SR0082306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kith, Michael From: Alfred Martinez <a1 mar2tinez3@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 9:07 PM To: Kith, Michael Cc: ehwellandsepticpermist@sjgov.org; Lal Toor; cvseptic@att.net; Nino, Monica [CAO]; Regalo, Sandra [CAO]; rcastrolaw2@gmail.com;j.mmyles@sjgov.org; Fox, Wayne Subject: Re: duplicate plans Shady Rest Attachments: 2nd_plot_plan_04_10_11_20.pdf Dear Mr Kith, I made a copy of the plot plan and resubmitted it today because the County either lost or misplaced the original plan, submitted November 2019.Your statements are a bit confusing since the enclosed scaled plot plan addresses the items identified 1 and 2 of your email. Based on your statements, I can only assume that you haven't looked at the submitted plan or drafted your response before giving the submitted plan careful consideration. Please look over the plan again since it contains the information requested about the septic tanks, leech lines, water lines,their approximate location, and the mobile park layout as discussed and agreed during our November 29, 2019 meeting.The furnished plot plan does not contain information about the 96 seepage pits since that requirement was not mentioned in your October letter nor was it discussed during our meeting November 29. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of Ms Foley's email dated December 6, 2019. Ms Foley's email was written one week after our meeting and does not contain anything reference, understanding, or requirement to include information or background about the 96 pits in the plot plan. Her email merely states that 96 pits have been permitted over the years. We agree. The County should have all relevant records regarding the permitting of the 96 pits which have been permitted over a 30 year period. The demand to incorporate information about the location and status of 96 pits into the plot plan is yet another example of the County imposing new permit requirements which are outside the scope of the original letter dated Oct 29, 2019 along with the agreement we struck and is evidence of bad faith. During my last email I requested that the County, or county counsel, provide case law or the statute which compels my client to furnish information about the status of the 96 pits permitted 30 years ago?We are still waiting for the infromation. As explained, Mr Toor, the present owner, has no knowlegde about pits or the status of the property prior to his acqusition approximately 4-5 years ago (let me know if you need the exact date). The demand for the pit information is wholly unreasonable. The County is requesting that Mr Toor, at his expense, uncover and expose the condition of 96 buried pits which are today covered by asphalt, concrete, or both. Mr Toor is unable to ascertain the location of the pits and would be required to excavate until the pits are exposed and located. The request and expense are patently unreasonable. Does the County really have the authority to deny or decline a permit because an owner is unable to reasonably know with certainty the location or condition of pits which were permitted and documented by the County 30 years ago? 3 No (new requirement, not included in Oct 2019 letter or meeting, cost is unreasonable and is the second example of bad faith) 4 No (new requirements, not included in Oct 2019 letter or meeting, cost is unreasonable and is the third example of bad faith) i