Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08052003 - D.1 DA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date: August 5, 2003 Public Comment On this date, the Chair called for public comment. The following persons presented testimony: Nancy Montgomery, 15781 Adams Roads, Los Gatos,regarding unlawful entry; Marr Stafford, 3378 Revere Avenue, Oakland, regarding Buchanan Field; Dr. Bert Gilling, 61 Ridgecrest Court, Lafayette regarding Buchanan Airport; Harvard Holmes, 946 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, regarding Buchanan Airport; Dianne Cole, 2420 Tomar Court,Pinole,regarding Buchanan Airport; Don Mount, 1309 Grazz Lane, Concord, regarding Buchanan Airport; Betty Dunn, 3716 Lindero Drive, Concord, regarding Buchanan Airport; Ralph Davis, 104 Poppy Court, Walnut Creek, regarding Buchanan Airport; Russell Roe, 2121 Walnut Street,Martinez,regarding Buchanan Airport; Randy Alley, 3954 Royal Arch Drive, Concord; Reith Martz, 22 Shady Lane Court,Walnut Creek,regarding Buchanan Airport; Prided Poniard, 1751 Mesa Court, Hercules,regarding Buchanan Airport; Jane Overton, 141 Golf Club Road,Pleasant Hill,regarding Buchanan Airport; Ren Whitham, 311 David Drive, Alamo, regarding Buchanan Airport; Anthony R. Tiritilli, 423 Scottsdale Road, Pleasant Hill,regarding Buchanan Airport; THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO ACTION WAS TAKEN REQUEST >TO SPBAK FORK {'TBR:LE (:3) MINUTE LIMIT} Completethis farm and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name* Phone. Address: � � � � city: � Y I am speaking fo myself or organization: (nam of organization) CRECI ONE: I wish to speak can Agenda item # Date: � My comments will be: general for against �'f.. I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider; EFEf t q5 RECEIVED N. Montgomery Inc. AUG 0 5 2003 15781 Adams Ridge CLELos Gatos, CA 95033 _p ST 0 b'tSc S (408) 353-4249 FAX (408) 353-4931 coON-RACOSTAC), August 4,2403 To: Mr. Michael Angelo Silva,Chief Property Conservation Division cc. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors -. V111 I From., Nancy and Richard Montgomery, Appellant Salisbury Island Property Subject: Further Clarification 5�1 Alt- This is a follow up to our phone conversation on July 31,2403 and August 4, 2003. Purchase 1. In 1997, Richard and Nancy Montgomery(buyers)purchased part interest/ownership of Salisbury Island,improvements known as#17 and a membership in the Salisbury island Corporation. 2. In 1998, we purchased more land that was to be added to our previously purchased lot. 3. Sellers were Ronald and.Julie Ketler(trustees of Lighthouse Trust owners of record of the only recognized structure and Salisbury Island). 4. These documents(contract of sale)were notarized and recorded with Contra Costa County. 5. Ronald and Julie leder sold the remainder of Salisbury Island to the SIM Corporation in 2000. Research Prior To Purchase 1. Prior to committing to the purchase contract in 1997 and again in 2003,we researched.the Contra Costa County Building Department archives. 2. We found no records or history of permits or violations on the property. 3. We determined that it was likely that the 644 sq.ft.cabin had been built with or without permits and that there were no other issues. 4. We searched county records for tax information and determinedthat the assessors office had documented and acknowledged our structure and had assigned a tax base assessment for the land and the improvements. 5. We did a title search to determine the status of title and ownership. 6. At that point, we made the decision to proceed with the purchase. 7. Subsequent research outside of county building department records showed significant written communication between Contra Costa County and Salisbury Island regarding violations and possible abatement in 1992-1994. Much to our dismay,Contra Costa County has suggested that it misplaced these important files in a bureaucratic reorganization. Violations 2002 1. In 2002, five years after our decision to invest in Contra Costa County,the Building Department again contacted Salisbury Island with the same unrecorded violations that were of concern 10 years earlier. 2. As owners of our property and no longer members of the Salisbury Island Corporation,we made an attempt to apply for a use permit. 3. Since making that initial attempt,we have been significantly delayed and stonewalled. 4. On June 16, 2003,the afternoon before our abatement appeal before the Board of Supervisors,we received a fax from Mr. Robert Drake stating that the planning department was not convinced that we were owners of the property, once again grinding the process to a dead stop. 5. This draconian action gave us less than 24 hours to demonstrate that we were a qualified applicant as defined by the zoning code and then apply for a legitimate use permit to show that we were making progress toward compliance as requested by county officials. 6. We believe that we did provide all of the documents necessary to show a "possessionary"interest in Salisbury Island. 7. If Contra Costa County Community Development has reason or fact that invalidates this contract of sale, we demand that this information immediately be disclosed. 8. If this is not the case,we have not been given even a fair opportunity to present our position. The Appeal 1. On June 17, 2003, we appeared before the Board of Supervisors as appellants. 2. We were given less time to present than other appellants 3. We were given no opportunity to rebut county testimony or to summarize our position while at least one other appellant was afforded this opportunity. 4. We paid the same fees as other appellants and were assured that we would be afforded the same right to procedural due process under the law as all other appellants. The Break In 1. On August 1,2403, Mr. fired Wright of the Contra Costa County Building Department entered our property(structure)to facilitate an asbestos test. 2. He was informed by a member of Salisbury Island Board of Directors,prior to entering, that permission had not been given to enter by the owners. 3. We had informed, via e-mail and phone messages,Mr. Silva and Mr. Reinthaler (county), Mr. Martin Lysons(SIM attorney), and Mr. Lamont Goldstein(SIM Board)that less than 24 hours notice was not enough time for us to make our property available for entry and that no individual was to enter without our presence. 4. Mr. Wright entered our property through an upstairs window in violation of county law and policy without permission or a court order. 5. We held Contra Costa County to the same standards that would be expected of us. Our Rights Guaranteed by the Law I. At the very least,we expect that Contra Costa County would allow us the opportunity and time to find an equitable solution to the issues that are before us since we have a shared responsibility in this negligence leading to this disagreement. 2. We believe that our civil rights have been violated by the actions of Contra.Costa County in this matter. 3. While we have continued in our attempts to cooperate with Contra Costa County, we refuse to be intimidated and will not allow our rights under the law to be violated. REQUEST TO SPEAK E`ORX (THREE (3) MINUTE LIXIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers^`— � rostrum before addressing the Beard. s Name: 'Y� r N( YI l ; Phone. �. Address: cCrr City: - 7 I am speaking for myselfor organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: ' I wish to speak on Agenda Item # 2 Date: My comments will be: generalforr against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: A Physician's Perspective: The Healthcare Implications of Closing Concord Airport by Bert N. Gilling, M.D. I am a medical doctor and have practiced at Mt. Diablo Hospital and Medical Center for 22 years. I would life to describe some of the ways Concord Airport plays an important role in relation to the healthcare of the people in Contra Costa and surrounding Counties. Mt. Diablo Hospital has received an award as one of the"Best 100 Hospitals in the U.S. for Cardiac Care" and has been designated the receiving hospital for the Cardiac Emergency Network in this region. Mt. Diablo Hospital is unable to build a helicopter pad due to the elevated BART"tracks just behind the hospital. When patients in this area of Northern California have emergency cardiac events such as cardiac arrest,heart attack, or unstable angina, they can be quickly transported by air to Concord Airport and then by ambulance to nearby Mt. Diablo Hospital for medical treatment or emergency open heart surgery. The time between onset of symptoms and initiation of treatment is a major determinant of survivability. Mt. Diablo Hospital also depends on Concord Airport for the transfers of critically ill patients to university hospitals. A recent example is the 5 year old girl who was admitted to our Emergency Room and quickly diagnosed with liver lacerations and a ruptured spleen from trauma. The Emergency Department physicians determined that UC Davis was the best hospital for her ongoing treatment and arranged to have her sent there by air ambulance from Concord Airport to minimize the time she was vulnerable to the life- threatening hemorrhage from these two organs. She is alive today because of the ability to get her to UC Davis promptly due to our nearby airport. Mt. Diablo Hospital also relies on Concord Airport for transfers of medical devices critical to the completion a surgical procedure already in progress. Only after a surgical procedure is well under way is the need sometimes discovered for an unusual heart valve, hip joint prosthesis, or other implantable medical device. We are able to arrange for the immediate transfer of these devices from Stanford and other university hospitals while the patient remains under anesthesia and the surgical preparation for the implantation of the device continues because the proximity of Mt. Diablo Hospital to Concord Airport. The quality and types of medical care we are currently giving would be truly compromised if our airport were closed. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .° Contra FROM: MAUR.ICE M. SHIU, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR � tee ( DATE: AUGUST 5, 2003 «_ County SUBJECT: Accept the Public Works Director's background and status report regarding the east air ort hap ars at Buchanan Field Airport,Pacheco SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND ARID JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: ACCEPT the Public Works Director's background and status report regarding the cast airport hangars at Buchanan Field Airport Pacheco area. (District IV) TI. Financial Impact: No financial impact. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: 1 COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE PROVE OTHER SIGNATURES . r zala,14� ACTION OF BO ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AYES:_NOES: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action ABSENT: ABS'T'AIN: taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. KF:df C:\Word Files\BO\2003\boS-5-03 Hangars Background.doc ATTESTED: Orig.Div: Public Works(Airport) JOIN SWEETEN,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Contact: (Keith Freitas 646•-5722) Administrator cc: CountyAdininistrattr M.Shin,Public Works Director J.Bueren,Deputy Public Works Director Accounting By ,Deputy SUBJECT: Accept the Public Works Director's background and status report regarding the east airport hangars at Buchanan Field Airport, Pacheco DATE: August 5, 2003 PAGE: 2 IIT. Reasons for Recommendations and Backiround: During the July 22, 2003, Board meeting the District TJ Supervisor requested a staff report regarding the history of the East Hangars at Buchanan Field Airport. This request was in response to comments made by a member of the public on this matter. On September 1, 1970,Buchanan Airport Hangar Company entered into a 30-year lease with Contra Costa County for the construction of seventy-five(75)hangars and eighteen(18)aircraft shelters at Buchanan Field Airport, Buchanan Airport Hangar Company was responsible for the maintenance and administration of the property during that 30-year period. In September of 2000, Contra Costa County was to obtain ownership of the aircraft hangars and shelters, pursuant to the terms of the above lease. In preparation for this,Airport staff completed the following tasks: • July 2000 Conducted several days of exterior inspection of the East Ramp Hangars to determine if any repairs to the facility would be required. • August 2000 Initiated the development of a new Hangar Rental Agreement. Notified East Hangar tenants regarding the impending transfer of ownership from the Buchanan Airport Hangar Company,LLC to Contra Costa.County. Directed Buchanan Airport Hangar Company,LLC,to complete certain items prior to the transfer of ownership. On September 1,2000,ownership of the aircraft hangars transferred to the County. In October 2000,Airport staff met with hangar tenants to answer specific questions they had regarding the transition and our need to inspect the interior of the hangars to complete the transfer process. Between November 2000 and December 2001, two inspections of the hangar interiors were made and negotiations were conducted with Buchanan Hangar Company regarding remedial actions. During that time, the then Airport Director decided not to pursue execution of the new rental agreements pending our negotiations with Buchanan Airport Hangar Company. In May 2002, Public Works directed the Airport Director to initiate the process to execute the new rental agreement with the tenants and to initiate the process to rent the vacant hangers. Up to that point,the rental agreement had not been shared with the tenants. When the tenants received the agreement,they were not receptive. A"Coalition of Hangar Tenants"was formed.The Airport Director was asked to begin negotiations with the Coalition regarding an agreement that would meet the needs of both parties. SUBJECT: Accept the Public Works Director's background and status report regarding the east airport hangars at Buchanan Field Airport, Pacheco DATE: August 5, 2003 PAGE: 3 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background (continued): In November 2002,the Coalition provided to Airport staff a proposed rental agreement. During that time, the number of vacant hangars had grown from six (6) as of December 31, 2000, to twelve (12) as of December 31,2001,to twenty-four(24) as of December 31, 2002. At the same time,there were over 100 names on the waiting list for the hangars. The Airport staff met with the Coalition in January to advise that since we were not close to completing negotiations on a new rental agreement,the Airport wished to begin renting the vacant hangars using a temporary agreement. The Coalition representatives agreed to this action. It was also agreed that upon acceptance of a new rental agreement, the temporary agreements would be cancelled and ALL hangar tenants would be required to sign the new agreement. On July 22, 2003, the Public Works Department requested the Board of Supervisors to authorize the temporary hangar agreements with 15 tenants. The Board of Supervisors approved that request,allowing the Airport to move ahead with the renting of 15 vacant hangars. It is likely that the Public Works Department will request that additional temporary agreements be approved to fill the remaining vacant hangars. In the meantime, Airport Division staff and current hangar tenants continue to negotiate revisions to the rental agreement form. After an agreement has been reached on a new rental agreement form, the Board will be asked to approve new agreements with all of the hangar tenants. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: None.