Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07271993 - H.4 h.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 27, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, and McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Torlakson ABSTAIN: None ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Hearing On The Administrative Appeal Of Kim Verissimo Relative To The Decision Of The Health Services Dept . For A New Dwelling At 90 Orchard Estates Drive, Walnut Creek. This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the administrative appeal of Kim Verissimo from the decision of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division, relative to water and sewage disposal for a new dwelling at 90 Orchard Estates Drive, Walnut Creek. Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised the Board of a request from the applicant that the matter be continued two weeks and he also advised that consideration was being given by the applicant to withdrawal of the appeal . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above appeal is CONTINUED to August 10, 1993 at 2 : 15 p.m. in the Board chambers . hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supe sora n the date shown. Orig. Dept . : Clerk of the Board ATTESTPHit B CHE R,Clerk otth�e Boar cc : Environmental Health Dept . of uperviso ndCounty A inlstrator County Counsel Kim Verissimo By ,Deauty SEAL Contra Costa County Health Services Department 5� William B. Walker, M.D. Medical Director and County Health Officer sr,� covtz`� DATE: July 19, 1993 TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attention: Ann Cervelli, Deputy Clerk FROM: William B. Walker, M.D., Health Officer SUBJECT: Appeal of Kim I. Verrissimo from Health Officer Hearing Administrative Decision on May 26, 1993. As the appeal hearing referenced above has been scheduled for July 27, 1993 at 2:00 p.m., my staff and I are providing a briefing package for your information (attached). My letter of June 15, 1993 provides a summary of Mr. Verrissimo's current status with Environmental Health and the chronological log will .provide a concise history of this property. The legal documents provide more specific information. If you have any questions, please contact George Nakamura at 646-2521. WW:slt Attachments s4:nos.vcr 20 Allen Street• Martinez,CA 94553 •(415)370-5010 Office •(415)370-5098 FAX A-428 (10/90) CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY 90 ORCHARD ESTATES DRIVE, WALNUT CREEK April 6, 1983 Environmental Health Division received copy of letter from Luellen Smiley of Home Federal Savings requesting well and septic system inspection verification for subject site and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District statement of charges. April 11, 1983 Inspection conducted at subject property by Ernest Brydone-Jack, Senior Environmental Health Specialist. Two failing septic systems found and sewage was found discharging near the well. April 12, 1983 Telephone conversation between Ernest Brydone-Jack and Don McGilley of Home Savings regarding inspection findings. April 19, 1983 Letter sent by Ernest Brydone-Jack to Don McGilley outlining problems and required corrective action discovered during inspection of April 11, 1983. This letter was also an abatement notice. September 20, 1983 Complaint received that two houses on subject property had failing septic systems. Inspector Brydone- Jack advised owner, Larry Verrissmo, to submit plans for septic system repair and provided him with a copy of the septic system plans and well ordinance. September 27, 1983 Proposed septic system repair plans received from Mr. Verissimo. September 29, 1983 Septic system repair permit issued by Environmental Health Division but no record is on file that repair was ever finaled. October 19, 1983 Follow-up inspection conducted by Ernest Brydone-Jack. Details of inspection by Inspector Brydone- Jack available from file. January 20, 1984 Telephone conversation between Ernest Brydone-Jack and Carlos Baptista, septic tank contractor. Mr. Baptista said he found existing septic tanks operating and saw no need for new septic tank and absorption bed. March 29, 1984 Environmental Health Division received report of giardiasis infection from tenant at subject site. Complaint was investigated on April 3, 1984 by Inspector Ernest Brydone-Jack, who found no one at home. April 4, 1984 Telephone conversation between Inspector Ernest Brydone-Jack and Larry Verissimo. Mr. Verissimo stated that he also has been having stomach disorders which are characterisitic of giardiasis. That same day Mr. Motheral, well contractor, called and said there is a defective sanitary seal and he will repair it. Chronological Summary 90 Orchard Estates Drive Walnut Creek Page 2 October 10, 1991 William Grossi, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist, approved room addition only for subject property. March 6. 1992 William Grossi approved renewal permit for same addition. July 9, 1992 Telephone conversation between Joe Doser, Senior Environmental Health Specialist, and Larry Verissimo regarding Mr. Verissimo's request for septic and well sign-off for NEW house. Mr. Doser stated that he will have to review the file and get back to Mr. Verissimo. Also on July 19, 1992, this office received a fax from Mr. Verissimo which showed a copy of W. Grossi's March 6, 1992 room addition approval. July 10 1992 Telephone conversation between Joe Doser and Roger Sharp of Walnut Creek Building Department regarding the status of the project. July 13, 1992 Telephone conversation between Joe Doser and Larry Verissimo. Mr. Verissimo stated that he added the septic tank and leachlines himself but doesn't remember exactly when. When asked about the discrepancy between room addition and new house, Mr. Verissimo stated that after receiving his room addition approval, he decided to tear down the whole house and re-build it. August 6. 1992 Telephone conversation between Joe Doser and Larry Verissimo. General well and septic system requirements for new construction were discussed including soil evaluation requirements. August 11, 1992 Copies of septic system and well regulations sent to Larry Verissimo. August 12, 1992 Letter received from Willard Stone, Larry Verissimo's attorney. Letter requesting Health Department sign-off of new house. August 25, 1992 Letter sent to Mr. Stone stating Health Department's position that room addition only was approved. September 29, 1992 On-site meeting with Joe Doser, George Nakamura, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist, Larry Verissimo and Greg Stone, attorney. Mr. Verissimo stated that he had installed the new septic tank and leachlines approximately three years ago. He stated that both dwellings are connected to the same septic system. Once again, outlined soil evaluation procedure for Mr. Verissimo and general requirements for wells and septic system. Chronological Summary 90 Orchard Estates Drive Walnut Creek Page 3 October 6. 1992 Telephone conversation between Joe Doser and Roger Sharp. Discussed situation, told Mr. Sharp we may have appropriate legal counsel review to substantiate our position. October 7. 1992 Meeting with Vickie Dawes, George Nakamura and Joe Doser. Ms. Dawes stated that since project located within Walnut Creek city limits, we would have to use Walnut Creek's legal resources. Telephone conversation between Joe Doser and Amara Koss, Walnut Creek City Attorney. Arranged meeting for October 16, 1992. October 16, 1992 Meeting with Walnut Creek re-scheduled for October 21, 1992. October 21, 1992 Meeting with City Attorney Amara Koss, Roger Sharp, George Nakamura and Joe Doser. Discussed situation. Amara Koss agreed to contact Mr. Verissimo's attorney by end of week. Mr. Nakamura called Mr. Verissimo and advised that contact from City of Walnut Creek is forthcoming. October 23, 1992 Faxed copy of April 19, 1983 abatement letter to Amara Koss. October 26, 1992 Letter sent to Mr. Verissimo from Amara Koss outlining city and county's position. October 30, 1992 George Nakamura and Joe Doser met with Virginia of Supervisor Schroder's office to update her on situation. November 11; 1992 Received letter from Larry Verissimo stating that good bacteriological water results from recent sample had been submitted to our office which Mr. Verissimo stated justifies well and septic system final approval by our office. December 17, 1992 Received letter from Willard Stone outlining his client's position. Copy of letter faxed to Amara Koss. December 21, 1992 Meeting with Amara Koss, Roger Sharp, Willard Stone, George Nakamura and Joe Doser. Once again, the requirements for well and septic systems were discussed, including soil evaluation. On the same day, telephone conversation between George Nakamura and Larry Verissimo regarding sewer easements, off-site public water supply and the general requirements for well and septic. Chronological Summary 90 Orchard Estates Drive Walnut Creek Page 4 December 22, 1992 Faxed draft response to Mr. Verissimo to Amara Koss. Letter sent to Willard Stone reiterating County's position. December 30, 1992 Received letter from Willard Stone disputing Mr. Nakamura's letter of December 22, 1992. Faxed the following handouts to Mr. Willard Stone: 1. The Well Permit Process 2. Soil Evaluation for On-Site Wastewater Disposal January 6. 1993 Letter sent from Amara Koss to Willard Stone once again restating the position of the city and county. January 12, 1993 Telephone conversation between Larry Verissimo and George Nakamura. Mr. Verissimo finally relents to schedule soil testing evaluation profile for January 13, 1993 at 1:00 p.m. January 13, 1993 Larry Verissimo calls to cancel test due to inclement weather. Stated that he would call back to reschedule. January 14, 1993 Telephone conversation between George Nakamura and Amara Koss updating Ms. Koss on soil testing status of Mr. Verissimo's property. January 28, 1993 Received a copy of a petition for writ of mandate filed by Mr. Verissimo on January 26, 1993. February 19, 1993 Meeting with Amara Koss, Joe Doser, Ron Wood, Bill Grossi and Ernest Brydone-Jack to discuss declaration information for writ hearing. March 10, 1993 Conversation between George Nakamura and Larry Verrissimo regarding required tests for water and septic. Writ of mandate hearing held, Mr. Verrissimo referred by court to exhaust administrative remedies. March 16, 1993 Received letter from Willard Stone requesting appeal hearing. Soil profile evaluation conducted by Joe Doser at subject site. Chronological Summary 90 Orchard Estates Drive Walnut Creek Page 5 March 18, 1993 Letter of soil profile evaluation findings sent to Mr. Verrissimo. April 8. 1993 Percolation tests conducted by Joe Doser at subject site. April 21, 1993 Findings and direction letter sent by office to Mr. Verrissimo regarding soil evaluation and percolation test status. April 23, 1993 Mr. Verrissimo came to the Environmental Health office requesting a copy of the percolation test results and a copy of our design standard requirements. He was provided with all information requested. April 30, 1993 Letter from Central Contra Costa Sanitary District to Mr. Verrissimo stating requirement options for providing public sewers to subject property. May 10, 1993 Health Officer Hearing requested for this date was rescheduled to May 26, 1993 at 1:00 p.m. May 26, 1993 Health Officer Hearing held. June 15, 1993 Health Officer decision letter faxed and sent to Mr. Verrissimo. June 17, 1993 Mr. Verrissimo contacted George Nakamura regarding what his options are and requested our assistance in obtaining easements. Mr. Verrissimo was asked to place this request in writing. July 6. 1993 Environmental Health notified by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors that an appeal to the Health Officer decision had been filed and tentatively scheduled for July 20, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. Advised Clerk of the Board that July 27, 1993 would be the earliest available date for staff participation. 17:verissuno.log sEL Contra Costa County Health Services Department oil- William B. Walker, M.D. Medical Director and County Health Officer Srd cou:� June 15, 1993 Lawrence and Kim Verrissimo 90 Orchard Estates Drive Walnut Creek, California 95698 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Verrissimo: At your request and pursuant to Section 414-4.1017(a) and 420-6.518 of the County Ordinance Code, a Health Officer Hearing was conducted on May 26, 1993. The water supply and sewage disposal for the new dwelling at 90 Orchard Estates Drive were discussed. I have reviewed the file and considered the evidence presented at the hearing. Based on this information, I am unable to direct that the Environmental Health Division approve your proposed methods for providing water supply and sewage disposal for this dwelling. The reason for this decision is your failure to demonstrate that the existing site septic system meets current minimum public health standards as required by Article 420-1.6 of the regulations governing the installation of sewage disposal systems and your failure to demonstrate that the existing site water supply meets current minimum public health standards per Article 414-4.6 of the County Ordinance Code. Typically, the Environmental Health Division reviews the site, soil conditions, design and installation of septic systems to verify compliance with minimum standards. In this case, Environmental Health did review all of these factors and found the following discrepancies: Septic System 1. Unsatisfactory percolation rates were obtained (Section 420-1.604). 2. Reported location of the disposal field is less than 100 feet from the high water mark of an adjacent creek (Section 420-1.603). 3. The method of installation and materials used for the existing septic system is unknown since it was not inspected by Environmental Health and your appeal did not present any evidence as to the method and materials employed in the construction (Sections 420-1.605 and 420-1.606). 4. The relationship of the existing septic system to other setback requirements is unknown since the exact location of the system has not been demonstrated (Section 420-1.608). 20 Allen Street • Martinez,CA 94553 •(415)370-5010 Office • (415)370-5098 FAX A-42R riniarn Lawrence and Kim Verrissmc, June IS, 1993 Page 2 Typically, the Environmental Health Division reviews well location, construction, water quality and sustained yield rates to verify compliance with County minimum standards. In this case, Environmental Health did review all of these factors and found the following discrepancies: Well 1. Compliance with minimum setback requirements is unknown since the method of sewage disposal on all neighboring properties has not been verified (Section 414-1.220). 2. The method of well construction is unknown including annular seal depth, material used, etc. (Section 414-4.801 through 414-4.803). . 3. The sustained yield of the well is unknown. A minimum of three gallons per minute is required by the County (Section 414-4.20(1)(a)). Minimum public health standards are critical for ensuring a safe and long-term means of water supply and sewage disposal, not only because it impacts this residence, but the entire surrounding community. Of particular concern are construction standards and setback requirements which have been established to prevent surfacing sewage or contamination of water resources. In addition, testimony at the hearing presented a past history of water-related problems on the site, specifically a giardia incident. This specific incident is a definite cause of public health concern at this site. Based on the above, I concur with the findings stated in the letter from Daniel Guerra, Deputy Director, dated May 6, 1993 a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, Chapter .14-4, you have the right to appeal this decision to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors within fifteen (15) days of your receipt of this decision. Very Truly Yours, � . A�(A) /40. William B. Walker, M.D. Health Officer WBW:slt Attachment cc: Environmental Health Division - General Programs 14:hrgdec.ver , t �,�Do THOMAS HAAS, CITY ATTORNEY PAUL VALLE-RIESTRA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 2 AMARA L. KOSS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY jqq3 MAR -2 P 3: 58 City of Walnut Creek 3 P. O. Box 8039, 1666 North Main Street S.L\VVIL CC)'-1"`_'y'CL: Walnut Creek, California 94596 r,,A c,- `0UP 4 Telephone: (510) 943-5813 5 Attorneys for Respondent City of Walnut Creek 6 and Contra Costa County 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 10 LARRY VERISSIMO and NO. C 93 00392 KIM VERISSIMO, 11 DECLARATION OF JOSEPH G. Petitioners, DOSER IN OPPOSITION 12 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF V. MANDATE 13 CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, a Municipal 14 Corporation, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: March 10, 1993 15 and DOES 1 TO 20, DEPT: 6 TIME: 9 a.m. 16 Respondents. 1 17 1, JOSEPH G. DOSER, do declare as follows: 18 1. For almost one year, I have been employed by Contra 19 - Cos- ta County as a Senior Registered Environmental Health 20 specialist. Prior to this work experience, I was employed by 21 Sutter County in generally the same capacity for five years. 22 My duties include reviewing septic systems and wells to ensure 23 compliance with applicable County ordinances. 24 2. The Health Services' Department looks at a number of 25 factors to determine whether an applicant has demonstrated 26 that he has an adequate water supply. In reviewing private 27 wells, I ask for information on the following: 1) the con- 28 struction of the well; 2) the setbacks of the well from any I septic tanks or leach lines and other possible sources of 2 contamination; 3) the water quality itself; and 4) the 3 sustained yield of the well. Providing information only on 4 water quality and yield is never sufficient--an applicant must 5 demonstrate the adequacy of his water supply by providing 6 information to the County on all four items. For an old well 7 the applicant has to, generally, reconstruct the existing well 8 (if feasible) or construct a new well. For wells constructed 9 after 1949, we can review a copy of the state-required "well 10 completion report" for information on well construction. 11 3. For a septic system, a soil evaluation is conducted 12 on the applicant's property. This evaluation involves a soil 13 profile (what types of soils make up the property) and a 14 percolation test to determine how quickly or slowly liquids 15 will be absorbed by the soils. once the County has informa- 16 tion on the types of soils on the lot proposed to have an 17 individual septic system, the County can then better determine 18 'what kind of system the lot can sustain. 19 4. After reviewing the file, I remember the following 20 about the septic and water supply systems that Mr. Larry 21 Verissimo requested approval of from the Health Services 22 Department. 23 5. On July 9, 1992, Mr. Verissimo and I had a telephone 24 conversation about getting County approval of the septic and 25 well for a new house that Verissimo had constructed. I needed 26 to review the file on his property at 90 Orchard Estates Drive 27 before I could give .him any information about approvals and so 28 1 told him I would have to get back to him. -2- 6. 1 spoke with Roger Sharpe of the Walnut Creek 2 Building Department regarding the status of the project and 3 later, on July 20, 1992, sent Mr. Sharpe a letter outlining 4 the alternatives available to Mr. Verissimo to demonstrate that this property had adequate water and sewage systems. A 6 copy of this letter was also sent to Mr. Verissimo. A copy of 7 this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated 8 herein. 9 7. upon review of the file and my recollection, Mr. 10 Verissimo and I had another telephone conversation on July 13, 11 1992. In that conversation, I asked Mr. Verissimo about the 12 discrepancy between the "room addition" and the construction 13 of the new home and Mr. Verissimo replied that, after receiv- 14 ing his room addition approval, he decided to tear down the 15 whole house and re-build it. 16 8. In both verbal discussions and written correspondence 17 with Mr. Verissimo, I informed him of the County's require- 18 rments regarding water and septic systems for new construction 19 . per the County's Ordinance Code. my review of the file shows 20 that I told Mr. Verissimo about the requirements on July 9, 21 July 13, August 6, September 29, and December 21, 1992. In 22 written correspondence to Mr. Verissimo, I sent the County's 23 sewage and water regulations to him on August 11, 1992. A 24 copy of this correspondence is attached hereto and incorporat- 25 ed herein as Exhibit "B". 26 9. On September 29, 1992, 1 met with Mr. Verissimo, his 27 attorney and George Nakamura (my supervisor) at 90 Orchard 28 Estates Drive. Mr. Verissimo stated he had installed a new -3- I septic tank and leach lines 3 years ago. This work was done 2 without the benefit of a Health Services' permit or inspection 3 of the work supposedly done. We explained the soil evaluation 4 procedure and the general requirements for wells and septic at 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 III 13 14 15 16 III 17 III 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I that same meeting. 2 10. George Nakamura and I had an appointment with Mr. 3 Verissimo on January 13, 1993 at 1:00 p.m. to conduct a soil 4 testing evaluation profile; however, Mr. Verissimo cancelled 5 this appointment the next day due to inclement weather. He 6 said he would call back to reschedule but he has not done so 7 to date. 8 11. The County Health Services' Department has offered to 9 facilitate negotiations between Mr. Verissimo and the board 1PO61 C 10 directors of the private ater supply district and has also 11 offered to waive the inspection fees for the soil evaluation 12 procedure. Mr. Verissimo has never followed through with 13 these offers. 14 12. Given my review of the files and the historical 15 problems associated with the property, I believe that the 16 septic system poses a threat to the home's water supply. In 17 addition, Mr. Verissimo has not demonstrated to the County 18 :that he has an adequate water and septic system and, as a 19 - result, the County has denied Mr. Verissimol's request for 20 final approval of these systems. 21 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 22 true and correct and that this declaration was executed on 23 1993 in Martinez, California. 24 25 26 Jo-�S G. DOSER 27 28 Contra Heald`. -3ervices Deartment p Costa -a :: = ►` ' ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION East/Cemraf Office 1111 Ward Street County Martine7-Califomia 94553-1352 (510)646-2521 July 20, 1992 Roger Sharp City of Walnut Creek Building Department 1666 N Main Street Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Mr. Sharp: SUBJECT: 90 Orchard Estates Drive, Walnut Creek APN 138-080-041 A review of the file for the above referenced address shows the following: 1. No records are available which demonstrate the specifications or adequacy of.the on-site septic system and well. 2. Past problems with the septic system is evident by correspondence within the file. 3. A permit to repair the septic system was issued 9-29-83 and expired without being finaled. 4. A room addition plan was approved by the Environmental Health Division on 10-IG-91 and 3-6-92. According to the property owner, .Larry Verissimo, a new dwelling was constructed subsequent to these approvals. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the new structure be served by an approved water supply and wastewater disposal system. This could be accomplished by any of the following: 1. Connect property to public sewer and/or water. 2. Install a septic system and/or well meeting current standards for new construction. A.373A EXHIBIT 3. Demonstrate that the existing septic system and/or well meet current standards for new construction. This option is the least likely. Sincerely, U1 Joseph G. Doser, R.E_H.S. Sr. Env. Health Specialist JGD.jc cc: Larry Verissimo 94 Orchard Estates Dr. 18_900mbmd.7M oritra = Heal _.::Services Department �. ('�(�`�a . • �.. j ENMONMEN7AL REALM DWION �✓v u &-s/Central Office County 1111 Ward Street J ro- Martinez.California 94553-1352 'Tri - o-- (510)646-2521 August 11, 1992 Lary Verissimo 90 Orchard Estates Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94596 RE: NEW HOUSE AT 90 ORCHARD ESTATES DRIVE Dear Mr. Verissimo: As per our telephone conversation of$/6/92, I have forwarded copies of the Contra Costa County Septic System Regulations. If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 646-1259 weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 a-m. Sincerely, Joseph G. Doser, Jr., R.E.H.S. Senior Environmental Health Specialist JGD.:lf tsivoi=iW0 A37y► tsr9zl EXHIBIT I THOMAS HAAS, CITY ATTORNEY I LD PAUL VALLE-RIESTRA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORN 2 AMARA L. KOSS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MAR -2 P 3 58 . City of Walnut Creek 3 P. O. Box 8039, 1666 North Main Street S-L WER.C'---n rfm Walnut Creek, California 94596 corRhC-05TACCUNW 4 Telephone: (510) 943-5813 5 Attorneys for Respondent City of Walnut Creek 6 and Contra Costa County 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 10 LARRY VERISSIMO and NO. C 93 00392 11 KIM VERISSIMO, -DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. Petitioners, GROSSI IN OPPOSITION 12 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 V. MANDATE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, a Municipal 14 Corporation, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: March 10, 1993 and DOES 1 TO 20, TIME: 9 a.m. 15 DEPT: 6 16 Respondents. 17 1, WILLIAM L. GROSSI, do declare as follows: I used to be employed by Contra Costa County in the 19 Health Services' Division as a Supervising Environmental 20 Health Specialist and was employed in that or a similar 21 capacity for over 30 years. I am now retired from that 22 position. 23 2. While I was employed as an Environmental Health 24 Specialist, my duties involved supervision of the land use 25 program which meant that I was responsible for reviewing 26 septic systems, wells, and subdivisions for their water and 27 septic supplies. I also investigated sewage complaints and 28 111 1 was responsible for the enforcement of the County's water and 2 septic ordinance Code. 3 3 . My first contact with Mr. Larry Verissimo occurred 4 in the fall of 1991 when he came to the Health Services, 5 Department for the approval of his site plan. I recall that 6 he said the plans were for a room addition and I noted that 7 the City of Walnut Creek Planning Division had signed off on 8 the plans. Taking what Mr. Verissimo had told me at face 9 value, I stamped the plans "approved" for an "addition to 10 existing septic tank system". This approval was daited 11 10/10/91. 12 4. My next review of the plans occurred in March of 1992 13 when Mr. verissimo, again came to the Health Services, 14 Department for approval for a "room addition". I also stamped 15 this site plan, which was on white paper and not blueprint 16 paper, "approved" and added the notation that the "septic tank 17 to be 101 (feet) from structure (minimum) ." 18 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 19 true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on 20 Q,-- 2-2-- 1993 in Danville, California. 21 22 WILLIAM L.�� GROSSI"' 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 THOMAS HAAS, CITY ATTORNEY L'l PAUL VALLE-RIESTRA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 2 AMARA L. KOSS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 1993 MAR -2 P 158 City of Walnut Creek 3 P. 0. Box 8039, 1666 North Main Street SL WF11 4"!N CU-K Walnut Creek, California 94596 4 Telephone: (510) 943-5813 5 Attorneys for Respondent City of Walnut Creek 6 and Contra Costa County 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 10 LARRY VERISSIMO and NO. C 93 00392 KIM VERISSIMO, 11 DECLARATION OF ERNEST Petitioners, BRYDONE-JACK IN OPPOSITION 12 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF V. MANDATE 13 CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, a Municipal 14 Corporation, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: March 10, 1993 and DOES I TO 20, TIME: 9 a.m. 15 DEPT: 6 16 Respondents. 17 1, ERNEST BRYDONE-JACK, declare as follows: 18 1. 1 am a Senior Environmental Health Specialist in the 19 HeAlth Services Department and I have been employed by Contra 20 Costa County in that same capacity for the last 33 years. My 21 duties during the time frame discussed in the Petition include 22 performing field inspections of sanitary septic systems, 23 wells, responding to health complaints and permitting. 24 2. My first exposure to the property located at 90 25 Orchard Estates Drive was in 1983. I .have reviewed the County 26 files on this property and recall the following. 27 3. On April 6, 1983, the County received a letter from a 28 representative of Home Federal Savings asking that the Health 1 Services' Department inspect the well and septic system on the 2 property which had two houses located on it. A copy of this 3 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". I went out to the 4 property on April 11, 1983 and found two failing septic 5 systems and sewage discharging near the well. I called Home 6 Fed and told them what I had found. I also sent a letter to 7 Home Fed explaining the problems and the corrective action 8 that would need to be taken. A copy of this letter is 9 attached hereto as- Exhibit "B". 10 4. Obviously, a property cannot have the septic system 11 too close to the water supply on the property because if the 12 water supply becomes contaminated, serious health problems can 13 occur. 14 S. It was not until late September of 1983 that Mr. 15 Verissimo, the property owner, submitted a request for septic 16 system repair. I drafted plans for the lay-out of the septic 17 system for both houses on the lot and issued Mr. Verissimo a 18 - septic system repair permit. The County's records show, how- 19 ever, the permit expired without ever being finaled, meaning 20 the work never had the benefit of a county inspection. A copy 21 of the County records is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". I 22 have no knowledge of whether work was ever done to the septic 23 system in connection with the plans and permit. 24 6. In January of 1984, 1 had a phone conversation with 25 Carlos Baptista who is a septic tank contractor. I believe 26 that Mr. Baptista was asked by Mr. Verissimo to locate, on the 27 property, the old septic system and leach lines. He would 28 have done this to make sure that any repair work or installa- -2- I tion of a new system would not have gone in over the old 2 system. Baptista told me that the old septic tank was working 3 and that he saw no need for a new septic tank. Copies of 4 notes prepared by me regarding this telephone conversation are 5 attached hereto as Exhibit IICII. Based on this conversation, I 6 believe that Mr. Verissimo did not install a new septic system 7 in October of 1983 as permitted. 8 7. In April our department received a report from the 9 tenant on the property (there were two homes on the lot at 10 that time, a tenant living in one of the homes, the Verissimos 11 in the other) complaining of giardia infection. A copy of 12 this complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit I'D". I attempted 13 to make a site visit two days after getting the complaint but 14 no one was home. The County received a medical report on this 15 infection which confirmed the giardia infection and such 16 report is attached hereto as Exhibit "Ell. 17 8. 1 had a telephone conversation with Mr. Verissimo the 18 'day after I made the site visit and I recall Mr. Verissimo 19 complaining of stomach problems. I took a subsequent phone 20 call from Verissimols well contractor who told me that there 21 was a defective seal on the sanitary system and that it would 22 be repaired soon. See Exhibit 'IF". 23 9. During this contact with Mr. Verissimo, it was at a 24 time that the Contra Costa Water District was beginning to 25 service that area of the County. I urged all residents of 26 that North Gate/Castle Rock area, including Mr. Verissimo, to 27 hook up to the public water supply system. I remember that, 28 while there was also a private water supplier in that -3- I neighborhood, Verissimo could not hook up because, at that 2 point, the supplier was at capacity. Throughout this period 3 of time (1983) through the early 90's, the County spent a lot 4 of time negotiating with EBMUD to get service to this 6 7 8 9 III 10 III 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 III 27 28 -4- 1 area. From my recollection and review of the file, I do not 2 remember any further contact with Mr. Verissimo or his proper- 3 ty after the -spring of 1984. 4 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 5 true and correct and that this declaration was executed in 6 Concord, California on 1993. 7 ERNon A" MY 81 AA E TI BW D-OV'J-_AqK T_ 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HOME FEDERAL Main Office j 701 Broadway.P_O. Box 2070.San Diego,CA 92112- General Information (714) 238-7581 Savings 238-7611 - Major Loans 238-7801 . Loan Service 238-7542• Escrow 238-7668 April 4, 1983 Contra Costa Health Department 2425 Besso Lane, #260 Concord, CA 94520 Attention: Mr. Brightenjack Dear Mr. Brightenjack: Please accept this as written authorization to inspect the septic tanks at 90 Orchard Estate Drive in Walnut Creek. Thank you. - Sin rely, t Luellen Smilgy REO Assistant Manager LS/ah l 1�'0 � Aow��,. � 1 APS R fi 19m CONGUHU f 'NVIRONMENTAL HEAL_TI-i- 2 L - .7 30� HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS AND tAN ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO Contra - Health Services Department Costa ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION County April 19, 1983 Home Federal Savings & Loan Assn. U C/o Mr. Donald E. McGilley P.O. Box 5662 Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 Dear Mr. McGilley: As requested this division made an investigation of the two septic tank sewage disposal systems serving your- property located at 90 Orchard Estate ,s Dr. , Walnut Creek (APN 138-080-041-5) on 4-11-83. The investigation found the following health hazards existing on the property which must be abated to protect the health of not only your tenants but also of the surrounding neighborhood: 1. The failing septic tank which serves the two bedroom home must be repaired or the residence vacated immediately. 2. The one bedroom residence is discharging sewage within 50 ' of the well which serves as the domestic water supply for both houses. This septic tank system must be re- located 100 ' away from the well and properly repaired or the residence vacated immediately. Each residence must have a separate septic tank sewage disposal system. If you decide to replace the two residences with one new structure,a three bedroom house would be the maximum to consider unless new percolation tests are performed. Enclosed. are copies of the Contra Costa County sewage ordinance and regulations along with the fee ordinance which you may use as guidelines. Please contact this division for any repairs to the septic tank systems. 3. The well which serves these residences has a cracked ce- ment slab and an improper wood seal over the casing. The crack must be filled in the cement slab around the well casing. A san- itary seal must be provided for the well casing. Enclosed is a COPY of the CCC well ordinance and regulations and disinfection of well instructions for your information. It is suggested that you contact Valley Orchard Mutual Water /V7 0 '9C) r EXHIBIT .EASE REPLY OR CALL: 'CONCORD OFFICE 0 RICHMOND OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES P"CZS DISSO LANE.STE.260 11 WARD STREET CONCroam RTINEZ. CALIPrODuta 0... -2- System as another alternate source of domestic water for this property at 937-3603. 4. The accumulation of rubbish must be removed. r A follow up visit will be made in 30 days to see ifthe sewage, wat4r and solid waste problems have been abated. If you have any questions please call 671-4290 week days between 7-8 :30 A.M. Sincerely, E. Brydone-Jack, S. Sr. Environmental Health Inspector EB:lc Enclosures cc: Terry McLeod, Chief Building Inspector City of Walnut Creek Tenants (2) , Front & Back Residences Central Contra Costa Sanitary,District Carl Baptista COMPLAINT FORM tTE RECEIVED C4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY E.h. DIST. ATE INVESTIGATEDX— HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT- PROGRAM AREA 4 14/�- ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION )MPLAINT: OCATION: PARCEL OCCUPANT: PHONE: (Name) (Address) (zip) OWNER: HONE: Z (Name) pc> 6Z LL/G (Address) (Zip) COMPLAINANT- PHONE: (Name) (Address) (ZIP) DRIGINAL CONDITIONS FOUND: /"QV ACTION TAKEN: It- QAlt FOLLOW-UP Yes No Date COMPLAINANT NOTICE OF ACTION: 11 REQUIRED: Yes NO Date (Date) FOLLOW-UP af CONDITIONS .5'epa F/7,0;' 7-A ae, 40,1/ F-64 Pc lei FOUND: 41�g-p^4 2:gnjECS� �Zn FOLLOW-Tip /Y7 ACTION TfiJMN: Environmea al Heal Inspector Supervisor White Copy- File Yellow Copy- Supervisor EXHIBIT- ooe ;AM i��yy :.. //"• = ' +err �, ,`•� �'^ --' �'' .l \ r, Y' ^i I% - .. •, _ "dal-;?.'' ;:j`"- 4 �C/1•+ a i.Y: .Y tl V • i �. .. t-�mz `-_s,.. "=t;-'.T^ 17^..,3' - ':sv-r, t. :1•�:"- f'�Y' -:i: zo .�.:rT;�+-'" •:r'. - -4,i?F.�y';�:,: '::l;��S. - �'�•`t. d,- /� �'` �(�„SX•�i l0`S+ n3.P Y •T "�``'`�•" pit zjNl s e ON ,r p IE ��/' 111 �, SERVICE REQUEST APN# CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Recheck Dates : �< HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION c Date Recv 'd . 1�-�5 By Code 4/ rZ W Dist . o Location of occurrence : Street City Owner: N me Phone i Address City Occupant : 614:a6/ - t/s'r� '7L�j�•« a Name Phone Address City Complaint[ � Request Action taken: Ap r cmc X21' -�- 5--�3`-. � �11ar77'r ,9� p� � Problem Abated , Insp. Date ' ` ' - EXHIBIT. Complainant : Name Phone r Address City Date Notified: Comments : r • EHAD-5: 11/83:1M COMPLAINT FORM ATE RECEIVED cq-,Atztj CONTRA COSTA COUNTY E.L- DIST. ATE INVESTIGATED !j HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT- PROGRAM AREA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 3MPLAINT: OCATION: PARCEL # (y4/ OCCUPANT: PHONE: (Name) (Address) (zip) AZ*f7�: OWNER: HONE: Ofame} (Address) (zip) COMPLAINANT: PHONE: Lmesala-a-- (Name) L—. Zag4zae— (Address) (zip) ORIGINAL j4fV-7— 4fz, CONDITIONS FOUND: L41 e_z- ACTION TAKEN: tcc Aft (DA(t y 'PA(;-, 47- FOLLOW-UP Yes NO Date /,Y-V2; COMPLAINANT NOTICE OF ACTION: REQUIRED: Yes NO Date (Date) FOLLOW-UP CONDITIONS FOUND: d FOLLOW-UP ACTION TAM: vironmen 1 Heal Irls:Pect0rSupervisor White C I opy- File Yellow Copy- Supervisor EXHIBIT-D ! ••f •-! -���Gii V'�!!'+.. R.7 _ '.. - '•t�.,.�' :yC""•. �/�� t}er� /f•yy1Lj '•qr::c-.,'::i:, t- ))/1 /l/ J •�,.: •'�.,r.3e _:• ')r �'/�jjy tCr""._ �cr •�— _ wl ZA ikki •r .y. .'. •• .-. ems,,,,,• ����C�''"'�„7 •'L - �_•Y Y� ... .'}•-u{i. :`1.i.7.���1a.�e,'R �I�W�.•.���`,;^j1.� {—���,_4..t•'s^,'.. , .Y:..,t..l.h.i.:!.:: •.LS�::'�^• :� : •x;_ •'�:7"'�' ;'�''_ ::,yt: :t:�':W�}y�t^.� •�•'��2=;: /�.!.:.::: :�ti;,•moi.:'. - - . �,` � � .*,• ...tet LAV Ol 76 t4 'UXiJUL,- ;Tj_:.,n,t•.lid •��,!'q_ .. 97 CIA., too— AD oo— rl E OT XH Ir . • �- � X53 '' � '"� �k��s�� SERVICE REQUEST APN# 1-;� -6y, Recheck Dates : CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION Date Recv 'd . �- 1-- _ By ./7?,- >— Code efl&Q�_ Dist . �✓ Location of occurrence : Street City Owner: �9- N me Phone i' Address City Occupant : aae6e Name 4 Phone Address City Complaint[ '] Request GC] t"olA�1� `l`h�Y G9; A=-:a�r Qg: 01 Action taken: �l�-rr',�-rte �►e�. - .� P� Problem Abated ,yp Insp. Date 1 ��r{- EX IBI1 -E Complainant: . Name Phone 1uN'77- Address City Date Notified: -` Comments : EHAD-5:11/83:1M n THOMAS HAAS, CITY ATTORNEY EY U1 PAUL VALLE-RIESTRA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTEF - L 2 AMARA L. KOSS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY City of Walnut Creek 11943 F E 7 13 26 P 3: 39 3 P. O. Box 8039, 1666 North Main Street Walnut Creek, California 94596 S.L. V.-7. T:- 4 Telephone: (510) 943-5813 5 Attorneys for Respondent City of Walnut dr"46'k"and` 6 Contra Costa County 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 10 LARRY VERISSIMO and NO. C 93 00392 KIM VERISSIMO, 11 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR 12 Petitioners, WRIT OF MANDATE V. 13 DATE: March 9, 1993 CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, a Municipal TIME: 9 a.m. 14 Corporation, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPT: 6 and DOES 1 TO 20, 15 16 Respondents. 17 Respondents City of Walnut Creek and Contra Costa 'County 18 -answer the petition for writ of mandamus as follows: 19 1. Respondents admit the allegations contained in 20 Paragraphs one (1) , three (3) and ten (10) of the Petition. 21 2. Answering Paragraph two (2) of the Petition, admit 22 that Respondent CITY is a city duly organized and existing 23 under the laws of the State of . California and situated in 24 Contra Costa County but denies that it is a chartered city. 25 3 . Answering Paragraphs four (4)., five (5) , eight (8) , 26 fourteen (14) , fifteen (15) and sixteen (16) of the Petition, 27 deny generally and specifically each and every allegation 28 contained in those paragraphs. 1 4. Answering Paragraph six (6) of the Petition, Respon- 2 dents admit that under the stamp of approval from the County's 3 Health Department land use supervisor Bill Grossi, there 4 exists a handwritten notation under the area of the stamp 5 entitled "room addition Grossi 3/6/92 and that Mr. Grossi also 6 inscribed the notation "septic tank to be ten feet from struc- 7 ture (minimum) ", but denies generally and specifically each 8 and every other allegation in Paragraph 6. 9 S. Answering Paragraphs seven (7) , nine (9) , twelve 10 (12) , thirteen (13) and seventeen (17) of the Petition, the 11 Respondents lack sufficient information and belief to be able 12 to answer those paragraphs and, based on that lack of informa- 13 tion and belief, deny generally and specifically each and 14 every allegation contained in those paragraphs. 15 .6. As a first separate and distinct affirmative defense, 16 Respondents allege that Petitioners have failed to exhaust 17 their administrative remedies in that Petitioners have not 18 appealed the County's and/or City's denial of Petitioners' 19 fin-al occupancy permit to the County Health Officer. 20 7. As a second separate and distinct affirmative 21 defense, Respondents allege that the City's and County's 22 decision to withhold issuance of a final occupancy permit to 23 Petitioners and any damages caused thereby is immunized from 24 liability or the award of damages to the Petitioners. 25 WHEREFORE, Respondents pray that: 26 1. The petition for writ of mandate be denied; 27 2. The motion for peremptory writ of mandate -be denied; 28 3 . Petitioner take nothing by their proceeding; -2- 1 4. Respondents recover costs in this proceeding; and 2 5. The Court award such other relief as it considers 3 proper. 4 Dated:- 2-l<zbl93 6 WALNUT CREEK CITY ATTORNEY THOMAS HAAS 7 11 8 V�& By: PAUL VALLE-RIESTRA 9 Assistant City Attorney 10 Attorney for Respondents 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- PROOF OF SERVICE BY TELECOPIER 2 1 am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of 3 California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a 4 party to the within action. My business address is 1666 North 5 Main Street, P. O. Box 8039, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. 6 1 am readily familiar with the practice for transmission 7 of facsimiles of the City Attorney's Office of the City of 8 Walnut Creek. 9 On February 26, 1993 1 caused the foregoing document(s) 10 described as: ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE to be 11 transmitted to the person listed belo4 by facsimile machine. 12 Greg Stone c/o Willard Stone, Esq. 13 1211 Newell Avenue, Suite 124 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 14 FAX No. 935-9862 15 The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2 003 (3) 16 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 17 2008 (e) (4) , the transmission record generated by the facsimile 18 machine, is attached to this declaration. 19 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 20 true and correct. Executed at Walnut Creek, California on 21 February 26, 1993. 22 23 CATHERINk CAMPBELL-TALOR 24 25 26 27 28 Transmit Confirmation Report No . 001 Receiver 9359862 Transmitter W .CRK . ANNEXX Date Feb 2693 1036 Time 03 '.09 Mode Norm Pages 05 Result OK r= THOMAS HAAS, CITY ATTORNEY L i � Do 2 PAUL VALLE-RIESTRA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AMARA L. KOSS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY j493 MAR -2 P 3: 58 City of Walnut Creek 3 P. O. Box 8039, 1666 North Main Street Walnut Creek, California 94596 C 0%-j PA ,CC!-f.N7-e 4 Telephone: (510) 943-5813 5 Attorneys for Respondent City of Walnut Creek 6 and Contra Costa County . 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA' 11 - 12 LARRY VERISSIMO and NO. C 93 00392 KIM VERISSIMO, MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND 13 Petitioners, AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 V. MANDATE 15 CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, a Municipal Corporation, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and DATE: March 10, 1993 16 DOES I TO 20, TIME: 9 a.m. 17 DEPT: 6 Respondents. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 4 11. STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 III. PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO EXHAUST THEIR 5 ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 IV. ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDATE CANNOT CONTROL 7 DISCRETION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 V. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TEST IS APPROPRIATE SINCE 8 NO VESTED RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 VI. PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS JUSTIFY DENIAL OF 10 THE FINAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 VII. BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING ADEQUACY RESTS WITH 11 THE PETITIONERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 12 VIII. AWARD OF DAMAGES IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE DIS- 13 CRETIONARY ACTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS ARE IMMUNE . . .10 14 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 15 CASES Page 16 Abelleira v. District court of Appeal (1941) 17 17 Cal.2d 280, 292, 109 P.2d 942, 949 . . . . . . . . . 5 18 - Anderson v. City of La Mesa ( (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 657 8 19, Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 793, 20 132 Cal.Rptr. 386, 391 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 21 Davis v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 700, 708, 129 22 Cal.Rptr. 417, 421) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 23 Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1943) 24 23 Cal.2d 303, 315, 144 P.2d 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Mountain View Chamber of Commerce v. City of 25 mountain View (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 82, 88, 26 143 Cal.Rptr. 441, 444 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura 27 (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 128, 109 Cal.Rptr. 799 11 28 i 2 STATUTES 3 Government Code Sections 815 et seq. 10 4 Government Code Section 818.4 10 5 OTHER AUTHORITIES 6 County Water Supply Systems ordinance, Chapter 414-4 2, 4 7 County Ordinance Code Section 414-4.605 4 County Ordinance Code Section Section 414-4. 1017 4 8 County Ordinance Code Section Section 414-4. 1001 10 9 County Ordinance Code Section Section 420-1.6 etseq. 4, 10 Walnut Creek Municipal Code Section 10-6.101 etseq. 2 10 Walnut Creek Municipal Code Section 10-7.101 etseq.' 2 11 Walnut Creek Municipal Code Section 10-7.108 5 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I THOMAS HAAS, CITY ATTORNEY 2 PAUL VALLE-RIESTRA, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AMARA L KOSS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY City of Walnut Creek 3 P. 0. Box 8039, 1666 North Main Street Walnut Creek, California 94596 4 Telephone: (510) 943-5813 5 Attorneys for Respondent City of Walnut Creek 6 and Contra Costa County 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 LARRY VERISSIMO and NO. C 93 00392 KIM VERISSIMO, 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS Petitioners, AND AUTHORITIES IN 12 OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR 13 V. WRIT OF MANDATE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK. a Municipal 14 Corporation, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and DATE: March 10, L993 15 DOES I TO 20, TIME: 9 am. DEPT: 6 16 Respondents. 17 18 L INTRODUCTION 19 -This action involves the construction of a new residence on property that has a 20 long history of septic system failure and this has, in the past, resulted in giardia 21 infections in persons living at that location. The Petitioners have not demonstrated to 22 the County that the septic and water systems servicing a new house on the property are 23 adequate and, due to the serious health concerns involved, Petitioners have been refused 24 a final occupancy permit by the Respondents. Rather than addressing those health 25 concerns, Petitioners ask this court to compel issuance of the permit. 26 11. STATEMENT OF FACTS 27 The City of Walnut Creek, by and through its Municipal Code, has adopted 28 portions of the County's Ordinancie Code by reference, those being the chapters which I regulate water systems and septic systems. A true and correct copy of Walnut Creek 2 Municipal Code Section 10-6101 et seq. is included in the Administrative Record filed 3 herewith at p. 39. The County's Ordinance Code generally requires that the any person 4 developing any property needed domestic water supply demonstrate that he has an 5 approved water supply. A copy of Chapter 4144 of the County's Ordinance Code is 6 included in the Administrative Record at p. 75. 7 The City also utilizes the services of the County Health Officer to inspect 8 proposed sewer systems and to render decisions about the adequacy of these systems; the 9 City has designated the County Health Officer to enforce the provisions of the 10 Municipal Code dealing with sewage systems. A copy of Walnut Creek Municipal Code 11 Section 10-7101 et seq. in included in the Administraffire Record at p. 41 For an 12 individual septic system, a soil evaluation profile must be conducted, as well as a 13 percolation test, to determine whether the lot can accommodate.a septic tank and leach 14 lines. A copy of the County's Ordinance Code and Regulations therefor are included in 1*5 the Administrative Record at pp. 1-26. 16 In order to build a new house, the adequacy of the water systems and septic 17 systems servicing the house are reviewed and must be approved by the Contra Costa 18 County Health Services' 19. Department (hereinafter "HSD") before the City of Walnut Creek will issue a final 20 occupancy permit for the residence. 21 The HSD's review and approval process differs for the construction of a new 22 home and a mere room addition. Room additions, typically, do not require HSD review 23 of the septic and water system since the addition of one room to an existing structure 24 does not amount to a burden on the water/septic system. The construction of a new 25 residence generally adds more rooms which, in turn, requires additional capacity of the 26 septic and water systems. 27 Consistent with the policy and practice of the Community Development 28 Department. Verissimo was referred by Mr. Robert Woods, Plan Check Engineer for -2- 1 the City, to the HSD for that department's review and approval of the septic and water 2 systems prior to issuance of a building permit. See Declaration of Robert Woods in 3 Opposition to Petition, para. 4. This referral was made as early as the first review by 4 the City in October of 199L 5 Several notations were made on the first, second and third set of plans 6 (hereinafter, Plan #1 Plan #2, and Plan #3 in Administrative Record) by a County 7 inspector and by the City plan checker. Copies of pertinent sections of these plans are 8 attached hereto as Exhibit "A", Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C", respectively, and 9 incorporated herein by this reference. The notation on Plan #1 (Exhibit "A") refers to 10 an approval for an addition to the existing septic tank. The County inspector recalls that 11 the Petitioner requested an approval for a room addition See Declaration of William L. 12 Grossi in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate, para 3. 13 Verissimos received final site plan approval of Pian #2 (Exhibit "B") for issuance 14 of a building permit sometime in early January. This final approval clearly indicates 15 that final approval from the Health Department is required. 16 In March, however, Mr. Verissimo returned to the City for approval of a slightly 17 different site plan (Plan #3)--one with a different orientation of the home on the lot. 18 (See Woods'.Declaration at para. 6 and 7 and Exhibit "C"). This site plan is distinctive in 19 ' that it-was not on blueprint paper and only showed the outline, or footprint, of a 20 residence without any notation or inscription to indicate that an existing residence was 21 being removed and a new residence built in its place. 22 Because Mr. Woods had previous familiarity with this project, Mr. Woods 23 approved this revised site plan knowing that an existing residence was to be removed and 24 a new one constructed but again indicated that County HSD approval would be required. 25 See Woods' Declaration, para 7. Verissimo again went to the County for approval for a 26 "room addition" with the County making a notation that the septic tank had to be 27 located at least ten (10) feet from the structure. See Declaration of William L. Grossi in 28 Opposition to Petition for Writ, para. 4. -3- 1 After Petitioners constructed the single-family residence, they requested final 2 inspection approval in October of 1992 as a precondition to issuance of a final occupancy 3 permit. That request was denied and Petitioners were again informed that Health 4 Department approval of the septic system and the water system would be required for 5 the issuance of the final occupancy permit 6 Because of the historical problems associated with this property, the County is 7 obligated to ensure that Petitioners have demonstrated adequate water and septic 8 systems. In fact, in 1984 a tenant living in one of the houses owned by the Verissimos 9 filed a complaint with the County HSD, complaining of a giardia infection. See 10 Declaration of Ernest Brydone-Jack in opposition to Petition for Writ.of Mandate, para. 11 7. 12 As a result, the Petitioners have failed to prove that the property possesses an 13 adequate water supply or septic system as required by the County Ordinance Code and 14 the Walnut Creek Municipal Code. Based upon this failure, the Health Department is 15 unwilling to just hope that public safety is not endangered and is, thus, unable to 16 approve either system. Accordingly, the City of Walnut Creek must withhold issuance- 17 of the final occupancy permit. 18 im PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO EDCFIAUST P THEIR ADNCIIVISTRATIVE REMEDEES 20 As stated above, the City of Walnut Creek has incorporated by reference the 21 County I Water Supply Systems Ordinance, Chapter 414-4, and the County Sewage 22 Systems for Subdivisions and Individual Systems Ordinance and Regulations. Chapter 23 420-6, copies of which are included in the Administrative Record at pp. 1-26. 24 The County Ordinance Code sections which discuss the issuance of approvals for 25 an individual water supply system contain a provision for the appeal of any decision 26 made pursuant to Section 414-4.605. The appeal is made to the County Health Officer, in 27 writing, and must be received by the Health Officer within ten days of the decision being 28 appealed. See Section 414-4-1017 of the County Ordinance -4- 1 Code (Water Systems) in Administrative Record, pp. 75, 83 . Beyond the rights of appeal 2 to the County Health Officer, an aggrieved applicant may further appeal the decision of 3 the Health Officer to the County Board of Supervisors. 4 The Health Department has steadfastly refused to approve the Petitioners water 5 supply system in verbal discussions and in written correspondence as late as December 6 22, 1942. See letter from Contra Costa County to Mr. Verissimo, dated 12-22-92 in 7 Administrative Record at P. 541 The Petitioners have failed to appeal the decision of 8 the Health Services' Department to the County Health Officer. Petitioners' petition for 9 writ of mandate is premature in that Petitioners have not exhausted their administrative 14 remedies by failing to appeal the County's determination of inadequacy. It is well 11 settled that, when an administrative remedy is provided for by statute or ordinance, 12 relief must be sought from the administrative body and that this remedy must be 13 exhausted before the courts will act. Abeeira v. District Court of , =al (1941) 17 14 Cal-2d 280, 292, 109 P.2d 942, 949 and Mountain View Chamber ofCommerce v. City o, 15 Mountain View (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 82, 88, 143 Cal.Rptr. 441, 444. 16 In other words, the Verissimos must appeal this determination of inadequacy to 17 the County Health Officer before proceeding to this Court. 18 With respect to septic systems, the Walnut Creek Municipal Code authorizes the 19 Count, Health Officer.to enforce the sewer system provisions of the Code. See Section 20 10-7108 at pp. 1-28 of the Administrative Record. Mr. Nakamura and Mr. Doser, as 21 designees of the County Health Officer, have determined that the individual septic 22 system which currently exists at 90 Orchard Estates Drive is inadequate and its 23 continued use is not in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare. The 24 HSD has refused to approved approve the Petitioner's wastewater system in verbal 25 discussion with Verissimo in written correspondence dated December 22, 1992. See 26 Administrative Record at p. 54.1. 27 Petitioners have failed to appeal the septic system determination and, as a result, 28 have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to initiating this action with the court. -5- I Finally, in verbal discussions and written correspondence, the County has outlined 2 all of the alternatives available to the Petitioners to ensure water/septic system 3 adequacy. Those alternatives are to do any of the following. 1) connect the property to 4 public sewer and/or water; 2) install the septic system and/or well meeting current stan- 5 dards for new construction; and 3) demonstrate that the existing septic system and/or 6 well meet current standards for new construction. Despite these alternatives, the Peti- 7 tioners have done virtually nothing to either demonstrate the adequacy of their systems 8 or to exercise any of the options available to them. See Doser Declaration, para. b. 9 To now request that this Court substitute its authority and discretion for the 14 authority of the County to review and withhold approval of the adequacy of these 11 systems is premature and is improper in a mandamus-action. 12 IV. 13 ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF NLkMATE CANNOT CONTROL DISCRETION 14 Mandamus cannot be used to mandate the discretion of an administrative officer, 15 nor can the court substitute its discretion for the discretion of the public officer. In 16 other words, it is the general rule that the writ of mandamus may not be employed to 17 compel a public entity, or officer that has discretion, to act in a particular manner. 1$ Lindell. Co v Board of Permit Appeals (1943) 23 Cal.2d 303, 315, 144 P.2d 4. While it 19 may be appropriate for the court to compel the County or City to act, it cannot 20 substitute its discretion for that of the County Health Services' Department. In the case 21 of the County Health Officer or his designees, the decision to issue or withhold a final 22 occupancy permit is a discretiona one. The language of both the Municipal Code and 23 the Ordinance Code reference withholding permits if issuance would threaten or 24 endanger the public's health, safety or welfare. Clearly, determinations such as these 25 involve discretion on the part of the public officer. 26 Given the health concerns with this property and Petitioners' failure to 27 demonstrate adequacy of the systems, mandating the County give its approval of the 28 systems and mandating the City issue a final occupancy permit is improper. -Er- V. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TEST IS APPROPRIATE 2 SINCE NO VESTED RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED 3 The appropriate standard of review M' this instance is the "substantial evidence" 4 rule since this rule almost always applies to judicial review of a permit denial since 5 neither zoning nor work done pursuant to government "approvals preparatory to 6 construction of buildings can form the basis of a vested right to build a structure which 7 does not comply with the laws applicable at the time a building permit is issued.- Avco 8 Community DeveloMrs. Inc. v, South Coast Regional Commission (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 9 793, 132 Cal.Rptr. 386, 391 and Davis v. California Coastal Zone Conservation 10 Commission (1976) 57 Cal.App-3d 700, 708, M Cal.Rptr. 417, 4211. 11 Here, Petitioners argue that they have expen6A some $300,000.00 toward the 12 construction of their new home and that, because they have expended these amounts, 13 they are somehowentitled to issuance of the occupancy permit. The City is bound, 14 however, to ensure that all new structures comply with the Uniform Building, Plumbing 15 and Electrical Codes. With all construction, if the construction does not comply with the 16 standards and specifications identified in these various codes, the City withholds issuance 17 of the final occupancy permit This is true for a $300,000.00 residence or a multi-million 18 dollar office building in downtown Walnut Creek. Mere construction of a building or 19structure does not entitle the owner thereof to a certificate of occupancy without proof 20 of compliance with all applicable codes. 21 Using the substantial evidence rule, the Court must determine whether there is 22 substantial evidence in support of the County's determination to withhold approval of 23 the water and septic systems located at 90 Orchard Estates Drive in light of the whole 24 record. Respondents believe that this Court will find there was substantial evidence of 25 historical problems with the septic systems at this location and that Petitioners have 26 failed to prove the adequacy of the system. This justifies the County's determination to 27 withhold approval and the City's.resultant refusal to issue the final occupancy permit. 28 -7- I The Petitioners cite Anderson v City of La Mesa (1981) Cal App.3d 657 to assert 2 that the Court ought to employ the independent judgement rule to review the County 3 and City actions. At first blush, La Mesa appears persuasive. However, upon closer 4 review, there are important distinctions between the Verissimos' situation and the 5 Anderson's. Anderson was issued a building permit by the City which required the house 6 to be set back at least five (5) feet from the side lot line; in fact, the house was con- 7 structed some seven (7) feet from the lot line. However, claiming a specific plan 8 ordinance required the house to be set back ten (.10) feet from the lot line, the City 9 would not issue a final occupancy permit unless the portion of the house was removed to 10 within ten (10) feet of the lot line. 11 Contrary to L&Mtsa• the City and County have repeatedly informed the 12 Petitioners of water and septic system requirements in written correspondence, verbally 13 and on the site plans and have never altered these requirements. See, generally, 14 Declarations of Robert Woods and Joseph Doser. In addition, neither the City nor the 15 County are requiring removal or relocation of the house but, rather, proof of adequacy 16 of the systems and, if inadequate, connection to public sewer and/or water or installation 17 of a new septic system and/or well. See Exhibit "D" attached hereto. 18 VI. 19 _ PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS JUSTIFY DENIAL OF THE FINAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT. 20 Most importantly, and in contrast to the Verissimo's situation, the Court in ,tea 21 Mesa directed the issuance of a permit, finding that the variance request "would create 22 no special problem for the area or adjacent landowners." 118 Cal.App.3d 657, 661. In the 23 Verissimo's situation, however, issuance of an occupancy permit without the 24 demonstration of an adequate water or septic system could endanger not only the 25 Verissimo's health, but the health of their neighbors as well. Improperly constructed or 26 located wells, as in the Verissimo's case, can provide a vehicle for the transmission of 27 pollutants into groundwater. Once in the groundwater, diseases such as cholera, typhoid 28 fever, dysentery and guiardia can be easily transmitted to properties neighboring the -8- I subject property See Environmental Health Newsletter, January 1993, which is included 2 in the Administrative Record at pp. 61-63. 3 As stated above, a tenant of the Verissimos who was living in one of the homes on 4 the site contracted giardia in 1983 as a result of the failing septic system. A true and 5 correct copy of the HSD Complaint Form is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and 6 incorporated herein. 7 While the Verissimos have provided a bacteriological test or sample to the 8 County's Health Services Department, (see Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Mandate, 9 Exhibit "B"). the Health Services Department typically rejects these one-time tests as 10 they represent only snapshots in time and do not reflect the continuing environment of 11 water quality. (See Doser Declaration in opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate, 12 para. 2. 13 The EISD file on 90 Orchard Estates Drive contains references to septic seepages 14 on the property during 1983 when two failing septic systems were found and sewage was 15 found discharging near the well on the property. The inspection and findings were sent 16 to Verissimo in April of 1983. See Brydone-Jack Declaration, para. 3. As the letter from 17 the County indicates, sewage was being discharged within 50 feet of the well serving as 18 the residences' water supply. Mr. Verissimo himself. in September of 1983, obtained a r 19 perm;-t to repair the failing septic systems at 90 Orchard Estates Drive. However, while 20 Mr. Verissimo claims he has completed this repair work, he completed this work without 21 the benefit of an inspection. See Declaration of Brydone-Jack in Opposition to Petition, 22 para. S. As a result, the County is unable to ascertain the extent of the repairs as well as 23 the adequacy of the system. 24 Given that Petitioners have failed to demonstrate the adequacy of the systems 25 and given the fact that the property has experienced seepages and reports of infection, 26 the County has no choice but to withhold its approval. 27 III 28 -9- 1 VIr-L BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING ADEQUACY 2 RESTS WITH THE PETITIONERS. 3 While the Petitioners never directly allege that it is the Respondents' burden to 4 prove that Petitioners' systems are inadequate, there are statements in Petitioners' brief 5 which suggest that "there has been no showing by the respondents that there is any 6 public health hazard or any basis for their denial for the approval of the existing 7 systems and the issuance of [sic] final occupancy permit." (Petition for Writ of Mandate, 8 p. 7). 9 However, Section 414-41001 of the County Ordinance Code clearly states that "no 10 person subdividing and/or developing any property needing water for domestic use shall 11 so use the property until he has demonstrated an approved water supply." For 12 wastewater systems, a soil evaluation profile is conducted by the HSD which then 13 determines, based upon the soil type and percolation tests, the appropriate location, if 14 any, for the individual septic system. See Sec. 420-L6 et seq. at pp. 1-7 of the 15 Administrative Record. Thus far, Mr. VerLssimo has failed to submit his property to a 16 soil evaluation. See Doser Declaration, para. 10. 17 Because the Verissimos have not yet demonstrated to the County's satisfaction 18 that the .septic and water systems are adequate, and the County has information that 19 healthproblemshave existed, and may still exist on the property, the County will 20 withhold its approval of the systems. Likewise, the City will withhold issuance of the 21 final occupancy permit for the residence. 22 VIIL 23AWARD OF DAMAGES IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE DISCRETIONARY ACTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS ARE IMMUNE 24 The California Tort Claims Liability Act, which is contained in Government Code 25 Sections 815 et seq., provides that if the statute has given the entity the authority to 26 determine issuance or denial of a permit, and injuries are caused by such issuance or 27 denial, the entity or employee making the decision is immune from liability. 28 Government Code 018.4. -10- The case law dealing with this immunity has held that the immunity afforded by 2 Section 818.4 precludes recovery of damages as a remedy for permit deniaL &1hy 3 Realty Co. Y. City of-San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 128, 109 CaLRptr. 799. 4 Furthermore, while the Petitioners request $100,000.00 in damages, they have not 5 filed a claim with the City as required by the California Tort Claims Act Section 905. As 6 such, the prayer for damages pursuant to Petitioner's complaint is barred- In addition, 7 the request for damages m a mandamus action is also prohibited. 8 Accordingly. the Petitioners' request for damages in the amount of$100,000.00 is 9 impermissible and must be rejected. 10 CONCLUSION 11 Rather than addressing the public health concerns posed by their existing septic 12 system, the Petitioners have asked this Court to compel the County to approve the 13 water/septic systems and to compel the City to issue a final occupancy permit. The 14 Respondents urge this Court to reject such request unless and until Petitioners can prove 15 the adequacy of both systems. 16 Respectfully subrr'tted p 17 18 L. KOSS, Deputy Oty Attorney 19 Attorney for Respondents City of Walnut 20 Creek and Contra Costa County 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 Catherine Campbell-Taylor declares: 3 1 am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action, and am employed in Contra Costa County at City Hall 4 (1655 North Main Street, Suite 390) , Walnut Creek, California 5 94596. I am readily familiar with the practice of this office for 6 collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence is deposited 7 with the United States Postal Service that same day in the 8 ordinary course of business. On March 2, 1993 1 served the within MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 9 AND On IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, DECLARATION OF ERNEST BRYDONE-JACK IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION 10 FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, DECLARATION OF ROBERT L. WOOD- IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, DECLARATION OF 11 WILLIAM L. GROSSI IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF 12 MANDATE, DECLARATION OF JOSEPH G. DOSER IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE and ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD on PETITIONERS in said action, by placing copies in sealed 13 envelopes for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices. The names and addresses of the 14 persons served, as shown on the envelopes, are as follows: 15 Willard E. Stone, Esq. 1211 Newell Avenue, Suite 124 16 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 17 These documents were placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service on that date, at the place of business 18 set forth above. :1 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 19 true and correct and that this declaration was executed on 20 March 2, 1993 at Walnut Creek, California. 21 22 V_ CATHERINEY/L' 'CAMP9ELLTAYLOR 23 24 25 26 27 28 ...�' -'.•M'1r' - .'i:'. "a��-:Si,,,r; •r _tet.+.+ i.y dW - :.>_�.!�- •'rte~^��'.:1't�'-�.:�::-�. _t ,�. ttZ ' - - .`^l:.-r 1-.`T ''ti rte: ... �n.r,.\:�•���.r'. y • _ n.1.�,•• �,.,"` ,.l y:••late•!n1'.' v.^i i.�.`"�•6rS1 •4,'�9 ;' a J Y' • � - :'.;.r;�.•` :.. '� �'a�',:` ,j��.:z yr; .1 r_Vit:�^�� `�,,�'.�� ','•�°'••�'�' K . •,,may,;1� �^'�.'���+��''.''�v.-A�r:' ta - •4 LAND°USE PISS-:RE AL. - ►�-i�~;,r •..y CONTRA'COSYA'=C UNTYh^ HEAI'TJi�uEPRR�hrE�,,,.4 _• r- f;' _.�...,,,. ,i'�Jy�'.'�7� ATRROVE7 REJEC'E7� CN ITJORAl. A2��/Atx �.K'1"c r{`� -- .ia!. '! ./: ... � �.. •.�gtii^L'.':SLS.• _ _.. Septic S;s:erl .:iG�(.-r. 1• y.: ._-,_ :'. :14 '�- a r.. •int. 4_ r ` lYg:?.r iVell;lype) •,4., -� :'. -• n :7.w.�'•%''. r• Bldg.Addititl(i tfype) Pop(/Spe). Other C7 u �F Conditions: r' f - >�' _,Yv. `•�A.. 41���..!^''ST'^.l�Y. �.,.�'� ^•Y� ��� 4 ISI ••r XHIBITA . .• r•.Jfi \ ♦ r-1. ' �`T�.�:,,..w'nr,.::���ey. j.��'Y�w'•�'.tr3Tr!}�!�(i�.� �.l�s��l. _ .. _ i.T}.`'r�,,..'�'i•J'.f''.�. :'(J-,'`-.) �,C.S1':r.T°t�J.'.r'N ���• �- - 1��.'��, ���.' [fir.• __r�. ' �•`:w'4oYfY.�`:y` 1.' �;: °.Tr-,.ski'., -�•},.�Jnr.-.-.."Ti��:� I •t.L` �` ' •�..�+�had'.^. ti'✓r l!.^_• .. .F".•-!!�Ty�j•N•('a��1 .�.. !a:'� .rte,� .f•;��l.{F �., ;,err.,,;y► ,ix My, • �. .� :`<'.,ti.';c�. � y.i)!�r.�� ''.'3'..,r%'� -�'� F--.,S,j;��l+`�c •S'r dam. ��%-=ci��i•+'..'>•.• _ R ._.. '.r• r"-.,.,,ri 4) }v�LL,c.T.(:-. 4t}. baa_ r) ��::r •'il'�t�� "'C'r., ''•7���- -.t_"11,,.c Kti•'�2w-iJ;•1 J./lY:;i. � S . ---(E) Sump 5. - ---------- I. I' I E - _ -. -------� -0" WIDE n A� oti I 7 , Z I E)GaRA(q I _ , I o" FYI (7 --'--�-_..F T!5EPT'l TANK ` �. v•y� (I'. O ' � I , HO o O o ojn pr ��� c3a,CO3 c nom .Y,•... 7 "a•�5;.S:rte. '7 IAN -P r tK..r.�.t `.,fir,`, _.f,;^<-" ;,'t"ay�ti •�;:,c'4` ` • .�� . .,- .' .":. :ter,,�5� ,,t:•� . L.l; • CITY Al � :� . ;.�r :+{_�' .,;:,.��:�: ,- P 'USELANb �bS7AATY.: C R GON?RA PECRCUtENG r •<Jc. ,. ;��t.,:;ti�.` z �:.. ROV E-3 cN p�OY��.:i .;,u� / " ..'" :,�i�lt'F10RA1:. A?_ t`.l.A •:,;'ru•;.; .».•�s�",`' �r •�-. nnMQ ..iG+•l,y,;y..•!...-^'"�,.::�,�.� w nisi t'�_"'t• ='`6'/::.:.::'.:'.."'.,p31't< 'r��•=! .e�."�'"��{c','y'" `,f�' pp. 'cnyil� J1:GeCbC:t:ontY), ,..:.:::�+ �'! - �':.."",=...• .D,at,.�;*:,•' :�- •r;:. ,:moi cn9'n••.inq ;iA'f'ec �e1liFYPs) '-�;;,�;::r,;, �.,._.2:Y=�-".:''"' `�•4at'�;, -{ .:;x.c:;�'�,��. .. we,+FY t et {=+e,.AF;tittiOntY +'.pollso :o{, 41 ���;n9 tn.P«,..n Other :� ._�• ,nT�kt�:6:, �^.-ti-ft��'tf-ti�[,��� ' .Gpnditions: '�f.S l . ••ku"#r;, ��-4,-• '��,4'4".+t,•_y..rt'�r;{ :y.vL-'y�-'�'. -,- ' ^TREFF t,,ii% .i�'^.:#',{SSt .t4'r"":.. ,,. '•' tl!'r :='ia" .t. t; ":r,.'"'•.,aKit"�''F•�ti;4• ;"' .`_)ri'r"�.'7=h�i�+v i.js•. 'iRUN'" - - _ .c.'..'f:'{�'!}.`,.. P�'�y..,...•,t 1vJcC t.F�f*`- t i _ .(fl.11. . I f r'Y J ,.. n `•rte:Y�1h��'t'3h /"�+;:!t.7Y' �* rti t —yZ. " F" ,:.:,....iT.: -r''•.o.:G`��'". �,��"..C.pr'r,Y,ii:�i''• i�J .'L%•S' M yd•. .t h. �• ' '.,• �' •1 `',< :lj 1}rjl'tt..•'.:+�''� '�,'..., -'Pr<yYl,;.,":fes;✓"}� r oz r 73 C6 WSW 5, ,a vi CL.a d LLS ca 'I = to LU 14 ut ,T X 141 luo) .................................. L--J flu -,let EX HIBIT Contra Health "ervices Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION Co' sta East/Central Office 1111 Ward Street County Martinez California 94553-1352 (510)646-2521 July 20, 1992 Roger Sharp City of Walnut Creek Building Department 1666 N Main Street Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Mr. Sharp SUBJECT: 90 Orchard Estates Drive, Walnut Creek APN 138-080-041 A review of the file for the above referenced address shows the following: 1. No records are available which demonstrate the specifications or adequacy of the on-site septic system and well. 2. Past problems with the septic system is evident by correspondence within the file. 3. A permit to repair the septic system was issued 9-29-83 and expired without being finaled. 4. A room 7addition plan was approved by the Environmental Health Division on 10-10-91 and 3-6-92. According to the property owner, Larry Verissimo, a new dwelling was constructed subsequent to these approvals. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the new structure be served by an approved water supply and wastewater disposal system. This could be accomplished by any of the following: 1. Connect property to public sewer and/or water. 2. Install a septic system and/or well meeting current standards for new construction. A3'M 0/92l EXHIBIT ,.D 3. Demonstrate that the existing septic system and/or well meet current standards for new construction. This option is the least likely. Sincerely, Joseph G. Doser, R.E.H.S. Sr. Env. Health Specialist JGD:jc cc: Urry, Verissimo 90 Orchard Estates Dr. iasoo�.re.7zo ' COMPLAINT FORM LTE RECEIVED C-1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY E.- DIST. kTE INVESTIGATED HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT- PROGRAM AREA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION )MPLAINT: Ik - OCATION: PARCEL // OCCUPANT: PHONE: (Name) 1121, (Address) (zip) OWNER: I(IVU k (Name) L44 Z Pc> 122 (Address) (Zip) COMPLAINANT: PHONE: ( ame) (Address) (zip) DRIGINAL zV6..,- lqa7— e ,, CONDITIONS FOUND: 22 ACTION TAKEN: Inc 49k,_1 4— wtt!z FOLLOW-UP Yes NO Date 1y 3 COMPLAINANT NOTICE OF ACTION: REQUIRED: Yes No Dat (Date) FOLLOW-UP 1,A CONDITIONS FOUND: A FOLLOW-UP ACTION TAKEN: Environmen?a'I j;;j Inspector Supervisor EHAD.-5:1/82:5C White Copy- File Yellow Copy- Supervisor EXHIBIT COMPLAINT FORM ATE RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY E.i- DIST. ATE INVESTIGATED--------rT_ HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT- PROGRAM AREA . ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION OMPLAINT: 2L ol ,OCATION: PARCEL OCCUPANT: PHONE: (Name) -{Zip) ' (Address) m .4&Z-grHONE: -,rf OWNER: (Address) (zip) PHONE: 1f�-Z '7 COMPLAINANT: (Rame) (Address) Zip) ORIGINALAa7_ .............0- CONDITIONS FOUND: 7 ACTION TAKEN: It- -;r*- 4Awi 414,1,r, 4— FOLLOW-UP Yes No DateCOMPLAINANT NOTICE OF ACTION: REQUIRED: yes No Date UD—ate) FOLLOW-UP CONDITIONS -5A/ 7L 9,ezxa�� 041 FOUND: . - I 1::� :2:n FOLLOW-UP ACTION TAM: Supervisor Eavi.:amnm]en Heal Inspector ERAD-5:3/82:5C White Copy- File Yellow Copy- Supervisor EXHIBIT- -�-dT Goof The,-La!rd. of Supervis .--s Contra Clark of Olchw Board and A. County Administration BuildingCounty Administrator 651 Pine St, Room 106 Costa (510)646-2371 Martinez, California 94553 County Tom Powers let District Jeff GmW 2nd District ......... Gov%BWhop,3rd District ..... tune ti AVM McPmk 4th District Toon Torlaksom 5th District cou July 8, 1993 . Kim I . Verissimo 90 Orchard Estates Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Dear Mrs . Verissimo: Pursuant to Section 14-4 . 006 of the County Ordinance Code, notice is given that July 27, 1993 at 2 : 00 p.m. at 651 Pine Street, Room 107, Martinez, California has been set as the time and place for hearing by the Board of Supervisors of your appeal from the decision of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division, relative to the water and sewage disposal for a new dwelling at 90 Orchard Estates Drive in the Walnut Creek area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County, at or prior to, the public hearing. Very truly yours, PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the . Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Ann­�66rv�e— fl Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator Health Services Department Environmental Health Division Attn: George Nakamura CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Clerk of the Board Inter-Office Memo TO: William B. Walker, Health Officer DATE: June 30, 1993 Health Services Department FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Ann Cervelli, Deputy Clerk (1� SUBJECT: Appeal of Kim I . Verissimo From Administrative Decision Health Officer Hearing On May 26, 1993 We are in receipt of the attached administrative appeal filed by Kim Verissimo appealing the decision of the Health Officer, Dr. William B. Walker relative to the water supply and sewage disposal for a new dwelling at 90 Orchard Estates Drive in the Walnut Creek area. If this matter is not timely filed or there is any other reason it should not be scheduled for hearing by the Board of Supervisors, please contact this office by July 6, 1993 . This matter has been tentatively scheduled for hearing by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, July 20, 1993 at 2 :-00 p.m. Material relative to this appeal to be presented to the Board should reach this office by July 14 , 1993 . ac attachment cc : County Counsel County Administrator Health Services-Environmental Health 1 pl vn�) fir' U C �r�Q. � {�.�, '�'fue Jr �'-� ha c� � l `amu.w�` ju ew t72 C/1 loz 4r tk)hV-I-hync VY)a �Q� f lu � IfX l�w� ' a�� °�`,�c' � �,,,�% a roc-���`' j IA.IP--1 X10 �na����o-�,�� 114- ;, tlr"4,-W �"l � pf' G��,�„ O I,�Jt.0-� (� fir. WWI �hxj bi�v � Y0141 w � � � 3 OntraHealt' Services Department ,r ,�o ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION Costa '� East/CentralOffice County 4;, _) 1111 Ward Street '>�"w Martinez,California 94553-1352 (510)646.2521 July 20, 1992 Roger Sharp City of Walnut Creek Building Department 1666 N Main Street Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Mr. Sharp: SUBJECT: 90 Orchard Estates Drive, Walnut Creek APN 138-080-041 A review of the file for the above referenced address shows the following: 1. No records are available which demonstrate the specifications or adequacy of the on-site septic system and well. 2. Past problems with the septic system is evident by correspondence within the file. 3. A permit to repair the septic system was issued 9-29-83 and expired without being finaled. 4. A room addition plan was approved by the Environmental Health Division on 10-10-91 and 3-6-92. According to the property owner, Larry Verissimo, a new dwelling was constructed subsequent to these approvals. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the new structure be served by an approved water supply and wastewater disposal system. This could be accomplished by any of the following: 1. Connect property to public sewer and/or water. 2. Install a septic system and/or well meeting current standards for new construction. A373A 15/92) l 4 k 3. 1 Demonstrate that the existing septic system and/or well meet current standards for new construction. This option is the least likely. Sincerely, 4 �l J Joseph G. Doser, R.E.H.S. Sr. Env. Health Specialist JGD:jc cc: Larry Verissimo 90 Orchard Estates Dr. 18.900rcWd.720 FROM:ENV MGMT TD:91510943647? MAY 10, 1993 B:07AM #641 P.01 k�-,---. �,..�iY ilVUA2lc;tl.r.�L1 s.vlctlid�Clll�.il 601 T r-%AS S+�i%EE ;AiRFi-' 0. CALIMANtA • ei4533 1k�r�arsaw���avrsr�7ew-sxx-rpt:�r:�'w�r wti�r����rxy�r-jw7��r:}^�Ar}�s�wT:yt�ri+�r+►inr�r�r�lrytx�tarxf�tlr��r�eytit� ♦P�f i.,i.0ii�i�—T.�ar6i�a tlrxxxxxxx�r�r::::eiri::eraxxxxxk,.arm:=s:xxat�irxx-*xr—yrs. #�ex9ta►+rx•iirsixsr�Y r TO: ve F:CX— r. A =-W �ti TO� � > r' 90-3 of P G—r-S rt- Ar 400r,1 Art golk i ti {i 07} 422.—S!?0. ?(..•.v:rfYC r .�vf:vG �:'.771 �.�w:�{1 +�t;iL�t�rG ::�5?EC-:CN �::•wi�f7 .�.-�fVixC3lMM€2{�'AI.t!$Aii.:t{ :i.:•w:�. RZC M c ENV MGMT, TO:9151894364?? MAY 10, 1993 8:OBRM t#641 P.02 C. Jetback Require antsSOLAA IT D ' e, Setback -- the vinicum permissible horizontal exterior distance fro= any paint an the boundary of the noted trti�aes��*tf� tux�oaal srataw to ,,,y► Faint a4 Ow �#• � �a�!•co b. Septic tank boundary -- the exterior vertical surfaces of the tank and the canterltao of tight-joiat#d pipiot fto. �9 the septic tank to the draiafield boundary, (� e, Drainfield boundary -- an iwaginAry line that encloses all leaching linos within the dr4L4ftold area, aai $x four feet distance from any point on the centerlina of the leaching Tins piping. d. Cut or embankment -- any discernably sea-made area, of land • surface having a slope greater than the adjacent natural ground surface at the nearest point on the boundary of the a+eptic tank system. a. Natural watercourse -- any natural drainage channel wherein, In the judgement of the Department of public Health, asker- genet of septic tank effluent would constitute a heelth .hazard. 2. Tabl-of,Standard setbackreguirements Setback to Setback to Features Sept ie Tank 'Drai,f i ld Suildings 10 feat 10 foot Ujoin#,ng property liana 10 feet 25 feet Walls (on s its or neighboring) Join' feat 100 fest Ve113 (public) 100 feet 100 foot Drainaze Cvurac/Ephomorol Moak ► 25 feet ft feat F1ovLng Stream 50 feet 100 feat Lake/Resa>voix 50 fact 200- foot Cats/€mbanlments to feet 4 times vertical height Swim IO feat /� -Wfeet Vatarlines 10 feet 10 feet Walks/Driveways' 5 feet S fo$t . 3. Setbacks less than the standard distances listed will be allowed only In the cafe of eactremaly extenuating circu=tsncea accardiag to the terms of Solana County Coda, Chapter 25-200 (e) (2). - 3 - FROM',ENV 'MT" I T0:915109436477 IV- ,10, 1993 B:09AM ##642 P.01 GUIDEL!%ES WItISIE D!;S-`C:SAL Gi+D=: L4,74D DEVELO; -'•',E.rr7S TABL c 5-6 lulrttil-IJI-d} , Minimum Distances , The Beard has determined the following minimum distances should be followed in order to tirovide enottetion to vaier quality and/or Public health: Distance in Feet J Drainage Dome:iic Public Rowing Course or Cut or Property Lake of Facility Lyell Well biteamll) t Fill (4) Ephemeral tank(3) LineRasa:vuiri5} SULLM,l2? Sepric Tank or Scorer Line 50 100 50 25 10 23 50 Leaching Field 100 100 100 4 so 200 Seepage Pit 150 158 100 50 4h 75 200 f1} As measured from that line which defines the limit of a Myer frequency flood (2) As mtasured from:ht raoe of the drairtaot course or Meam. iii Distance it- feet eouah iour tithes the vertica!height of the cut or fill ban;;. Dis-wict is measured from the top erigr of the bank. (4) This dr:tanry shall• b+maintained viten ineividual wells are to be installed and the minimum distance bctweer.waste dispose! end walls cannot bs mured. 15} . As tnctsur ed f rom the hichwater iine. Minimum Criteria a The pereo'Wion rate' in the disposal arca stall riot be slvvver lien 60 minutes pit irw1% or not slo-eiv than . 20 minutes per inch is svepane piu are proposed. Tare p-rcolatktrn rat! stall not tic ferst than 5 minutes per inch unless it can b:- shown that a sufficient dMitrice of soil is avaitabit tv aisurt proper flit:ation. a Soil depth below the tiotium of a lt:achin;trench s:ell trot be !res t:.an ' feet nor hnis than 10 ftiet b--,!ow bo-nam of a saepdge pr a Learn it. ant;cIpmed h;;Nnt level of }rc_rd nater b.law tht b M m o'. t I:'&W-2 Istat h slat; no:be less than 5 lee'., not leu than 10 leo' beloK- lrttorr= of ss-epi-s. pi;. v.:eur deed`s are retrikkig if tolls dc, not t+'oride Pie"n ate fiitra;iotl. e Ground hope in the Olit►'.r56i area stat! not be grasser thrm :; ;Ri-ent. r f?¢:_,r.•it-td it, axordanln with pto7sduies cc-meined ire nurrem US. L.Yart.~••gent of Pjafth, E•ducat;on, and L.e!firre "t►;&rrual o' Septic Tank Pmctice" or z rittrod approved by the Exart:;ive Of-linear. T- 5-64 FROM:ENV MGMT TO:915109436477 MAY 10, 1993 13:10AM #642 P.02 A 1 C r?VA( table 2.—Minimum distance between components of sewage dlsposdsrstem disposal , area. Horizontal Distance (feet) Typir pages l I Component Well OJL Water To pi of auction supply Stream Dwelling Property depth o system line line line (pressure) tiPnkl G _ under t' Building sewer.......... s0 10(a) 50 ,,,. separati Septic tank................. 50 10 50 b 10 require( Disposal field and I depth o seepage Bed.......... 100 25 5o 20 5 ing di ; seepage Pit................ 100 so s0 20 10 carefull, Cealwl (b)..... ....... 150 so 50 20 15 Cant du: gravel. (a) Where the water supply line must Croat the sewer line, the bottom of the cleared water srrvicx within 10 fret of the point of crossing, shall be at least 12 inches above the top of the sewer line. The sewer line shall be of cast iron with leaded or mechanical joints at least 30 feet on either side of the crossing. (b) Not recommended as a substitute for a septic tank. To be used only when found newssary and appruvcd by the health authority. I 1 Seepage pits should not be used in areas where domestic water stip- plies are obtained from shallow wells, or where there are limestone formations and sinkholes with connection to underground channels through which pollution may travel to water sources. A Details pertaining to local water wells, such as depth, type of con- struction, vertical zone of influence, etc., together with data on the geological formittions and purusity of sulnuil strata, should be consid- ered in determining the safe allowable distance between wells and sub. surface disposal systems. Absorption Trenches A soil absorption field consists of a field of 12 inch lengths of 4 inch 1 agricultural drain tile, 2 to S. foot lengths of vitrified clay sewer pipe, or perforated, nonmetallic pipe. In areas having unusual soil or water characteristics, local experience should be reviewed before selecting piping materials. The individual laterals preferably should not be over 100 feet long, and the trench bottom and tile distribution lines should be level. Use of more and shorter laterals is preferred.because if some- thing should happen to disturb one line, most of the field will still be serviceable. From a theoretical moisture flow viewpoint, a spacing of twice the depth of gravel would prevent taxing the percolative capacity of the adjacent soil. Many different designs may be used in laying out subsurface disposal fields. The choice may depend on the size and shape of the available to FROM:ENkJ M91T • t TO o 915109436477 W" �10, 1993 8:11 AM #642 P.03 t i PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS TABLE 1-1 , E EEE —EEE EEE � � t%. W) LQLn � d .� N N Or..� r F o in LnV E ESE EE EEE a Lq O N to N Lo Lq C9 r C _ Li. o to IA Q to toSIA M .� 4 EE-- E _ m 3 1t9 M N N E M IRtoLo Lo E rd 4 +� co toin m m 1c! h LL -- E E E E E E Va f? C NN co a g � _ Z to to ,.. 14 �v N X Cj y U. r. ,� �. 4f toRf '. h t 78 ti Ib m ' y " I .. IL —x v0a '� $ c � cyt LE d Ti � y S? - y ma coOO Gat y� N �r ham ►: —" 219 CRAIG Z RAND"PREL BETTIE BOATMUN.V.P. W a DONALD P.FREITAS RONALD L BUTLER CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT DANIEL L PELLEGRINI 1331 Concord Avenue*P. O.Box H2O JOHN E DEMO,GEN.MGR. Concord,California 94524 JOHN S.GREGG,ASST.GEM.M.GR. (415)674-8000 or 439-9169 March 12, 1985 L. A. Verissimo 90 Orchard Estates Dr. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Subject: Orchard Estates Drive - Main Extension Our engineering section has prepared the enclosed redline design and the following estimate of cost for the above named project: Install: 720' - 6" Water Main and Appurtenances $39,600 320' - 4" Water Main and Appurtenances 11,840 1 ea. - 1". Service, 5/8" Meter 1,822 Annexation 342 etc> 0 Estimated Total $53,604 OL-b Notes: 3'oo'n Y L-1 199 1) Right-of-Way required for all facilities not within a dedicated street as follows: a. Full width of private drive. b. 101 x 101 for service. 2) Annexation of CCWD Improvement District No. 1 is required. The above cost estimate is tentative and for planning purposes only. These figures are not to be considered final or for contractual use. Upon receipt of final drawings and your written request, a detailed design and estimate of cost will be prepared for your approval. If you have any questions regarding this estimate, please contact this office. Very truly yours, QLoma. , �t LeeAnne Cisterman Engineering Services Administrator Treated Water Division (415) 674-8013 LAC/rl File: 34.200 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT ESTIMATE OF COSTS - Property owner..,,,, 1/ I2 if 1161S/tai L? Date �Z- Lorationr 5- APN Statement issued to This estimate is based on information from District records and/or information provided by others.It is provided as a courtesy and is not intended to represent actual costs.For a more accurate estimate of sewer main construction costs,the owner/developer should obtain additional estimates from others who have visited the site and who are engaged in the business of designing or constructing sewers.if the above-mentioned parcel is outside existing District boundaries, sewer service is predicated upon the approval by the District Board of Directors to annex the parcel. ITEM YES No N0. ❑ 1. MAIN UNE EXTENSION•Cost estimate feet of e�5' sewer main 0�, - $ manholes 01600 = $ 2 do r rodding inlets = $ 7dG1 other ® = $ Total $3 f© d ❑ 2. SIDE SEWER Sae 4' or 6' ❑ 3. ANNEXATION CHARGES $ '02 yo per ❑ 4. ANNEXATION REQUIRED ❑ ❑ 5. FACILITIES CAPACITY FEE $ _ /jS& F/Y_ ?2 —f 3 ❑ ❑ 6. EQUALIZATION CHARGE $ per connection. ❑ ❑L 7. REBATE CHARGE $ per (Rete Job Afo. ) ❑ C� 8. WATERSHED TRUNK CREDIT $ per ❑ 9. SEWER SERVICE CHARGE /YR.F!Y_ f 'f� ❑ ❑ 10. *OTHER FEES OR CHARGES cr PSA?• rzwic-wv � .vtP�ci-i�J (''does not include engineering design,fight-01-myacquis hon,or side sewer cost.) Atlas 5037 Estimated b v 2264-IOM ginutOctober 26, 1992 city of (WeR 1% Mr. and Mrs. Larry VerissimoO DO 90 Orchard Estates Drive CT 2 8 1992 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 HI=ALTHSER� =� ✓JCw DEPT, Re: Final Occupancy Permit �NV1R0l.rnIEtJTaL�1EALTH Dear Mr. and Mrs. Verissimo: The purpose of this correspondence is to confirm the information I conveyed to Kim Verissimo during a telephone conversation on Friday, October 23 , 1992. I stated to Mrs. Verissimo that the City will not issue a final occupancy permit for the newly constructed single family residence at 90 Orchard Estates Drive until such time that the County's Health Services' Department approves the water supply and sewage systems. serving that parcel. As you are aware, the County is currently unable to approve either of these systems because the on-site septic system is inadequate and because the well does not meet current County Ordinance Code standards. I understand that there is some frustration on your part since the County Health Department had originally "signed off" on your site plans (dated October 10, 1991 and March 6, 1992) for the purpose of issuance of a building permit and is now refusing to authorize final approval of the systems. It was clear from the site plan, however, that you would need to seek final approval of the septic system from the County. I also understand that this property has had a long history of problems with the septic and water and that you were aware of these problems prior to constructing your new residence. As I indicated to Mrs. Verissimo on the phone, the City and the County are under an obligation to protect the public's health and safety. Until such time the septic and water supply system deficiencies are corrected, we will withhold permits in order to safeguard the public health as we are required to do under the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code. I also directed Mrs. Verissimo's attention to the three options noted in the letter from Health Services to Roger Sharpe with a copy to Mr. Verissimo, dated July 20, 1992, a copy of which is _ attached hereto, and suggested that you contact Health Services to carry out one of these three options. Mrs. Verissimo told me that very recent water quality studies suggest that the water supply is potable; I urged her to convey this information to the P.O. Boz 8039, 1666 North Moin Street, Wolnut Creek, Colifornio 94596 (415) 943-5800 J/ Health Services' apartment since this is ir -Irmation which would be very helr, ,*ul in determining complia__.:e with the County Ordinance Code. Please do not hesitate to contact either me or Roger Sharpe, Chief of Code Enforcement, should you have any questions regarding the City's position. Very truly y urs, AMARA L. KOSS Deputy City Attorney cc: Roger Sharpe, CCD Joe Doser, Contra Costa County Health Services Department George Nakamura, Contra Costa County Health Services f HEM TO: Robert I. Schroder, Supervisor District Three 14 FROM: Sheila Arsedo Assistant DATE: Friday, October 30, 1992 SUBJ: VERISSIMO PROPERTY Today, I met with George Nakamura, Supervisor Environmental Health and Joe Doser, Inspector who replaced retired Bill Grossi. They presented a large file on the Verissimo matter. They said there were complaints starting in 1983 regarding Septic tank failure (exposed raw sewage) . Verissimo took out a permit for repair the tank, but never had an inspection. Therefore, any repair is considered illegal (Verissimo claims he made repairs) . The whole problem results from the original approval by the city and county for an addition. Once he obtained that approval, he tore down the old house and built a new one somewhat larger than the old house. Verissimo must do some testing to prove that he can meet certain codes for his well and septic tank. County suspects that his well is too near his septic tank. The leach limes may be contaminating the well and should be set back. There' s a question as to whether there is room for both well and septic tank on his property, it he should have to drill a new well. He needs to do soil test- ing. This has a long history and Bill Grossi has said he would go to court, if Verissimo decides to sue. County staff has consulted County Counsel, who has advised that the Walnut Creek Building Department may be vulnerable, not the County. There's no way the Health Department will accept Verissimols "approvals" until Verissimo does the required soil testing. Then he can choose one of the options depending on results. i I1850 Bates Ave.,Suite D• Concord,CA 94520•(510)687.4947• FAX(510)687-2905 To: Mr. Larry Verissimo 90 Orchard Estates Dr. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Sample Source: 90 Orchard Estates Drive December 5, 1992 Walnut Creek Job No. 921552 Matrix: Source Water Sample No. 001 Date Sampled: 12/2/92 Cust. No. 10091 Date Analyzed: 12/2/92 001 Hosebib Absence of Coliform Bacteria Method No. : HMO-MUG l I Paula Spiess - b irector • M C. C MORTGAGE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA January 7, 1993 Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Verissimo 90 Orchard Estates Drive Walnut Creek, CA. 94598 Dear Larry and Kim, This will conf irm our conversation yesterday regarding the re- financing of you new home. I have analyzed your loan application and the supporting tax returns, and based on our experience in processing loans and current income ratio requirements it appears that the maximum loan that you can qualify for, at current interest rates, can not exceed $191,000. 00. This loan amount would provide the funds necessary to re-finance the existing first Mortgage with Home Federal, pay off your construction loan with LaMorinda Bank, and pay most of the settlement costs of the new loan. This opinion assumes that you have no significant derogatory credit and your income, assets, and liabilities, as indicated on the loan application, can be properly documented. Further, our underwriters have stated that it will not be possible for you to obtain any new loan until you have received a Certificate of Occupancy from the local authorities. The final decision for the approval of your loan will be made by our underwriters, and their decision will be final. We can not guarantee loan approval. Please call me if you have any questions. I will keep you advised as we proceed to process your application. XSincely, Brooks Baldwin Broker 1981 North Broadway Suite 365 • Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (510) 937-2300 AQUIFER bCIL-.I\ICES, INC. (510) 2a3-9098 2 May 6, 1993 �3� 931150 William B. Walker, M.D. 20 Allen Street Martinez, CA 94553 SUBJECT: Verissimo Property, Walnut Creek, California Dear Dr. Walker: I have reviewed the percolation test data and inspected the property at 90 Orchard Estates Drive in Walnut Creek, California. On May 23, 1993, 1 conducted a site inspection. There was no- surface evidence of septic system malfunction. The distance from the leach lines to the ephemeral creek bank is 50 to 55 feet, and the distance to the creek bed is 60 to 65 feet. The attached map of the property shows the locations of the septic tank, leach lines, and percolation test holes. The percolation tests were supervised by Joe Doser of Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division on April 8, 1993. The surface soil consists of sandy, silty clay. Contra Costa County requires that soil accept water at the rate no less than 40 minutes per inch in the vicinity of leach lines. Test locations 3, 4, and 5 are nearest the existing leach lines. The test results are listed below. Test Number Percolation Rate (min/in) I < 2 < 3 6.6 4 6.2 5 18.7 6 108 7 (location unknown) >218 Repairs or improvements were made to the septic system leach lines in 1983, as approved by Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division. Based on these facts, it is my opinion that the septic system is functioning properly at this time, and if maintained in good condition, it will pose no health hazard to the present owner or to the public. Respectfully yours,- Rebecca A. Sterbentz, RG President cc: Willard E. Stone • 1 • o i� ow 00 r �• rr� 1 , Iv t� \ .0-00 43 IA ` 00%' "fie L414 v y 1 au » -'1�6 - 9:S WED 12 : s p . 02 .-; Contra Costa County «' � ' Health Services Department William B. Walker, M.D. Medical Director and County Health Officer Pune 15, 1993 '( C Lawrence and Kim Verrissimo 90 Orchard Estates Drive Walnut Creek, California 95698 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Verrissimo: At your request and pursuant to Section 414-4.1017(a) and 420-6.518 of the County Ordinance Code, a Health Officer Hearing was conducted on May 26, 1993. The water supply and sewage disposal for the new dwelling at 90 Orchard Estates Drive were discussed. I have reviewed the file and considered the evidence presented at the hearing. Based on this information, I am unable to direct that the Environmental Health Division approve your proposed methods for providing water supply and sewage disposal for this dwelling. The reason for this decision is your failure to demonstrate that the existing site septic system meets current minimum public health standards as required by Article 420-1.6 of the regulations governing the installation of sewage disposal systems and your failure to demonstrate that the existing site water supply meets current minimum public health standards per Article 414-4.6 of the County Ordinance Code. Typically, the Environmental Health Division reviews the site, soil conditions, design and installation of septic systems to verify compliance with minimum standards. In this case, Environmental Health did review all of these factors and found the following discrepancies: Septic System 1. Unsatisfactory percolation rates were obtained (Section 420-1.604). 2. Reported location of the disposal field is less than 100 feet from the high water mark of an adjacent creek (Section 420-1.603). 3. The method of installation and materials used for the existing septic system is unknown since it was not inspected by Environmental Health and your appeal did not present any evidence as to the method and materials employed in the construction (Sections 420-1.605 and 420-1.606). 4. The relationship of the existing septic system to other setback requirements is unknown since the exact location of the system has not been demonstrated (Section 420-1.608). •fn All— C#. zt s 6.�a+•r.p7 r',S �Lt�� •t.1!;1 370-50io C'fice•(415)370-5098 FAX 'TUN-I6",93 'WED 12 1 P . e3 Lawrence and Kim Verrissrro June 15, 1993 Page 2 Typically, the Environmental Health Division reviews well location, construction, water quality and sustained yield rates to verify compliance with County minimum standards. In this case,.Environmental Health did review all of these factors and found the following discrepancies: 1. Compliance with minimum setback requirements is unknown since the method of sewage disposal on all neighboring properties has not been verified (Section 414-1.220). 2. The method of well construction is unknown including annular seal depth, material used, etc. (Section 414-4.801 through 414-4.803). 3. The sustained yield of the well is unknown. A minimum of three gallons per minute is required by the County (Section 414-4.20(1)(a)). Minimum public health standards are critical for ensuring a safe and long-term means of water supply and sewage disposal, not only because it impacts this residence, but the entire surrounding community. Of particular concern are construction standards and setback requirements which have been established to prevent surfacing sewage or contamination of water resources. In addition, testimony at the hearing presented a past history of water-related problems on the site, specifically a giardia incident. This specific incident is a definite cause of public health concern at this site. Based on the above, I concur with the findings stated in the letter from Daniel Guerra, Deputy Director, dated May 6 199 of In. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, Chapter 14-4, you have the right to appeal this decision to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors within fifteen (15) days of your receipt of thi Very Truly Yours, �. J1,L,,) J-(-, William B. Walker, M.D. Health Officer WBW:sIt Attachment cc: Environmental Health Division - General Programs J-UN —' -is —'9.-s wEa 12: 1 P . 04 Onira , : ' r � � ,/ !' Healt, , Services Department �OSt •' ���j IZ EWRONMENTALHEALTH DIVISION •.'— `� (,� 1111 Ward Street L/Ount -� Y y% � Martirsez,CalltorMa 94553.1352 (510)648-2521 May 6, 1993 Larry and Kim Verrissimo 90 Orchard Estates Drive Walnut Creek, California 95698 RE: Variance Request Dear Mr. and Mrs. Verrissimo: Our office has evaluated your request for variance to allow use of existing septic and private water well systems for a newly constructed residence at the above referenced address. After numerous hours of evaluation and telephone conversations with you, our office presents the following Findings: 1. Your request for a 50 foot setback to the creek instead of the required 100 feet cannot be granted because your current septic system is already located within 25 feet of the water course. Both our office and the Regional Water Quality Control Board do not grant variances specifically related to water course setbacks. 2. Your reasoning tha: the existing septic system has been working for 90 years is not accurate as our records indicate that Inspector Ernest Brydone-Jack had numerous problems related to septic system failure. Additionally, you disclosed to our office that an illegal repair was done approximately three years ago. 3. Your request to condition the sewer hookup to the time of future escrow in the event of a sale transfer or failure is not reasonable and cannot be granted. 4. Your contention that the new house is a replacement structure for the former substandard structure is not an effective argument because the structure is clearly new construction. 5. It has not been demonstrated that the existing well meets minimum construction standards. b. Your request that our office talk to your neighbors regarding the possibility of granting a sewer easement is a concept that we have endorsed throughout this process and are willing to carry out as soon as sufficient information has been provided to our office. A372A ,JLJN - 1'b = 3 WED 12 : 3 P . em Larry and Kim Verrissimo -' May b, 1993 Page 2 In summary, our office is still committed to working with you to achieve a successful resolution. If you have not done so, you should also be communicating with the City of Walnut Creek for potential solutions. The Health Officer Hearing that you have requested is scheduled for Tuesday, May 11, 1993 at 11:00 a.m. in our offices at 1111 Ward Street, Martinez. Si erely, 2- 'el M. Out Deputy Director, Environmental Health cc: William B. Walker, M.D., Health Officer George Nakamura, Supervising-Environmental Health Specialist Joseph Doser, Senior Environmental Health Specialist s3wmin;me.vu OA� . s -•t. 'tom �° • • - � _i,�-.'' :r `O:LIN s p , r o fj � Q � '�� .�.iJ.••J A L'I w, me to AA art �. ;�,';`� � �U. •. - . � �.: :� . . [ -'.•. fir. � y�.�,��-• .tv _ ►•' a• t4 �« .�1' •� .t1 ir. + '.r u !^ ,�ti;. .Y�•a.^ :4-� �3�• R r-.Y:.elt••�, 'v..' R'.^.Is -K1 �^+ `t'' �1.�}-.. �,` r�r•,n•r��`.t•. ��r �rr.i• .,: ••i� Jry ;j:.-.3,. .� .t• '*'.a:w,•'tR,'Ci y+ ��• :'.-{{rs .it' ^i:'�2i;: -' '�Y. y 'i a? .�t'• .•E '+�.SR, '.:tJajs.• .v..t. '!i1"` :�t". .l'� o`'..at.� �1�. '•w' ..2• }!� •:;, 2r1!�_,.. it':/�;,=• ,) #` :tr•�,.; '.'S:�z =a.4•. ^k ..Th t. ,.• �:�:•. .a "' r"rk:+•`;y..•'+S.r' '�•:•.:. ?a V r. +.W 7.•'{•}� "$'.:'�•. -.j7"iY.i.• .• ar •,j}. � +*...;T •.Y '.4 ;�,.�'+•.�ax�c `� 4 1'.' ��'•"'ai� �' •a"r:' r�'.; �.i•...i'.t t.1�ir�',�-«:''.s••. :d;•:�:t; •.,a. .t�''' -.n_' •i"n.l Xr�+l,• ti;aL.4"'• 'iC 'y ►-_ •.•} ry�T"'Ty; '.r:y S,:' sift.+ j'{.il��"#�;•=�«.�•. :�'Y�..t. �"r` '�'•� to ."� 4'� .->• v t'+ t•: •�k t:� _. '�.. Y.k.,• � •�!':•�'�:_! •' '�:t .:+t,;4.+ ,:�,�ta�'��"�,V�iw^;�•' �••ri' ' -�+',.y'•j� '� ��•++ :i•. Cj �".r%«j!ns= :.w:$''w•'"vf lf�i.y!'••.•' s:•rT' aai�rr "�, 2:`• t {.7.;. ,ytu .rr y�'I�+ +. il' (.•� rf', lft:" '� 1� _ '�"ff:�i+•::w.4- •_ -� rw ♦ aty r. Jf'r.' �,#t F.j' > f: +.. iS Rt:.+.+Y �'-4 ?:' � ��sr ��: „r :�. r*�" -y. ,...'�, ..: .;r... , '"fes � s. ''�`�y,�`.• y� _ j' s, '* J.�; ,T` -r. ��• 'f .�+j {j• ��,� 'c.,4�M..n..��'�;�, ,� �t,,^,r �• Lct,,: , dJ: iY �' t' `"i�. 1r. `. � d,�,,`tr.G:•,�,;.. , •� ^''_ •�: �."�„�{°�.� '• .',�' .�t.ys. 4� y ` ..'t+' p•r1y .y �' 4f�,1•� `;,C►l.•, i�r.�t�Ai..�..15'.:''� 4j,1t% {+ ..f�. ♦� !„�i° -����'#"'• 6,tar � _ �'.��.^:':� •4'•Ji-'f.:' `ST{{tT!'Va,�J;'f„ 4��y ri.r -V•.•��: ".:7.^�Y, ' �-"..� + }{ d rS• a +..' k S p!Y.- •t i.{'•Y,: ! r Lr� t�yr a,i.' '.Y4y'rr s`� - • • R'k• :+,�J•'jj;K, �"j{i!y}�.:i'�:P '- '�► 'i.:.•�•,�ti'Q: •�•i•. - 1 _ V 'O m 1 rn � 1 � 1 1 "� I I►` I 1 'oI . 1' Cl �� r I • O'OCucnC9 A I 1 h 1 I v D N nr I I y k I ILI y� r •-1 G� � I 1 :lzt 71E Ej r, ~-~c r O � oOc» e , 3 el C urmmc., p `/ i r" CQ i C7 1 � 1 3 1 (� 1 1 Pi i• Zziy tit V 1 t w iJ s 1 N / b i 7 �P