HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 11-25-57
-4 f"C"'
~ ' ~
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE DISTRICT BOARD
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
HELD NOVEMBER 25, 1957
The District Board of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in
an Adjourned Regular Session at its regular place of meeting located at 1250
Springbrook Road, Walnut Creek, County of Contra Costa, State of California,
on November 25, 1957, at 8:00 o'clock P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Fresident Fisher.
I.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Members:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
ABSENT:
Member:
Spiegl
II.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of November 21, 1957, were approved as presented.
III.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
None.
IV.
HEARINGS
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 33 ASSESSMENTS, CONTINUED
President Fisher asked Mr. Horstkotte, Engineer for Local Improvement
District No. 33, to report on the items continued for decision at this time.
Mr. Foster, #33-12-28.
Assessment protest.
Mr. Horstkotte reported that, upon checking with the Planning Commission,
the Foster property could not be divided under present zoning.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Roemer, that the
Foster parcel, Assessment #33-12-28, be reduced from two units of assessment
to one. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spieg1
Mr. Curtiss, #33-9-17, #33-9-18, #33-9-23, #33-9-24, and #33-9-25.
ment protest.
Assess-
Mr. Horstkotte reported that, although the protest of Mr. Curtiss was
denied at the meeting on November 21, 1957, he felt there was a question of
doubt as to the assessments determined and made a further check.
He reported that on checking with the Planning Commission, they would
allow only two sites on the five lots owned by Mr. Curtiss. Mr. Horstkotte
recommended that the assessments on the five lots be reduced to a total of
two units.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Roemer, that Assess-
ment #33-9-17 be reduced from one unit to ! unit, Assessme~t #33-9-18 be
reduced from one unit to! unit, Assessment #33-9-23 be reduced from one unit
to ! unit, and Assessments #33-9-24 and #33-9-25 remain at i unit each. - Carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
11
25
57
.. "." /~
J.. o.~
Mr. and Mrs. Penn, #33-12-12.
Claim for possible damage to walnut trees.
Mr. Horstkotte reported that the closest tree to the work was six feet
distant. He stated that the Penns were protected under the Contractor's bond
and recommended the claim be denied.
It was moved by Member Roemer, seconded by Member Salfingere, that the
claim of Mr. and Mrs. Penn, Assessment #33-12-1~ be denied. Carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Membe rs :
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spieg1
Mrs. Long, #33-13-4.
Protest.
Mr. Horstkotte reported that the driveway of Mrs. Long was to be restored.
He also reported that this evening ~trs. Long presented a written protest relative
to possible damage to four walnut trees. He stated that this was covered under
the contractor's bond, and recommended the claim be denied.
It was moved by Member Salfingere, seconded by Member Roemer, that the
claims of Mrs. Long, Assessment #33-13-4, be denied. Carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Roemer, that the
Hearing for Local Improvement District No. 33 be closed. Car,ried by the
following vote: '
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere, and Fisher
None
Spiegl
RESOlUTION NO. 1085, OVERRULING PROTESTS AND CONFIRMING THE ASSESSM~~,
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 33
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Roemer, that Resolution
No. 1085 be adopted. Carried by the following vote:
A YES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
Membe rs:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spieg1
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT' DISTRICT NO. 37 ASSESSMENTS
President Fisher opened the Hearing and asked for written protests.
Written protests from the following were read:
Assessment
No.
Owner
37-7-1
37-11-3
37-11-4
37-9-13
37-8-10
37-4-3 & 4
37-4-3 & 4
37-9-1,2, & 3
37-4-5
37-7-5 )
37-6-1 & 2)
Mr. & Mrs. Gudde
Orville Jennings
Mr. & Mrs. Hammond
Timothy M. Windle
Herbert G. Blumer
Julia R. Wood
William P. Wood
L. Bryce Boyer
Mr. & M rs. Monroe
Mr. & Mrs. Culver
11
25
57
- .. I~
~ t)
.1,,\ )~
Ralph B. Hoyt, Attorney, representing:
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & M rs .
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & Mrs.
Marvin
I rving Pearce
Lovick Pearce
Sanderson
Vallens
Windle
Allan A. Lindsay, Attorney, representing:
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & M rs .
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & Mrs.
Mr. & Mrs.
Blumer
Brown
J. J. Dirickx
J. L. Dirickx
Dunbar
Kastner
Keating
Kolkhorst
J. E. Lindsay
Assessment
No.
Owner
37-3-1
37-5-10
37-9-6
37-9-4
37-4-6
37-9-7
37-9-9
37-8-11
37-8-12
37-10-1
Lovick Pearce
Mrs. Cleo Ravn
Irving H. Pearce
W. H. Westerman
O. M. Giem
Mrs. C. W. Dunbar
Mr. & Mrs. Lowe
Evelyn Tanzillo
Gilbert Earle
J. J. Dirickx
Russell P. Buell
Robert M. Scopin
Dr. & Mrs. Rutherford
Mr. & Mrs. Gentry
37-4-7
37-5-8 & 9
37-8-16
Mr. Lindsay, Attorney, requested that the following names be added to
the petition be presented:
Mr. William Taylor
Dr. Evans
Mr. Warner
Mr. A. J. Brown
There being no further written protests, President Fisher asked Mr.
Horstkotte, Engineer for Local Improvement District No. 37, to review the
formation, procedures, and costs for the assessment district.
Mr. Horstkotte reviewed the relation of Local Improvement District No. 31
to Local Improvement District No. 37, the original 1956 cost estimate, post-
ponement of work during winter, revised cost estimate for work in spring of
1957, incidental expenses, Moraga Woodland restrictions, County zoning for the
area, and the low bid accepted of seven received.
Mr. Horstkotte then reviewed the protests presented, as follows:
Mr. Gudde, #37-7-1, and Mr. Jenning, #37-11-3.
Would again be reviewed in the field for claimed lack of service.
Mr. Windle, #37-9-13.
Mr. Horstkotte stated that proper service was provided.
Mr. Blumer, #37-8-10.
Mr. Horstkotte explained the change in easement location to the present
location.
11
25
ë ,." ,
,l.)¡ ,
.. ..,.., '>
), ~. )<)
Mr. Blumer protested the cost of his connection to the sewer as relocated,
asking that his assessment be reduced.
Mr. Boyer, #37-9-1, 2, & 3.
Mr. Horstkotte reported that, upon checking relative to County Planning,
the three parcels being under t acre each, only two sites could be considered.
Mr. Monroe, #37-4-5.
Mr. Horstkotte reported that the Monroe property was connected to Local
Improvement District No. 17 and paid the regular costs for that ~onnection
and recommended the assessment be changed to zero.
Mr. Culver, #37-6-1 & 2; #37-7-5.
Mr. Horstkotte stated that the Culver property was properly served anö three
units were his determination.
Mr. Bowers, #37-11-1.
Mr. Horstkotte reported that, although there were 3.77 acres in the parcel,
it was his determination that l* units for two building sites was a proper
assessment.
Mrs. Bowers; #37-8-4 & 5.
Mr. Horstkotte reported that the protest of a zero assessment on each of
the parcels was valid and he recommended that the combined parcels be considered
as a building site with! unit on each.
Mr. Clark, #37-5-l.
Mr. Horstkot~e stated that the protest of a zero assessment was not valid and
this property would receive service into Local Improvement District No. 17.
Mr. Williams, #37-5-4.
Mr. Horstkotte stated that the protest against one unit of assessment was
a valid'claim and recommended two units.
Mr. Ravn, #37-5-10.
Mr. Horstkotte reported that the claim for damages had been agreed to with
the contractor.
Mr. Robert Anderson, Attorney, asked about the subsequent cost estimate
without notice to the property owner.
Mr. Jennings stated his house was below the sewer line.
President Fisher stated this would be checked in the field.
Mr. Windle stated he did not have service to his property.
Mr. Horstkotte stated this would be checked in the field.
Mr. Blumer protested his sewer assessment due to rearranged sewer
resulting in his having to extend his line 300 feet.
Mrs. Julia R. Wood stated that there should be a reappraisal of the
entire assessment and costs.
Dr. Boyer protested 3 units of assessment.
Dr. Boyer protested the assessment on Lot 79, Assessment #37-6-3, owner
Mr. Beecher.
Mr. Horstkotte stated that the protest against Lot 79 was not valid.
Although there were two sites, only one site could be served by Local Improvement
District No. 37; the other would have to be served by Local Improvement District
No. 32.
11
25
57
" '~~',
'~h :
Mr. Robert Anderson, representing Mr. Culver, protested, three units of
assessment on his property, stating that Mr. Culver had built across two of the
lots. He requested that the present use be taken into consideration.
Mr. Anderson stated that the original estimates led the property owners
to believe their assessments would be considerably lower and the estimate was
revised without notice.
Mr. Anderson stated that contributions to assessment districts are a
Common occurrance and requesteñ the District Board to consider a contribution.
He suggested $35,000.00, which in his opinion, would reduce the assessments
to approximately $1,500.00 and be more equitable in relation to other assess-
, ment districts.
Mr. Ralph B. Hoyt, Attorney, took up each suggested assessment change in
his petition as follows:
Mr. Bowers, #37-8-4 & 5.
Suggested each assessment be changed from zero to a full unit.
Mr. Clark, #37-5-1.
Mr. Hoyt suggested that Local Improvement District No. 17 assessment,
to be paid by this parcel, be contributed to Local Improvement District No. 37
to help defray cost.
Mr. Bowers, #37-ll-l.
Mr. Hoyt stated th~t this parcel was assessed 2 units in Local Improvement
District No. 31 and It units in Local Improvement District No. 37; there are
two houses on the property.
Mr. Hoyt presented a report from Mr. R. I. Sanderson, Civil Engineer,
with site recommendations for portions of Lots 28 and 29, Lot 24, Lot 52,and
portions of Lots 35 and 36 of Moraga Woodlands. '
Mr. Horstkotte stated that he recommended! unit on Lot 28 and! unit on
Lot 29, Ii unit on Lot 24, 2 units on portion of Lots 35 and 36, and zero on
portion of Lot 52, which would sewer into Local Improvement District No. 17.
Mr. Hoyt requested that the Board consider a contribution in order to
equalize assessment with other areas.
Mr. Lindsay, Attorney, stated that the property owners had been paying a
,general tax to the District and this should be taken into consideration in
making a contribution.
He referred the Board to Section 5375 of the Streets and Highways Code,
relating to contributions.
The following property owners made general statements relative to cost:
Mr. Giem, Mr. Lowe, and Mr. Dirickx.
Mr. Gentry stated that the high cost would cause a devaluation in
property values relative to other areas with lower assessments, and protested
two units of assessment for his property.
Mr. Scapin asked questions relative to Local Improvement Districts Nos. 3l
and 37, which were answered.
The Hearing on written protests, being concluded, President Fisher asked
if others wished to be heard.
Mrs. Wm. Taylor asked if any change was being considered in their assess-
men t .
Mr. Horstkotte stated that beyond the two units levied, no.
Mrs. Bowers protested the assessments on parcels #37-8-4 and #37-8-5,
claiming these combined parcels would not be a buildable site.
Mr. Straus, #37-12-5, stated he had recently purchased property and
was told the assessment might be in the neighborhld $,.,f $1,500.9~?c-- ~'
, 1 2~ it:,
.. ~ "'<;':1
,1. \.. )<.";'
Others making general statements as to the high cost were:
and Dr. Rutherford.
Mr. Vallens
President Fisher stated that if there were no further protests, the
Board ,would proceed to make final determinations.
President Fisher. asked l-!embl".r P.o:c:r"er t',1 ¡~;~pJ<\ir¡ ß()arcl fx,1icies in
assessing properties.
Member ~oemer explained the Board policy in the use of multiple loti.
H~ stated that contributions have been made in the past where lines installed
in a Local Improvement District were oversized so as to serv~ properties
beyond.
He stated that the Board was in favor of exploring any possibilities
to lnwer the cost for Local Improvement District No. 37 and would consult
with the District's Legal Counsel and Engineer.
President Fisher asked the Board Members if they felt !unit was proper
for properties removed from direct service in Local Improvement District
No. 37.
It was concluded that i unit was proper.
President Fisher asked Mr. Horstkotte about equalizing the Local Improve-
ment Districts Nos. 31 and 37 assessments.
Mr. Horstkotte made several suggestions.
In the absence of Mr. Nejedly, Counsel for the District, it was decided
to wait for his advice.
Board action on protests:
Mr. Gudde - Continued, investigate service.
Mr. Jennings - Continued, investigate service.
Mr. Hammond, #37-11-4.
Assessment protest.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Roemer, that the
Hammond protest of one unit of assessment be denied. Carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell,' Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
Mr. Windle; Continued, investigate service.
Mr. Blumer; Protested service and assessment.
It was moved by Member Roemer, seconded by Member Salfingere, that Mr.
Blumer's protest of one unit of assessment be denied. Carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINING:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Member:
Roemer, Salfingere arid Fisher
None
Mitchell
Spiegl
General protest of assessment cost.
It was moved by Member Sa1fingere, seconded by Member Roemer, that
general protests relative to the cost of the work from Julia R. Wood, Wm.
Wood, Irving Pearce, Lovick, Pearce, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Giem, Mr. Dunbar,
Mr. Lowe, Evelyn Tanzillo, Mr. Earle, Mr. Dirickx, and Mr. Scopin be denied.
Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINING:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Member:
Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Mitchell
Spiegl
11
25
57
1" .,...(..
. OJ
Dr. Boyer, assessment protest.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Roemer, that Dr.
Boyer's protest of three assessments be granted and that the assessments be
reduced to a total of two units. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
Mr. Monroe, assessment protest.
It was moved by Member Ròemer, seconded by Member Sa'lfingere, that as
the property is already connected into Local Improvement'District No. l7 and
having paid the normal charges, the assessment be reduced from one unit to
zero. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
Mr. Culver, 116 Crest View Drive, protested three units of assessment.
Mr. Culver and Mr. Anderson, his attorney, protested the three units of
assessment, stating that the present use should be cons,idered.
Continued tò the meeting of December 5, 1957.
Mrs. Bowers, assessments #37-8-4 & 5.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Roemer, that assess-
ments for parcel #37-8-4 and #37-8-5 each be changed from zero to t unit and
the protest of Mrs. Bowers be denied. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Membe r:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
Mr. Clark, "37-5-1.
It was moved by Member Salfingere, seconded by Member Mitchell, that
the petitions of Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Lindsay, Attorneys, protesting the assess-
ment of zero on assessment parcel #37-5-1 be denied. Carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Membe rs :
Membe r :
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher,
None
Spiegl
Mr. Bowers, #37-ll-l.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Roemer, that the
petitions of Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Lindsay, Attorneys, protesting l! units of assess-
ment on parcel #37-11-1 and all others protesting be denied. Carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Membe rs :
Members:
Membe r:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
Mr., Williams, #37-l2-4.
It was moved by Member Salfingere, seconded by Member Mitchell, that the
assessment for parcel #37-12-4 be changed from one unit to two units. Carried
by the following vote:
AYES: Membe rs: Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Membe r: Spiegl
Protest Petitions of Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Lindsay, Attorneys.
It was moved by Member Roemer, seconded by Member Salfingere, that the
general over-all protests in the petitions of Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Lindsay, Attorneys,
11
51
25
,~, ,~j~ ')
,.1., i!~,
be denied.
Carried by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Ro,?me r, Salfingere and Fishe r
NOES: Members: None
ABSTAINING: Member: Mitchell
ABSENT: Member: Spiegl
Mrs. Ravn, claim for damages.
I t was moved by Member Salfingere, seconded by Membe r Roeme r, tha t the
protest of Mrs. Ravn be denied. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:,
NOES :
ABSENT:
, '"
. , to- ~,. ','
Members: Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
Members: None
Member: Spiegl
Mr. Gentry, protested two units of assessment.
It was moved by Member Roemer, seconded by Member Salfingere, that Mr. Gentry's
protest of two units of assessment be denied. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
Mr. Strau~, #37-12-5.
It was moved by Member Roemer, seconded by Member Mitchell, that the protest
of Mr. Straus be denied. Carried by the fcllowing vote:
'\
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
Mr. Vallens, protest.
It was moved by Member Roemer, seconded by Member Salfingere, that the
protest of Mr. Va1lens be denied. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere anð Fisher
None
Spiegl
Mr. Buell, protest against work.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Roemer, that the
protest of Mr. Buell be denied. Carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
President Fisher stated that this completed the review of protests and
that consideration would be given to a contribution.
It was moved by Member Mitchell, seconded by Member Salfingere, that
the Hearing be closed as to protests and continued to December 5, 1957.
Carried by the following ~ote: '
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
None.
None.
DISTRICT MANAGER
None.
Members:
Members:
Member:
Mitchell, Roemer, Salfingere and Fisher
None
Spiegl
v.
OLD BUSINESS
'VI.
NEW BUSINESS
VII .
REPORTS
11
25
57,
1" ..~".
, (.....
COUNSEL FOR I11E DISTRICT
None.
VIII .
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:15 o'clock A.M., the meeting was adjourned by President Fisher
to December 5, 1957.
'L
Preside of the District Board f
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District of
Contra Costa County, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
_.,-----::::-:::;;
/~:~'" ;':,-'."'-"-:::-:--:.~", ' ...) )~
---( -'-é"~',..~. ~~,--.¿ /-'- :;--'
, ~ ".= ~----, .. -
Secretary of the District Board of
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District of
Contra Costa County, State of California
11
25
57