My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SR0082306
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
26 (STATE ROUTE 26)
>
11111
>
4200 – Liquid Waste Program
>
SR0082306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/20/2024 8:50:23 AM
Creation date
12/9/2021 2:47:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4200 – Liquid Waste Program
RECORD_ID
SR0082306
PE
4215
STREET_NUMBER
11111
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
STATE ROUTE 26
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95215
APN
08919003
ENTERED_DATE
7/8/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
11111 E HWY 26
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\tsok
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
'% <br />assume that the leach field had failed; what does the County propose next? It is not providing an alternative but <br />is rather forcing my client to incur extraordinary cost to no end. The leach field has provided many years of <br />service and on Nov 13 passed the first percolation test conducted at test hole number 3. It was the County who <br />incorrectly calculated the percolation rate and having done so, used the wrong testing procedure, resulting in a <br />failed test. Instead of solving the problem, the County blamed the unacceptable testing result on my <br />client. Please speak with the original inspector who tested the field to obtain a fair assessment of what <br />happened. <br />I look forward to a productive meeting and an expeditious resolution. <br />Alfred Martinez, PE <br />(415) 680-5351 <br />PS <br />Please forward to the correct person if you are not responsible for this department. <br />Hello Michael, <br />Enclosed is the new percolation test results performed yesterday. The test hole is located adjacent to the test <br />hole No 3 which was tested on Nov 13, 2019. <br />The Nov 13 test reported a percolation rate of 60 mpi and yesterday's test, not surprisingly, demonstrated an <br />identical rate. The same soil has now been excavated and tested twice and reveals the same rate so we are <br />hopeful that we may proceed? I think it appropriate to include the test results of both tests in the required report <br />with an explanation regarding differences. <br />It is my belief that test hole number 3 on Nov 13 passed. If the tested hole had not passed it would not have <br />resulted in 1/2 inch drop in water during the last reading (last 2.0 hours). The contractor and property owner <br />conducting the test experienced operator error just like your inspector who incorrectly calculated the test results. <br />The test procedure may have wrong, but the percolation results are identical as shown yesterday. <br />The enclosed test procedure does require tester qualifications or provide a test mechanism. <br />Please let me know how to proceed? <br />Thank you <br />Alfred <br />(415) 680-5351 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.