HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03281995 - 1.59 1 .57 thru 1.61
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 28,1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Correspondence
Item No.
1.57 LETTER dated March 10, 1995 from D. J. Levy, 2121 North California Blvd, Suite 1010,
Walnut Creek 94596, attorney representing the Mt. View and Rodeo Sanitary Districts,
relative to the issuance of a Request for Proposals by the Board of Supervisors for garbage
franchises when existing franchises are valid to the years 2011 and 2001 respectively.
"REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL
1.58 LETTER dated March 8, 1995, from Elaine S. Dunlap, 547 Lakewood Road, Walnut Creek
94596, on behalf of Ida B. Smith, alleging "price-gouging" by the County's ambulance
service, American Medical West.
"REFERRED TO HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR
1.59 LETTER dated March 15, 1995, from John A. Biard, P.O. Box 2861, Martinez, attorney on
behalf of Dr.Ronald and Dorothy Gammon,relative to the investigative process required for
the construction of his client's new residence on Silver Hill Road, Lafayette.
"REFERRED TO BUILDING INSPECTION DIRECTOR
1.60 LETTER dated March 15, 1995, signed by officers of the Greater Concord Chamber of
Commerce, 2151-A Salvio Street, Concord 94520, expressing concern that the Airport
Improvement Program is in jeopardy and urging support for legislative efforts in this area.
"REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
1.61 LETTER dated March 9, 1995, from Art Agnos, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development,450 Golden Gate Avenue,San Francisco 94102-3448,requesting endorsement
of the $7 million Bay Area Innovative Regional Homelessness Initiative.
"REFERRED TO HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR
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 ttxe date shown.
ATTESTED: a C6.1 Cl a5)
PHIL BATCHELOR, clork of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
ey_ eputy
cc : Correspondents
Health Services Director
Public Works Director
Building Inspection Director
County Counsel
RECEIVED
` R 16 1995 '
LAW OFFICE
F MACLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JOHN ANDREW BIARD CONTRA COSTA Co.
P.O. Box 2861, Kartinez, CA 94553 * (510) 229-2984
March 15, 1995
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine St.
Martinez , CA 94553
Re: Gammon Residence Construction
1107 Silver Hill Court
Lafayette, California
Our File No. : 17000-93137
Dear Supervisors:
I am the attorney for Dr. Ronald and Dorothy Gammon. I can only
assume that you have run across my clients' name on many
occassions, concerning the construction of their home, in
Lafayette.
I correspond with you in the hope and anticipation that you can
put an end to my clients' unnecessary expenses in association
with the above-referenced project.
Many sources have acknowledged that certain Supervisors, if not
the Board generally, have been repeatedly contacted by neighbors
on Silverhill Ct. , concerning my clients' home construction. In
turn, certain supervisors, if not the Board generally, have
pressured the County Building Department to concentrate on my
clients' home construction.
While the goal of every building department should be to require
that only safe construction is performed, it is becoming
increasingly evident that my clients' project is getting much
more attention than it deserves, and considerably more technical
requirements than other projects.
As I understand it, and rightfully so, the various County
departments are weary of being questioned by the Supervisors.
Each time you receive a letter and give it attention by speaking
with the Building Department, my clients bear the brunt and
expense of your inquiries. My clients have had to incur
approximately $30,000 to $50,000 in additional project expenses !
This expense is threatening completion of the structure.
A
. 2
It is my understanding that the complaints you have received from
neighbors regarding the project, were later determined to be
without merit. The result of all of the complaints is additional
expenses by my clients, in the way of engineering checks,
unreasonable grading requirements, legal expenses, etc. It is
also my understanding that the many complaints have been limited
to selective neighbors with improper motives. Yet, my clients
project continues "to be looked at through a microscope" , as
stated by certain County employees.
There are documented events which exhibit unreasonable
requirements other homes in the area were not subjected to during
their design, building, and inspection stages.
My clients are not looking for a problem with any governmental
department, or governing body. They only wish to complete their
residence according to the same standards required of other homes
in the Farmhill Estates project. This is not happening because
County employees are anxious about the scrutiny they may receive
from the Board of Supervisors, in reaction to further
correspondence from unjustly motivated neighbors.
Perhaps the Board's reasonable screening of future complaints
regarding my clients' home construction, prior to pressuring
County employees to test the veracity of those complaints, may
help to alleviate much of the burdensome, unreasonable, and
expensive scrutiny being given to my clients' home construction.
This request is not motivated by my clients' desire to be given
special treatment regarding building standards. It is only a
request for their project to be given equal treatment, which by
certain County employees statements, is not happening.
Dr. and Mrs. Gammon have been diligently searching for a
resolution to their construction nightmare, but they are running
out of simple solutions. Of course, we are open to any
suggestions you may have.
Very
Y --__truly yours,'
O„'� Q ,
ohn Andrew iard