Public Emplyee Treatment of Residents

By Jack E Weir

City staff should always treat residents with respect and a helpful attitude. This is especially important when the city is suffering declining sales and business tax revenues - duh!

I have never failed to thank city employees when they help me. Most of the time I've received very good service. This is not always the case for some of our residents. Here are some stories that have been related to me as I have circulated around the city during my campaign:

• Driveway Harassment + One resident who lives on a curvy portion of Pleasant Hill Road told me that he was harassed by city staff when he applied for a permit to install a circular driveway. Several neighbors have circular driveways, some of which were installed by the city when it widened that section of roadway. His home was unoccupied at the time. The configuration of his home is such that it is dangerous to back out onto the road, as there is a great deal of traffic. He was hassled when he applied for the permit, but knows the codes and a permit was granted. Members of city staff told him, however, that any driver who turned left into his driveway would be issued a $300 ticket, as they would be crossing (broken) double-double lines, and that there was less than a 300 foot sight line from the curve in the road to his property. The owner, a CHP officer, cited the Vehicle Code that allows a turn into his driveway, and demonstrated that the sight distance exceeds 300 feet. This visibly angered the staff members. On the morning of the driveway pour, the concrete trucks were at his property when the contactor's wife called to say the city had issued a "red flag" on the project. This effectively stops all work. The owner assured the contractor that he could continue, and went immediately to city hall. After speaking forcefully with staff, they withdrew the red flag. The owner and his wife are, to say the least, extremely unhappy with the attitude of city staff on this project. The impression given was that the owner should have shown deference to city staff. The owner's view is that city staff should have known the applicable codes, and should have worked to help him solve a dangerous condition.

• Landscaping Harassment + The owner of a complex of buildings in a light industrial area reported that city staff has repeatedly harassed him. He has tried for some time to get a permit to install a small grove of decorative trees along the roadway adjoining his property. His objective is simply to improve his property and make it more attractive. When his plans were first ready for review, he invited the City Manager and Director of Planning and Public Works to visit and look over the project. They were both delighted, and said the project was exactly the kind of activity the city wants to encourage, making areas more attractive. When he applied for the permit, staff insisted that he make a variety of other improvements to the property, including installing a taller fence along one side, and re-doing some paving, neither of which had anything to do with the trees. His attorney informed staff that there is no applicable fence code in the city, and pointed out that the paving issue was not pertinent. Staff then issued the permit, but with a requirement that the owner post a surety bond of $2,000 for the tree project, to remain in effect until the trees were five years old. (The owner will have to pay approximately $200 or more for the surety bond, an unnecessary expense.) City staff required that the owner plant trees from 15-gallon tubs. The owner had specified in his plans that he intends to plant much larger trees that are already five to six years old. A city staffer told the owner that the staff members working on his permit were just giving him a hard time because they were "pissed off at him." This owner is convinced city staff is NOT motivated to help residents, but rather to prove their power over the very people who they're supposed to serve. He estimates that before the project is completed, he will have spent approximately $20,000 dollars to deal with the city's unreasonable demands.

• Small Day Care Business + The owner above reported that the owner of a small but growing day care business approached him, trying to expand her business. Due to the nature of her business and that of his other tenants, he couldn't help her, but listened attentively to her story. She was looking for a new location, with approximately double or triple the size of her current (Pleasant Hill) building. (This would mean potentially higher revenues for the city, of course.) She went to city hall to seek help finding a new location, and was met with a host of objections to her expansion plans. One staffer told her, "That's not really the kind of business we're promoting right now." She then went to Concord and Walnut Creek, and was told by staff at both cities that they would do anything they could to help her. The day care owner said the difference in tone and demeanor could not have been more vivid. It's significant that at a time when the city claims it's suffering declining revenues, it would NOT help a local business relocate and expand within the city. One gets the impression that at least some city staff members have little or no awareness of the city's financial situation, and little awareness that their only reason for existing is to help residents.

• The Trellis Incident + A Pleasant Hill resident who suffers from skin cancer erected a trellis outside her home, so she could enjoy the outdoors without direct exposure to the sun. A code enforcement officer cited her for the trellis. One only need drive around the city to see many trellises at residents' homes. She tried to explain her reason for the trellis, but the citation was issued. She appealed the citation to the Planning Commission. During that public hearing, she was forced to explain in detail the nature of her disease, and was very embarrassed. The Commission upheld the citation, and she was forced to remove the trellis. This hearing incident was witnessed by another Pleasant Hill resident, who was incensed at the insensitive treatment afforded this woman. This is the same Planning Commission that bent over backwards to accommodate a business developer who sought to establish a for-profit drug and alcohol treatment facility in the midst of a single-family neighborhood. Facing intense opposition by neighbors, the Commission imposed over one hundred "conditions," but eventually approved the permit application.

There is competition among the various cities in our area. Business owners are going to locate where they're treated respectfully and fairly. When they are treated poorly, the city loses tax revenues and jobs.

Jack Weir Pleasant Hill Taxpayers Association