Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07082003 - C121 C.121 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 8, 2003, by the Following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Uilkema, and Glover NOES: None ABSENT: DeSaulnier ABSTAIN: None ACCEPTED correspondence from Richard and Nancy Montgomery, (Appellants) Salisbury Island and REFERRED to Building Inspection for response. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested:July 8,2003 John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board ervisors and County dniinistrator By s Deputy Cie _.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................_. .... ........ ...............__....._................_........_.......__........_.. ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... 06124/2003 08:17 408-3534931 MONTGOMERY PAGE 01 amb N Mont#OM81rV Inc. ir{ai AAW4 OWLos c"CA 9M3 rbc 40 JW4W f-X 44 W40 June 20,2003 Via FAX and Hand Dchym To: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Mr.Mark DeSaulnier,Chair Mr. John Gioia -- - Ms.Gayle Uilkema Mr.Federal Glover From: Nancy and Richard Montgomery Appellants Salisbury Island Abatement on June 17,2003 Subject: back of Procedural Due Process We have several concerns about the process that occurred on 6-17-03. We will be brief as we have not yet had the opportunity to review the entire transcript. Nasty and Richard Montgomery ■ We are appellants! • We wade it clean in documentation that we are currently not members of the Salisbury Island Corporation and they did not represent our interests. • We provided documentation that showed that we have a recorded undivided interest in the ownership of Salisbury Island. • We were given 3 minutes to make an initial presentation while the attorney who represented a group from Salisbury Island was given 5 minutes and the County Building Department,et al.,was given unlimited time. • Salisbury Island and the County Building/Planning Departments were given the opportunity to answer questions and make further comment while we were denied a similar opportunity in spite of making an attempt to do so. ■ Supervisor Uilkema asked Salisbury Island if "you are willing to not use the property if we let you continue to work +with,the County?" No definitive answer was given by Salisbury Island while our proposal (Appellant Nancy and Richard Montgomery) clearly included exactly this remedy. Had we been given the same opportunity as appellant Salisbury Island, our answer would have been a resounding, "YES, without question!" Our appeal clearly states that we believe that we can provide an acceptable use, have made several attempts to do so, and have been stonewalled at every turn by both planning and building. At the very least, we should be afforded the opportunity to attempt to make it right and to comply. Contra Costa County Building Department,et.al, 06/24/2093 a8:17 488-3534931 MONTGOMERY PAGE 02 • County had unlimited time to present their case. In trial, this is akin to giving the County Deputy District Attorney unlimited time to present her case while allowing the defense threes minutes and no chance to make his closing remarks or rebut testimony. s Mr. Baltodano stated that Salisbury Island is dumping human waste into the waters of the Delta. While Salisbury Island is guilty of not having permitted septic systems there is absolutely no evidence of discharge or contamination:. His statements are inappropriate without a presentation of corroborating data. This highly inflammatory statement was allowed to stand without allowing appellant Nancy and Richard Montgomery an opportunity to rebut. a Mr. Barry continuously referred to our vacation cabin (no stove, no bedroom, used 5-7 weekends per year)as a residence. When asked by Supervisor Uilkerna for a definition of residence, he answered by stating something akin to "If it has the characteristics of a residence, it's a residence." Instead, Mr. Barry should have presented the Board of Supervisors with the Contra Costa Ordinance Code defining the characteristics of a residence. In our opinion, he did not because such a definition does not exist, or this definition would have indicated that our vacation cabin was not a residence and a majority of the 106 violations would have evaporated into thin air. This statement is based, in part, on the fact that every General Platt violation, every required General Plan Amendment or Urban ,Litre Limit issue, and every Subdivision Map Act violation is based on the definition of our vacation cabin being called, a residence. We would have expected,at the very least,to have the opportunity to respond. • Mr. Baltodano stated that our water system created a health risk. We agree that the water system is not permitted, however, we (Appellants Nancy and Richard Montgomery) have precautionary water tests showing that our water is potable, although we continue to utilize bottled water for drinking. In fact, we have used the same California State Approved Water System that Contra Costa County utilizes for water treatment at Del Valle Park/Reservoir for employees and guests. Ghee again we were denied the opportunity to rebut. • When asked by a Board Member, Mr. Barry stated that there was only one owner of the Island, the Salisbury Island Corporation. Yet, he has been informed on several occasions that we (Appellants Nancy and Richard Montgomery) have a recorded undivided ownership of a small interest in Salisbury Island. He provided no evidence that we are incorrect in this assertion and we had no opportunity to respond. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors • Supervisors Gioia, Uilkenna, and DeSaulnier receive goad marks for their attempts to understand the issues and for asking relevant questions of staff. ■ Supervisor Glover was a disappointment due to his inattention, his absence for part of the appellants presentation, for his inappropriate use of language, and for what appears to be a prejudice affecting his judgment in this important matter. We feed that Contra Costa County has denied appellant Nancy and Richard Montgomery the opportunity to have equal and fair procedural due process. We request a timely response.