HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 10-04-73
214
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE DISTRICT BOARD
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
HELD OCTOBER 4.1973
The District Board of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened
in a Regular Session at its regular place of meeting located at 1250 Spring-
brook Road. Walnut Creek. County of Contra Costa. State of California. on
October 4. 1973. at 8:00 o'clock P.M.
The meeting was called to order by President Rustigian.
I.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Members:
Boneysteele. Gibbs. Mitchell. Allan and Rustigian
ABSENT:
Members:
None
II.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1973
Item continued.
2.
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1973
After comment by Member Mitchell, it was moved by Member Gibbs. seconded
by Member Mitchell, that the Minutes of the meeting of September 27,1973, be
approved after making the following corrections:
Under "vi. OLD BUSINESS, 1. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 54, PAGE 2,"
fourth paragraph, delete subparagraph and insert the following:
"a. Assign each parcel one unit of assessment with option upon
written request to defer payment on additional units of assessment assigned
to parcel."
Under "VI. OLD BUSINESS, 1. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 54, PAGE 4."
delete 4th paragraph and insert the following:
"Member Mitchell stated that after personal investigation of parcel
54-3-4-2 (W.E. Mitchell property) he was not in agreement with staff recom-
mendation of reducing number of assigned units of assessment for this parcel.
After discussion by Board Members, President Rustigian and Member Gibbs
volunteered to act as a Board Committee to conduct a field review of selected
parcels in the Schedule 3 area and to report to the Board."
Under "VI. OLD BUSINESS, 2. CONCORD CONTRACT PROPOSAL," delete first
paragraph, page 5, and insert the following:
"Board Members, staff and Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District, discussed
the points raised by officials of the City of Concord and after discussion,
guidance was provided staff by the Board regarding allocation of capacity of
the District's Line A in order to service the City of Concord and further,
that in the event regulatory agencies were to impose a fine upon the District
for failure to meet discharge requirements, there would be no obligation on
the part of the City of Concord to share in any fines levied."
Under "IX. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR, 2.," delete the first sentence of
ò~ paragraph 2 and insert the following:
"Member Mitchell stated that he was concerned regarding annexation of
properties to the District without adequate notice to the developers of the
limitations by funding or environmental control agencies in providing
future treatment plant capacity to service the properties."
Motion correcting the Minutes of the Meeting of September 27, 1973,
carried by the following vote:
10
04
73
215
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, MitChell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
III.
APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES
It was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Allan, that the Expendi-
tures as reviewed by the Expenditure Committee, and as submitted by the
General Manager-Chief Engineer be approved, reference being specifically
made to Sewer Construction Vouchers Numbers 1929 to 1952, inclusive, Running
Expense Voucher Numbers 17042 to 17172, inclusive, Local Improvement District
No. 50, Construction Fund Numbe$19l and 192, and Payroll Vouchers Numbers
3656 to 3794, inclusive. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
IV.
HEARINGS
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 54, SCHEDULE 3
1.
President Rustigian welcomed the persons present in the audience. He
stated that the hearing to receive further written and oral protests for
Local Improvement District No. 54, Schedules 1 and 4 was closed at the meeting
of September 20, 1973. However, the hearing on Local Improvement District No. 54,
Schedule 3, had been continued from the meeting of September 20, 1973, in
order to permit a Committee of the Board of Directors opportunity to conduct a
field review of selected parcels in the Schedule 3 area and to report to the
Board.
At the request of President Rustigian, Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-
Chief Engineer, reported that a majority protest to Local Improvement District
No. 54, Schedule 3, does not exist.
After comment by President Rustigian regarding the manner in which the
hearing on Local Improvement District No. 54, Schedule 3, will be conducted,
President Rustigian requested the General Manager-Chief Engineer to report
on written protests received and staff's recommendation on each protest.
Mr. Horstkotte reported that written protests have been paraphrased in
the interests of brevity and will be so indicated. Referring to the Protest
Log, Mr. Horstkotte reported receipt of written protest from Mrs. Elizabeth
Lee, 239 Parkview Avenue, Piedmont, California, parcel 54-3-4-1. Paraphrasing
Mrs. Lee's protest, Mr. Horstko"tte stated "that no more than 4" potential sites
could be developed because of the physical limitations of the parcel." Staff
recommendation was to approve the protest of Mrs. Lee, reduce the number of
building sites from 6 to 4 and assign 3 units of assessment vice 3-1/2.
President Rustigian asked if Mrs. Lee or her "representative was present
in the audience. No such person was present.
Member Gibbs, a designated member of the Committee of the Board which
conducted a field review of parcel 54-3-4-1, reported that the Committee
of the Board concurs with staff recommendation. It was then moved by Member
Mitchell, seconded by Member Gibbs, that the protest of Mrs. Lee be accepted,
confirm four building sites and that three units of assessment be assigned to
parcel 54-3-4-1. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer reported receipt of
written protest from Mr. and Mrs. George A. Richard, 45 Monte Vista Road,
Orinda, California, parcel 54-3-2-11. Paraphrasing Mr. and Mrs. Richard's
10
04
73
216
protest, Mr. Horstkotte stated "they request reduction in number of building
sites from 2 to 1." Staff recommendation is to deny protest, confirm 2
building sites and reduce units of assessment from 2 to 1-1/2.
In response to query by Member Boneysteele regarding the reduction in
number of units of assessment to be assigned, Mr. Horstkotte explained that
staff's recommendation for the reduction in assigned units of assessment was
due to the fact that gravity service is fully available to one portion
of parcel 54-3-2-11 and partiallÿ available to the balance. It was then
moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Gibbs, to deny the written
protest of Mr. and Mrs. RiChard, confirm two building sites and to assign
1...;.1'/2 uni ts of assessment to parcel 54-3-2-11. Carried by the following vo te:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Membe rs :
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, reported receipt of
written protest from Mr. Don Shamblin, 70 Monte Vista Road, Orinda, California,
parcel 54-3-4-2. Paraphrasing Mr. Shamblin's protest, Mr. Horstkotte stated
"no more than 4 potential sites could be developed because of physical
limitations on this parcel". Staff recommendation is to approve the written
protest, reduce number of building sites from 6 to 4 and to assign 2-1/4 units
of assessment.
In response to query by Member Mitchell, Mr. Horstkotte reported receipt
of correspondence from the Contra Costa County Planning Department dated
October 4,1973, which indicated that parcel 54-3-4-2 consisted of approxi-
mately 5.8 acres and based upon existing zoning requirements, this was the
equivalent of 11 building sites. However, the current existing access road
is l6-feet wide, and therefore, could sustain only a minor subdivision
develo pm en t.
Discussion followed concerning number of potential building sites that
exist on Mr. Shamblin's property with Member Mitchell indicating that the
staff's recommendation on number of building sites should be increased as
the property was suitable for further development.
Mr. Don Shamblin addressed the Board and stated that the current access
road (Monte Vista) is substandard and that in order to sustain 6 building sites
on his parcel, the Monte Vista Road would need to be widened with installation
of fire hydrants.
After further discussion, it was moved by Member .Gibbs, seconded by Member
Boneysteele, that the Board accept the written protest of Mr. Shamblin, confirm
4 building sites and assign 2-1/4 units of assessment to Parcel 54-3-4-2.
Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Memb ers :
Member:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Allan and Rustigian
Mitchell
None
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that after re-
evaluation of parcel 54-3-3-2 owned by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph M. Acosta, P. O.
Box 4238, South Lake Tahoe, California, staff recommended that number of
building sites assigned to parcel 54-3-3-2 be reduced from 6 to 4 and that
one unit .of assessment be assigned vice 1-1/2. Mr. Horstkotte stated that
no written protest had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Acosta. However,
staff's reevaluation and revis~d recommendation was to insure consistency
with staff recommendations for parcels owned by Mrs. Lee and Mr. Shamblin.
It was then moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Boneysteele, to con-
firm 4 building sites and to assign one unit of assessment to parcel 54-3-3-2.
Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
10
04
73
217
President Rustigian asked if there were any persons in the audience that
wished to present oral protests to Local Improvement District No. 54,
Schedule 3. There were none.
President Rustigian then closed the hearing on Local Improvement District
No. 54, Schedule 3.
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 54, SCHEDULE 2
2.
President Rustigian stated that the hearing this date was a continuation
of the hearing initiated on September 20, 1973. He said that the purpose of
this hearing this date was to provide the fullest opportunity for people to be
heard and to comply with specific procedures required by law. President
Rustigian then formally opened the continued hearing on Local Improvement
District No. 54, Schedule 2. President Rustigian explained that the law
governing this type of 'hearing requires that percentage of protest be con-
sidered by area only and that protests based upon assessed valuation or polls
were invalid. Pres:ident Rustigian then asked for a report by the District
Engine~r.
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, reported that total
written protest received which included parcels currently operating under
temporary septic tank permits was 44.6%. Accordingly, a majority protest
does not exist. Mr. Horstkotte further reported that written protest received
but excluding parcels operating under temporary septic tank permits represented
27%. .
President Rustigian stated that the Sanitary District had received corres-
pondence from the County Health Officer dated August lO, 1973, wherein the
Health Officer recommended "as a necessary health measure" that the Sanitary
District should proceed with Local Improvement District No. 54. President'
Rustigian stated that the Board had no recourse but to acknowledge receipt of
the Health Officer's recommendation on this matter and that discussion re-
garding the validity of the Health Officer's recommendation was not
appropriate.
. At the request of President Rustigian, Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-
Chief Engineer,explained in detail, staff's proposal to provide property
owners of the LID No. 54, Schedule 2 area with an optional method of assess-
ment for their parcels. Mr. Horstkotte stated that three options were avail-
able: (l) Accept units of assessment as provided in "Notice to Property
Owners." (2) Upon written request accept that portion of assessment which
represents sewering costs. and defer payment of that portion of assessment
that represents "Disposal Rights" until connection to th'e District's sewer
system; and (3) For those property owners of parcels assessed multiple
units, accept one unit of assessment. Payment of that portion of assessment
represented by "Disposal Rights" may be deferred until connection to the
District's system. Payment of units of assessment in excess of one may be
deferred under rebate agreement with the District.
In response to quèries by Mr. Alfred J. Busch, 485 Clipper Hill Rd.,
Danville (Parcel 54-2-4-16), Mr. J. Graehm Sullivan, 799 Kirkcrest Rd.,
Danville (Parcel 54-2-2-.4J.and Mr. Lloyd B. Plath, 228 Kuss Rd., Danville
(Parcel 54-2-3-9), staff, Board Members and Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District,
explained in further detail staff's proposal on providing property owners in
LID No. 54, Schedule 2, with options on method of assessment.
After explaining the format for the conduct of the Hearing, President
Rustigian asked for a report on written protests received and staff's
recommendation on each protest.
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated that written
protests have been paraphrased in the interest of brevity and would be so
indicated. Referring to the Protest Log. Mr. Horstkotte reported receipt of
written protest from Mr. and Mrs. Leon T. David, P. O. Box 656, Danville,
Parcel 54-2-3-5. Paraphrasing Mr. and Mrs. David's protest, Mr. Horstkotte
stated "they object to the cost of the project, the LID procedure that was
followed, the Engineer's Estimate of costs, but do not protest the project."
10
04
73
2l8
Staff recommendation is to deny the protest. President Rustigian asked if
Mr. and Mrs. David or their representative were present in the audience. No
such person was present.
It was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Allan, that the written
protest of Mr. and Mrs. David be denied. 'Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Member:
Members:
Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
Boneysteele
None
Mr. Horstkotte, referring to the Protest Log, reported receipt of
written protest from Mrs. Madge Halvorsen, Box 364, Danvilie, California,
Parcel 54-2-2-2. Paraphrasing Mrs. Halvorsen's prot~st, Mr. Horstkotte
stated "objects to cost of the project, cost of Right of Way, cost of
Incidental Expenses, District Annexation costs, but does not protest the
project." Staff recommendation is to deny the protest.
President Rustigian asked if Mrs. Halvorsen or her representative were
present in the audience. No such person was present.
It was moved by Member Allan, seconded by Member Gibbs, that the written
protest of Mrs. Halvorsen be denied. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Member:
Members:
Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
Boneys teele
None
Mr. Horstkotte, referring to the Protest Log, reported receipt of written
protest by Mr. and Mrs. Jack F. Van Zanten, 100 Oak View Terrace, Danville,
California, Parcel 54-2-4-9. Paraphrasing Mr. and Mrs. Van Zanten's protest,
Mr. Horstkotte stated "protests the project, objects to the cost and objects
to the number of units of assessment assigned." Staff recommendation is to
deny the protest. Mr. Van Zanten addressed the Board anf after receiving
further clarification regarding staff's proposal on optional method of
assessment, Mr. Van Zanten stated that a majority of the property owners
by acreage located on Clipper Hill Road, protested the project and there-
fore, requested exclusion from LID No. 54, Schedule 2.
Discussion followed with participation by Board Members, staff, Counsel
for the District, ,special Counsel for the District, and Mr. Van Zanten. In
response to query, Mr. Laster, Special Counsel for the District stated that
the Board could exclude the area of Clipper Hill Road from Schedule 2 even
though a property owner had petitioned for inclusion. However, if the Board
adopted this action, it would necessitate the holding of another "Notice
Hearing." .
Member Mitchell suggested that the Board defer final action on individual
protests until determination is made as to whether protests exist on method of
assessment. Discussion followed with Mr. Laster stating that the Board must
consider all protests received but that specific action on individual protests
may be deferred until all protests have been heard.
After further discussion, it was moved by Member Gibbs to deny the written
and oral protest of Mr. Van Zanten. Motion failed for lack of a second.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Gibbs, that the Board
defer specific action on individual protests until all protests have been
heard and considered. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
Member Allan suggested that the Board may wish to formally consider the
staff's proposal on method of assessment before hearing further protests.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to defer action on staff's
proposed method of assessment until all protest had been heard and considered.
10
()4
73
219
Mr. Horstkotte, referring to the Protest Log, reported receipt of written
protests from the following persons:
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph F. DeLong, 755 Clipper Hill Rd., Danville, Parcel 54-2-5-1
Mr. and Mrs. Paul A. Romak, 500 Clipper Hill Rd., Danville, Parcel 54-2-5-8
Mr. William V. Dougherty, 740 Clipper Hill Rd., Danville, Parcel 54-2-5-9
Mr. and Mrs. Jack F. VanZanten, lOO Oak View Terrace, Danville, Parcel 54-2-4-9
Mr. and Mrs. George C. Grube, 500 Oak View Terrace, Danville Parcel 54-2-4-l4
Mr. and Mrs. Alfred J. Busch, 485 Clipper Hill Rd.. Danville, Parcel 54-2-4-l6
Mr. and Mrs. J. Graehm Sullivan, 799 Kirkcrest Rd., Danville, Parcel 54-2-2-3
Mr. and Mrs. George A. Ross, Jr., 2 Roberts Ct., Danville, Parcel 54-2-2-4
Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Roney, Jr., 9 Roberts Ct., Danville, Parcel 54-2-3-3
Mr. and Mrs. K. Ross Fitzsimmons, 1 Roberts Ct., Danville, Parcel 54-2-2-6
Mr. and Mrs. Frederick A. Speder, 4 Roberts Ct., Danville, Parcel 54-2-3-10
Mr. and Mrs. Anthony B. deBellis, 231 Kuss Rd., Danville, Parcel 54-2-3-8
r~s. Henrietta M. Ziskind and Frank Ziskind, Jr., P. O. Box 263, Danville,
Parcel 54-2-2-8
Mr. Edward Kurzadowski, 150 Kuss Rd., Danville, Parcel 54-2-4-15
Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd B. Plath, 228 Kuss Rd., Danville, Parcel 54-2-3-9
Mr. and Mrs. Harold McIntyre, 528 Clipper Hill Rd., Danville, Parcel 54-2-4-8
Mr. and Mrs. Leon H. Gartung, 247 Kuss Rd., Danville, Parcel 54-2-4-6
Mr. and Mrs. H. Menges, 998 Kirkcrest Lane, Danville, (Not in LID 54,
Schedule 2)
Mr. Horstkotte stated the above written protests had been presented on a
form type letter which he then read to the Board. Staff recommendation is to
deny all of the above written'protests.
Mr. Horstkotte then reported receipt of additional written protests.
Paraphrasing additional written protest by Mr. Van Zanten, Parcel 54-2-4-9,
Mr. Horstkotte stated "additional protest was presented by form letter." Staff
recommendation is to deny the additional written protest.
Paraphrasing additional written protest by Mr. Fitzsimmons, Parcel
54-2-2-6, Mr. Horstkotte stated "Mr. Fitzsimmons' attorney presented an
additional eight page letter which protests the project and the two units of
assessment. On the form letter protest, Mr. Fitzsimmons added a sentence
protesting two building sites on his parcel." Mr. Horstkotte reported receipt
of correspondence from the Contra Costa County Planning Department dated
October 4,1973, indicating that Parcel 54-2-2-6 may be divided into two
parcels. Staff recommendation is to deny the additional written protest.
Paraphrasing the additional written protest by Mrs. Henrietta M. Ziskind,
Parcel 54-2-2-8, Mr. Horstkotte stated "makes a further protest against the
project and the terrible assessment cost. II Staff recommendation is to deny
the additional written protest.
Paraphrasing additional written protests by Mrs. Mary McIntyre, Parcel
54-2-4-8, Mr. Horstkotte stated "protests the projects and the high cost of
assessment." Staff recommendation is to deny the additional written protest.
10
04
73
220
Mr. Horstkotte read to the Board an additì.ionalwritten protest by Mr.
Alfred J. Busch, Parcel 54-2-4-l6, requesting exclusion from LID No. 54,
Schedule 2. Staff recommendation is to deny the protest.
Paraphrasing additional written protest by Mr. and Mrs. Anthony B.
deBellis. Parcel 54-2-3-8, Mr. Horstkotte stated "protests the cost of
assessment, Engineer's Estimate, Disposal Rights. Incidental Expenses and Right
of Way costs." Staff recommendation is to deny the additional written protest.
Mr. Horstkotte, referring to the Protest Log, reported receipt of
written protest by Mr. Albert G. Morgan, 255 Kuss Road, Danville, Parcel
54-2-5-l0. Paraphrasing Mr. Morgan's written protest, Mr. Horstkotte
stated "protest against number of units of assessment." Staff recom-
mendation is to deny the written protest.
Mr. Horstkotte, referring to the Protest Log. reported receipt of .
written protest by Mr. William T. Manning, 300 Oak View Terrace, Danville,
Parcel 54-2-4-10. Paraphrasing Mr. Manning's written protest as presented
by his attorney Mr. Wilber Duberstein, Mr. Horstkotte stated "protest cost
of assessment and number of assessments and asks that his assessment be
reduced from two building sites with 2-l/2 units of assessment to one site
and one unit of assessment." Staff recommendation is to deny the wrltten
protest.
Referring to the Protest Log, Mr. Horstkotte reported receipt of written
protest by Mr. James G. Halverson, 7845 Skyline Blvd., Oakland, Parcel
54-2-6-1. Paraphrasing Mr. Halverson's written protest, Mr. Horstkotte
stated "protests the project and number of units of assessment." Staff
recommendation is to deny the written protest. .
Mr. Horstkotte then reported receipt of correspondence from the below
named persons who expressed written approval of LID No. 54, Schedule 2.
Mr. and Mrs. Herbert L. Leichter, l5l5 Cervato Drive, Alamo,
Parcel 54-2-4-3
Mr. Donald C. Anderson, 511 McBride Drive, Lafayette,
Parcel 54-2-3-2
Mr. Donald R. Womack, 262 Greenbrook Drive, Danville
Parcel 54-2-4-4
Mr. Paul Romak, Parcel 54-2-5-8, addressed the Board and stated that his
septic tank system had been functioning for 18 years and that he did not
desire a public sewer system.
Mr. George C. Grube, Parcel 54-2-4-l4 addressed the Board and stated
that the cost of the prop,osed sewer system was excessive.
Mr. Alfred J. Busch, Parcel 54-2-4-16 addressed the Board and stated:
that costs of the project were excessive; that his written protest had not
received full consideration by the District staff; that he had reservations
regarding staff competence; and that he requested exclusion from LID No. 54,
Schedule 2, because he could obtain sewer service by èonnection to an
alternate sewer system. Staff and Board members responded to Mr. Busch's oral
protest alleging staff incompetence with staff reporting that the alternate
sewer system suggested as available for connection by Mr. Busch was not yet
in existance.
Mr. J. Graehm Sullivan, Parcel 54-2-2-3 addressed the Board and stated:
that he disagreed with staff's determination that a majority protest did
not exist; that staff's proposed method of assessment benefited only
property owners assessed multiple units of assessment; that the allocation
of costs was inequitable because his parcel was level ground, easy to
sewer, whereas other parcels were difficult to sewer; and that he requested
exclusion from LID No. 54, Schedule 2, because of excessive costs.
10
04
73
221
Mr. George A. Ross, Parcel 54-2~2-4, addressed the Board and stated that
he approves of the staff's proposed method of assessment and if adopted by the
Board, he no longer will protest the project.
Mr. Keith Howard, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. K. Ross Fitzsimmons,
Parcel 54-2-2-6, addressed the Board and stated that a 44.6% protest is
indication of substantial objection to the project. He said that units of
assessment assigned should be reduced from 2 to 1 because of previous action
by the Board of Adjustment recorded in its Minutes of June 5,1968, that
Parcel 54-2-2-6 be restricted from further subdivision. Discussion followed
regarding the remarks of Mr. Howard with staff and Mr. Laster commenting that
a reduction in number of units of assessment would necessitate an upward re-
assessment of all parcels in Schedule 2. Mr. Bohn, Counsel for the District,
noted that under staff's proposed method of assessment, the property owner
could elect to defer payment on one of the two units of assessment assigned.
Mr. Howard stated that to assign Parcel 54-2-2-6 two units of assessment was
unjust in view of the previous action by the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Frederick A. Speder, Parcel 54-2-3-10 addressed the Board and pre-
sented an oral protest.
Mr. Anthony B. deBellis, Parcel 54-2-3-8, addressed the Board and stated:
that the proximity of the Cordoroy Hills Ranch and the O'Neill House which re-
quire access to sewers have had impact upon the Board's action; that the
County Health Officer's action in issuing temporary permits for septic tanks
has no legal significance; that he had presented staff with factual data which
based upon area, 53% of the property owners of Schedule 2 opposed the project;
and that 'he requested exclusion from LID No~ 54 as he could connect his parcel
to an alternate sewer system.
In response to queries by Mr. Frank Ziskind, Jr., Parcel 54-2-2-8, Board
members, staff and Special Counsel for the District explained: procedure for
exclusion from an improvement district; the authority for the District to
form improvement districts and method of determining improvement district
boundaries; and further clarification of staff's proposed method of assess-
ment. After the discussion, Mr. Ziskind stated that he was still opposed
to the project.
Mrs. Edward Kurzadkowski, Parcel 54-2-4-15, addressed the Board and
stated that her septic tank system had been operating in a satisfactory manner
for eight years, and therefore, she did not require sewers. She said that
increasing taxes over the years and now accompanied with the additional
cost for sewers would be a severe personal financial burden.
Mr. Lloyd B. Plath, Parcel 54-2-3-9,
his major objection to the project is the
thought that the contractor bids received
that he strongly opposed the project.
addressed the Board and stated that
cost. Mr. Plath commented that he
for the project were inflated and
Mrs. Mary McIntyre, Parcel 54-2-4-8, addressed the Board and stated that
she was opposed to the project because it is unnecessary, too costly and is not
wanted by the property owners.
Mr. Albert G. Morgan, Parcel 54-2-5-10, addressed the Board and stated
that he protested the two units of assessment assigned his parcel but that
he supported staff's proposed method of assessment.
In response to query by William T. Manning, Parcel 54-2-4-10, Mr.
Horstkotte stated that correct number of units of assessment assigned to his
property was 1-l/2. He then explained the allocation of the l/1/2 units to
. the parcel. Mr. Manning stated that he opposed the project because of cost
and that when adjacent property is developed, it would be more economical
for him to connect to the sewer system of this adjacent property. Discussion
followed with Mr. Manning stating that his parcel had been up for sale for
three months.
10
04
73
222
Mr. Donald C. Anderson, Parcel 54-2-3-2, addressed the Board and
stated that while he did not appreciate the cost, he was in favor of LID 54,
Schedule 2.
President
been heard and
Mitchell, that
Schedule 2, be
Rustigian then stated that all written protests received had
considered. It was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member
staff's proposed method of assessment for LID No. 54,
adopted. .
Prior to the polling of the Board, Mr. Horstkotte and Member Mitchell,
inre~ponse to query by Mr. J. Graehm Sullivan, Parcel 54-2-2-3, explained
the assessment procedures by which the District will advance funds for the
completion of the project.
Secretary Davis then polled the Board. Motion made by Member Gibbs
and seconded by Member Mitchell. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
Mr. Keith Howard, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. K. Ross Fitzsimmons,
Parcel 54-2-2-6, announced withdrawal of his protest to the number of units of
assessment to Parcel 54-2-2-6.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Gibbs, to deny all
protests requesting exclusion from LID No. 54. Schedule 2, and to deny
written protests, File Number 3 through 20 of the Protest Log, LID No. 54,
Schedule 2. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Memb er :
Members:
Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
Boneys teele
None
It was moved by Member Allan, seconded by Member Gibbs, to deny written
protests,~,FilecNùmber~,.22, ,24,::25, arid 26, ProtèstLog, q:D'"No,. 54
Schedule 2. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Member:
Memb ers :
Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
Boneysteele
None
President Rustigian called for oral protests by persons not previously
heard. There were none.
Mr. Alfred J. Busch, Parcel 54-2-4-l6, addressed the Board and re-
quested specific action by the Board on his written protest, dated October
3~ 1973,wherein he requested exclusion from LID 54, Schedule 2.
It was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Mitchell, to deny
the written protest of Mr. Busch dated October 3, 1973. Carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Memb ers :
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
Member Mitchell expressed regret regarding the degree of animosity
which had been displayed and directed toward the Board of Directors as
the circumstances leading to the Board's action on LID No. 54, Schedule 2,
were not created by the Board.
It was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Allan, that the public
hearing on LID No. 54, Schedule 2, be closed. Carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
10
04
Members:
Members:
Members:
73
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
223
RESOLUTION NO. 73-110, A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS ON RESOLUTION
OF INTENTION NO. 73-89, LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 54
After explanation by Mr. Laster. Special Counsel for the District, it
was moved by Member Allan, seconded by Member Gibbs, that Resolution No. 73-110,
be adopted. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Memb ers :
Member:
Members:
Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
Boneysteele
None
At the request of Member Mitchell, Member Boneysteele gave an explana-
tion as to why he had voted in opposition to various actions adopted by the
Board on LID No. 54, Schedule 2. He stated that in his opinion, providing
sewers for LID No. 54, Schedule 2, was not practical because of the high
cost involved and strong opposition by a substantial number of property
owners. Member Boneysteele indicated that as a matter of policy, he will
continue to oppose the formation of local improvement districts where the area
involved is similar to LID No. 54, Schedule 2, and where it is economically and
politically not feasible to sewer the area.
Mrs. Mary McIntyre, parcel 54-2-4-8, addressed the Board and stated that
she planned to initiate legal action to oppose the Board's action on LID
No. 54, Schedule 2.
Mr. J. Graehm Sullivan, parcel 54-2-2-3, addressed the Board and stated
that he objected to the remarks made by Member Mitchell regarding the circum-
stances leading to LID No. 54, Schedule 2.
Mr. Jack F. Van Zanten, parcel 54-2-4-9, addressed the Board and stated
that while he believed Member Mitchell acted in a fair manner, he did not
think the circumstances leading to LID No. 54, Schedule 2, were created by
the property owners.
RESOLUTION NO. 73-l11, A RESOLUTION AND ORDER ADOPTING ENGINEER"S
REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING THE WORK AND ACQUISITIONS,
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 54
After explanation by Mr. Laster, Special Counsel for the District, it
was moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Allan, that Resolution No. 73-lll
be adopted. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, MitChell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
RESOLUTION NO. 73-ll2, A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING COLLECTION OFFICER,
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 54
After explanation by Mr. Laster, Special Counsel for the District, it
was moved by Member Allan, seconded by Member Gibbs, that Resolution No.
73-ll2, be adopted. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
Mr. liorstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, reported that staff
proposed an addition to the Environmental Impact Report, LID No. 54, Schedule
2, entitled "Mitigation of Growth Inducing Impact," which he then read to the
Board.
,After comment by Member Boneysteele, it was moved by Member Gibbs,
seconded by Member Mitchell, that the proposed addition "Mitigation of Growth
1,0
04
73
224
'Inducing Impact" to EIR, LID No. 54, Schedule 2, as amended, be approved.
Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
It was then moved by Member Gibbs, seconded by Member Allan, that the
Final Environmental Impact Report, LID No. 54, Schedule 2, be adopted.
Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mtichell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
RESOLUTION NO. 73-ll3, A RESOLUTION OF DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECT, LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 54, SCHEDULE 1, SCHEDULE 2,
SCHEDULE 3 and SCHEDULE 4
After explanation by Mr. Laster, Special Counsel for the District, it
was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Gibbs, that Resolution'
No. 73-ll3 be adopted. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
President Rustigian then informed the audience on the administrative
procedures that affect property owners regarding LID No. 54, Schedule 2.
After further discussion with Mr. Laster, stating that individuals have
30 days to file an appeal to the EIR, LID No. 54, Schedule 2, President
Rustigian recessed the meeting at 10:38 o'clock P.M.
At lO:48 o'clock P.M., President Rustigian reconvened the meeting.
Member Boneysteele commended staff on the detailed format that it
had prepared for the conduct of the hearing. He suggested that this
procedure should be followed in future hearings of this type.
2.
CONCORD CONTRACT PROPOSAL
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, reported on the
current status of staff discussions with officials of the City of Concord.
3.
COUNTY WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, and Mr. Bohn, Counsel
for the District, reported on the current status of staff's discussions
and activities regarding the County Water Quality Control Study. They
indicated that the Scope of Work must be further defined.
L
VII.
NEW BUSINESS
'CONSENT ITEMS
a.
ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS AT NO COST TO THE DISTRICT
It was moved by Member Allan, seconded by Member Gibbs, that easement
from T. H. Lowe, et ux, Job No. 2324, Parcel l, be accepted and its re-
cording ordered. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
1,0
,04
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
73
;1
i
I
225
2.
OTHER BUSINESS ADDED BY SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA:
None.
3.
INFORMATION:
None.
VIII.
REPORTS
1.
GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
Mr. Horstkotte noted that Board Members had received a copy of the
revised District Code and the 1973 Standard Specifications of the District.
Mr. Horstkotte then reported on the current status of the following
activities:
a.
Construction of Storage Facility at Office Site.
b.
Rudgear Road, Walnut Creek, DSP 2l00.
c.
Hacienda Circle. Orinda. DSP 1926~
d.
Holding Basin, Treatment Plant, DSP 2032 II.
e.
Water Reclamation Facility.
f.
Bollinger Detachment (1700 acres).
In response to query, Mr. Horstkotte explained that the progress
payment submitted by the contractor for the Water Reclamation Facility
had included expenditures for mobilization, insurance and cash for bond.
Mr. Horstkotte gave a report on his recent trip to London, England,
and Paris, France, to attend an Instrumentation, Control and Automation
for Wastewater Treatment Systems Conference.
2.
COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT
Upon the recommendation of Mr. Bohn, it was moved by Member Gibbs,
seconded by Member Mitchell, that authorization to proceed with condemnation
action, LID No. 54, Schedule 2, parcels 3,13, l5, l8, 25 and 26 be approved.
Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
After comment by Member Mitchell, discussion followed regarding a formal
timely administrative procedure to alert developers of areas seeking annexa-
tion to the District, that sewer service is contingent upon the District's
ability to finance future treatment plant capacity and to obtain approval
from appropriate environmental control agencies. After discussion, wherein
Board Members, staff and Mr. Bohn participated, Mr. Bohn stated that he would
review previous notices to developers that had been forwarded by the District
and would report at the next meeting. Item continued.
In response to query by Member Gibbs, Mr. Bohn reported on the current
status of condemnation action which was requested by Mr. Peter Meagher for
easement from Mr. Ferdinand Simon, Wildwood Road, Orinda. Mr. Bohn indicated
that the condemnation action ~ay be contested.
3.
SECRETARY
Mr. Davis reported that the press media was holding its second annual
"Gridiron" dinner at the Red Rooster Restaurant, Walnut Creek, on October 6,
1973. Board Members were cordially invited.
10
04
73
226
4.
COMMITTEES
None.
IX.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
l. Mr. Robert A. Falco, attorney and candidate for election to the
District Board of Directors, addressed the Board and stated that he was
not familiar with the Sanitary District. However, his purpose in seeking
election to the Board was because of his interest in District activities.
After commenting that his presence this evening was as an observer, Mr.
Falco suggested that because of the large number of property owners pro-
testing LID No. 54, Schedule 2, legal action against the District may
resul t.
President Rustigian, on behalf of the Board Members, thanked Mr. Falco
for his remarks.
2. Member Boneysteele suggested early review by the Board, prior to
any expenditure of funds, of any proposed action by the staff to form Pro-
posed Sewering Areas. Staff indicated that a report on a pending PSA would
be ready for presentation to the Board in November, 1973.
3. Mr. Dalton, Deputy General Manager-Chief Engineer, reported that
the annual Diablo Valley College Scholarship Fund Dinner was scheduled for
October 25, 1973, at the Sheraton Inn, Concord. Board Members were cordially
invited.
4. Member Mitchell expressed interest in receiving a report from
Bartle Wells and Associates, financial consultant to the District, at the
next meeting.
5. President Rustigian requested that staff and Counsel for the District
review the notice to be sent to property owners of LID No. 54, Schedule 2,
and present it to the Board. Notices to be sent by certified mail.
6. Board Members and staff discussed the action of the Local Agency
Formation Commission regarding the Bollinger Detachment (l700).
X.
ADJOURNMENT
At ll:16 o'clock P.M., President Rustigian adjourned the meeting.
COUNTERS IGNED :
~" II tÇ:<t~~
Secretary of the District Board of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District of
Contra Costa County, State of California
10
04
73