El Dorado County Grand Jury 2013-2014 Grading of Boulder Bump Road Case Number Gj-13/14-15 Reason for Report An agent

Non-paved private roads are notoriously deficient in meeting any standard. Situations like described here are opportunities to bring them to present day standards through a permitting process that embraces those standards. Response: Respondent disagrees with finding. “Non-paved private roads” by definition do not meet any County road standards. The County does not have the authority to require private roads to be improved to County standards. Roads are typically improved as required through the subdivision process authorized by the State Subdivision Map Act, County Ordinance Title 16, and the County Subdivision Design Improvement Standards Manual. In this particular situation, the parcels are 40 acres and larger and were not required to improve road at the time of the parcel creation. Title 16 Section 16.44.120.E states that creation of 40 acre parcels are not required to improve roads to County standards. The parcels along Boulder Bump Road are 40 acre parcels.

The lack of information and plans by both the permit applicant and the Planning department make it impossible to validate the complainant’s claim. However, the Grand Jury does find that the Planning and Building Departments were deficient in their analysis of the scope of work for the project, acquisition and inspection of documents germane to the permit and subsequent inspections. Response: Respondent disagrees with finding. A grading permit (203375) was issued after most construction had occurred and an inspector had visited the constructions site in response to a citizen complaint. Plans were reviewed and meetings held between the applicant and County staff to address permit requirements. The grading plans were prepared and stamped by a registered professional civil engineer and approved by the County’s civil engineer. The County engineer required hydrology calculations for sizing the culverts. A Senior Planner familiar with the property because of the processing of a tentative parcel map in 2007 also approved the permit, specifically reviewing potential impacts to Native American resources and determined the grading would not impact those resources. There was no lack of analysis for this permit.

There was no evidence that the Development Services Department verified the existence of the easement and the permit applicant’s legal right to grade it at all, in any manner. Coupled with the improper parcel numbers referenced above the permit should not have been issued. Response: Respondent disagrees with the finding. The County does use all available documents to verify accuracy of grading plans, including Records of Survey, Parcel Maps, and recorded Deeds. The County issues permits based on consideration of that information and the information provided on the grading plans prepared by a registered professional civil engineer. Property owner disputes regarding the validity, use, or location of easements is a civil matter.

The permit was for roadway repairs and culvert installation, yet there was no inspection of culverts, but merely an inspection of rough grading, erosion control and a final inspection. Further, the Grand Jury finds that Development Services did not properly administer the County Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, and should have neither issued the permit nor inspected the work. Response: Respondent disagrees with finding. Development Services received an application and collected fees on September 2, 2011, reviewed the application and plans (including culverts), and issued the permit on September 7, 2011, including the Air Quality Management District. (Below is a screen shot of the approvals from AQMD, Planning, and Building staff:) Inspections occurred on September 9, 2011 and October 11 2011. Permit was finaled on October 11, 2011. Final inspection included review of all improvements shown on the plans, including road improvements, two culverts, and erosion control measures 5. The El Dorado County Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance is Chapter 15.14 of the County Code. It is the law of El Dorado County. Public officials failed to follow the provisions of the Grading Ordinance; they failed to follow the law. Response: Respondent disagrees with the finding. Grading permit 203375 was applied for, reviewed, approved, inspected, and finaled as noted in the County files. The finding does not specify what portion of the law was not followed.

There was insufficient communication and interaction between the Development Services and Air Quality Management departments. Response: Respondent disagrees with the finding. Grading permit 203375 was applied for, reviewed, approved, inspected and finaled. This included AQMD review on September 6, 2011, one day before the grading permit was issued and four days after the permit was submitted. In fact, the permit was submitted on Friday September 2. September 3 and 4 were weekend days and September 5 was a holiday. The permit was effectively processed in three working days with AQMD responding within two working days.

DOT was unable to recover the cost of cleaning up the washout. It did not have any record that it was actually done. Response: Respondent agrees with the finding.

All County permit fees were later refunded by the Board of Supervisors agenda item 11-161 without explanation. Response: Respondent agrees with the finding.

The El Dorado County Grading Ordinance may put undue burden on simple maintenance on rural roads when strict adherence to the Ordinance is practiced. Response: Respondent disagrees in part with this finding. The Grading Ordinance allows maintenance of roads without a permit. Section 15.14.140.J of the Grading Ordinance exempts from the Grading Permit process: “Maintenance of existing firebreaks and roads to keep the firebreak or road substantially in its original condition.” A permit was required in the Boulder Bump Road area because the building inspector visited the site determined that the road was being improved and not simply being maintained “substantially in its original condition.” In addition, two culverts were being added to the road, which is not exempt from the Grading Ordinance.