HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11191996 - C154 Contra C, ,S
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson _ �"d'L County
°sra-�sK c3
DATE: November 19, 1996
SUBJECT: RECEIVE STATUS REPORT FROM DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
DEPARTMENT REGARDING REVISED SEPTIC ORDINANCE. ADOPT SPECIFIC
TIMEFRAME FOR RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING SEPTIC ISSUES.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive status report from Director of Health Services Department
regarding revised septic ordinance. Adopt specific timeframe for resolution of outstanding septic
issues.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This issue was originally brought to the Board in a personal item
that I submitted on January 24, 1996. Conflicts continue to be experienced with individuals in the
East County area regarding the installation of septic systems. As a result, I submitted a personal
item on September 17, 1996 requesting an update on this issue, as well as requesting that a
schedule for provided for the adoption of the revised septic ordinance. Further, it was requested that
a report be provided to the Board no later than October 15, 1996. Although a formal report was not
issued to the Board, the Director of Health Services provided some information on this issue via
memo dated October 7, 1996. This memo indicates that public hearings will be held on the revised
septic ordinance sometime in November. However, the memo also provides information that is
contrary to information staff has provided over the last twenty-one months. It also indicates that the
formation of a Task Force to work on this issue was deemed inappropriate until after the ordinance
has been revised. I am not in agreement with this statement as indicated in my October 22, 1996
memo to staff. Septic issues continue to be a time consuming and costly endeavor for my
constituents. A plan to address this issue must be developed and implemented immediately.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: 10K
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
i
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED: OTHER:
VOTE SUPERVISORS:
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT }
i )
AYES: NOES:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY
OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK THE BOARD OF
cc: Health Services SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CAO
District V BY
iJA
DEPUTY
Tom Torlakson
300 East Leland Road
Supervisor, District Five Suite 100
Contra Costa County $i is Pittsburg,California 94565-4961
Board of Supervisors "� ;" o (510) 427-8138
srd'couK�
DATE: 22 October 1996
TO: Dr. William Walker, Director Health Services Department
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM ORDINANCES
I am in receipt of your October 7 memo to the Board of Supervisors regarding the
subject, as well as Mr. Nakamura's October 18 transmittal of the revised ordinance, and
have the following comments.
Revised Septic Ordinances
1. Who received distribution of these documents for review? When were they
distributed?
2. It would have been extremely helpful for a summary or fact sheet to be provided
to those reviewing the document in' order to assist them in identifying actual
changes from the current ordinance.
October 7 Memo to Board
1. The information you provide in your memo relative to the Central Valley RWQCB
is contrary to information provided by your staff prior to and during our 1-13-95
public meeting in Brentwood, and subsequent to that meeting as well. Senior
members of your staff has consistently insisted that they have no control over the
use of alternative septic systems. The second paragraph of your memo implies
that we do have local control over approval, yet the third appears to contradict
that. In plain language - do We or do we not have control? In any event, it is
inexcusable that it takes a period of over 20 months to finish revising ordinances
which were in the process of being revised in January 1995.
2. If you will refer to my 1-24-95 Board Order, I believe it is clear that the formation
of a Task Force was never intended to resolve specific septic cases but rather to
identify problems with the current policies and procedures employed with regard
to approval of septic systems. In addition, it was intended that this Task Force
would be involved in the actual process of working with the County to revise the
current septic ordinances - not merely to be part of the 10-day review period after
the fact.
Our January 1995 public meeting in Brentwood was attended by over 45
individuals who had significant problems with our current process. Many of
those individuals still have problems. Some have been resolved, but only after a
substantial amount of conflict and staff time and effort has been employed to
come to a resolution. The procedures, policies, and judgement calls made by
staff still appear, at least in this District, to set up applicants for automatic
appeals and a long, drawn-out approval (or denial, in many cases) process.
3. You indicate that only a few septic problems have arisen. I would submit that
you are not being provided with accurate information in this regard. I can provide
you with one case handled by our office which took approximately four months
to resolve, was initially denied by a supervisory member of your staff, and only
resolved after additional research had been provided by another Environmental
Health staff member and a meeting of all parties in my office. The applicant
originally attempted to obtain requirements from Environmental Health in June,
became frustrated due to lack of progress in August and contacted my staff with
a request to investigate. This was an individual case that should have been
resolved in a two-week timeframe at most. And this is not an isolated case - my
office has been requested to investigate and assist in numerous individual cases
over the last several years.
In summary, I am hopeful that the revised septic ordinances will address the technical
aspects of this issue. However, it is clear to me that the policies and procedures
employed by staff have not changed over the past two years, and are still too rigid and
inflexible to make the processing of simple applications by an individual a
straightforward matter. This is an outstanding issue which still needs to be addressed
by the Department.
With the current schedule projected in your memo, it is very possible that I will not be
seated on the Board when the revised ordinances come forward for approval.
However, I will be sure that Supervisor Elect Canciamilla receives a complete update
on this issue.
Your assistance in resolve these issues would be greatly appreciated. I would like to
have a status report back to the Board on 11/19/96.
y Contra Costa County
The Board of Supervisors HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Jim Rogers, 1st District William B.Walker, M.O.
Jeff Smith,2nd District
Gayle Bishop,3rd District �.�__sE,;L--.oma Director& Health Officer
Mark DeSaulnier,4th District 20 Allen Street
Tom Torlakson,5th District j Martinez, California 94553-3191
County Administrator g;o LT (510)370-5003
"- �- FAX(510)370-5099
Phil Batchelor •,
County Administrator
COUh
DATE: November 13, 1996
TO: Board of Supervisors
',v
FROM: William Walker, M.D.
Health Services Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Septic System Ordinance Status Report
In response to Supervisor Torlakson's request for a status report, the Environmental Health
Division offers the following comments:
1. The draft revision of the septic ordinance and regulations were distributed on
October 16, 1996 to septic system contractors, land use consultants, Board of
Supervisors,County Counsel,Environmental Health management and staff,Regional
Water Quality Board offices (Central Valley and Bay region), city managers and
related officials, and assorted septic system related industries. Nearly 70 letters have
been distributed to date. The original comment cutoff date of October 30, 1996 has
been extended to November 15, 1996 to accommodate comment extension requests.
In addition, County Counsel has not completed their review as of this date. Once the
comments are reviewed and added as needed and County Counsel completes their
review, the public hearing process will be scheduled.
2 A summary or fact sheet was not prepared at this time because the entire septic
ordinance and regulations were being reviewed for total revision. Such documents
will be prepared for the proposed public hearing stage.
3 The Regional Water Quality Control Board designated Contra Costa County's
Environmental Health Division in 1978 to oversee individual on site waste water
discharges for our county. Until recently, the Regional Water Quality Control Board
staff for the Bay region would not allow alternative septic systems without a formal
Memorandum of Understanding with the County. In coordination with the revision
of our ordinance and regulations, they have allowed alternative systems on a site
specific basis with.professional engineered design and our review.
Merrithew Memorial Hospital&Health Centers • Public Health • Mental Health • Substance Abuse Environmental Health
Contra Costa Health Plan • Emergency Medical Services • Home Health Agency • Geriatrics
A-345 (1/96)
4 A task force will be considered in the future when county wide rather than East
County composition would be helpful in refining the revision once technical review
has been completed..
5 Environmental Health staff have had to address only a few septic problems. In fact,
there have been no health officer septic tank appeals in the last year. The revised
septic ordinance and regulations will address the technical problem areas of the
current requirement and allow Environmental Health staff to protect the public
health and safety of the entire county. Staff has been able to handle septic problems
at the division level on a case by case basis.
The Board will be kept fully apprised of the latest status of the septic ordinance and
regulations for Contra Costa County.
memos\septic.mem