Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. et al v. City of Mobile, Alabama et alREPLY BriefS.D. Ala.June 8, 20171 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA THAI MEDITATION ASSOCIATION OF ALABAMA, INC., An Alabama Domestic Not- For-Profit Corporation, SIVAPORN NIMITYONGSKUL, VARIN NIMITYONGSKUL, SERENA NIMITYONGSKUL, and PRASIT NIMITYONGSKUL, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF MOBILE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF MOBILE CITY COUNCIL and the CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, Defendants. Civil No. 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES Plaintiffs Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc., Sivaporn Nimityongskul, Varin Nimityongskul, Serena Nimityongskul and Prasit Nimityongskul, by their attorneys, hereby file their reply memorandum in support of their Motion for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) compelling the Defendant City of Mobile to produce documents and respond to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories.1 1 Per the Court’s Order of May 22, 2017 (Dkt. #54), the undersigned emailed counsel for Defendant to initiate further discussion on the Interrogatories and Requests that are part of the Motion to Compel. This email, which represented the fourth time Plaintiffs attempted to resolve these disputes with Defendant, was not returned. Furthermore, in the interest of streamlining these proceedings, Plaintiffs waive their arguments as to Interrogatory 14. Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 15 2 To date, other than materials specifically related to Plaintiffs’ application and emails, Defendant has provided next to nothing—only 129 pages related to the City’s Comprehensive Plan—in terms of documents requested. This is despite Plaintiffs’ repeated offers to narrow the scope of the requests either temporally or geographically and to otherwise work with the Defendant to avoid motions practice on these issues. Defendant’s main responses are (1) it should not subject to the Federal Rules’ requirements to specify which documents are responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests and interrogatories, but rather the Plaintiffs should have to wade through 10,000+ pages of email communications to find the information they seek; and (2) regarding the documents that the City refuses to produce, that Plaintiffs should just use a “search” function that does not work on a website that the City maintains. These arguments should be rejected. I. DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES VIOLATES RULE 33. A. Defendant’s Refusal to Label Documents Requires Plaintiffs to Play a Guessing Game. Defendant appears to defend their failure to abide by Rule 33(d), which provides that a party may specify business records as responsive to an interrogatory “if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party” and if they “specify[] the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could” (emphasis added) by merely characterizing Plaintiffs’ discovery requests as “broad” or “overbroad.” (Dkt. #55, passim.) Plaintiffs do not take issue with the extent of the production of Defendant’s emails. However, Interrogatories 15, 20 and 28 ask for specific information regarding communications and traffic impacts concerning the Plaintiffs’ zoning application, and Rule 33(d) requires the specification Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 2 of 15 3 of business records “in sufficient detail” if a party uses such records to respond to Interrogatories.2 Defendant’s responses are inadequate. For example, they refer Plaintiffs to Defendant’s 10,000+ pages of written email communications as a response to Interrogatory No. 15, which asks for information concerning oral communications.3 Similarly, Interrogatory No. 20 requests information concerning all communications, not just the email communications provided. Interrogatory No. 28 is a contention interrogatory that Defendant answers in part by referring to every document it has produced. Defendant argues that it should not be subject to Rule 33(d), but rather tells Plaintiffs to guess which documents, if any, are responsive to which Interrogatories. It asserts that the 2 Again, in an attempt to minimize these conflicts, Plaintiffs have repeatedly reduced the number of interrogatories for which they seek such specification of documents. In the April 5, 2017 Letter, Plaintiffs raised issues with respect to thirteen Interrogatories, but have gradually reduced that number to only four. Similarly, Plaintiffs have reduced the number of Requests for Production of Documents for which they are seeking additional responses from seventeen to nine. 3 Defendant is aware of the need to craft broad discovery requests in order to ascertain relevant communications and when they occurred. In some cases, these interrogatories will necessarily relate to “various dealings alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint again dating back ten years to 2007.” (Dkt. #55 at 10.) For example, Defendant’s Interrogatories 4 and 5 (which did not include a limitation in dates as to the interrogatories), posed to each of the five Plaintiffs asked: 4. Identify each person employed by the City, its departments, or its agencies, with whom you or your representatives had interaction concerning The Center and/or any subject real property on which The Center has been located or was contemplated to be located. 5. Describe in detail the nature of your interaction with the individuals named in response to Interrogatory 4, including the dates of such interactions and the subject matter of such interactions. Plaintiffs provided nine and a half pages of responses, with reference to Bates-stamped page numbers where appropriate. The City believes that it should not be subject to the same burden it expected a nonprofit religious organization to endure. Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 3 of 15 4 10,000+ pages of emails they produced should somehow indicate to Plaintiffs which documents it believes supports each of its contentions. (In contrast, when responding to the Defendant’s discovery requests, the Plaintiffs listed the specific Bates numbers of documents that it asserted were responsive to each of the Defendant’s requests and interrogatories.) Defendant additionally asserts that its “catch-all” response for Requests 15 and 16 and Interrogatory 28 is appropriate because “[w]hether a given document is ‘relating to’ a given subject . . . can be a subject of disagreement.” (Dkt. #55 at 8.) That may be so, but surely Defendant does not contend that a City Council member joking about “nude yoga” at the Subject Property might be responsive to a Request about traffic studies. See Exhibit A, COM9069. Conversely, the lack of specificity makes it unclear whether the Defendant will rely on the opinion of Tiffany Green, a Zoning Technician paid overtime by the City of Mobile to observe the traffic flow of a meditation retreat at the Subject Property who stated that she “did not observe an increase in traffic flow.” See Exhibit B, COM9097. Request Number 10 seeks documents related to instances of dedication of land to increase the width of a roadway. Defendant admitted paragraph 262 of the Complaint that, “[i]n cases of substandard right-of-way, the Planning Commission has typically required dedication to bring that up to standard.” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 262; Dkt. #32 ¶ 262.) This request seeks documents related to the basis of that admission, and is certainly reasonable given the claims of differential treatment presented in this case. Defendant also suggests that Plaintiffs can wade through the emails provided, some of which are “searchable,” and guess as to which documents provide the information Plaintiffs seek in their Interrogatories, some of which are contention Interrogatories. (Dkt. #55 at 2.) Defendant never argues in its Opposition that the ability to search through documents renders the Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 4 of 15 5 information sought by Plaintiffs equally available to both parties or why the Defendant could not engage in its own searches to provide the information sought. Such an argument would negate the requirement of Rule 33(d) whenever documents possessed by a party are “searchable.” As a result, the Defendant has failed to meet its burden under Rule 33. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC v. Linvatec Corp., No. 6:12-CV-1379-ORL-22, 2014 WL 186123, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2014) (“The party resisting discovery carries the burden to show specifically how the objected-to request is unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome.”). There may be some burden to the Defendant from searching through emails, but it is not “undue.” Defendant’s refusal to adequately respond prevents the Plaintiffs from adequately preparing for depositions and trial and from narrowing the scope of the issues for trial. B. The Purpose of Discovery Is to Narrow the Issues for Trial as Well as to Exchange Information. Defendant’s Opposition demonstrates that they seek to require Plaintiffs to continue to engage in a guessing game as to the Defendant’s positions and what documents it might use to support those positions. This frustrates the purpose of discovery. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947) (“The various instruments of discovery now serve (1) as a device, along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 16, to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device for ascertaining the facts, or information as to the existence or whereabouts of facts, relative to those issues.”); Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC v. Linvatec Corp., No. 6:12- CV-1379-ORL-22, 2014 WL 186123, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2014) (“When they are used correctly, contention interrogatories are useful in narrowing and sharpening the issues.”). Under RLUIPA, the Defendant has an independent burden to establish that it used the least restrictive Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 5 of 15 6 means of advancing a compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Plaintiffs seek to ascertain which documents the Defendant might use to meet that burden. Defendant rightly asserts that “[i]f, as Plaintiffs contend, the proposed use is a ‘church or religious facility,’ then the proposed use must be brought before the City of Mobile’s Planning Commission for planning approval under the terms of the City’s zoning ordinance.” (Dkt. #55 at 1.) Plaintiffs submitted an application for planning approval as a “church or religious facility” on September 11, 2015. (Dkt. #1 ¶ 140.) Plaintiffs’ application was denied on December 3, 2015. (Dkt. #1 ¶ 193.) Plaintiffs seek, through their written discovery requests, information regarding how their applications were considered by the City of Mobile. A basic question is whether the applications were considered as applications for a “religious facility” or not. Plaintiffs posed Interrogatory Number 18 in an attempt to discover this information, which is central to their claims that the City of Mobile has treated Plaintiffs’ religious exercise differently and worse by denying that Buddhist practices are not “religious” in nature, allegations that are supported by various statements previously made by City officials. Defendant has bent over backwards in an attempt not to provide this information, including evasive responses to Interrogatory number 18. It should be compelled to provide an answer. II. DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION VIOLATES RULE 34. A. While Defendant May Not Be Subjected to an Undue Burden in Discovery, Discovery May Entail Some Burden. During the initial Meet and Confer call on March 27, 2017, Plaintiffs offered to narrow the scope of their requests and interrogatories, as reflected in the April 5, 2017 letter (Dkt. #53- 2), and again in response to Defendant's’ letter and again in followup to that phone call (Dkt. Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 6 of 15 7 #53-1 ¶¶ 9, 10). Plaintiffs offered to narrow the scope of the requests both geographically and temporally, specifically by limiting the scope to the R-1 zoning district or to the last ten years of applications. The Defendant did not respond to those multiple offers, instead preferring to assert the “overbreadth” of Plaintiffs’ requests as a reason not to provide any information. Now they deny such efforts to reduce the scope of the requests and “burden” on the City by claiming “non- existent restrictions on time frame [and] lack of relevance of the information sought” (Dkt. #55 at 12), even though it is the City that has refused to engage in Plaintiffs’ effort to limit their requests. Plaintiffs’ Complaint includes counts under the Nondiscrimination (Count II) and Equal Terms (Count III) provisions of RLUIPA and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count V). Plaintiffs allege that they were treated on “less than equal terms as nonreligious assembly and institutional land uses . . . .” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 287.) The existence of religious and nonreligious comparators would support Plaintiffs’ claims. See Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton, Inc. v. Broward County, 450 F.3d 1295, 1311 (11th Cir. 2006) (“A plaintiff bringing an as-applied Equal Terms challenge must present evidence that a similarly situated nonreligious comparator received differential treatment under the challenged regulation.”). Deviations from the typical handling of applications, in either substance or process, may be used by the Plaintiffs show to discriminatory intent and an equal protection violation. See Hill v. Gramiak, No. 5:15-CV-40, 2015 WL 9463178, at *4 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 28, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:15-CV-40, 2016 WL 309852 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2016) (“Potential indicators of discriminatory intent include ‘a clear pattern of disparate impact, unexplainable on grounds other than [religion]; the historical background of the challenged decision or the specific events leading up to the decision; procedural or substantive Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 7 of 15 8 departures from the norm; and the legislative or administrative history of the challenged statute.’”). Plaintiffs must be permitted to obtain discovery on these issues. Defendant makes a substantive argument concerning “the degree of similarity required” for comparator applications. (Dkt. #55 at 15.) This is exactly why the Plaintiffs were specific in their discovery requests, including requests specifically for religious facilities (Request No. 4), instances where dedication of land to increase roadway width was made a condition of planning approval (Request No. 10), instances where religious facilities were permitted on substandard streets (Interrogatory No. 17), and whether an application for a religious facility was ever denied (Interrogatory No. 22). Defendant appears to assert that engaging in searches of their own computerized files would constitute an undue burden. They instead suggest that Plaintiffs do their own searches on a website to gather documents using a search function that does not work (see infra), which may or may not be complete per the Defendant’s own affidavit, and then ask for specific documents. Plaintiffs are entitled to responses to their requests. B. The “Publicly Available” Documents Are Not Complete and the “Searches” Do Not Retrieve Relevant Documents. The Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs could conduct their own investigation for documents from a website that the City maintains, but has not stated that the information on that website is complete. Mr. Hoffman’s affidavit submitted in support of the Defendant’s Opposition states that “[t]he Staff Report(s) and the Letter of Decision, depending upon the age of the application but generally for the last ten years or so, are available for viewing online . . . .” (Dkt. #56-1 ¶ 4). This statement lacks specificity. Further, as of the date of this Reply, there are no meeting Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 8 of 15 9 minutes posted since September 3, 2015 at http://urban.cityofmobile.org/planning/meetings- agendas-and-minutes/. The minutes from July 9, 2015 are also missing. It is even more problematic that the “search” function does not work as Defendant asserts. For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel searched for the word “traffic study” as a plain text and Boolean search in the manner suggested by Defendant’s counsel on page 18 of their Opposition (Dkt. #55 at 18). The website did not return any search results. Attached as Exhibit C are printouts of those searches.4 A random selection from the main website of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2015 shows that, for example, there was a lengthy discussion of a “traffic study” related to the application SUB2015-00094. Page 4 of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2015 is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Plaintiff cannot use the website as suggested by Defendant because Defendant’s representations are incorrect. Furthermore, such “search” function and the website itself are wholly under the control of Defendant. Such a limited “search” option is clearly not an acceptable alternative to the Defendant’s compliance with their discovery obligations and will not provide the Plaintiffs with the information sought. C. Defendant’s Arguments Regarding “Burden” Do Not Apply to Its Own Documents, Which Are Electronic and Can Be Searched. At different points in its memorandum, the Defendant argues that it cannot electronically search application materials, but that the Plaintiffs can and should be required do so. (Dkt. #55 at 12-13, 16-19.) The Defendant does not address Plaintiffs’ argument that it was somehow able to compile similar lists of applicants for the United States Department of Justice but now asserts 4 Searching for the word “traffic” alone provides only six results; “character” and “environment” provides zero results. Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 9 of 15 10 that doing the same in the context of this litigation would be impossible. Defendant’s emails are the only electronic stores of its own documents that it has searched. (Dkt. #53-2) (“You also confirmed that the e-mails were the only stores of electronic documents searched.). The Defendant can certainly search its Decisions, staff reports and draft meeting minutes on its own computers. If Defendant performed such searches and provided the Plaintiff with a list of applicants or the meeting minutes related to them, then Plaintiffs could specifically request entire application files for relevant applications. Thus, there is no burden or issue with documents maintained in a “paper format” (Dkt. #55 at 12), as those can specifically be requested in a second phase. However, identifying such applications in the first place can easily be done by the City and not at all by the Plaintiffs. Defendant’s claim that their own Staff Reports and Letters of Decision cannot be electronically searched beggars belief. (Dkt. #55 at 12-13.) These are electronic documents that presumably are stored on the City’s computer systems and can easily be searched. In fact, the Defendant suggests that the Plaintiff do exactly that (Dkt. #55 at 18), although it is unknown which documents are located on such website, and how comprehensive it is, not to mention the lack of any real ability to search as described above. See supra; Dkt. #55 at 16 (stating that the City’s website “allows Plaintiffs to obtain significant portions of the information sought” (emphasis added)); id. at 18 (“at least for the dates within the past ten years or so,” “Staff Report content varies somewhat with the particular application”). The authorities relied upon by the City in support of its contention that the requested documents are “equally available to and accessible by Plaintiffs” is both untrue and inapposite. Each of the cases cited by the Defendant involve document stores that were maintained by a public agency and not the party itself. See Dkt. #55 at 16-17; S.E.C. v. Samuel H. Sloan & Co., Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 10 of 15 11 369 F. Supp. 994, 995 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (document possessed by third party court reporter); Bleecker v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 130 F. Supp. 2d 726, 739 (E.D.N.C. 2000) (documents in possession of third party from whom neither plaintiff nor defendant had the right to obtain documents); Dushkin Pub. Grp., Inc. v. Kinko’s Serv. Corp., 136 F.R.D. 334, 335 (D.D.C. 1991) (documents sought were part of court record and shielded by protective order); S.E.C. v. Strauss, No. 09 CIV. 4150 RMB/HBP, 2009 WL 3459204, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2009) (documents in possession of third party and S.E.C. merely had access to a database); Ohio Graphco, Inc. v. RCA Capital Corp., 2010 WL 411122, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 28, 2010) (documents sought were part of court record); McKellips v. Kumho Tire Co., 305 F.R.D. 655, 680 (D. Kan. 2015) (documents in possession of “publicly available NHTSA and tire industry technical papers”). This principle does not apply where the documents are the City’s own and maintained and stored by the City. These are documents that are within the City’s “possession, custody, or control,” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(1), and should be produced. Furthermore, the City and its officers may have specific knowledge about the applications requested. According to Mr. Hoffman, he has been employed by the City for more than 12 years. (Dkt. #56-1 ¶ 1.) He would likely have knowledge concerning applications such as ones involving churches locating on substandard streets, or whether any church application has been denied. The Defendant has “a duty to make a reasonable search of its business records and make a reasonable inquiry of its employee and agents in order to obtain the information asked in Plaintiff’s interrogatories,” which would include making inquiry of the officials who would have such knowledge. Hickman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 152 F.R.D. 216, 223 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (emphasis added). The City has refused to do so. Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 11 of 15 12 D. Defendant’s Refusal to Provide Documents Frustrates Plaintiffs’ Ability to Prepare its Case. Defendant is aware that Plaintiffs’ claims require them to establish comparable applicants. (Dkt. #55 at 15.) Yet Defendant refuses to provide any such documents. It is difficult to view this as anything other than an attempt to frustrate the purpose of discovery. Defendant’s Opposition simultaneously asserts that engaging in a search would be impossible, and also that Plaintiffs engage in such a search themselves. If Defendant had offered, at any point, to provide Plaintiffs with a list of applicants and the attendant Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from which Plaintiff could assess the appropriateness of retrieving the paper files, Plaintiffs would have been able to proceed without resorting to the filing of discovery motions. Defendant’s position, however, has been to stonewall. E. Defendant’s Refusal to “Organize and Label” Documents is Another Attempt at Obfuscation. As with Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories, Defendant refuses to identify which of its documents are responsive to each Request. In accordance with Rule 34, “[a] party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.” Defendant argues that emails are “not kept in tangible form,” and therefore an unlabeled list of 10,000 emails must be “how they are kept in the ordinary course of business.” (Dkt. #55 at 5.) The email production did not contain any internal organization, not even by folder or separation by user. This problem is compounded by the use of catch-all wording in Defendant’s responses to Request numbers 15 and 16. Defendant responds by stating that it chose “not to attempt to read Plaintiffs’ minds” regarding the subject of the Request. However, such Requests are specific in nature, e.g., Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 12 of 15 13 requesting documents related to “traffic impacts at or near the subject property as a result of the Plaintiffs’ proposed use of same.” No telepathy is necessary. If Defendant does not have any additional documents related to traffic impacts other than the three pages specifically referenced, its response can so state, and not obliquely reference 10,770 pages of other material. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc., Sivaporn Nimityongskul, Prasit Nimityongskul, Varin Nimityongskul and Serena Nimityongskul respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion to Compel, specifically: 1) To produce documents responsive to Requests for Production 4, 5 and 10; 2) To provide responses to Interrogatories 17, 21 and 22; 3) To identify by Bates numbers the documents that it asserts are responsive to Requests for Production 6, 7, 9, 15, 16; 4) To provide a full and complete response to Interrogatories 15, 20 and 28, including the specific identification of any documents upon which Defendant relies for any part of its answers; 5) To provide a full and complete response to Interrogatory 18. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court enter an order precluding the Defendant from introducing any testimony asserting the existence of oral communications with the Plaintiffs or their agents that are not recorded within the documents already produced to the Plaintiffs as of the date of this Reply or any documents supporting their assertion of traffic impacts other than COM 010639-010641. Plaintiffs further request that the Court grant Plaintiffs leave to take more than one deposition of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee, for the limited purpose of deposing a custodian of the records that would be responsive to the document requests listed above. Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 13 of 15 14 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Blair Lazarus Storzer Roman P. Storzer, Esq., admitted pro hac vice Blair Lazarus Storzer, Esq., admitted pro hac vice Storzer & Associates, P.C. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 John L. Lawler, Esq. Post Office Box 47 Mobile, AL 36601 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 14 of 15 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document through the Court’s electronic filing system on this 8th day of June, 2017 to: Douglas L. Anderson Michael B. Strasavich Taylor Barr Johnson Burr & Foreman, LLP Post Office Box 2287 Mobile, Alabama 36652 danderson@burr.com mstrasavich@burr.com tjohnson@burr.com /s/ Blair Lazarus Storzer Blair Lazarus Storzer Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59 Filed 06/08/17 Page 15 of 15 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Williams, John [john.williams@cityofmobile.org] 1/13/2016 4:16:47 PM Greg Marshall [gregmarshall@mindspring.com] Re: Meditation Center You just saying nude makes me certain NO is the answer. CJ is with us here as well One Mobile starts with ME! On Jan 13, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Greg Marshall wrote: John,, Happy New Year! FYI,,, we have considered all the features and benefits of having a Meditation Center in our front yard, when the rumor broke that it would be a NUDE yoga center, I had a change of heart, deciding I might embrace change, however after getting a glimpse of the potential attendees I rushed back to my original conclusion and I'm quite sure you will too. Its just not compatible with the neighborhood, and its just a business flying under the veil of religious use exemptions!!! Thanks for your support,, Regards,, gm Greg L. Marshall ::M""a.JP111hall ~e 8-u..ppl:y 1390& Shell..Be1-t B..d.. B&TO-U..La Batre AX,.. 38509 251-824-1400 ofc,,,,251-421-2401 cell,,,,251-824-1888 fx COM 009069 Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59-1 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 1 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Green, Tiffany [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDI BO HF 23SPDL T)/CN =RE Cl Pl ENTS/CN =4E F6E73A6 B87 4EFD8099E5 7033925A5F-G REEN, Tl FF] 3/28/2016 8:47:43 AM Olsen, Richard [olsen@cityofmobile.org] RE: Meditation Center You are welcome. I inspected again on yesterday. I did not observe anything. I stayed in the area for a couple of hours to see if there were different cars leaving the area. I did not observe an increase in traffic flow. I was in the area from 3 PM to 5 PM. '3?[ft:r:r!.Y !i;reen Zoning Technician City ofJVfobile Planning & Zoning Deparlment P.O. Box 1827 l\fobile. Alabama 36633 Phone Fax Email (251) 208-5895 (251) 208-5896 greent@citvofinobile.org How am I doing? Please take om Customer Service Survey http://urban.cityofrnobile.org/news/take-our-survev/ From: Olsen, Richard Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 8:03 AM To: Green, Tiffany Subject: RE: Meditation Center Thank you! Richard Olsen Al.AB AMA From: Green, Tiffany Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 4:27 PM COM 009097 Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59-2 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 5 To: Olsen, Richard Subject: Re: Meditation Center Good afternoon! I did not observe any vehicles on the street. I did not observe any vehicle entering or exiting the property. I will take a look at it again on tomorrow. Tiffany Green Zoning Technician City of Mobile Planning & Zoning Department P.O. Box 1827 Mobile, Alabama 36633 Phone Fax Email (251) 208-5895 (251) 208-5896 greent(i4cityofmobile.org How am I doing? Please take our Customer Service Survey http://urban.cityofmobile.org/news/take-our-survev/ From: Olsen, Richard Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 4:46:05 PM To: Green, Tiffany Subject: RE: Meditation Center .lust pick one or two times that can fit in if possible - If not, let me know and I may try. Richard Olsen ALABAMA. From: Green, Tiffany Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 3:27 PM To: Olsen, Richard; Stewart, Jeremy Cc: Davis, Carla Subject: RE: Meditation Center I observed that there will be services taking place today, tomorrow, and Sunday. On today, there will be activity taking place from 6 PM to 9 PM. On Saturday and Sunday, there will be activity from 9 AM to 4 PM. I was asking whether there was a specified time for the inspection to determine whether I could possibly adjust my weekend plans to be able to assist with this request for after hours inspection. COM 009098 Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59-2 Filed 06/08/17 Page 2 of 5 Zoning Technician City of i\fobile Planning & Zoning Department P.O. Box 1827 lVlobile, Alabama 36633 Phone Fax Email (251) 208-5895 (25 l) 208-5896 greent@.cityofmobile.org How am [ doing'? Please take our Customer Service Survey http://urban.cityofinobile.org/news/take-our-survey/ From: Olsen, Richard Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 3:17 PM To: Green, Tiffany; Stewart, Jeremy Cc: Davis, Carla Subject: RE: Meditation Center Open the link in the bottom email Richard Olsen ALABAMA. From: Green, Tiffany Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 3: 16 PM To: Olsen, Richard; Stewart, Jeremy Cc: Davis, Carla Subject: RE: Meditation Center What time will the service be taking place? ~JJ/7Jmy fi'reen v'v' i::: Zoning Technician COM 009099 Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59-2 Filed 06/08/17 Page 3 of 5 Citv of Mobile Planning & Zoning Department P.O. Box 1827 J\fobile, Alabama 36633 Phone Fax Email (25 l) 208-5895 (25 l) 208-5896 greentiaJ,citvofinobile.org Hm,v am I doing? Please take our Customer Service Survey http://urban.citvofinobile.org/news/take-our-survey/ From: Olsen, Richard Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 12:59 PM To: Stewart, Jeremy; Green, Tiffany Cc: Davis, Carla Subject: FW: Meditation Center Anyone interested in working a couple of hours OT or CE Saturday'? Richard Olsen Al.AB AMA COM 009100 Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59-2 Filed 06/08/17 Page 4 of 5 COM 009101 Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59-2 Filed 06/08/17 Page 5 of 5 6/8/2017 Meetings, Agendas and Minutes | City of Mobile Planning and Development Department http://urban.cityofmobile.org/planning/meetingsagendasandminutes/ 1/1 MEETINGS, AGENDAS AND MINUTES NO RESULTS FOUND FOR \\\"TRAFFIC STUDY\\\" To view a Sta៛� Report and/or letter of decision, click on the date you are interested in. To obtain a Meeting Agenda, click on "Meeting Agenda". To obtain minutes, click on "Meeting Minutes". © 2017 City of Mobile, Planning and Development Department Website Services provided by Dogwood Productions (http://www.dogwoodproductions.com) Photography by Tad Denson, MyShotz.com (http://myshotz.com/) "tra៝�c study" SEARCH Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59-3 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 2 6/8/2017 Meetings, Agendas and Minutes | City of Mobile Planning and Development Department http://urban.cityofmobile.org/planning/meetingsagendasandminutes/ 1/1 MEETINGS, AGENDAS AND MINUTES NO RESULTS FOUND FOR TRAFFIC STUDY To view a Sta៛� Report and/or letter of decision, click on the date you are interested in. To obtain a Meeting Agenda, click on "Meeting Agenda". To obtain minutes, click on "Meeting Minutes". © 2017 City of Mobile, Planning and Development Department Website Services provided by Dogwood Productions (http://www.dogwoodproductions.com) Photography by Tad Denson, MyShotz.com (http://myshotz.com/) tra៝�c study SEARCH Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59-3 Filed 06/08/17 Page 2 of 2 September 03, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting 4. 121 West 1-65 Service Road North (West side of West 1-65 Service Road North extending to the South side of South Avenue extending to the Northeast corner of College Lane South and Du Rhu Drive). Council District 7 A. SUB2015-00094 (Subdivision) Highland at Springhill Subdivision Number of Lots / Acres: 2 Lots / 12.6 Acres Engineer / Surveyor: Clark, Geer, Latham & Associates / Wattier Surveying Mr. Vallas and Ms. Latham recused themselves from discussion and voting on the matter. The Chair announced the applications had been recommended for approval. He added if anyone wished to speak on the matter they should do so at that time. Thomas E. Latham, 3901 Springhill Ave, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that they were in agreement with all of the conditions. Kenny Nichols, of Volkert, spoke in reference to the traffic study. He stated that he recommended that no improvements were needed to mitigate for increased traffic as a result of the development. The study area for this project was developed in conjunction with Traffic Engineering and they have concurred with the findings. The development is located in a good spot and is conducive to traffic flow. He noted that it is his professional opinion that the impact of this development will be extremely minimal on the roadways and the intersections within the study area and thus it is his recommendation that no improvements are needed as a result. Father Greg Lucie, 4000 Dauphin Street, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that Spring Hill College is the owner of much of the property that is under consideration. He stated that he looks at this proposed development as a positive because it is a downgrading of the zoning. He believes that is a good buffer along the campus edge for the college. The following people spoke in opposition to the matter: 1) Jerry Speegle, 5 Dauphin Street Suite 301; 2) Tommy Zeiman, 205 S Cedar Street; 3) Pat Covington, Office Manager for Dr. Lyons; 4) Virginia Radney, Legacy Oaks resident; They made the following points against the matter: A. does not object to the development of this property, just this development; B. believes a left turn lane to the service road on Spring Hill Business Park is important; C. traffic is the main concern; D. traffic is going to back up from the service road to the project, blocking Spring Hill Business Park; E. does not want cut-through traffic through the Business park F. believes the traffic study is invalid because the traffic study is based on data taken the week of August 31t1 , when schools were still on summer vacation in early August; G. the property sits geographically on the base of Springhill; H. it is a boggy piece of soil; I. it's wishful thinking to think that more than half of people will go out Du Rhu Drive; J. concerned about patients and their confidentiality in the adjacent medical offices. 4 Case 1:16-cv-00395-CG-MU Document 59-4 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 1
