Piffero v. County of Mendocino
Filed 9/15/06 Piffero v. County of Mendocino CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| RIC PIFFERO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A111538 (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUKCVG0390360) |
After their application for a permit for an on-site sewage disposal system was denied, appellants Ric Piffero and David Hull brought an action for damages against respondent County of Mendocino and three employees of its Department of Public Health. The trial court granted summary adjudication or judgment on the pleadings to the county and its employees on each of seven causes of action. Piffero and Hull appeal the subsequent judgment, contending inter alia that the trial court erroneously required them to exhaust judicial remedies by filing a timely petition for mandate before bringing their tort causes of action for damages. They also argue in the alternative that if the time for filing a petition for mandate began to run when the original permit was rejected, the doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply to extend the time for filing the mandamus action.[1] (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085, 1094.5; Gov. Code,[2] § 66499.37.) We affirm the judgment.
I. FACTS
In early 2000, appellants Ric Piffero and David Hull formed a general partnership to develop 40 acres of real property in Ukiah. This property on a steep slope was to be subdivided into five parcels. Each parcel was to be offered for sale once access, grading and sewage disposal systems were constructed or permitted. Once the city approved the subdivision, Piffero and Hull began marketing the parcels for sale.
The parcels were not connected to the Ukiah sewage system, so escrow on the sale of each parcel could not close until it was shown that the permitting authority would approve an on-site sewage disposal system. A written permit from respondent County of Mendocino's Department of Public Health was required before construction of an on-site sewage disposal system could begin. The Basin Plan set forth requirements for approval of on-site sewage disposal systems meeting regional water quality control standards. One requirement was a minimum soil depth of three feet below a proposed leaching trench on a sloping lot such as those in Piffero and Hull's subdivision.
In May 2000, Hull filed an application with the county for a permit to construct an on-site sewage disposal system on his own parcel. The application was supported by data from Ron Franz, an engineer and soil scientist. The application was approved.
In April 2002, Piffero and Hull entered into a contract to sell one parcel in the subdivision to Phillip Smith for $265,000. Smith deposited $10,000 in escrow for this parcel. An application for an on-site sewage disposal system for the Smith parcel was filed in July 2002, also supported by Franz's test results and his opinion that the proposed site was suitable for a sewage disposal system.
Respondent John Osborn--an employee of the Division of Environmental Health of the Mendocino County Department of Public Health--was assigned to review the Smith parcel application for an on-site sewage disposal system. Osborn visited the site, as did his coworker, respondent Scott Miller. During his visit, Osborn dug into the soil near the proposed site of the sewage system and found weathered sandstone six to 10 inches below grade on slopes of 20 to 30 percent.
In the county's view, weathered sandstone is considered to be bedrock--a condition that restricts or limits sewage disposal. As the proposed leaching trench did not have a minimum soil depth of three feet below it, Osborn found that the proposed site on the Smith parcel did not meet the Basin Plan requirements for an on-site sewage disposal system. This finding contradicted Franz's opinion that the site was suitable for sewage disposal. Although Osborn suggested that the parties attempt to find another site on the parcel that might be more suitable for the sewage disposal system, he also opined that soil conditions on the Smith parcel were â€
