HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01101984 - 1.36 • CLAIM
BOAR OF _U OF CMTTRA COSTA C=T, CALIFMOTLA BOAR ACTION
January 10, 1984
Claim Against the County, ) N= 10 CZA7r�l4I1T
pouting Endorsements, and ) The copy of this document mailedm you is your
Board Action. (All Section ) notice of the action taken on yowr claim by the
references are to California ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below),
saver ment Code.) ) given p vuant to Goveninent Code Sections 913
i 915.4. Please note the "Warning" below.
Claimant: ' Wes Jordan
County Counsel
Attorneys John S . Sargetis
Attorney -at Law, DEC 0 8 1983_
Address: 7700 College Town Drive, Suite 205 Maftinei. CA 9553
Sacramento, CA 95826
A=unt: $15 ,000. 00
p iv ; December 6, 1983 BY delivery to Clerk on
By mail, postmarked on 12 _�
I. FWM: k of the Board of Sgier•visors 70: county Counsel
Attached is a copy of the abZnot
ClaimDATID: 12/6/83 J.R. CLSSCIN, k, By , Deputy
C7
y X. Uaihoun
II. FROM: County Cb T0: MEE of the Board of Supervisors
(Check one only)
�) ??Lis Claim corp3 les substantial y with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This Claim, FAILS to damply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we
are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8) .
( ) Claim is not tizTely filed. Board should reject claim on ground that it was
filed late. (5911.2)
DAZED: JOHN B. C3AUSEN, Cmmty counsel, By_ 1z, , Deputy
III. BOARD OAR By umnurous vote of Snperv3.sors present
(� ) This claim is rejected in full.
( ) ?his claim is rejected in full because it was not presented within the time
allowed by law.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entere6
in its minutes for this date.
ELATED: qk 4 J.R. GQ.S.SON, Clerk, by , Deputy
MATOIIra (aw't. C. 5913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from
the date this notice waa persopally delivered or deposited in the mail to
files court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of any attorney of your choice In ooau:ection
with this matter. If you want to ooa>isult an attorney, you should do so
immediately.
FlmM: Clerk of W board ?0: County Counsel,, County _
Attached are copies of the above Claim. ilk notified the claimant of the
Board's action on this Claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a
memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this
Claim in accordanoe with Section 29703.
nATm: o r 9 q J. R. aerssoN, c2mezdc,
Clerk F I L E
' 1 TO: Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
2 Public Entity Claims Department DEC --' 1983
Martinez, California 94558
3J R. OISSONS
CLERK ARD OF PERVISORS
4 B �(rFt � u
5 WES JORDAN hereby makes claim against:
6 Contra Costa County
7 for the sum of $15, 000 . 00 and makes the following statements in
8 support of the claim:
9 1) Claimant' s address is 142 Greenwood Circle, Walnut
10 Creek, California 94596.
11 2) Notices concerning the claim should be sent to
12 JOHN S. SARGETIS, Attorney at Law, 7700 College Town Drive, Suite
13 205, Sacramento, California 95826 .
14 3) The date and place of the occurrence giving rise to
15 this claim are September 24 , 1983 in the City of Walnut Creek on
16 the bicycle and pedestrian trail alongside the water canal near
17 Treat Boulevard and approximately 200 yards east of Cherry Lane
18 on the trail.
19 41 The -circumstamcPs giving .,rise* to this claim are as
20 follows: At the above place on said date, claimant was riding
21 his bicycle in a westerly direction along the trail which was in
22 a dangerous condition due to depressed area .in the pavement. The
23 area that was depressed had previously contained some type of
24 post which apparently had been removed and the hole filled over
25 but the hole had naturally settled and had not been repaved tQ
26 make it level with the trail' s roadway. Due to this dangerous
27 condition, the claimant lost control of his bicycle as the wheels
28 of his bicycle went over the hole .in the roadway and causing him
196
I to strike a post that was in the middle of the roadway a short
2 distance beyond the hole causing him to fall resulting in serious
3 injuries .
4 5) Claimant's injuries are a bruised . left leg, . bruised
5 hip, bruised left shoulder and bruised head along with pain and
6 isuffering and damage to his bicycle.
7 6 ) The names of the public employees causing the
8 claimant' s injuries are unknown.
9 7 ) The claim as of the date of this claim is $15, 000. 00 .
10 8 ) The basis of computation of the above amount is as
11 follows : Medical expenses incurred to date: $316 . 25.
12 General damages: $14 ,683 . 75
1?
14
15 Dated: November 30, 1983
JOHN SA4RGETIS
16 Attorney for Claimant
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 z
26
27
28
-2- 1.9'7
Board Action :
CLAM Jan. 10, 1984
BOARD CF SM cr caffw CALIFCIMM
9nd as Ex 9fficio of the Governing Boara or Lae UonUr47osta, County Flood Control
and Wa'cer Conservation District.-
Claim Against the County, or District ) ND►iP10E TO CZADSM
governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copys tma ed to you is your
Routing Endorsements, and Hoard. ) notice of the action taken an your claim by the
Action. All Section references are ) Hoard of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below),
to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913
Claimant: Jack Stangel
and 915.4. Please rote all "Warnings".
Attorney: Francis X. Driscoll , Esq.
1990 N. California Blvd. , Suite 802
Address: Walnut Creek, CA 94507
Amount: $15-U, 000 : By delivery to clerk on
Date Received: -December 14 , 1983. By mail, postmarked on December 12 , 1983
I. FIM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 70: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
Dated: 12/14/83 J.R. 0[SSON, Clerk, ByDeputy
4y a oun
II. FROM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the Board of Supmvisors
(Check only one)
(,X) This claim ]pies substant4aljy with Sectio 90 and 910.?�.a fou^m s ° d k�e� ,e
r ax g�Yo e, r c i it I'Yi w �,c air r o ! n e c +�1
( ) !is Clavi wtooci"nply�su`�s�lant3�al�ly wit tions"410 0�2, anci we are
so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
(> ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on ground that it Was filed
late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late
claim (Section 911.3) a5 o } o d FM rel& oeec-+ o r%s �v_C rv-.o�� +i,,.0-,n
yy t 0 r i o f 1^e '� (i✓l G{ 'E'�i 5 'U a-�+vv►= Y ,GL a S all o� CXZ4� s W c/�
( X) Other: ax•o s�/— ��t 1J 0.�v1� i�1 b /d� uta_ S �Y t o r k� iia- 'C U4.0 n•� Via. C�CL�.vt�
ndr� LlR lIQ a rf &y/ -HA 4T,,uoL rlAAaM S Deputy
yL,y.
DIATID: ► � _<24 , BY:�;�� �,
i �_i
Counsel
III. .PROM: Clerk of the Board ZO: (1) County Damsel, (2) County Administrator
(X ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). Applies to
claim of damage to real property arising more than 1 year prior to the filing of
this claim & as to all other claims wFicF arose more than 100 days prior to--=i ing
or laim
IV. BOARD CRDEtt By unanimous vote of Supervisors-present
( ) This claim is rejected in full.
( X) Other:This claim is rejected as to the damage to real property occurring
within 1 year prior to the filing of the claim & as to all other claims
arising within 100 days prior to the filing of the claim.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy f the Board's order entered in its
mi utes for this date.
Dated: �(9 t J. R. CESSCN, Clerk, By , Deputy Clerk
JIM (Gov. Code Section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this
notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this
claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this
matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
V. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator
Attached are copies of the above claim. We notified the claimant of the Board's
action on this claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a mem thereof has been filed
and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in a000rdanoe with Section 29703.
(�) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim was mailed
claimant.
DATED: v 9 J. R. M SSCN, Clerk, By . Deputy Clerk
cc: County Administrator (1) County Counsel (2) n
2
CLAIM
The Board of Supervt., rs Cwtra �C°�
Ex 011rjo Clerk of the board
aim i'""M'"
County Administration Building C)sta Chief Clerk
P.O. Bux 911 �ry ��ry}� pts)M-2371
Martinez, California 94553 Cvu' "�
Tom Fts"M 181 District
i Wry C.Fandsn,2nd District
J1~1.teModer.3rd District
iunne Wright Neftek,4th District
Tom Todsiumm,5th District
TO: Jack Stang6l
C/o Francis X. Driscoll, Esq.
1990- N. California Blvd. , Suite 802
Walnut Creek, CA. 94507
NOTICE TO CLATKW
(0T'—Late4'11P—c1—a-,m)
(Government Code Section 911.3)
(X) The claim you presented to the Board of Supervisors of
Contra Costa County, California, as governing body of the
• County of Contra Costa
and/or
Contra Costa County Flood Control
�X and Water Conservation District,
on December 12 , 1983 is being returned to you herewith
because t Was rat present thin 100 days after the event or
occurrence as required by law. (See Sections 901 and 911.2 of
the Government Code.) Because the claim Was not presented
within the time allowed by law, no action Was taken on the
claim.
Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay
to the Board of Supervisors (in its capacity noted above) for
leave to present a late claim. (See Sections 911.4 to 912.2,
inclusive, and Section 946.6 of the Government Code.) Under
some circuastanoes, leave to present a late claim will be
granted. (See Section 911.6 of the Government Code.)
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in
connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attoar—
ney, you should do so immediately.
70 BE FILLED IN BY TM CiEFR OF WE BOM CNLY IF APPUCABLE:
Since a portion of your claim is not untimely, we are
retaining a copy of your claim for Board action on that portion
of your claim Which is not untimely. .
J. R MMMt Canty Clerk
' By. v4d�� PL�Z��
Deputy Clerk
Date: January 13, 1984
288
...�...'__.. _ _+*,<..,r„R+�!�„gn;,s+rw-.r-.e-,",T--c+r"R,=..'-.'w-.wrsl+'T-'ner+i^Fc.--x.,.s ... x�, �+�v«r:+rs:^.�:�,s•r rm --�',?`- .,".� r'r,.:w•e- ,,. ,^..,. ....
NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY
AND/OR
NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM
TO: Francis X. Driscoll, Esq.
1990 N. California Blvd. , Suite 802
Walnut Creek, CA 94507
Re: Claim of Jack Stangel
Please Take Notice as follows :
The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa fails to
comply . substantially with the requirements of California Government `
Code Sectiors 910 and 910. 2, or is otherwise insufficient for the
reasons checked below, or will not be accepted for filing for the
reasons checked below.
1. The claim fails to state a cause of action against the County
of Contra Costa or any employee thereof.
XX 2. The claim was not presented within the time limits prescribed
in California Government Code Section 911.2. -- (cont. at #9 below)
3. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of
the claimant.
4 . The claim fails to state the post office address to which
the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent .
5. The claim fails to state the date, place or other circum-
stances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise
to the claim asserted.
6 . The claim fails to state the name( s ) of the public employee(s)
causing the injury, damage , or loss, if known.
7 . The claim fails to state the amount claimed as of the date
of presentation , the estimated amount of any prospective
injury, damage , or loss so far as known, or the basis of
computation of the amount claimed.
8. The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person
on his behalf.
X_ 9 . Other: (cont. : from 42 above) - -as to claims of damage to real
property occurring more than l year prior to the filing of the claim and as
to aii other c aims arising more laim.
JOHN B. CLAUSEN, Countyq� Counsel
By:
Depup County Counsel
CERTIFICATE OF SFRVICF BY MAIL
(C.C.P. §§1012 , 1013a, 2015. 5 ; Evid. C. §§641, 664)
My business address is the County Counsel 's Office of Contra Costa
County, Co. Admin. Bldg. , P. 0. Box 69 , ;Martinez, California 94553 , and
I am a citizen of the United States , over 18 years of age, employed in
Contra Costa County, and not a party to this action. I served a true
copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-Acceptance of Claim by
placing it in an envelope(s) addressed as shown above (which is/are
place(s) having delivery service by U.S. Mail) , which envelope(s) was
then sealed and posta;,e fully prepaid thereon, and thereafter was , on
this day deposited in the U.S . Mail at Martinez/Concord; Contra Costa
County, California.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct .
Dated: December 15, 1983 , at Martinez , California.
cc : Clerk of Board of Supervisors (origin
Administrator
CC-33 : 200: 3/78
(NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM; GOVT. C. §§910, 910. 2 , 91004 , 910 .8)
4 2 P.9
FRANCIS X. DRISCOLL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1990 X. CALIFORrIA SLPD. I L E
WALNIIT CREEK. CA. 94596
SIIITE 802
(415) 944-9303 UEv// 1983'
DATE: December 9, 1983 nE a R. a Peaviso
Chairman
TO: County Costra County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF JACK STANGEL
ENCLOSURES: NOTICE OF CLAIM
These are furnished for the purpose designated below:
( ) Your signing and returning the enclosures in the enclosed envelope.
O Filing
( ) Issuance of Process.
00 Filing and returning of the endorsed-filed copies in the stamped, self-addressed
envelope provi ded.
( ) Recording and returning to the undersigned.
( ) For your records and information.
( ) My check (in the amount of) (not to exceed) $ to cover costs/fees.
Kindly return your receipt.
( ) Other:
Very truly yours,
Ann M. Nguyen
Secretary to DRISCOLL & SEN
Enclosure
290
k� lt4� � K � _ I•
�tirt -
1 property mentioned herein has incurred damakes in the amount of $35,000.00 due to
2 depreciation and approximately $15,000.00 in the cost of repairs needed to restore the
3 property to its' original :condition prior to the flood damage. Additionally, claimant
4 and his family have been subjected to severe mental anguish, distress and fear, for
5 which they claim $100,000.00 in compensatory damages.
6 6. Claimant is ignorant of the true names and capacities of employee or
7 employees of respondent public agencies responsible for causing the injury and damage
to claimant's property, and therefore presents this claim against such' employee or
9 employees by the fictitious names of DOES ONE through TEN inclusive. . Claimant
10 win amend this claim to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
11 7. At the time of presentation of this claim, claimant is informed and
12 believes and alleges thereon that his property and his family may suffer additional
13 damages in the future, exact amount of which is not known to claimant at this time.
14 Leave is requested to amend this claim when the extent of such damages is known.
. 15
Dated: December 8, 1983oa, ttA K l'e
4j,
FRANCIS R L
Attorney for Claimant
17
18
19
21
22
'23
24
25
26
27
28
291
-5- .
1 The silt level in the geek behind claimant's house has risen in 1/82/1983 to
2 about 2 feet from the top of the bank, but there was no one from the County checking
3 to see how the increased volume from upstream was affecting the creek.
4 After a heavy flooding on January of 1983, which came through the house,
5 claimant called the Flood Control people and demanded help for his property, and was
6 told that they would send a man to look at it. Their man only looked at the creek
7 where it emptied into the pipe at the old S.P. tracks and said he had removed a couple
8 of posts.
9 On the weekend of October 1-3, 1983, the area received its first winter rain.
10 Claimant's property was again taking water into the backyard.
11 Claimant called the County the next week and demanded an appraisal of what
1.2 they were going to do. Initially, they sent out a maintenance man who represented
- 13 the Flood Control office. He informed the claimant that the creek was okay. When
14 claimant asked for a written statement that the creek was okay and no flooding to
15 his property should occur, he was told that they couldn't give such a report, and that
16 the creek work they were supposed to do (viz, cutting weeds) was not the solution.
17 The creek, according to the maintenance man, needed to be de-silted or dredged out.
1$ Milton Kubicek, Deputy Director, Operations and Flood Control, came to claim
.19 ant's house and looked at the creek bed. When he saw how the two pipes, the first
20 developer had put in, were completely covered by silt, and the situation downstream,
21 he offered the following solution:
22 "De-silt and dredge the creek to prevent flooding."
23 On or about the first week of November, 1983, County workers came in and
24 dredged the creek to a level of about 5 feet deep.
.25 Mr. Kubicek admitted that he personally had recommended that the County
26 underground the creek in 1983, but was voted down by the FIood Board of Supervisors,
27 who wanted to spend $75,000 somewhere downstream from the property in Alamo.
28 5. So far as it is known to claimant at the date of filing this claim, claimant's
292
1 told that the ditch was not considered high enough priority, but that the deposit money
2 for fixing the pipe under the track was being held in escrow. While all this was going
3 on, the problem of water backing up from the small opening at the S.P. tracks was
4 helping to build up the silt Ievel progressively.
5 On or about January, 1982, or late 1981, the Alamo Shopping Center developers
6 contracted to build an office building complex which was to be built on the area where
7 the S.P. track and sewer pipe were located.
8 The County placed a large concrete sewer collector at the .point of connection
9 with the creek and large 4-foot concrete pipes were connected and dug underground
10 east of the S.P. track and below the parking lot of the office building complex.
11 At that time, claimant talked to the contractor who was on site at the creek
12 location. The contractor said that the work was prompted by the office building
13 complex and that the builder of the new office building, to his knowledge, was paying
14 the tab. When asked if the contractor was requested to bid on running the concrete
15 pipes west upstream to relieve the creek problems, he said no bids were made.
Y6 Claimant then called the County again and asked why the homeowners in that
17 area weren't asked to be involved in supporting a concrete pipe from the tracks
i8 westward, indicating that the creek. was silting up and would need help. Claimant was
19 told it wasn't high enough priority. When claimant asked about the thousands of dollars
20 in escrow for fixing the track that was provided for in allowing the first developer
21 to dump more water into the creek, he was told that the money was still in escrow.
22 The County additionally, in 1982/1983, placed a new concrete sewer collector
23 at the west end of the creek (upstream) without any notification to the downstream
24 property holders or without accurately assessing the impact of the addtional water
25 flowing downstream therefrom. Claimant was terribly distrubed that the County had
26 put the new sewer installation upstream next to his home, thereby causing an enormous
27 volume of water coming downstream. He was concerned because it
was cutting away
28 his bank in the back of his property.
r.:
1 and also because of their approval of the unplanned random development tf the land
2 discharging onto the drainage creek.
3 Claimant's property has been subjected to this sort of flooding after every shower
4 from the overflow of the clogged-up drainage creek since December of 1982—the latest
5 incident of flooding having taken place on or about December 3, 198.3.
6 4. Claimant has owned the property at 3209 Lunada Lane, Alamo, California,
7 since May of 1968. The deed provides for a drainage easement of 35 feet wide
8 extending 115 feet across the ,back of the lot. Over the
past 15 years,. the County.
9 Flood Control Department has done minimal maintenance with the creek (weed trimming
10 only).
11 Until about 5 years ago, there was only orchard property adjoining claimant's
12 property and the drainage easement. Then a group of about 10 homes was added_by
13 a developer. He was allowed to add two drainage pipes to clear the surface water
14 from the streets, etc., within the development. These drainage pipes are located
15 approximately 50 feet upstream (west) from claimant's property. The significaht point
is that the added now into the creek causes a silt increase to the creek bed. When
17 the County allowed the developer to pipe into the creek, they asked each of the
18 property owners backing on to the creek and opposite the development or downstream
19 to sign off as easement holders to allow the developer to excavate the creek bed.
20 The developer was to excavate the creek from the point of entrance of his pipes to
21 the east where the creek dumps into a sewer opening at the S.P. tracks (which has
22 now been replaced by a jogging trail in 1981/1982)..
23 The project was never started, let alone completed, by the builder or the
24 County. Additionally, claimant was told, and it has been confirmed. by the County,
25 that the developer was ordered by the County to make a multiple thousand dollar
26 deposit to fix the sewer opening at the S.P. railroad tracks as soon as permission was
27 gained to raise and work under a gas/or oil pipeline which ran alongside of the track.
28 Each year the claimant asked the County why this was not being worked .on and was
. ;. 294
—z,. az "` ,. .•m,,.'�' e _ „n`"3�.'�.,w �,:r.'wt t' ''�-.:?-',�:,'�...*:%Lf=k __^i.s.�_;..:<';v,-..'
•v�'tT'�"f '* `tom f e
d
1 Francis X. Driscoll, Esq: D
EI LE
1990 N: California Blvd., Suite 802
2 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 DECD% X983
(415) 944-9303
3 R. OLSSON
CLER OARD UPERVISORS
4 Attorney for Claimant IVT T o.
eu
5
6 �.
- 7 _
$ IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF JACK STANGEL
9 .
Y JACK. STANGEL
10
Claimant,
11
VS.
NOTICE OF CLAIM
12
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD
13 CONTROL DEPARTMENT and
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
14
r: Respondents
15
17 JACK STANGEL hereby presents this claim to the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
18 FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (Respondents herein-
19 after), pursuant to Government Code Section 910,
20 1. The name and post office address of claimant is as follows: Jack Stangrel,
21 3209 Lunada Lane, Alamo, CA 94507.
22 2. The post office address to which claimant desires notice of this claim._to .
23 be sent is as follows: Francis X. Driscoll, Esq., 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite
24 802, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.
25 3. On the weekend of December 3, 1983, after a heavy shower, claimant's .
26 residence and property at 3209 Lunada Lane, Alamo, California, was subjected to heavy
27 flooding because of poor maintenance of a drainage easement at the back of claimant's.
28 lot by the Contra Costa County Flood Control Department and Contra Costa County,
2�5