El Dorado County Grand Jury 2013-2014 County Actions Create Flooding, County No Help with Repair Case Number Gj-13-17

The complainants’ properties are flooded from runoff when there is substantial rain; causing erosion on their properties. Response: Respondent cannot agree or disagree with the finding. There is no evidence the flooding issues have not been rectified. The Grand Jury report states that there was a civil settlement agreement between the “property owner and management company.” 2. The internal and external drainage analysis of the Granada Heights revised subdivision was flawed. The County should not have approved this revised subdivision. Response: Respondent disagrees with the finding. The flooding issue is described by the complainants as a result of either a speed bump in the road and/or enlargement of a side yard. By this context, the subdivision as approved and built in 1990 was not flawed, but according to complainants improvements added later created a problem in 2005.

The Director of Development Services should require County employees to apply the requirements of the Grading Ordinance. Response: The recommendation has been implemented.

Deficiencies in County record keeping prevented County staff from locating the drainage plan for Granada Heights. Staff relied on an as built subdivision plan showing a drainage swale that, in fact, did not exist, leading to a claim against the wrong property owner. That property owner was forced to hire an attorney to defend against the mistaken claim. Response: Respondent disagrees with the finding. The County relies on the subdivision as built plans as the only true evidence of the subdivision original construction.

The County illegally permitted the installation of a retaining wall and alteration of a drainage swale without requiring the analysis and plans required by its own regulations. Response: Respondent disagrees with the finding. The installation of a retaining wall was completed under proper building permit (168046) including supporting documentation from registered professional engineer Ronald S. Illium, AEI Engineering, Foslom, consistent with the Building Code and Grading Ordinance.

The County has admitted that the velocity of the water in the altered drainage swale and improper sizing of a pipe in an EID easement have contributed to the drainage, flooding, and erosion problems. Response: Respondent disagrees with the finding. The finding is not supported by any documentation in the Grand Jury report or in the County files.

The County has the authority to remediate the harm done to the complainants and others similarly affected. The El Dorado County FINAL Revised Grading Ordinance, 2- 5-07, Section 15.14.410, Corrective work, subsection A., Abatement of unlawfully created conditions allows the director to …order County workers or contractors to immediately enter private property to conduct work necessary to abate hazards to public health and safety such as: a. The alteration of drainage patterns that has caused, or has the potential to cause, flooding of or siltation upon any downstream property… It further states 2. Cost recovery: Whenever the County expends any funds or takes any action, the County shall bill the landowner, lessee or licensee for the costs indicated herein. Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 54988, the costs shall become a lien on the property, or shall be recoverable from the property owner by other legal means. Response: The respondent disagrees in part with the finding. The County has authority to protect the public health and safety but has prosecutorial discretion when implementing code enforcement actions. In the matter of the flooding, it was determined to be primarily a civil matter.