Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07152003 - D.1 D.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date: July 15, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENT The following persons presented testimony: Nancy Montgomery, 15781 Adams Ridge, Los Gatos, regarding Salisbury Island; Ralph Hoffmann, 60 Saint Timothy Court, Danville, congratulating Millie Greenberg. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO ACTION WAS TARN ............... ...... ......... anb N Montgome-q Inc. 15783 AbaMs Ribot,LOA GaW+CA 95033 *IW 408153-4249 tax 4(k353-4931 June 20, 2003 Via FAX and,Hand Delivery 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- Lack of Procedural Due Process We have several concerns about the process that occurred on 6-17-03, We will be brief as -vve have not yet had the opportunity to review the entire transcript. Nancy and Richard Montgomery We are appellants! We made it clear 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 Salisbut), Island was given 5 minutes and the County Building Department, et.al,, was given unlimited time. 4 Salisbury Island and the County Building/Phinning 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. 9 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 I'viontgoniery) 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!" Out 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 Costs County Building Department, et.al. 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 three minutes and no chance to make his closing remarks or rebut testimony. • 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 rpt} 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, • 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 v'ilkema 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 hoard 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 nia'Jority of the 106 violations would. have evaporated into thin air. This statement is based, in part, on the fact that every General Plan violation, every required General flan Amendment or Urbana Line 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 [cast, 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 crater tests showing that our water is potable, although we continue to utiliz: 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. Once again we were denied the opportunity to rebut. M 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 R Supervisors Gioia, Uilkerna, and DeSaulnier receive good 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 f€'.el that Contra Cresta County has denied appellant Clancy and Richard Montgomery the opportunity to have equal and fair procedural due process. We request a timely response.