traffic created by the development, without having the property tax revenues to pay for traffic mitigation and other services. I might suggest one change in zoning - require the new housing on the property to use state of the art building technology to be near-zero net energy consuming .and to follow other environmentally preferable building practices. (For professional guidance on this, please contact Build It Green at http: //www.builditgreen.org. ) <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: 10/19/2006 09:04 AM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht m Username: Catherine F Kelly UserAddress: 419 Kingsley Court, Pleasant Hill, UserTel: 925-935-7127 UserEmail: kkckelly@comcast.net AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.1.4322; NET CLR 2 .0.50727) Date: 19 Oct 2006 Time: 09:04:54 Comments: Our family is in favor of the PH Elementary School poroperty to be entitled or rezoned for use as an educational and recreational facility. We do not need any more med-high density housing. <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: 10/20/2006 08:24 AM Subject: [BULK] Data posted to form 1 of http://wwvv.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments form.ht M Username: Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Moreno UserAddress: 25 Duke Ct UserTel: 925.-825-4140 UserEmail•: renomorenogearthlink.net . AgendaDate: Option: Selected AgendaItem: ? Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1) Date: 20 Oct 2006 Time- 08-21-57 Comments October 20, 2006 We are writing re: Pleasant' Hill Elementary School property. We feel it should be rezoned and used as an educational facility and not, for housing. . We do not need more congestion on our roads. We should invest in the children of Pleasant Hill. The offer made by•the Grace Christian High School sounds superb! Thank you. --Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Moreno I <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>. net> cc: Subject: [BULK) Data posted to form 1 of 10/20/2006 06:07 PM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht m Username: thom le UserAddress: 3o st. claire ln, pleasant hill, ca. 94523 UserTel: UserEmail: thom.trinhthom@yahoo.com AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.1.4322; NET CLR 2.0.50727) Date: 20 Oct 2006 Time: 18:07:06 Comments: the pleasant hill elementary school property SHOULD NOT BE SOLD to build homes. we are 100% support the build of classrooms. The education is needed for children and a much benefit for the city itself. r ` <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: Subject: Data posted to form 1 of 10/20/2006 09:25 PM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht M Username: Mike and Cynthia Shim UserAddress: . 486 Turrin Drive, Pleasant Hill, CA" UserTel: 925-942-0454 UserEmail: hckmjshim@sbcglobal.net AgendaDate: Option: Selected AgendaItem: Remote Name: Remote User:` HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows N75.1; YPC 3 . 0.1; NET CLR 1.1.4322; SpamBlockerUtility 4.7.5; yplus 4.1.00b) Date: 20 Oct 2006 Time: 21:25:17 Comments: Please use the former Oak Park Elementary School as it was originally designed as a school and recreation site. We are against using the property for more housing, especially high to medium density. Asea Pleasant Hill resident', please take our expressed desire into consideration. i <ccO @contra.napanet. To: <comments@ cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: 10/21/2006 02:20 PM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht m Username: Janet Pape UserAddress: 12 Wildwood Place UserTel: 925-932-5647 UserEmail: jpape.k@sbcglobal.net AgendaDate: Option: D.1 Agendaltem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User. Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 3.1) Date: 21 Oct 2006 Time: 14:20:14 Comments: Concerning the Pleasant Hill Elementary School property on 1745 Oak Park Blvd, please keep this facility for public use. WE need these type of facilities in Pleasant Hill. I do not want to see this area developed into more housing. Janet Pape e <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: 10/22/200612:56 PM Subject: [BULK] Data posted to form 1 of http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments-form.ht m Username: Joanne Meads UserAddress: 515 Shelley Drive UserTel: 925-939-0794 UserEmail: jrmeads@worldnet.att.net AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.0.3705) Date: 22 Oct 2006 Time: 12:56:56 Comments Please,, please,keep 1745 Oak Park Blvd as an education and'recreational site.Turf e baseball, softball and soccer field, a new gymnasium 'and a new fine arts theater in our community is so much better than dense housing. Pleasant Hill is such a great place, help us keep it that way. Thank you. <ccOCcontra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: Subject: Data posted to form 1 of 10/23/2006 09:26 AM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_form.ht m Username: Susan Allen UserAddress: 935 Scenic Place UserTel: 925-676-7575 UserEmail: kialn@yahoo.com AgendaDate: Option: D.1 AgendaItem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.1.4322) Date: 23 Oct 2006 Time: 09:26:12 Comments: Please use the former Oak Park Elementary School as it was originally designed as a school and recreation site. I am against using the property for more housing, especially high to medium density! As a PH resident, please take my expressed desire into consideration. ;ccO@contra.napanet. To: <comments'@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: 10/23/2006 02:58 PM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacom m ents_form.ht m Username: Michael and Jennifer Canney UserAddress: 8121 Camelback P1; Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 UserTel: UserEmail: AgendaDate: Option: D.1 Agendaltem: Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.1.432.2 InfoPath.1) Date: 23 Oct 2006. Time: 14:58:14 Comments Please entitle/re-zone the P.H. Elementary School property for use as an educational & recreational facility instead of medium-high-density homes . Goninersdude@cs.co To: comments@cob.cccounty.us M cc: 10/23/2006 05:53 PM Subject: Pleasant Hill Elementary School property I want the Pleasant Hill Elementary School property on 1745 Oak Park Boulevard entitled or rezoned for use as an educational and recreational facility rather than medium to high density homes. � 1 <cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us> net> cc: A Subject: [SULK] Data posted to form 1 of 10/23/2006 05:46 PM http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments_forrh.ht m Username: Aleeta Slattery UserAddress: 197 Fair Oaks Drive Pleasant Hill Ca 94523 UserTel: 925 676-6843 UserEmail: Agendabate: Option: Selected AgendaItem:. Remote Name: Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; NET CLR 1.0.3705; NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0) Date: 23 Oct 2006 Time: 17:46:43 Comments: Pleasant Hill elementary school property 1745 Oak Rd. P. Hill should be rezoned or entitled for use as an educational facility (as it was used previously) ,Do. not let this opportunity pass for the future good. Now is the time for this to happen!There is not much land left for these very important . facilities! !--