HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.a. Hearing re 20 Camino Monte Sol, Alamo (Anne Broome)Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
144" 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS �•a•
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: January 10, 2013
Subject. CONDUCT A HEARINGTO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM
THE FINAL STAFF DECISION TO ASSESS A REIMBURSEMENT FEE FOR A
SECOND LIVING UNIT AT 20 CAMINO MONTE SOL, ALAMO (APN 193 - 020 -002);
JOB 5542
Submitted By: Initiating Dept. /Div.:
Earlene Millier, Engineering Assistant III Engineering / Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
�'1 V ` 7a
E. Millier
T. Brightbill
cs;��
Danet Gemmell
ky-
Ann E. Farrell
General Manager
ISSUE: Ms. Anne Broome, the owner of the residential property at 20 Camino Monte
Sol (APN 193 - 020 -002) has requested that the Board consider providing relief from
staff's final decision to assess a reimbursement fee for a second living unit constructed
on the property in 2009.
RECOMMENDATION: Affirm staffs decision that it is appropriate to assess a
reimbursement fee for the second living unit on the property at 20 Camino Monte Sol
and direct that the fee be collected.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The Reimbursement Fee Program is provided as a
convenience for installers. The District charges fees to cover the administrative costs of
the program including: 1) a Setup Fee to pay for the process required to establish a
Reimbursement Account; and 2) a Transaction Fee to pay for administration of the
program, receiving payments and disbursing reimbursements.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board may:
1. Affirm staff's final decision and direct that the fee be collected;
2. Direct staff to use an alternative approach for calculation of the fee;
3. Provide relief from all or a portion of the fee; or
4. Request that staff develop additional information and continue the hearing to a
future date.
BACKGROUND: District Code Section 6.20.040 specifies that reimbursement fees be
calculated by dividing the total allowable cost for a main sewer extension job by the
total number of connections or residential unit equivalents (RUE) which could
reasonably be physically connected to the sewer unless in the General Manager's
judgment an alternative method of calculation is justified. The District's practice is to
use RUE for all reimbursement fee calculations, unless the installer and other affected
property owners have a written agreement among them to use a different method of
calculation. No such agreement has been submitted to the District.
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Pape rs\M i I I ier\2013\1 -10-1 3\PP re Broome Appeal 1 -10 -13 Final.doc Page 1 of 4
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: January 10, 2013
subject. CONDUCT A HEARINGTO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM
THE FINAL STAFF DECISION TO ASSESS A REIMBURSEMENT FEE FOR A
SECOND LIVING UNIT AT 20 CAMINO MONTE SOL, ALAMO (APN 193 - 020 -002);
JOB 5542
Ms. Anne Broome, the owner of the residential property at 20 Camino Monte Sol,
constructed a second living unit, as defined by the District Code (see Attachment 1) on
the property in 2009, and was assessed District connection fees for the second unit
including a capacity fee ($6,015) and a reimbursement fee ($15,511.53) to reimburse
the installer of Job 5542 for a share of the cost of the main sewer installation. On June
26, 2012, Ms. Broome paid all of the fees owed, except for the reimbursement fee.
Over the past two years, Ms. Broome has discussed the disputed reimbursement fee
with successive levels of staff, and requested relief from the reimbursement fee in a
letter dated September 19, 2012 to the General Manager. The General Manager
issued, her final staff decision to deny the requested relief in a letter dated October 30,
2012. In accordance with District Code Section 1.16, Ms. Broome submitted a letter
dated November 25, 2012 to the Secretary of the District requesting that the Board
consider the final staff decision, citing a number of reasons for her request (see
Attachment 2). These reasons and staffs response to each reason follows:
Ms. Broome states that the project- cost - divided -by- number of RUE cost
allocation model used to calculate the reimbursement fee in her case is not
equitable. Her position is that since total floor area of her principal residence
plus that of the "second living unit" is considerably less than the homes built by
the installer of Job 5542, the reimbursement fee should at most be based on the
total number of individual parcels that can be served by the sewer, rather than
total number of RUEs that may ultimately be connected.
Staff Response: There are a number of allocation methods that could be used
to determine reimbursement fees including:
• The number of RUE that could be connected;
• The number of parcels that could receive service;
• The total area of the parcels that could receive service;
• The floor area of buildings that could be connected; and
• The proportional cost of main sewer based on the distance of the
connection under consideration to the District's trunk sewer.
It has long been the District's policy as provided in the District Code to use RUE
that could be connected, which is consistent with the approach used for
assessment of capacity fees, unless there is an agreement among the installers
and connectors to use another method. The Code approach is based on the
generalization that each residential unit connected to a particular main sewer
extension receives comparable benefit (by having access to public sewer
N: \ENVRSEMPosition Papers \Miliier\2013 \1- 10 -13 \PP re Broome Appeal 1 -10 -13 Final.doc Page 2 of 4
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: January 10, 2013
subject: CONDUCT A HEARINGTO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM
THE FINAL STAFF DECISION TO ASSESS A REIMBURSEMENT FEE FOR A
SECOND LIVING UNIT AT 20 CAMINO MONTE SOL, ALAMO (APN 193 - 020 -002);
JOB 5542
service) and since there is a broad overlap in occupancy (and sewer service
demand) for different types and sizes of residences, charging a unit fee for each
residential unit is both appropriate and administratively efficient.
Ms. Broome states that even if reimbursement fees are determined based on
RUE, her 647 square -foot "carriage house" (living space over a garage) is not a
residential unit since its limited size and configuration precludes its use as a
separate unit. She also states that the carriage house should not be considered
a second unit since it does not have a separate address and cannot be sold as a
separate unit.
Staff Response: The "living space" on the Broome property meets the District's
definition and was permitted by the County as a second living unit. Neither the
District's nor the County's definitions require that units have a separate address
or that the there be the possibility for separate sale.
• Ms. Broome states that the new carriage house is a replacement for a previous
carport/living unit that had been hooked up to the septic tank system on the
property and should not be subject to connection fees.
Staff Response: Any residential unit, whether new or replacement, is assessed
connection fees when public sewer service is provided to the unit.
Ms. Broome states that neither she nor her designer, Mr. Bruce Mastic, were
informed of the connection fees when applying for the carriage house building
permit and so, the fees should not be assessed.
Staff Response: The following was stated in the final staff decision letter dated
October 30, 2012:
"The District's Permit Counter staff routinely informs applicants for building
permits that all residential units constructed within the District will be assessed
capacity fees and reimbursement fees, if applicable. Our records indicate that
Mr. Bruce Mastic of Mastic Design visited the permit counter on May 11, 2009 to
have his plans for the project stamped prior to submittal to the County Building
Inspection Department for building permit review. At that time, the
Reimbursement Fee would have been recalculated (reduced) to account for the
addition of your second unit and Mr. Mastic would have been informed of the
fees that would be due prior to connection of the new unit, though a written
estimate was not provided. "
W \ENVRSEMPosition Papers \Millier\2013 \1- 10 -13 \PP re Broome Appeal 1 -10 -13 Final.doc Page 3 of 4
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: January 10, 2013
subject. CONDUCT A HEARINGTO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM
THE FINAL STAFF DECISION TO ASSESS A REIMBURSEMENT FEE FOR A
SECOND LIVING UNIT AT 20 CAMINO MONTE SOL, ALAMO (APN 193 - 020 -002);
JOB 5542
Though Ms. Broome disputes that Mr. Mastic was provided information on fees,
there is a note in the Permit Counter record on the date of his visit indicating that
the Reimbursement Fee would be adjusted to account for the change in the
number of RUE to be connected to the sewer. Whether or not Mr. Mastic was
given information about applicable fees or understood that connection fees
would be applied in this case, the fees are nonetheless owed and should be
collected.
Mr. Leo Steffen, the installer of the Job 5542 main sewer extension, has been in
contact with staff requesting that applicable reimbursement fees be collected by the
District and disbursed to him.
All potentially affected property owners were notified of the hearing by U. S. Mail.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Affirm the staff's decision that it is appropriate to
assess a reimbursement fee for the second living unit on the property at 20 Camino
Monte Sol direct that the fee be collected.
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers\Millier\2013 \1- 10 -13 \PP re Broome Appeal 1 -10 -13 Final.doc Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1
Excerpt from CCCSD Code:
DEFINITION OF "SECOND LIVING UNIT"
CCCSD CODE SECTION 6.12.030.A.10:
Residential Unit. A "residential unit" is defined as the unit of measure for the use of any
parcel or portion of a parcel for exclusively residential purposes, which shall include, but
not be limited to, single - family dwellings, each unit of a multiple - family dwelling (such as
apartments, condominiums and townhouses), mobile home residences, and other forms
of property use providing for separate, independent habitation such as in -law units,
household worker quarters or "granny" units.
CCCSD CODE SECTION 6.12.040.D:
Additional Residential Units... In the event a separate additional residential unit is
constructed on a parcel, whether or not in compliance with applicable government
regulations, additional capacity fees for that residential unit shall become due. The
creation of a dwelling space that accommodates an additional separate living area
within a parcel, whether or not said additional separate living area is constructed within
the original building or is a detached building, shall subject the parcel to assessment of
applicable additional residential unit fees. An additional separate living area shall be
defined as an area designed for the purpose of separate habitation that 1) will be, or
can be, physically separated by a wall or door from other residential units on the parcel,
and 2) contains both a bathroom and kitchen, as well as a multipurpose or bedroom
area, and an exterior entrance.
ATTACHMENT 2
Anne C. Broome
20 Camino Monte Sol
Alamo, Ca. 94507
September 19, 2012
Ms. Ann Farrell, General Manager
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, Ca. 94553
RE: CCCSD Broome Pen-nit
I am contacting you for the purpose of requesting a review of the second, proposed
reimbursement cost for the CCCSD permit for a structure constructed on my property in
2010. 1 received and paid an invoice in June 2012 for the application and permit fee in
the amount of $6,015. 1 also received an invoice for reimbursement fees in the amount of
$15,511.53 which I am respectfully requesting you to reevaluate. I apologize for not
being more timely in making this request, but I had surgery on June 25, 2012 from which
I have been recovering and am scheduled to have another surgery September 24, 2012.
By way of background, let me provide you with the following information regarding this
particular structure and my property(Parcel 193 -020 -002 in Alamo). The original
property at 20 Camino Monte Sol was developed approximately fifty -seven years ago and
included a home and carport/living unit which was serviced by a septic tank. My
husband and I purchased the property in 1988 at which time we constructed an addition
to the original house and installed a new state -of -the art septic tank. Our plans at that
time were to eventually replace an existing carport/living unit with a garage containing
overhead living space. We did not pursue the development of the garage until sometime
in the early 2000's. About that time a builder, Leo Steffen, had purchased some acreage
surrounding Camino Monte Sol for residential development. In connection with his
development, he was installing a sewer line on Camino Monte Sol and wanted my
husband and me to connect our property to the sewer line. We were interested in
annexing to the central sewer system, not because of any functional problems with our
septic system or for any cost savings, but rather for a long -term enhancement to our
property. We were told by Leo Steffen that we would be assessed a pro rata charge for
the cost of the sewer construction to our property but were not informed of the actual
amount or the fact that we would be charged by structure rather than on an individual
property basis. We discussed our plans for a garage with a living accommodation with
Leo Steffen during our sewer connection meetings.
My husband unsuccessfully dealt with Leo Steffen on the installation of a sewer
connection for over six years only to have his efforts continually resisted through lack of
cooperation and attempted fraudulent charges on the part of Leo Steffen. During this
time, the costs of a sewer connection continued to increase.
After my husband's death in 2008, I managed to install a sewer line on our property,
using the utility easements which were legally available to me. At the time of the
original sewer installation, (June 2008), the reimbursement costs to Steffen were
approximately $17,000.00. I was led to believe that such a substantial payment would
satisfy our reimbursement commitment to Steffen for our property and that I would not
be required to reimburse him again. Had I known that the reimbursement costs to Steffen
would have been so expensive, I would have retained my septic tank, which was totally
dependable and had never experienced any problems.
In 2010, a garage with an upstairs living accommodation which is defined by CCCSD as
a "second living unit" was constructed as a replacement structure for the original carport
with an attached living unit. The original carport/living unit included a half -bath, kitchen
hook up, washing machine, dryer, complete utilities and was connected to the septic tank.
The new living space over the garage is 647 square feet, slightly smaller than the original
living unit. At the time that the sewer system was constructed on my property in 2008, a
connection for purposes of hooking up this unit was also installed. The camera
photography required by CCCSD for inspection would have clearly shown the stub out
for this building. However, as the building was going to be replaced, no connection to
the sewer line on my property was made at that time. Also, no mention was ever made
by CCCSD that an additional reimbursement fee to Steffen would be charged. Only
ONE lateral has been connected to the sewer system constructed by Steffen on Camino
Monte Sol. I have installed and paid for all other sewer lines up the Camino Monte Sol
roadway to service my property.
I am requesting a review of the proposed additional reimbursement costs to Steffen
assessed on my garage /living accommodation unit as well as the allocation model used to
apportion those costs to my property on Camino Monte Sol. As a retired financial
executive I understand and fully support the necessity of developing allocation policies
and models to facilitate equitable decisions. However, what appears as a fair allocation
model will not and cannot be equitable 100% of the time. 1 submit that my situation is
just such a case. The model being used results in me subsidizing the Steffen
Development. I am being assessed twice for my property, once for my house which is
less than 4000 square feet and a second time for this 647 square foot living space over my
garage which is only used occasionally for guests. Due to the size and configuration of
this space, it cannot be used as "a second living unit ". Also it is a replacement for a
structure which was connected to my sewer system. The proposed cost assessment for
the accommodation over my garage which is connected to the sewer pipes installed by
me on my property is the same as the amounts for the six homes that Steffen build which
range from 6000 to 7500 square feet and sold for approximately $3,000,000 to
$4.400.000. From these sales prices, it is obvious that Steffen has been adequately paid
for his sewer installation and any further reimbursement from me is a subsidy and profit
windfall to him and a Financial hardship on me. The proposed additional reimbursement
charge to me will result in fees to CCCSD for a sewer hook -up in excess of $46.000, and
after consideration of the sewer pipes I installed on the Camino Monte Sol roadway, will
bring my total sewer installation costs to over $70,000. I think that you would agree that
this is a very expensive cost for annexation to CCCSD. I would never have annexed to
the CCCSD had I been made fully aware of the magnitude of the costs
Thank you for considering this request if I can provide any additional information or if
you have any questions about the facts contained in this letter, please call me at 925 -938-
4991.
Sincerely,
G Anne C. Broome
Cc: Jarred Miyamoto- Mills, Environmental Services Division Manager
S.Q.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
January 10, 2013
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
FROM: ELAINE BOEHME, SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICIC—,)O�
CC: ANN FARRELL, GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE FROM ANNE C. BROOME RE ITEM 5.a.
Following is a letter and enclosures received on January 2, 2013 from property owner
Anne C. Broome pertaining to the Item 5.a, the hearing to consider her request for relief
from the final staff decision to assess a reimbursement fee for a second living unit at 20
Camino Monte Sol, Alamo (APN 193 - 020 -002), Job 5542.
DECEIVED
Anne C. Broome JAN 0 2 2013
20 Camino Monte Sol CCCSD- Secretary of the District
Alamo, CA 94507
December 30, 2012
Ms. Elaine R Boehme
Secretary of the District
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553 -4392
Dear Ms. Boehme,
In accordance with your instructions, enclosed is a copy of the material I intend to
discuss at the January 10, 2013 CCCSD board meeting. I am assuming that you will
provide a copy to the appropriate board and staff members.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
wzo.'O�-- &600�
Anne C. Broome
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Board Meeting
January 10, 2013
Fee Abatement Request
(Parcel 193 -020 -002, Alamo)
I. Aerial Views — Camino Monte Sol
II. Background Information
III. No notification of two reimbursements to Leo Steffen
IV. Fairness of Allocation Model
Wi
AK
POW'
W-
6�p eMOM GOO& -
L"Will
lot-
C-09*
fit
m
II. Background Information
1988
1989
• Purchase of parcel 193 - 020 -002 in Alamo by Broome family
• Property included 2,400 square foot home and a carport with living unit
and storage
• Both home and carport/living unit connected to septic tank.
• Remodel of existing home and installation on replacement state -of -the -art
septic tank to service both structures on property. Plans to replace
carport/living unit deferred.
Mid -1900s
• Approached and requested by Leo Steffen to hook up to his proposed
2010
sewer system on Camino Monte Sol. Steffen fully aware of plans to
replace carport with a garage with living unit. Informed us we would be
required to make one reimbursement to him for out total property.
• Dealt with Steffen for approximately 6 years attempting to connect with
sewer on Camino Monte Sol.
• Broome property connected to sewer system on Camino Monte Sol.
Broome installed sewer pipes on Camino Monte Sol to home and
connected to sewer system through one lateral. Reimbursement in excess
of $17,000 made to Steffen at that time.
• Camera inspection of Broome sewer installation required by CCCSD in
2010 which clearly showed connection for either existing or future living
unit.
V>
III. No Notification by CCCSD of two reimbursements to Leo Steffen.
• No notification was ever given either orally or in writing to either Broome
or designated architect, Bruce Mastic; that two reimbursements to Steffen
would be required for property as a result of replacing carport/living unit.
• Bruce Mastic was orally informed that an additional sewer hook -up fee
would be required. No estimate was provided either orally or in writing.
• Additional reimbursement fee would bring my total sewer installation
costs to over $70,000
IV. Fairness of Allocation Model
Allocation Model used by CCCSD is not equitable in this situation:
Total allowable cost of main sewer extension
Divided by total number of residential units
that may be connected
• Garage with 647 square feet of living space is not a residential unit.
• 647 square feet living unit is being allocated same cost as 7,500 square
feet homes built on Camino Monte Sol by Steffen.
• Garage /living unit located on same parcel of land as my house, it is
utilized by me, cannot be sold as a separate living unit, and cannot be
subdivided
• Garage with 647 square feet of living space is a replacement for a larger
carport/living unit which was previously hooked up to my septic system
ap d 4 #4i &(d
Af (e sC1L
e,
�v Tti
IV/
All
ar
a AO
AV, Nr�
saL
s
a�
s o�
�d
dpo/ //,D
�DNr�
�D�