Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10241995 - C72 I% A C.72, C.73 and C.74 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 24, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Correspondence C.72 LETTER dated September 26, 1995, from Renan G. Dominguez, Dominguez Associates, 306 Railroad Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, on requirement for the installation of a fire hydrant at 93 Cambark Court, Martinez, CA 94553. ****REFERRED TO BUILDING INSPECTOR AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR C.73 PETITION received by the Clerk of the Board on October 16, 1995, from Contra Costa County residents requesting Animal Services scan found pets before the adoption or euthanization process is initiated. ****REFERRED TO ANIMAL SERVICES DIRECTOR C.74 CLAIM dated September 15, 1995, from Gary Golden, Property Tax Representative, Union Oil Corporation, 1201 West 5th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90051, requesting changed assessment of property taxes for 50.76 miles of right-of-way for fiscal year 1995-96. ****REFERRED TO ASSESSOR, COUNTY COUNSEL AND TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted (****) are approved. c.c. Correspondents Building Inspector Ihereby certtbthatthisbstmendwrmd of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Public Works Director Board of Supe so o thedat Animal Services Director ATTESTED: & � 9'� Assessor PHIL BATCHELOR Clerk of the Board Supervisors and Administrator County Counsel 4 A Treasurer-Tax Collector ey puty fell DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES ® ENGINEERING • SURVEYING - PLANS FOR BUILDINGS PH: (415) 588-0913 FAX: (415) 588-0921 RECEIVED Sep. 26, 1995 SR .2 8 (m Re: MS 72-85 93, 97 and CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 101 CambaitCt CONTRA COSTA CO. Martinez, Ca*., Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Room 106 Martinez, Ca. 94553 Dear Sirs,*-, On Oct. 4., 1988 approval of Site Improvements for MS-72-85 was obtained from yourPublic Works Department. - As shown on enclosed Exhibit "B Notice that no fire hydrant was required "on the plan. The improvements were built as per plan in due time, including one house at 101 Cambark Ct. Last year about September 1994 we obtained a permit to install a manufactured home at 93 Cambark Ct. for my . daughter. The house was installed, the improvements were completed and we requested a final inspection. We were informed that no 'inspections could be made because the Fire Department had "placed a hold on all inspections. I met with InspectorStevenApril who informed me that we had to, install a hydrant and widen the roadway before we could have final inspections. - My daughter .had to move into the house because the house she lived in had been sold and there were high "penalties if she did not . move out. Finally" we were coerced into signing, an agreement to ,do those two things withinthe period 'of a year. We widened the roadway and found out that a hydrant would cost in the range of $ 13,000.00 to $ 15,000.00. We argued that no, hydrant was required at the time of the approval. of , the improvement, plan.. Also- we have the approval of the Fire Department of a preliminary subdivision, approval 'signed by Frank J. Boyle on April 30, 1986. See exhibit "A"enclosed, in which no hydrant was required either. At later time (January 16, 1995) we did a land survey and located the existing hydrant on Valley Avenue which was added on this Exhibit "A" . 306 RAILROAD AVENUE • SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 L PAGE 2 Sep. 26, 1995 Board of Supervis `.ors Contra Costa County ' We don't argue the need of a, hydrant to serve this area if that is what is dictated by safety requirements. What we argue is that 93 Cambark Ct.- was singled out, to pay for the entire.cost, where there are altogether 6 properties served by this driveway. See enclosed parcel map, Exhibit "c" . There, must be a process to' form an assessment district by which all properties served by the. hydrant would pay the cost in; equal shares. As a matter of fact, when the original subdivision, Exhibit "D" which created 4 parcels (MS 3-75) , was approved, the, county neglected to require an instrument for the maintenance of the easement for ingress/egress. . May be this time this oversight can be corrected. I would welcome the County's ,a sistance in correcting the present situation. Thank you, foryour coop ration. Sincerely RE N'G. DOMINGUEZ 1 306 RAILROAD AVENUE • Sotmi SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 -Jjx O U v . No tcb/ 7 0 b0c a o oc i eTN y a t. O <t . I O /* (F) 3AV 0 CDP 14 z i 01 © v a m N ., w♦ •wl y � _ E U v ♦ ed a w V C X�! rn G � - J M =O. en••�- LO r- coCO ci J <` ® LlFaor V ,p U Cj Og O n M h o .Q U cr O 1 "� e,. r.... Q \ \ Z �. 7 5 tea r R a \f►• / I ay r st a «"sat ..,...>,... vl � y' Q 1 m w C) vi _r— i -- -. „ 1 II 0 p•:Z / /� , \ Z .r.ae.lir •v.a "� .y _7 _C: — ` CC3 Olt Z I•i 1 e. \I V, a " � 4 ..o ao• =a Y' •may+) CO ca ca Qi 011k- J. j Q oo1Gf ]; OI \ •s nw_1 __ !♦♦ JI\ `7� co � V ,�I��I��'((,� it a .r ►!• i ro.ir- ei mss• � e�e+Iw : 1 \ off♦ ,i p" b .!° ♦ .Y° ti .�o ` ie t8 - ♦ '` ���.yl�r.tf to 'w ^ •�� \Q `� .moo N •3i � � �� • OI•!f® ..,L ,sV `teOOfL � QL•!L/ �t r!=YD ' 0O7� 1 �. 3A1230 tJNN00 " O ^' w.iet - el' • a Ov, f•v, w...,>/r i� :Is i yxy O do .76 v� h , rA zt a NZ In st �;Z i,F Iv 0e ' p�� p��n Q F�R� ��,1tT•t �� . ,,:Ecs-F .;.�-. `s:�-F.v '`" / . ./ ' r � IX 4 4� �.�e�,a�,`testi Z�h��.€"'�"•"r. �-- Q * lQl�� - ::'..,, �" dZb4 f h c7d di7h1d0 �'t a k l ry' U ^� Gel o' 'i/Jtf} ��^L�i f .r rF�L' •,.�,;�„a�.., _•��i . 13 �- This Page Left Intentionally Blank dot), 'Lar e MaP to ?e to{ted