Loading...
Reso 2021-945Resolution No. 2021-945 A Resolution of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Determining If a Sewer System Overflow occurring on or about February 25 and February 27, 2021 at 1826 Pomona Avenue, Costa Mesa was the responsibility of the owner or other persons, whether the owner should have been provided an opportunity to self - abate the spill, and whether the charges for the abatement were reasonable WHEREAS, a sewer spill occurred sometime between February 25 and February 27, 2021 at the property at 1826 Pomona Avenue, Costa Mesa; WHEREAS, District contractor (CR Drains) responded to the sewer spill and determined that the owner or other person in charge of the property was responsible for the sewer spill because the lateral was not properly maintained; WHEREAS, the owner took the position that the sewer spill was caused by problems in the District's lines; WHEREAS, staff determined that the situation required outside contractors to abate the spill for health and safety reasons; WHEREAS, an outside contractor abated the spill and charged the District for the spill abatement costs; WHEREAS, the District notified the owner that he owed the bill, but the owner has refused to pay the bill; WHEREAS, the District desires to place a lien on the property for the costs of abatement; WHEREAS, before a lien may be placed, the District is required to provide the owner with due process and a chance to object to the lien. (See CMSD Operations Code §6.02.060 and Chapter 6.10); WHEREAS, a duly -noticed hearing on this matter was set for July 30, 2021; WHEREAS, on July 29, 2021 at approximately 4:12 p.m., the owner requested a continuance of the hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors does hereby find as follows: 1. A sewer spill occurred on or about February 25 and February 27, 2021 at the property at 1826 Pomona Avenue, Costa Mesa. 2. Staff responded and determined that a contractor was needed to abate the property. Resolution No. 2021-945 Page 2of4 3. The sewer spill was abated and the costs incurred and the owner was billed for the costs. 4. The owner has refused to pay and contends that the sewer spill was not his responsibility and that the District was responsible for the spill. 5. A hearing on the issues was provided on July 30, 2021. 6. The owner was provided with notice of the hearing and did, in fact, receive notice on July 21, 2021. 7. On July 29, 2021 at 4:12 p.m. the owner, Peter Bedford, submitted an email stating that the hearing "must be rescheduled to a future date as a work related incident has taken my priority..." 8. That no other reason was given as to why the hearing could not go forward that day or what the work -related incident was. 9. That the owner has shown a lack of responsiveness/follow through with the District staff in the past, including a failure to have his sewer contractor put forth his findings regarding the causes of the spill. 10. Therefore, based on the lateness of the request for continuance, the failure to cooperate with District staff in the past, the lack of specificity as to why he could not make the meeting, and the tone of the request for continuance (it must be continued... a work -related incident has taken my priority), the Board has determined that the request for continuance be denied. 11. The Board does hereby find based on the evidence put forth in the hearing: a) Responsibility The Board hereby finds that the spill was the responsibility of the owner for the following reasons: i. The photos showed that rags and/or wipes were clogging the lateral. ii. The evidence showed that the District's sewer main was flowing freely in the street. iii. The District Engineer testified to the physical layout of the sewer, namely that the sewer main in the street was lower than the lateral, that the lateral connected at an angle from above, and that the lateral was designed to gravity -low to the sewer main. Based on his knowledge and Resolution No. 2021-945 Page 3 of 4 expertise, it was extremely unlikely that the District's sewer main could be to blame for the spill. iv. The fact is that when C & R Drains unclogged the lateral, it began to run freely again. V. The lateral is the private owner's responsibility. b) The owner was afforded an opportunity to self -abate. If the owner was not afforded the right to self -abate, there were significant health and safety reasons why the spill could not be allowed to remain. The testimony was that District staff always allows a private owner the right to self -abate when it can be done consistent with the public health and safety. The owner denied responsibility. He nevertheless did authorize C & R Drains to run its line down the lateral. c) The costs were reasonable. C & R Drains is the District's stand-by contractor for such matters. The General Manager reviewed the bill and testified it was reasonable. The District paid C & R Drains for the invoiced work. For the above reasons, the charges are hereby confirmed. The District Clerk is hereby directed to retain all evidence put forth in the hearing for the Administrative Record. The General Manager is directed to provide the owner with notice of the Board's decision. The District Clerk is directed to take the steps to have these charges placed on the assessment roll. PASSED, ADOPTED and DETERMINED this 23rd day of August 2021. Secretary, Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board of Directors President, Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board of Directors Resolution No. 2021-945 Page 4 of 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, NOELANI MIDDENWAY, District Clerk of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 2021-945 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by said Board of Directors at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 23rd day of August, 2021 by the following votes: AYES: Ooten, Scheafer, Schafer, Perry, Eckles NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, this 23rd day of August 2021. r AM j Noe ani yi� e n w District Clerk of the Costa Me raSanitary District If you desire to challenge this determination, you may be limited to a petition for writ of mandamus proceeding. Those proceedings must be filed within 90 days of the date of the decision, July 30, 2021. (See Cal. Code of Civil Procedures §1094.5.)