HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 03-15-73
'+0
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE DISTRICT BOARD
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
HELD MARCH 15, 1973
AT MARTINEZ JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, MAIN FLOOR
AUDITORIUM, COURT AND WARREN STREETS, MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
The District Board of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened
in a Regular Session at Martinez Junior High School, Main Floor Auditorium,
Court and Warren Streets, Martinez, California, County of Contra Costa, on
March 15, 1973, at 8:00 o'clock P.M.
The meeting was called to order by President Rustigian.
I.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Members:
Boneysteele, Mitchell, .Allan and Rustigian
ABSENT:
Member:
Gibbs
At 8:05 o'clock P.M., Member Gibbs arrived at the meeting.
II.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
III.
APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES
None.
IV. HEARINGS
1.
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 50
President Rustigian presented an opening statement. In his statement
President Rustigian noted that Local Improvement District No. 50 was the
result of a formal contract entered into between the City of Martinez and
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District for the annexation and the con-
struction of a connecting sewage facility from the Martinez treatment plant
to Central San's treatment plant facility. The reason for entering into
this contract was in order to permit the City of Martinez, at least cost
to its residents, to meet increasingly more stringent discharge require-
ments being imposed by Federal and State regulatory agencies. President
Rustigian indicated that cost for the now completed project was approxi-
mately $2.3 million. The Federal Government and the Sanitary District have
contributed $1.567 million to the project with the remainder to be spread
over the residents of the City of Martinez. President Rustigian stated
the project had been accepted by the District Engineer on February 8, 1973,
and that, by statute, assessments are to be measured on the basis of benefit
to each property whether developed or not. In accordance with long estab-
lished District practice, benefit to properties is measured by numer of
building sites or its equivalent on each parcel. Number of building sites
for each parcel is determined by zoning ordinance and policy as adopted by
the City of Martinez. Each building site has been assigned one unit of
assessment and so levied by the District Engineer. President Rustigian then
explained how the unit of assessment was computed. He stated that the
District staff had worked closely with officials of the City of Martinez
on the assessment proceedings and that now, by statute, the Board of Directors
of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District were to sit as a Board of Equaliza-
tion to hear and review written protests to individual assessments filed with
the District Secretary prior to the public hearing on the matter. However,
as a matter of policy, this Board of Equalization will also consider oral
protests from individuals in the audience. President Rustigian then intro-
duced Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, to further explain the
assessment proceedings.
03
15
73
...¡,
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, stated the project consisted
of three pumping stations connected by a series of major diameter force mains and
gravity lines called interceptors which transverse approximately five miles and
are connected to Central San's treatment plant facility near Pacheco. He stated,
of the total approximate cost of $2,333,583.20, the Federal Government contributed
$732,000.00 and the Sanitary District $835,000.00. The remaining $766,583.20 has
been assessed against properties within the City of Martinez. Assessment to each
parcel has been made, after close cooperation with City officials, on the basis of
benefit to the property. Mr. Horstkotte stressed that this was not an ad valorem
assessment. This distribution of assessment is based on the premise that all par-
cels represent vacant land and can be serviced by the new sewage facility whether
presently sewered or not. He then explained that zoning as established by the
City of ~~rtinez was the basis for the measurement of benefit to parcels and then
related the formula for equating parcels zoned residential, commercial and industrial.
Mr. Horstkotte noted and explained wþy volume of water consumed on a particular par-
cel was not a justification to be used in the determination of benefit to the parcel
concerned. Mr. Horstkotte then explained that through misinterpretation of zoning
data presented by the City of Martinez regarding residential usage of properties
zoned C-3 and C-4, the District staff had made revisions to the number of units of
assessment to be levied against those parcels. Mr. Horstkotte then stated the
following C-3 and C-4 parcels were affected:
CCCSD
Assmt. No.
Owner
Revised Staff Recom.
on No. of Assmt. Units
Written Protest
Received
50-16-34
50-16-35
50-16-36
50-16-37
50-16-52
50-16-97
50-16-102
50-17-48
50-17-49
50-17-53
50-17-54
50-17-55
50-17-56
50-17-57
50-l7-58
50-l7-59
50-17-60
50-17-6l
50-20-100
50-20-102
50-20-103
50-20-115
50-20-127
50-20-129
50-20-139
50-20-l40
50-20-142
50-20-144
50-21-98
50-25-122
John H. Berger
Stephen V. Pongrace
Alfred E. Berkove
Samuel S. Gray
Gladys G. Britt
Primo Delevati
Henry T. Rampoldi
Horace D. Owens
Hoey Development Co.
Karl Aiello
Rocco Costanza
Giorgina Freschi
Nancy Brewer
Daniel Fletcher
Antonio J. Compagno
Pernice L. Miller
"
"
1
1
1
1,
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
"
"
Mr. Horstkotte stated that efforts were made to include all properties located
in the City of Martinez and the Sanitary District which are within the Martinez
drainage area and which are sewered or capable of being sewered and served by the
interceptor. Further, that all parcels are benefitted in the relative proportion
of their assessment to the whole of the costs to be assessed. Mr. Horstkotte then
introduced Mr. Jerry Laster, Wilson, Jones, Morton and Lynch, Special Counsel for
the District.
Jerry R. Kramer
Ernest E. Baroni, c/o Egan Bray
Helen S. Sinn
Bessie Cardinale
Claudia Mancini
Benjamin Katz
Giuseppa Balestrieri
F. O. Miller, c/o Aiello, Angela
Angela Mascitelli
Rose Tarantino
Tony Barlettani
Lippow Development Co.
Mr. Laster reviewed for the benefit of persons in the audience the manner in
which the assessment proceedings would follow. He stated that levy of an assess-
ment represented a lien upon the property concerned and that the law provides various
procedures for the enforcement of the lien and its removal. The present assessment
is levied under the Municipal Improvement Act of 19l3 and that tonight's proceeding
was adopted by a Resolution of Intention in October, 1968, by the District Board and
03- 15 .' ",7-.3
50
subsequently amended several times. The Resolution of Intention ordered that an
Engineer's report be prepared which consists of plans and specifications for the
improvement, provides a cost estimate, easements to be acquired, a diagram showing
all the parcels benefitted by the improvement, and lastly, a recommended apportion-
'ment of the costs to be assessed upon each parcel. The 1913 statute further provides
that, when the Engineer's report is completed, a public hearing shall be held after
observing certain prescribed time requirements on the posting, publishing and mailing
of legal notices to property owners. Mr. Laster stated that he had reviewed affi-
davits on file with the District Secretary that indicated compliance with these
legal requirements and, therefore, the public hearing may be held. Mr. Laster then
outlined procedures persons wishing to address the Board of Equalization should
follow for the conduct of the hearing. He stated that written protests would be
considered first after the District Engineer reported whether or not a majority
protest to the project exists. Mr. Horstkotte would then categorize the written
protests to the extent possible in order to expedite the proceedings. However,
individuals who consider their written protest as being not properly categorized
or who wish to emphasize a'matter peculiar to his circumstances, should seek recog-
nition from the President of the Board and state his position. After categorized.
written protests have been considered, the Board of Equalization will consider un-
categorized written protests. Then, as a matter of policy, the Board will lastly
consider oral protests. Mr. Laster then explained that in the event the Board of
Equalization acts to confirm the assessment, a thirty-day period will ensue during
which those wishing to pay all or a portion of their assessment may do so. Payment
may be by cash or check and should be made in favor of the District Secretary.
Thereafter, improvement bonds will be sold at public sale, secured by the unpaid
assessments, which will enable payment of assessments on property over a 5 or 6
year period together with interest when individuals pay their,tax bill. The bonds
will be issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915.
President Rustigian then opened the public hearing on Local Improvement
District No. 50. After noting the procedure for the conduct of the hearing,
President Rustigian requested a report from the General Manager-Chief Engineer
on written protests received and filed with the Secretary of the District.
Mr. Horstkotte, General Manager-Chief Engineer, reported that as of 5:00
o'clock P.M., March l5, 1973, ninety-four written protests had been received.
As this represented only 2.7 pe~ cent of the approximately 3,500 parcels being
assessed, a majority protest to the proceedings of Local Improvement District
No. 50 did not exist.
President Rustigian stated that Board procedure would be to entertain each
written protest along with staff recommendation on the protest and then to invite
the written protestee, if present in the audience, to present an oral protest to
the Board. In the event any Board Member wished to object to staff recommendations
or wish to accept the protest, Board Members would be polled by the Secretary. If
Board Members were unanimous in their agreement with staff recommendations, no for-
mal poll of Board Members would be taken and the recommendations of staff would be
considered accepted. The purpose of this procedure was to expedite the hearing
and to permit persons present in the audience ample opportunity to address the
Board.
Mr. Horstkotte proceeded to identify each written protestee, the parcel
number, the tenor of the protest, action by staff regarding the protest, and
lastly staff recommendation.
CCCSD
Assmt. No.
Owner
Previous No. of
Assmt. Units
Staff Recomm.
on No. of
Assmt. Units
Board Action
on Staff
Recommendation
50-16-90
50-21-64
50-21-112
50-14-12
50-l6-88
50-14-26
50-14-32
50-20-1
50-16-17
50-16-19
50-22-72
50-21-92
03
L. H. Marchi
Evangel Temple
C. E. Irwin
F. H. Farley
C. Gabe1lini
W. A. Evans
T. A. & W. A. Evans
R. Evans
Lippow Development Co.
Lippow Development Co.
A. Deschenes, et ux
K. W. Gove
2
II
2
5
17
3
3
4
8
3
2
4
1
11
1
5
II
3
3
4
2
1
2
Submission
Accept
under Submission
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Take
Take under
Ie:
'-'
73
51
Staff Recomm. Board Action
CCCSD Previous No. of on No. of on Staff
Assmt. No. Owner Assmt. Units Assmt. Units Recommendation
50-17-62 Industrial Tanks, Inc. 1 0 Accept
50-17-69 Industrial Tanks, Inc. 2 1 Accept
50-14-24 R. L. Carter 2 2 Accept
50-28-19 H. Alvarado 1 1 Accept
50-25-12 S. Girard 1 1 Field Review by 'Board
50-25-13 S. Girard 1 1 " " "
50-25-29 S. Girard 1 1 " " "
50-28-90 J. E. Butler 2 1 Accept
50-31-57 B. R. Woods 2 2 Accept
50-31-60 C. W. Haussman 2 2 Accept
As each protest was presented by Mr. Horstkotte, President Rustigian asked if
the owner desired to address the Board.
Mr. J. W. Sandleman (Parcel 50-21-64) made an oral protest that the parcel was
church property and, because of the limited congregation, assessment of 11 units
would be a hardship.
Mr. O'Brien (Parcel 50-21-64) made an oral protest that because of terrain,
limitations caused by a creek and the existence of an easement on the parcel, use
of the property was limited. After discussion, Mr. Horstkotte stated staff recom-
mendation was now to take the protest under submission. Board Members accepted
staff's new recommendation. '
Mr. F. H. Farley (Parcel 50-14-12) made an oral protest concerning number of
units of property assessed his property as in relation to units of assessment
assigned to adjacent and to other parcels. After discussion, exchange of comments
and explanation by Board Members and staff concerning Mr. Farley's oral protest,
the Board Members, after being polled by the Secretary of the District and each
Member indicating agreement by voice vote, affirmed staff recommendation to assign
Parcel 50-14-12 5 units of assessment.
Mr. Edward Pubio addressed the Board concerning City of Martinez C-l and C-2
zoning and stated if living units are permitted above a commercial establishment,
a requirement exists to provide the necessary off street parking spaces for those
living units.
Mr. S. A. Girard (Parcels 50-25-12,50-25-13 and 50-25-29) made an oral protest
stating that because of terrain considerations, units of assessment assigned by staff
should be reduced. After discussion by Board Members, staff and Mr. Girard, Board'
Members denied staff recommendation on number of units of assessment to be assigned
the three parcels and agreed to conduct a field review of the parcels by a Committee
of the Board.
Mrs. B. R. Woods (Parcel 50-31-57) made an oral protest indicating that she
had made application for the rezoning of her parcel from R-2 to R-1. After dis-
cussion by Board Members and staff regarding Mrs. Wood's protest, Board Members
, accepted staff recommendation to assign Parcel 50-31-57 2 units of assessment.
Mr. C. W. Haussman (Parcel 50-31-60) made an oral protest citing that the
original notice received from the District indicated only 1 unit of assessment
to be assigned. The second notice indicated assignment of 2 units. Staff ex-
plained that the original notice of 1 unit of assessment was based upon the
premise that Parcel 50-3l-60 was zoned R-1 wherein, in fact, the parcel is zoned
R-2 by the City of Martinez.
Mr. E. Smith (Parcel 50-50-7) addressed the Board and stated that he had
not received notification from the City of Martinez that his property had recently
been rezoned. He queried if the Board's action on assessment was in compliance
with the law if property owners had not received prior notification that parcels
had been rezoned by the City of Martinez.
After further discussion by Board Members, staff, Mr. Laster, Wilson, Jones,
Morton and Lynch, Special Counsel for the District, and exchange of comments by
protestees, B. R. Woods (Parcel 50-31-57), C. W. Haussman (Parcel 50-31-60) ~nd
Mr. E. Smith (Parcel 50-50-7) regarding correct zoning for their parcels and prior
03
15
73
J¿.
notification on assignment of units of assessment, it was moved by Member
Mitchell, seconded by Member Gibbs, that prior Board action on Parcels
50-31-57 (B. R. Woods) and 50-31-60 (C. W. Haussman) be rescinded and that
staff confirm current R-2 zoning by the City of Martinez. Carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
At 9:58 o'clock P.M., President Rustigian recessed the hearing. At
10:0$ o'clock P.M., President Rustigian reconvened the public hearing.
In response to the above action by the Board, Mr. Horstko~te stated
staff would confirm the R-2 zoning as established by the City of Martinez
for the following parcels:
50-31-1
50-3l-2
50-31-7
50-31-16
50-31-24
50-31-25
50-31-36
50-31-39
50-3l-40
50-31-41
50-31-42
50-31-43
50-31-44
50-31-45
50-31-46
50-31-47
50-31-48
50-31-49
50-31-50
50-31-52
50-3l-53
50-31-54
50-3l-55
50-31-56
50-31-57
50-31-58
50-31-59
50-31-60
50-31-61
50-31-107
50-33-81
50-55-6
Mr. Horstkotte then continued his presentation on written protests re-
ceived on the following parcels:
Previous Staff Recomm. Board Action
CCC SD No. of on No. of on Staff
Assmt. No'. Owner Assmt. Units Assmt. Units Recommendation
50-30-91 T. M. McMorrow 4 4 Accept
50-31-59 A. H. Haussman 2 Take under sub- Accept
mission
50-30-90 F. E. Ricks 4 4 Accept
50-33-81 A. Compaglia 4 Take under sub- Accept
mission
50-31-48 D. M. Degger 2 " Accept
50-36-2 L. N. Pellegrini 3 3 Accept
50-37-10) W. P. Sullivan
50-37-20) W. P. Sullivan 11 Field Review Accept
50-28-56 W. A. Evans 1 1 Accept
50-23-93 T. A. Evans 1 1 Accept
50-28-48 W. C. & E. Buchanan 6 3 Accept
50-25-121 L. Salvatori 2 2 Accept
50-25-l7 J. H. Sowers 1 Take under sub- Accept
mission
50-25-24 J. H. Sowers 0 " Accept
50-33-7 H. M. Anderson 4 4 Accept
50-24-50 Campfire Girls of Mtz. 9 7 Accept
50-33-3 O. H. Costanza 5 4 Accept
50-25-4 H. D. Rampoldi 1 1 Accept
50-25-5 " 0 0 Accept
50-25-6 " lO 4 Accept
50-25-105 " 2 2 Accept
50-25-108 " 2 2 Accept
50-25-112 " 2 2 Accept
50-25-ll7 " 1 1 Accept
50-37-7 Contra Costa County 1 Take under sub- Accept
mission
50-37-19 " 4 " Accept
50-15-2 " 4 " Accept
50-22-63 " 1 " Accept
50-22-89 " 1 " Accept
50-22-91 " 1 " Accept
50-22-92 " 1 " Accept
,50-22-95 " 1 " Accept
50-37-13 " 8 " Accept
50-37-14 " 340 " Accept
0 3 Ie: 73
u
Previous
CCCSD No. of
Assmt. No. Owner Assmt. Units
50-31-46 C. 1. Semon 2
50-44-5 M. Valente 66
50-50-9 C. L. Barrow 1
50-50-10 C. L. Barrow 1
50-49-46 H. F. Corum 1
50-49-45 G. J. Momberg 2
50-43-1 M. Figueredo 6
50-46-74 M. & J. Balestrieri 3
50-54-18 L. R. Susini 1
50-57-2 H. W. Baum lO
50-52-1 F. E. Ricks 6
50-54-44 O. Witting 1
50-54-43 O. Witting 1
Staff Recomm.
on No. of
Assmt. Units
53
Board Action
on Staff
Recommendation
Take under sub-
mission
66
Take under sub-
mission
"
0
1
Take under sub-
mission
3
1
4
6
1
0
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accep t
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Field Review
Accept
Accept
Deny
After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte and Mr. Jerry Laster, Special Counsel
for the District, and after discussion by Board Members, it was moved by Mem-
ber Gibbs, seconded by Member Boneystee1e, that Parcels 50-54-44 and 50-54-43
(0. Witting) be assigned one unit of assessment on each property. Carried by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSE;NT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneystee1e, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
Mr. Horstkotte then continued with his presentation on written protests re-
ceived on the following parcels:
Previous
CCCSD No. of
Assmt. No. Owner Assmt. Units
50-59-16 R. Benenati 2
50-59-12 J. Cooper 2
50-55-6 M. Ball 20
50-51-98 R. E. Wheeler 1
50-51-99 R. E. Wheeler 'I
Staff Recomm.
on No. of
Assmt. Units
Board Action
on Staff
Recommendation
Take under sub-
mission
2
Take under sub-
mission
1
0
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Deny -
Assigned 1 unit
of assessment.
As each protest was presented by Mr. Horstkotte, President Rustigian asked
if the owner desired to address the Board.
Mr. T. M. McMorrow (Parcel 50-30-91) made an oral protest citing that
because of set backs and other restrictions, the only way to construct'~4:, '
living units on his parcel was to develop a four-storied building which would
be nonconforming with other restrictions. After discussion and exchange of
comments, Board Members accepted staff recommendation to assign 4 units of
assessment to Parcel 50-30-91.
Mr. C. L. Semon (Parcel 50-31-46) requested a copy of the transcript of
the hearing. Mr. Semon was advised that a copy was available for his perusal
at the District Offices.
Mr. A. Compag1ia (Parcel 50-33-8l) made an oral protest that as a Member
of the City of Martinez planning commission for 12 years, it was his under-
standing that R-2 zoning was transitional. After discussion, staff recommended
to take the protest under submission. Board Members accepted staff recommendation.
Mr. W. P. Sullivan (Parcels 50-37-10 and 50-37-20) made an oral protest
stating that due to the existence of 2 easements on the parcel plus terrain
considerations, he requested a field review. Staff recommended that a field
review of Parcel 50-37-20 be made. Board Members accepted staff recommendation.
03
15
73
, 54
Mr. Frank Bray, Counsel for Mr. W. C. and E. Buchanan (Parcel 50-28-48),
made an oral protest citing current plans to improve the street location would
impinge on the use that could be made of the property. After discussion by
Board Members, staff and Mr. Bray, Board Members accepted s.taff recommendation
to assign 3 units of assessment to Parcel 50-28-48.
Mr. Frank Bray, Counsel for the Campfire Girls of Martinez (Parcel 50-24-
50), presented a written communication from officials of the City of Martinez
regarding the zoning of Parcel 50-24-50. Staff recommended that units of
assessment for Parcel 50-24-50 be reduced from 9 to 7. Board Members accepted
staff recommendation. '
Mr. Frank Bray, Counsel for H.- D. Rampo1di (Parcels 50-24-4,50-25-5,
50-25-6, 50-25-105, 50~25-108, 50-25-112 and 50-25-117), after explanation
by Mr. Horstkotte that staff had recommended assignment of 12 units of
assessment to these parcels vice 18, Mr. Bray accepted staff recommendation.
Board Members accepted staff recommendations.
Mr. D. Bell, Contra Costa County (Parcels 50-37-7,50-37-19, 50-15-2,
50-22-63,50-22-89,50-22-91,50-22-92 and 50-22-95), made an oral protest
and, after discussion by staff and Mr. Laster, Special Counsel for the District,
Mr. Horstkotte recommended that staff take the protest under consideration.
Board Members accepted staff recommendation.
Mr. M. Valente (Parcel 50-44-5) made an oral protest stating that he has
no sewage service and that sewage facilities furthermore are not in proximity
to his property. After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte that Parcel 50-44-5 was
within the Martinez watershed, staff recommended assignment of 66 units of
assessment to Parcel 50-44-5. Board Members accepted staff recommendation.
Mr. C. L. Barrow (Parcels 50-50-9 and 50-50-10) made an oral protest
stating that due to the presence of a creek and soil and terrain considera-
tions, it was not possible to construct a living unit on Parcel 50-50-9.
Staff recommended to take the protest under submission. Board Members ac-
cepted staff recommendation.
Mr. Joseph Blake (parcel unknown) queried staff and Board Members con-
cerning assessment assigned to the cannery property in Martinez. Mr. Horstkotte
and Mr. Laster, Special Counsel, explained that the cannery parcel is zoned
industrial and as it is no longer operating as a cannery, special use service charges
were not applicable.
Mrs. M. Figueredo (Parcel 50-43-1) made an oral protest stating terrain er-
osion and flooding inhibited placement of dwelling units on the parcel. Mr.
Horstkotte stated staff recommended taking the protest under submission. Board
Members accepted staff recommendation. '
Mr. H. W. Baum (Parcel 50-57-2) made an oral protest stating number of units
of assessment assigned is excessive. He requested a field review. Mr. Horstkotte
stated staff recommended a field review even though the number of units of assess-
ment assigned Parcel 50-57-2 had been reduced from 10 to 4. Board Members accepted
staff recommendation.
Mrs. R. Benenati (Parcel 50-59-16) made an oral protest stating that her
dwelling unit is constructed across two parcels and that a creek exists on the
property. Mr. Horstkotte stated staff recommended taking the protest under
submission. Board Members accepted staff recommendation.
Mr. J. Cooper (Parcel 50-59-12) made an oral protest stating that the
original District notice assigned 1 unit of assessment to his property. The
subsequent District notice assigned 2 units of assessment. Mr. Cooper stated
the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 for assessment proceedings cites benefit
to the land as the criteria for proper assessment and that the Act contains
no reference to zoning. After Mr. Laster, Special Counsel, explained that use of
zoning ordinances was an equitable method of determining benefft to the land,
Mr. Horstkotte stated staff recommended assignment of 2 units of assessment to
Parcel 50-59-12. Board Members accepted staff recommendation.
Mrs. M. Ball (Parcel 50-55-6) made an oral protest stating that 14 dwelling
units were on her property and that it was not possible to construct an additional
6 dwelling units on the parcel. She also cited the existence of a creek on her
property. After discussion by Board Members and Mrs. Ball, Mr. Horstkotte stated
staff recommended taking the protest ùnder submission. Board Members accepted
staff recommendation.
031573
.:>
, At 11:53 o'clock P.M., President Rustigian recessed the public hearing.
11:58 o'clock P.M., President Rustigian reconvened the public hearing.
At
Previous Staff Recomm. Board Action
CCCSD No. of on No. of on Staff
Assmt. No. Owner Assmt. Units Assmt. Units Recommendation
50-67-05 A. Vanderkous 2 1 Accept
50-56-52 J. Fries 1 1 Accept
50-57-01 J. Fries 1 0 Accept
Mr. Horstkotte then reported that written protests had been received from
persons in the audience prior to and during the current hearing. Protestees
were invited to address the Board.
Mrs. Dianne Seelie, representing Mrs. Benjamin Katz (Parce150-20-l29),
addressed the Board and was informed that staff had recommended assignment
of 3 units of assessment on this parcel vice 29 and the Board had accepted
staff recommendation.
Mr. Gordon Turner, Counsel representing Etta B. Boyer (Parcel 50-2l-36),
addressed the Board and objected to the number of units of assessment assigned
to the parcel. He stated the property has a duplex on it and, therefore, en-
titled to only 2 units of assessment. After discussion between Board Members
and Mr. Turner and after recommendation by Mr. Horstkotte that 4 units be as-
signed the parcel, the Board Members accepted staff recommendation.
Mr. W. G. Sheppard (Parcel 50-41-41, Church of Latter Day Saints) made an
oral protest regarding number of units of assessment assigned, citing presence
of a creek, sloping terrain and limited street access to the property. After
explanation by Mr. Horstkotte that units of assessment assigned was 10 vice 14
Mr. Horsktotte recommended staff take the protest under submission. Board Mem-
bers accepted staff recommendation.
Mr. Ernest Lassel (Parcel 50-21-41) made an oral protest regarding number
of units of assessment assigned, citing the parcel is currently split zoned by
the City. He further commented on the reduction in units of assessment assigned
the cannery in Martinez. Mr. Horstkotte noted that Parcel 50-21-41 was presently
assigned 16 units of assessment but that staff recommended taking the protest
under submission to verify city zoning. The Board Members accepted staff recom-
mendation.
Mr. Robert Kassels (Parcels 50-l6-2l and 50-16-22) made an oral protest
citing that a dwelling unit does not exist on each parcel, therefore, units
of assessment should be reduced to 2. After d~scussion, Mr. Horstkotte re-
commended staff taking the protest under submission. Board Members accepted
staff recommendation.
Mr. Ed Hugill (Parcel 50-2l-84) made an oral protest citing number of
units of assessment assigned. Mr. Horstkotte noted that staff recommended
5 units of assessment be assigned Parcel 50-21-84. Board Members accepted
staff recommendation.
Mr. Paul pagnini (Parcel 50-24-3) made an oral protest citing that the
restaurant currently on the parcel had been present in that location for
45 years and, therefore, assignment of 8 units of assessment to the parcel
was excessive. After explanation by Mr. Horstkotte on zoning, he noted
staff recommended 8 units of assessment for the parcel. Board Members ac-
cepted staff recommendation.
Mr. Carme10 Carone (Parcels 50-17-65 and 50-17-70) made an oral protest
citing there is no access to Parcel 50-17-65. He further requested a copy
of the transcript of the hearing. Mr. Carone was informed that costs for
transcripts were expensive and, therefore, would have to be purchased. Mr.
Horstkotte stated staff recommended 0 units of assessment for Parcel 50-17-65
and 1 unit of assessment for Parcel 50-17-70. Board Members accepted staff
recommendation.
03
15
73
56
Mrs. Joaquin Macedo (Parcel 50-30-70) made an oral protest citing number
of units of assessment assigned. Mr. Horstkotte explained the circumstances
relating to Mrs. Macedo's protest and, after discussion, Mr. Laster, Special
Counsel for the District, stated that he would review the protest and make a
further recommendation to the Board. Mr. Laster recommended that the protest
be taken under submission. Board Members accepted Special Counsel's recom-
mendation.
It was moved by Member Boneysteele, seconded by Member Gibbs, that staff
revisions on units of assessment to be assigned parcels zoned C-3 and C-4 by
the City of Martinez be approved and that staff recommendations for all parcels
zon~d C-3 and C-4 be accepted. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneysteele, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
Mr. Horstkotte then reported receipt of additional written protests by
persons not present in the audience. He then presented staff recommendations
on the following written protests:
CCCSD
Assmt. No.
Owner
Previous
No. of
Assmt. Units
Staff Recomm.
on No. of
Assmt. Units
Board Action
on Staff
Recommendation
50-l2-28
50-21-12
William Cutshall
Sam Co1acurcio
2
Name of owner does
not coincide with
Parcel No.
6
7
2
Take under
submission
Accept
, Accept
50-21-96
50-55-12
Harry R. Johnson
Winston A. Keller
& Eleanor C. Keller
clo George Gordon
Lydia Raffetto
Virginia G. Hastings
Virginia S. Turnbaugh
6
Take under
submission
Accept
Accept
50-47-29
50-51-1
50-64-9
1
8
1
1
8
1
Accept
Accept
Accept
President Rustigian asked if there were any other persons in the audience
who desired to make an oral protest. There were none.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Boneystee1e, that the
public hearing on Local Improvement District No. 50 be closed. Carried, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Members:
Boneystee1e, Gibbs, Mitchell, Allan and Rustigian
None
None
V.
BIDS
None.
VI.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
VII.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
VIII .
REPORTS
1.
COMMITTEES
None.
2.
GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
None.
03
'15
73
3.
COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT
None.
4.
SECRETARY
None.
IX.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
x.
ADJOURNMENT
.),
At 12:53 o'clock A.M., President Rustigian adjourned the regular meeting
to March 22, 1973,. which will be held at the District Offices, 1250 Spring-
brook Road, Walnut Creek, California.
";/" /¿"
t,' /
',<'C4"~.â,¿ ,ΕΎ!, /~
"....' ,
Presiden' of the Dis
Central Contra Costa
Contra Costa County,
COUNTERSIGNED :'
f: f(;QO-~"r..i
Secretary of the District Board of the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District of
Contra Costa County, State of California
rict B"ard of the
Sanitary District of
State of California
03
15
73