COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE CIWL LIABILITY COMPLAINT NO. R5.2OO3-0524

COMMENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE CIWL LIABILITY COMPLAINT NO. R5.2OO3-0524
VIRGIMA L. DRAKE, TRUSTEE, DRAKE REVOCABLE TRUST
HT]MBOLDT ROAD BT]RNDUMP AREA 7
ASSESSORSPARCEL NUMBER 01I.780-018
AND
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY COMPLAINT NO. R5-2003-0525
YIRGINIA L. DRAKE, TRUSTEE, DRAKE REVOCABLE TRUST
HI]MBOLDT ROAD BURN DUMP AREA 8
ASSESSORSPARCEL NT]MBER011-780.014
r-?r
LAW OFFICES OF
K. GREGPETERSON
TEIJPHONE (916)'143'3olo
FACSIMTTF (916)492-2680
Frnril: greg@kgrcgPeteBon'com
MAILING ADDRESS
P. O. BOX 2t1451
SACRAMENTO, CA 95865
1716L STREET
SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814
October24,2005
VIA HAND DELIVERY
ThomasR. Pinkos,ExecutiveOfficer
CaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard
11020SunCenterDrive, #200
RanchoCordova,CA 95670
Re:
. n r e
.-?c-YHI\,,i,,
(Area7-APN:011-780-018)
ComplaintNo. R5-2005-0524
Liability Complaint
AdministrativeCivil Liability
Administrative
(Area8-APN:011-780-014)
Civil LiabilityComptaintNo. R5-2005-0525
Adminisrrative
DearMr. Pinkos:
you in
Virginia L. Drake,Trusteeof theDrakeRevocableTrust,andI am writing
I represent
your
related
AdministrativeCivil Liability Complaintsand
to the two above-referenced
response
with the
lettlrs to Mrs. DrakedatedSeptember23,2005. I am submittingthis letter,together
of Relevant
Declarationsof virginia t. piake andKennethR. Stone,Esq.,anda compendium
to the ACL Complaints'
Documents,on behalfof Mrs. Drakein response
Cleanup
We stronglydisagreewith the factthatMrs. Drakeis the only ResponsiblePartyunder
who is being fined, andbelieveit is
andAbatementOrderNos. 88-700andR5-2003-0707
that your ACL Complaintsshouldbe modifiedto alsoincludethe City of Chicoand
appropriate
SimmonsandNina R'
thi otherpropertyowners,JamesE. (Ed) SimmonsandDarwin H. o'simmonses")
asalsoliable
Simmons,Trusteesof the SimmonsFamilyTrust(collectivelythe
be
for anyfinesimposedundersaidcomplaints.We alsobelievethe amountsof the finesshould
Our
statute.
reducedto somethingmuchcloserto theminimumamountof liability allowedby
reasonsareasfollows.
Mrs. Drakedoesnot denyat this point thatthe cleanupof the two parcelsper the aboveCAOs hasnot cometo passasorderedby the Board. However,sheis the only party
referenced
who hassteppedforwardto takelrnyactionto remediatethe contamination,andhasdoneso in
theotherpartiesto cooperateandagreeon ajoint plan
hopestfratrnl couldeventuallypersuade
to conductthe cleanup.The iity orcnco andthe Simmonsesareat the very leastequallyguilty
of theviolationsiAeniineain your ACL Complaintsconcenringthe failuresto obtainpermits,to
removethewastein question,to payinvoices,submittechnicalreports,etc.,andMrs. Drake
certainlycontendsttrat strehasdonefar morethan anyof the othersto investigateandrernediate
concerningher two properties.At no time hasMrs. DrakemisledtheBoard
ttreconiarnination
or hadthe authorityto acton theirbehal4
,tuffirrto believingthat shespokefor the Simmonses
andsheis quite diitressedat the contentionsin the complaintsclaimingthat shehasdoneso. In
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBurn DumP
October24,2005
Page2
addition,asto theremediationof the wastecontainedin the soilsof the stockpondleveeon Area
the clearevidenceof the dischargecausedby the
8, the Boardstaff appearsto havedisregarded
the City of Chicois legallyresponsible,and
law
demonstrating
and
applicable
of
Chico,
City
the City raisesweakandnon-applicable
thirdthereforeculpable,for this injury. In response,
party contractdefensesto its liability to Mrs. Drake,while statutory(CERCLA and other state
laws)andCaliforniacaselaw clearlyprovidethat the City hasliability to Mrs. Drakefor the
cleanup of Area 8. Moreover,andagainasto the stockpondwaste,Ed Simmonshasagreedin
writing that,asbetweenthe owners,he is the soleparfywho is financially responsiblefor any
injury or damagecausedby his role in allowingthe discharge.It is difficult to imaginemore
evidenceof Ed Simmons'culpability.
persuasive
Moreover,Mrs. Drakeandher latehusband,JohnDrake,playedabsolutelyno role in the actual
in question.On the otherhand,andaswill be shownbelow,the otherResponsible
discharges
took placein
Partieshaveplayeda directrole in the discharges.Furthennore,no discharges
question,
giventhe
and
the
ACL
Complaints
in
violations
under
alleged
with
the
connection
conditionof the propertiesandtheir cune,ntstateof non-use,the risk of a dischargein the future
is not substantial.
Underthesecircunstancesto selectout Mrs. Drakefor punishment,by fining her alone,
andallowingthe otherResponsible
Partiesto
collectively,in the amountof $225,000.00,
an
unfair,
and
capricious
arbitrary
act,
based
upon
completelyescapeanyresponsibility,is
reasoningthe recorddoesnot support.Furthermore,ratiffing the actionsof the City of Chico
by not fining thembecausetheyclaimto have"relied" on Mrs. Drake's
andthe Simmonses
action asgroundsfor their own faih.resto take actionwould establisha very dangerousprecedent
andindeedwould encowageothersto violate future Boardordersandunderminethe Board's
policy statements.
Lastly,therecordsupportsfinesmuchcloserto the minimumstatutoryamounts,particularly
the allegeddischargeris an individualwith little or
violationsar-rd
sincethesearenon-discharge
no culpabilityandno prior historyof violations.
The SimmonsBrothers.
Mrs. Drakeandher latehusbandhavea long historywith Ed andDarwin Simmons.Since1978
theDrakeRevocableTrust,hasco-ownedwith the Simmonsesa
JohnDrake,andsubsequently
of landin the Chicoareaknownasthe SimmonsRanch. This
large7000acreassemblage
propertiesin question- theBatteryBreakerandStockPondLevee
the
two
includes
assemblage
parcels. Generallyspeaking,thingswent well e,noughbetweenthe partiesuntil Mr. Drake died in
late 200I. After that, circumstancesdeterioratedto thepoint that Mrs. Drake recognizedshe
could no longerjointly manageandown the variousSimmonsRanchpropertieswith the
Simmonsbrothers.
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBurn Dump
October24,2005
Page3
In Marchof 2003Mrs. Drakefiled a partitionactionin ButteCountySuperiorCourt.I Included
within the scopeof that action arethe disputesconcerningfinancial responsibilityfor the cleanup
andremediationof the BatteryBreakerandStockPondLeveeparcels.While Mr. Drakewas
documentingEd Simmons'sole
alive,he andEd Simmonssigneda seriesof agreements
involvementin andfinancialresponsibilityfor allowingthe City of Chico,throughits agent,
fill
BaldwinConstructionto dump,in late 1987,whatwaslaterdiscoveredto be contaminated
dirt on theStockPondLeveeparcelandto thenconstructa stockpond for wateringMr.
Simmons'horses.Thepartiesagreedthis wasdonewithoutMr. Drake'sknowledge.The
AgreementandAgreemenfexecutedon June2, 1994andAugust 1, 1995,
Settlement
respectively,
setforth theseunderstandings.
(andapparently
because
he stuonglybelieved
Ed Simmonswaswilling to signtheseagreements
still believes)the City of Chicois liable for the cleanupof the dischargeof its wasteson the
below,it is undisputedat this point that the
StockPondLeveeparcel. As discussed
fill dirt camefrom a constructionprojectbeing conductedby the City of Chico
contaminated
referredto asthe BruceRoadExtension(Area2). However,sinceearly 1988,the City of Chico
hasconsistently
maintainedasits legalpositionthat its contractwith its contractor,Baldwin
Ed
Construction,anda genericreleasedraftedby City lawyersandsignedby the unrepresented
Simmons,providethatthe City of Chicobearsno liability to Mrs. Drakefor the dischargeof the
contaminated
fill dirt on the StockPondLeveeparcel. TheCity of Chico'spositionon this
(andBaldwin Construction,for
matteris stronglydisputedby Mrs. Drakeandthe Simmonses
thatmatter).Lastly,it is undisputedthatJohnDrakeandEd Simmonsdid not learnof the
contaminated
conditionof the soilsuntil shortlyafterthe stockpondleveehadbeenconstructed.
In anyevent,afterMr. Drakediedin Novemberof 2001andthe staterenewedits interestin
effectuatinga cleanupof the two properties,Ed Simmonswursno longerwilling to abideby his
earlieragreements
andthis wasin no smallpart oneof thereasonsMrs. Drakefiled suit. There
havebeenseveralmediationsandcourt-ordered
settlementconferences
in thepartitionaction,
but no agreements
haveresulted.A kial dateis setfor February16,2006.
It is in this contextthatthe contention,asclaimedin theACL Complaints,that in mid-2003or
early2004,or anytimesincethen,thatMrs. Drakeandthe Simmonses
would haveagreedthat
Mrs. Drakewasauthorizedtoacton the Simmonses
behalf,or thatthe Simmonseswould have
agreedto offer "full costreimbursement"
in connectionwith thecleanup,is particularlyabsurd.
Theywereandstill arefighting with eachotherandhavenot agreedon anything.
I VireiniaL. Drake.Trustee.DrakeRevocableTrustv. JamesEdwardSimmons.et al., Butte CountySuperior
Courtcaseno.129127.
2 Copiesof all documentsreferencedin this letter canbe found in chronologicalorder in the accorrpanymg
Corrpendiumof RelevantDocuments.
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBurn DumP
October24,2005
Page4
Thewordsof the partiesthemselvesareampleevidenceof the stateof affairsduringthis time
by you . . in the cleanup."3
"[W]e . . areunableto . . be represented
frame. Fromthe Simmonses:
"E€fui.4.
interests."4
or
my
me
"I will neveragreeor permitVirginia L. Draketo represent
Drakehasneverrepresentedour interestsor evensouEhtour approvalwith regardto the subject
included
g!gg[!up".sAs for Mrs. Drake: "I do not speakon beha
in the cleanupandAbatementOrder."6 Furthermore,andasis demonstratedby the Declarations
of attorneyKennethR. Stone,Mrs. Drake'scounselin thePartitionAction andMrs. Drake,there
areno outstandingagreementsconcemingher authorizationtoact on behalf of the Simmonsesin
connectionwith the cleanupof the two parcelsin question,nor any relatedfinancial agreements
thatthepartiesarewilling to recognizeat this point in time.
Moreover,nothingin the recordsupportsthecontentionin the ACL ComplaintsthatMrs. Drake
everspecificallystatedin writing or verballythat shewasauthorized,toact on the Simmonses
behalf. Indeed,Mrs. Drakedemandsthat theBoardproducewhateverevidenceto the contrary
that directlysupportsits propositionin this regard.To a certainextentmy lefferto the
Simmonses'counselin the PartitionAction,RandallNelson,Esq.,datedSeptember10,2004,
asto its contentandnature.This letterwasnot a notificationof Mrs.
hasbeenmis-characterized
permitsto cleanupArea 8 on the Simmonses
and
obtainall necessary
to
manage
Drake'sintent
with regardto specificelementsof a
cooperate
behalfbut rathera demandthat the Simmonses
joint planto cleanupthe propertiesandnoticethat if theyfailed to do so,the DrakeTrustwould
takeits own action.
"[W]e aredemandingthat your clientsagree,in writing, to sharein the cleanup
coststhat we anticipatewill be incurred. . . ." "If your clientsrefuseto cooperate
financially,thenMrs. Drakewill be left with no alternativebut to proceedon her
own . . . ." "[A] promptresponseis urgentlyneeded. . . ." "If we havenot
receivedan affirmativeresponsefrom you alongthe lines indicatedabove. . we
thatyour clientsdo not intendto cooperateas
will proceedwith the understanding
we haverequested."
andMrs. Drakeis repletewith
betweenthe Simmonses
Indeed,therecordof correspondence
take,
andrequeststhat the Simmonses
is
intending
to
noticesby Mrs. Drakeof the actionthat she
financiallywith her. The factremainsthattheyhaveconsistentlyrefusedto do so. To
cooperate
the extentthattheir financialability to participatein the cleanupis concerned,the Declarationof
Ed Simmons'letterto Mrs. DrakedatedFebruary24,2004.
15,2OO4'
Esq.datedSeptember
4 Ed Simmons'letterto K. GregPetersorq
5 DarwinSimmons'letterto K. GregPeterson.Esq.datedApril I1,2005 (enpbasisadded.)
6 VirginiaL. Drakeletterto City of ChicoMayor MaureenKirk datedFebruary9,2004.
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBum Dump
October24,2005
Page5
KennethR. Stoneestablishesthat the estimatedvalueof the Simmonsesinterestin the Simmons
RanchPropertiesat issuein the PartitionAction aloneis believedto be approximately
Certainly,if theyhadwishedto do so,with assetslike this, the Simmonses
$10,000,000.00.
couldeasilyhaveparticipatedat leastat thelevel thatMrs. Drakehasup to this point in time,but
againtheyhavenot shownanywillingnessto do so.
were"underthe impressionthat Virginia Drake
For thesereasons,the claimsthat the Simmonses
minute
shejumpedship."t asthe basisfor'\vhy (the
wasin thedriversseat,at leasttill the last
wereidle regardingthe cleanuporder"ring particularlyhollow andhaveto be
Simmonses)
claimsmadein an attemptto avoidfines.
viewedasnothingbut last-minute,face-saving
As a co-ownerof both properties,Mrs. Drakewasandis authorizedunderCalifomialaw to take
actionto minimizeher own liability concerningthecleanup,andher plan wasto engageherself
of theBoardstaff,to persuadethe other
in this processand,hopefullywith the assistance
Partiesto join her in remediatingthat contamination.For a varietyof reasons,that
Responsible
plandid not cometo fruition. Why shouldshealonebe the oneto be punishedfor her efforts?
Looking at this from anotherangle,if shetruly was actingwith the Simmonsesauthority,in
effectastheir agent,why shouldtheynot alsobe liableif sheviolatedthe Board'sdirectives?
The Simmonses'claimEthat theyagreedto pay anythingtowardsa cleanup was limited to
AlternativesI & 2 underthe RAP, afterMrs. Drakehadalreadymadeit clearthat shebelieved
no
Alternative3 was a betterchoice. In a way,this was avery safechoicesincethe Simmonses
this
would
at
least
look
to
the
Board
like
they
were
willing
that
to
do
doubtmusthavesurmized
something.However,their wordswerenot followedby anyactionor, moreimportantly,any
of themin the form of ajoint
funding,andthis of coursewasnot whatMrs. Drakehadrequested
effort, sono further actionresultedon this very emptyoffer. Furthennore,asthe letter from
Darwin& Nina Simmonsto me datedApril 11,2005indicates,theydid not actuallyintendto
payanythingat the time to backup their promises.Not until afterthe SimmonsRanchproperties
havebeensoldthroughthe partitionaction,which meanssometime in mid to late2006at the
to spendinganymoney. This of courseis asunacceptable
earliestwould theycommitthemselves
to Mrs. Drakeasit would likelybe to the Board. Mrs. Drakehasalreadyexpendedover
of a remediationplan for both parcels,
of her own fundstowardsthe development
$186,000.00
permitting
got
plans
stage.
asfar asthe
andshe those
7 Darwin Simmons' lefter to Thomas Pinkos dated July 15, 2005.
8 Darwin Simmons' letter to K. Greg Peterson,Esq. dated April I l, 2005.
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBurn DumP
October24,2005
Page6
Citv of Chico.
waste Dischargeto LandUnit
ln late l9g7 andearly l9gg, william J. Marshall,the Chief of the
concerningthe stock
of the central varrevnegionalBoard,madethe following obsenrations
parcel)
..The
pondLevee:
clnstructionof the surfaceimpoundment(on the StockPondL,evee
'hazardouswastes'from a formerlandfill site andthe useof these
ir""r*a the removalof
'hazardouswastes'in this manneris probablya
wastesin the constructionof a dike. The useof
violation of statelaws
for the
..Because
Baldwin ContractingCompany,actingundercontractto and apparentlyasagent
Partyin a
citu. airrn*gro trt. *"rt" r*t.tiat, the city wouldbe namedasa Responsible
A*g with the landowner."ro"[Tlhe removalof wast
*d
.1.*"p^Road
"b"t"*i6tArr,
rieht-of-way (land ownedby the City of Chico) andtheir emplacementin a dam for
Bruce
Arr!fr?', parcelNo. (ilt l-7s0-014)(landownedby Drake,et al.) was anillegal
,t"rL p""d
""
"dischargeanda threatto waterqualitv."rl CleanupandAbateOrderNo. 88-700wasissuedon
January27,1988,andhasneverbeenrescinded'
soilscamefrom city ownedpropertyandwere
In fact,it is undisputedthat the lead-impacted
However,the City of Chicohas
in connectionwith the BruceRoadextension.r2
excavated
takenthe legalpositionthat BaldwinConstnrction"acquired"the fill materialfrom
consistently
which obviouslyhadto be disposedof aspart of the City's project,
theBruceRoadextensio-n,
in
andthatthe City of Chicohasno legalresponsibilityfor its discharge,"no involvement"
u,.,*ging for the disposalof the wastesandthatthis is a matter"strictly between"Ed Simmons
that
andBaldwin Construction.Time andtime againthe City of Chicohasrepeatedits mantra
of
thereis.ho evidence"showingthat anyCity operationor activitiescausedthe contamination
in
the Stockpond Leveeparcel.'t AttorneyDavid Frankof the City of Chico evenwent so far
his letterasto contendthatBaldwin Constructionwasthe "sole ownerof (the)contaminated
soils,,andthat sincetherewas"adequatefundingalreadyavailable"to coverthe costsof
remediationof the Stockpond Leveeparcel,this somehowoperatedasa furtherbasisto insulate
the City of Chico from any further involvementin the cleanup. In a subsequentletter, attorney
9 William J. Marshallletterto JohnD. DrakedatedDecember15, 1987(errphasisadded.)
1988.(errphasisadded')
l0 William J. Marshallletterto FredDavis,City Manager,City of Chico,datedJanuary6,
Drake,datedJanuary27,1988.
1l william J. Marshallletterto FredDavis,city Manager,city of chico andJobn
added.)
(ernphasis
soilscontainedin the
12 SeealsoSection3.4,et seq.,statisticaldiscriminationof bermmaterialfrom native
February15,2005,(copy
dated
Inc.
Decisions,
Risk-Based
Planpreparedby
RemedialDesignandImplemetrtutiotr
not includedwith Compendiumof RelevantDocuments')
Esq.datedDecember16, 2004,p' 2'
13 Seeletterof David FranlqEsq.to K. GregPetersorq
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBum Dump
October24,2005
PageT
Frankagainchallengedthe Boardto produceevidenceof the City of Chico's liability asa
prelimiiary foundationfor having to provide anytechnicalreports.taAttorney Frankwent on in
which he contendssupportthe positionof the
ihut ru1;1rletterto makeextensivelegalarguments
City of Chico,but againthe samewereprimarilybasedon contractualdocumentation
surroundingthe constructionof the BruceRoadextensionandthe disposalof the surplus
excavationmaterial,beforetherewas anyrecordof anyonebeing awarethat it was contaminated.
of
on page3: "The contamination
what happenedin the following passage
Mr. Franksummarizes
event,i.e., a owely contractualrelationshipbetween
theparcelresultedfrom an encapsulated
BaldlwinandMr. Simrnons.to meetBaldwin'sapparentneedfor a homefor the soil it ownedas
surplusto the needsof the roadprojectandMr. Simmonsapparentneedor desirefor a pondfor
wateringcattle."
First, it is worth pointing out that the recordcontainsno referenceto anyreleaseor agreements
enteredinto betweenthe Drakesandthe City of Chico.
arewithout legalmerit for the following reusons.
In anyevent,the City of Chico's arguments
or otherwise,arangedfor disposalor heatment,or
"Any personwho by contract,agreement,
arrangedwith a transporterfor transportfor disposalor heabnent,of hazardoussubstances
by suchperson,by anyotherpartyor entity,at anyfacility or incineration
ownedor possessed
vesselownedor operatedby anotherparty or entity andcontainingsuchhazardoussubstances"
shallbe liable. CERCLA section9607(a)(3).It is recognizedthatCERCLA imposesstrict
liability withoutregardto causationor fault. SeeU.S. v. MonsantoCompany(46 Cir. 1988)
858F,2d 160,t67-168. (Findinga PRPsubjectto CERCLAliability whetherto not it actually
conditionat the time thePRPhadan interestin the property.) TheNinth
knewof ahazardous
Circuit,in CarsonHarborVillagev. UnocalCom. (9ftCir. 2000)227F.3d I 196,L207,
specificallystated"The triggerof liabili
facility at thetime of a disposal.not culpabilityor responsibilityfor the contamination."
(emphasis
added.)Under$9601(9)theterm "facility''includesa landfill, specifically."The
ownerof a facility canbe heldjointly andseverallyliable for costsof respondineto a releasethat
for the actualdisoosal."Ufu,-ASgbiSgX"
hasoccurredevenif the ownerwasnot responsible
(E.D.
2003
U.S.Dist. LEXIS 23139at 142(emphasis
2003)
Cal.
Topeka& SantaFe Railroad
added),seealsoHannaMinine co. (9h cir. 1989)882F.2d 392,395(finding that "CERCLA
dumpedby previous
explicitlyimposesliability on currentownersfor hazardoussubstances
owners.")
Concerningthe City's attemptsto transferliability to the contractor,Baldwin Contracting,there
is absolutelyno supportunderCERCLA law for this. The statutestatesexplicitly that no general
awayfrom
is effectiveto transferliability under$107(Jr)
or conveyance
hold harmlessagreement
repeatedly
held
that
one
of the
(emphasis
Courts
have
added).
party.$9607(eX1)
a responsible
14 Lettet of David Franl Esq. to JamesPedri dated April 28' 2005.
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBurn Dump
October24,2005
Page8
partiesto bearthe costof remedyingthe
primaryobjectivesof CERCLAis to requireresponsible
Cory.v. NL Indusf ies (N.D. Cal.
Lrtemational
Londitionstheycreated.Wiegnam & Rose
it
generator
liability simplybecause
cannotescape
1990)735F.Supp.957,961. "A defendant
Ltd.
Metals.
v.
Teck
Cominco
Pakootas
waste.
its
doesnot choosethe ultimatedestinationof
(E.D.Wis.
1n.O.Wastr.2004)59 ERC (BNA) 1870;citingAcmePrintine.Inc.Co. v. Menard
alrangerliability'may attach
added)."Furthermore,
illSl 881F.Supp. 1237,1250(emphasis
would be depositedat a particularsiteor
eventhoughthe defendantdid not know the substances
in factbelievedtheywould be depositedelsewhere."'Id.,citing PiersonSand& Gravel.Inc. v.
added).
PiersonTownship(W.D.Mich. 1994)851F.Supp.850,855(emphasis
"Evenif the disposalcompanieshiredby the (countygarbagedisposaldisticts) were
conffactors,that fact doesnot affectthepossibleliability of the countv
independent
underCERCLA. As pointedout in Bliss,the structureof CERCLArejoctsthe
defendants
contractorargument.Section107(a)imposesliability on
countydefendant'sindependent
or otherwise".Creatingan
thosewho arrangefor disposalthrough"contractagreement
contractorswould eviscerate$107(a)(3)byplacing many
exemptionfor independent
outsidethat section's"contractagreementor otherwise"
contractualarrangements
LeasingCo.v. California(C.D. Cal. 1992)861F.Supp.93l,
language.Transportation
955.
UnderCaliforniaStatelaw, WaterCodeSection13304(a)imposesliability on anyonewho
causesor permitsa dischargeor depositof wastes.This includesdischargesof wastesto land.rs
Evena relativelyminor contributionto a dischargemay supporta finding of responsibility.City
Agency.et al. v. SuperiorCourt(2004)I 19Ca1.App.4th28,4l.
of ModestoRedevelopment
Further,the statutemustbe construedin light of commonlaw principlesof nuisance,andany
partyor partieswho "createor assistin (thecreationof a nuisance)areresponsiblefor the
ensuingdamages."Manginiv. AerojetGeneralCorp.(1991)230 Cal.App.3d1125,1137.Hete,
the City of Chico'scontributionto the dischargewassubstantialandit playeda significantrole in
the creationof the conditionrequiringremediation,makingit liableto Mrs. Drakefor the ensuing
with BaldwinConstructionnotwithstanding.Certainly,the
its contractualagteements
damages,
City of Chicoknewor shouldhaveknownthatthe sitewasanold landfill andassuchshould
Therefore,the extentto which the City of Chico'scontract
havetakenappropriateprecautions.r6
madewith the
with BaldwinConstructionand/orits releasewith Ed Simmonswereagreements
objectto exemptthe City of Chicofrom a violationof law, namelyan unlawful discharge,these
werevoid asin violationof CaliforniaCivil CodeSection1668. "One cannotcontractawayhis
liability to third partiesfor his own activenegligence.'lBarkettv. Brucato(1953)112
Cal.App.2d264,277-278.
s Contol BoardResolution2l .
1 5 ResolutionN o. 92-49StateWaterResource
l 6 Letterof ThomasL. Hill to FredDavis,City of Chico,datedJanuary22,l988,page.2.
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBurn Dump
October24,2005
Page9
of innocenceandthe lack of anyevidence,
It shouldalsobe notedthat despiteits protestations
the City of Chicohasalsomadeoffersto settle. "The City would be willing to payup to
$150,0b0to helpresolvethe matterandensurethatthe siteis cleanedup."tt In the alternative,
the Cityhas offeredto allow Mrs. Draketo movethe soilsfrom the StockPondLeveeand
BatteryBreakerparcelsto the cell on the propertyknown asthe Scottparcelownedby the Chico
Agency.rt However,theseoffershaveall beenmadecontingentupon full and
Redevelopment
for potentialfuture
andwith no otherfinancialparticipationor compensation
completereleases
liability, which of courseMrs. Drakeis expectedto assume.Mrs. Drakehasrejectedthese
offers.
Theobviouspoint is madein the ACL Complaintsthatthe City of Chicois not an "owner" of
eitherof the two parcelsin questionandthereforeassuchcannotconducta cleanup.However,
permissionfrom the
theBoardshouldalsoconsiderthat the City of Chicohasneverrequested
propertyownersto remediatethe sitesor enteruponeitherof the two parcelsfor anycleanuprelatedactivitiesrelatingto theseproperties.
The City of Chicoalsocontendsthat it is a victim of relianceuponMrs. Drake'sactions,taken
underthe "apparentauthoriQt''of the otherparcelownersto completethe rernediationin a timely
mannerandwithoutthe involvementof the City.t' Again however,to allow the City of Chicoto
escapeliability for anyfineson the basisof suchallegedrelianceandto essentiallyratiff the
precedentandwould encourage
City's failuresto takeanyactionwould seta very dangerous
quality
laws
and
regulationsof the Statein a manner
water
the
and
orders
to
violate
future
others
with the WaterQaulityEnforcementPolicyof the StateBoard.2oTheBoardshould
inconsistent
consider
the effectsof a policy whichprovidesthat asamongresponsibleparties,the
seriously
responsibility''for the cleanupon behalfof
first personto stepforwardto takeaction"assumes
fines.
Who would everbe the first to stepfor-ward
herself
to
by
subject,
the others,andcouldbe
undersuchcircumstances?
Finally,Mrs. Drakehasraisedthe questionmanytimesandin morethanone forum asto why the
originalCAO (88-700)hasnot beenenforcedasagainstthe City of Chico. Mrs. Drakemade
severalrequestsof Boardstaffandits counselconcerningthis matterandher requestswent
17 Letterof ThomasJ. Landoto Virginia DrakeandReneVercruysendatedSeptember10,2004.
Esq.datedDecember16,2004.
18 Letterof DavidFranh Esq.to K. GregPeterson,
l9 Letterof David Frank,Esq.to JamesC. PedridatedApril 28,2005,p..4.
Contol Board,WaterQualityEnforcement
20 SeeSectionE., OtherFactors,p. 38, StateWaterQualityResources
PolicydatedFebruary19,2002.
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBurn Dump
October24,2005
Pagel0
Not until Mrs. Drakewentbeforethe StateBoardin personon June23,2005,did
unanswered.2r
shefinally receivea responseof somesortconcemingtheBoard'sapparentreluctanceto enforce
CAO 88-700againstthe City of Chico. In yourletterto her datedAugust5, 2005,you indicate
thematterof the furtherenforcementof CAO 88-700is still "pendinginvestigation".Exactly
andMrs. Drakedoesnot believethat this an
whatis left to investigatewe do not understand,
to her inquiry grventhatthepartieswereto be, underthe Board'sown
response
adequate
directives,completedwith the cleanupby lateAugustof 2005whenthe nearbyJr. High School
started.As we understandit, the City of Chicowasevengivenuntil October15,2005,to
completeits cleanupactivitiesbut hasasof yet failedto do so.
in paragraph27 of ACL ComplaintNo.
reasons,theremarkablestatement
For the above-stated
'?rot
(a responsibleparty) for Area 8 wastes
considered
R5-2005-0525thattheCity of Chicois
and(is) not requiredto excavateandremovethe waste" appearsarbitrary andunwaranted,in
that it is not supportedby the record. Clearlythe City of Chicoshouldbe requiredto comply
with theBoard'sCAOs concerningthe StockPondLeveeparcel.
TheFinesShouldBe Reduced.
informationandbaseduponthe following discussionof
of the above-referenced
In consideration
the StateBoard'spolicy, Mrs. Drakebelievesthe amountof the finesunderthe ACL Complaints
at issueareexcessiveandshouldbe reduced.Accordingto the formulasetforth in the Water
of the factorsthe Boardis to usein arriving
consideration
QualityEnforcementPolicy Statement,
againstMrs. Drakealone,shouldyield much
at the amountof anyfines,if suchareto be assessed
lower amounts.
violations,so while the Boardmay consider
First,theACL Complaintsinvolvenon-discharge
extentandgravityof
thenature,circumstances,
the factorsusedin the contextof a discharge-i.e.,
susceptibility
of
the
dischargeto cleanup
and
the
violation,the degreeof toxicity of the discharge
- sincetherewereno discharges
in connectionwith the finesin question,these
or abatement
issuesarelargelysuperfluous.Concemingwhatimpacttheviolationsmay haveon theBoard's
ability to effectivelyadministerits waterqualityprogrirms,etc.,the violationsreally ariseout of a
Partiesandshouldthereforebe
amongthe threeaffectedgroupsof the Responsible
disagreement
againstthe threegrcupsaccordingly.Noneof thesefactorsareidentifiedin theACL
assessed
Complaintsasa basisfor finesin anyevent.
adjustingthe amountfor the allegeddischarger'sconductagainmitigatesshongly
Nevertheless,
in favorof Mrs. Drake. Shehasno prior historyof violationsandis the leastculpableof all of
Partiesunderthe CAOs for thereasonsalreadystated.Lastly,shehasundergone
the Responsible
2l Virginia Drake memorandumto FrancesMcChesney,Esq. dated May 28, 2004; Virginia Drake letter to Thomas
Pinkos dated June4,2004.
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBurn DumP
October24,2005
PageI 1
(alone)in the processthatresultedin a
extensivevoluntarycleanupeffortsby her engagement
certifiedEIR, a final RAP, an approvedRDIP,andgot theprojectsto the point of permittingon
Partiesplayedno role in this process,whatsoever.
bothparcels.The otherResponsible
Concerningeconomicbenefit,Mrs. Drakedid not deriveanysavingsfrom the allegedviolations
throughdelayedcostsor avoidedcosts,asshehasindicatedin her declaration.Moreover,there
is no ihowing in the ACL Complaintsasto how finesin the collectiveamountof $225,000were
calculatedor uponwhat theymayhavebeenbased.The finesarecertainlyvery significantfor a
situationagainstan individuallandowner,andclearlyshouldbe modifiedto
non-discharge
somethingmuchcloserto the statutoryminimumsunderthe presentcircumstances.
Conclusion.
that the Boardwould hold all of
As recentlyaslateMarchof this year,Mrs. Drakeunderstood
andthe City of Chico,andthat all
includingthe Simmonses
Partiesaccountable,
the Responsible
wasnot
for remediationof the contamination
partieswould facefinesif a cooperativeagreement
of the
were
violation
Parties
in
Indeed,the Boardstaff indicatedthat all Responsible
reached.22
Mrs.
CAOsandwould be subjectto finesif the cleanupwasnot donein a timely manner.23
that shewould
Drakeleft a meetingwitl BoardStaffon March 10,2005,havingcommunicated
not be proceedingto conducta cleanupon her own unlessthe otherpartiesjoined her - sothe
stated,whathas
questionhasto be askedat this point, andin light of theunderstandings
the
Boardfor purposesof
focus
of
the
sole
Drake
make
Mrs.
to
sincethe endof March
happened
violationsof the outstandingCAOs?
Mrs. Drakecertainlyhasher own suspicionsconcerningthe reasonsof certainmembersof the
Boardstafffor singlingher out for punishmentby fining her aloneandlettingthe other
Partieswalk free. Clearlyhowever,asidefrom theseissues,the recorddoesnot
Responsible
supportfining her alone.
For the foregoingreasons,we respectfullyrequestthatthe ACL Complaintsbe modified,at the
aspartiesandto makethemliable
very minimum,to addthe City of Chicoandthe Simmonses
finesshouldbe reducedagainfor
of
the
the
amounts
for anyfinesbeingimposed.Additionally,
the foregoingreasonsandshouldbe somethingcloserto the statutoryminimumamounts,asa
setting,with no prior violations,
collective$225,000fine againstan individualin a non-discharge
a historyof voluntarycooperation,andlittle or no culpabilitymeritssuchan outcome.
22 Letterof K. GregPeterson,Esq.to JamesPedridatedMarch23,2005'
PartiesdatedMarch28,2005to Responsible
23 Letterof KarenClementsen
ThomasR. Pinkos
Re: HumboldtRoadBurn Dumo
October24,2005
Page12
of thesemattersandif you haveanyquestions,pleasecontact
Thankyou for your consideration
me.
KGP/1as
cc:
Virginia L. Drake(dencls.)
)
ESQ.(SBN:I18287)
K. GREGPETERSON,
JAMESA. CLINCHARD,ESQ.(SBN:200746)
LAW OFFICESOF K. GREG PETERSON
P.O.Box 254451
California95865
Sacramento,
Telephone: (916)558-6142
(916) 492-2680
Facsimile:
[email protected]
E-Mail:
j im@kgregpeterson.
com
6
DRAKE REVOCABLE TRUST
AttomeysfoTVIRGINIA L. DRAKE, TruStEC,
I
2
a
J
4
8
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER CONTROL BOARD
9
CENTRAI VALLEY REGION
10
In TE: VIRGINIA L. DRAKE, TRUSTEE'
1 1 DRAKE REVOCABLE TRUST
12
T3
l4
15
t6
1) HUMBOLDT ROAD BURN
DUMP AREA 7, APN OII-780-018,
BUTTE COUNTY; and
I, VIRGINIA L. DRAKE, declareas follows,
l.
19
the part owner of both propertiesin question.
2.
22
23
AdministrativeCivil
I am theparty identifiedin both of the above-referenced
Liability Complaints("ACL Complaints")andI am the Trusteeof the DrakeRevocableTrust,
20
2l
DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA L. DRAKE
2) HUMBOLDT ROAD BURN
DUMP AREA 8, APN OIl-780-0I4,
BUTTE COUNTY
L7
18
WRITTEN RESPONSETO
ADMINIS TRATIVE CIVIL LIABIUTY
AND
COMPLAINT NO. R5-2005.0524
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABIUTY
5 -0525
COMPLAINT NO. R5-2OO
I makethis declarationbaseduponinformationthat is personallyknown to me,
exceptwhere statedas on the basisof my informationand belief, and as to thosemattersI am
informedand believethat the samearetnre andcorrectto the bestof my knowledge.If called
upon as a witness,I could andwould competentlytesti$rto the sameof my own personal
24
knowledge.
25
3.
26
In March of 1978,my late husband,JohnDrake,purchaseda 1/4undivided
ofpropertiesthenknown as the SimmonsRanch,which
interestin a 7000acreassemblage
27
includedthe propertiesat issuein the ACL Complaintswhich arenow referredto asthe Stock
28
andtheBatteryBreakerparcel(Area7; APN:
PondLeveeparcel(Area8; APN: 011-780-014)
-l-
DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA L. DRAKE
I
0 I I -780-0I 8). My husbandlateracquired(I believein Octoberof 1983)an additionalI /4
2
undividedinterestin the SimmonsRanchproperties.
3
4.
I marriedJohnDrakein Juneof 2000.
4
5.
In Februaryof 2001,JohnDraketransferredhis interestin both propertiesto me
5
andhimself in our capacitiesasTrusteesof the DrakeRevocableTrust. My husbandthenpassed
6
awayin Novernberof 2001,andit is in my capacityasTrusteeof the DrakeRevocableTrust that
7
I now hold title to an undivided50% interestin the BatteryBreakerand StockPondLevee
8
parcels.
9
6.
The Simmonsbrothers- JamesE. (Ed) and Darwin - acquiredtheir interestsin the
1 0 in the BatteryBreakerand StockPondLeveeparcelsfrom the estateof their mother. I am
1 1 informedandbelievethat Ed, on the onehand,andDarwin andNina astnrsteesof the Simmons
t2
Family Trust, on the otherhand,eachcurrentlyown a l/4 undividedinterestin the Battery
1 3 Breakerand StockPondI-eveeparcels'
l4
l5
7.
I am informedandbelievethat the only usethe two propertieshavebeenput to
that I know of is grazingof horsesby Ed Simmonsprior to the time that the Staterequiredthat
1 6 we fenceoff the BatteryBreakerand StockPondLeveeparcels. The fencingandpostingof
1 7 Areas7 and 8 wascompletedsometime beforeJune1,2001
18
t9
8.
I am currentlyin litigation with the Simmonsesinsofaras the partiesno longer
wish to co-ownthe various propertiesthat comprisethe remainingbalanceof the Simmons
20 Ranch,andincludingthe BatteryBreakerand StockPondhvee parcels. The Declarationof
2 T KennethR. Stone,Esq.which is beingincludedwith my written response,setsforth most of the
22 relevantdetailsconcemingthe PartitionAction I havefrled againstthe Simmonses.However,I
reachedbetweenmyselfand the
23 want to emphasizethat therehavebeenno agreements
24
by way of partial or final settlement,concerningany of the mattersrelatingto the
Simmonses,
25 properties,and specificallyincludingthe remediationand cleanupof the BatteryBreakerand
26 StockPondLeveeparcels.Theseissuesareincludedin the PartitionAction andwe havenot
27 beenable to agreeon anything.
28
-2DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA L. DRAKE
of eitherthe
I haveneverbeenauthorizedby the Simmonsesto conducta cleanup
mpelf as suchto the
represented
2 BatteryBreakeror StockPondkvee parcels,nor haveI ever
on the Board staff that I
3 Board or Board staff. Specifically,I haveneververbally told anyone
the Boardstaff is
4 was authorizedto act on the simmonsesbehalf,andin fact what I havetold
know I m currently in
) that I have had greatdifficulty with the simmons brotherswho they
mpelf in a reasonableand
6 litigation with. What I havedonein this matteris attemptto conduct
with the Boardand
7 prudentmannerthat I had hopedwould be viewedas an attemptto cooPerate
of my co-owners,the
8 its staff, sinceI could not securethe cooperation(financiallyor otherwise)
I
9
g.
remediationof
Simmonses,to do somethinginsteadof nothingconcerningthe investigationand
the individual
1 0 the allegedcontamination.I felt that as a co-tenantwith the Simmonses,Ihad
hold the
1 1 right to takeactionto maintainandrepairmy properties,andthat I could later
It never
t 2 Simmonsesfinancially liable for whatevercostsI might haveincurredin that effort.
andat
1 3 occurredto me that by taking this actionI would be exposingmyselfpersonallyto fines,
l4
the sametime completelyinsulatingthe SimmonsbrothersandCity of Chico from fines for their
1 5 variousviolationsof the CleanupandAbatementOrdersandfailuresto take any action
l 6 whatsoever.Although I havemaderepeatedrequests,the Simmonsesand City of Chico have
t 7 neverofferedto take any actionto investigateor cleanupeitherthe BatteryBreakeror Stock
1 8 pond Leveeparcels,andI havecertainlyneverpreventedthem from doing so in anyrespect.
19
10.
Additionally, the Simmonseshaveneveroffered"full costsreimbursement"asto
20 anythingthatwe could agreeon in termsof a remediationplan or a cleanupof eitherof the
2l
parcels. The Simmonses'lastminuteoffer to participatefinanciallywith respectto Alternatives
22 I andZ (whentheyknew that I wasonly in favor of Alternative3), madein Juneor July of
23 2005,wasmerelya spitefirlattemptto makeit appearasthoughI was not actingreasonablyin
24 my effortsto remediatethe allegedcontamination.More importantly,their wotds werecertainly
25 neverfollowed up with anythingin termsof actionor moneyto pay for the significantcostsI
26 havein fact incurredrespondingto the Board'sCleanupandAbatementOrders(CAOs").
27
I 1.
For example,Ed Simmonsagreedto acceptfinancialresponsibilityfor the Stock
28 PondLeveeparcelback in 1994. However,aftermy husbanddied in late 2001,andthe Board
-3DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA L. DRAKE
I
renewedits interestin pursuingremediationandcleanupof the two parcels,I couldno longer
2 secgreEd Simmons'cooperationpursuantto anyof his earlierverbal or written agreements.I
3 havemadenumerousoral andwritten demands,both directly andthroughmy counsel,for the
4 Simmonsesto cooperatewith me concerningpaymentof the ongoingexpensesthat I have
5 incurredin my effortsto investigateandremediatethe allegedcontamination.Neitherof the
6 Simmonseshaseverrespondedin a satisfactorymannerto any ofmy requestsin this reprd.
7 Furthermore,I haveincurredandpaid approximately$186,000.00in suchexpensesat this point
8 (since2004)and the Simmonseshavenot repaidme one dime for anyportion of this sum. A
9 breakdownof the costsI haveincurredandpaid is attachedheretoas Exhibit "A."
r0
12.
Although I am the only partybeingfrnedat this point, in part for failing to pay an
1 1 invoice,I am the only ResponsibleParly undereitherof the CAOs who haspaid any of the
t 2 oversightreimbursementcosts.
13
l4
13.
As part of my investigation,I retainedRisk-BasedDecisions,Inc. ("RBD") to
determinehow much soil was actuallycontaminatedandwould thereforehaveto be removed.
1 5 RBD submittedits reportto the Board in mid-Februaryof 2005which containsan analysis
1 6 establishingconclusivelythat the soilsthat comprisethe StockPondLeveeparcel,which include
t 7 the leadcontaminatedsoils,camefrom Area2-theareawherethe BruceRoadextension
1 8 excavationtook placein l987,whichpropertywasownedby the City of Chico at the time. I am
t 9 at a loss to explainwhy this reportand its contentsarenot mentionedin eitherof the ACL
20 Complaints.
2l
14.
After the trial next year(February16,2006)in the PartitionAction, I anticipate
22 that we will havean interlocutoryjudgmentfrom the Butte CountySuperiorCourt that will
23 provide directionto both the Simmonsesandme as to exactlyhow and when the cleanupwill
24 occur,and who will be liable for the costsof the same. It is my contentionthat, asbetweenthe
25 DrakeTrust andEd SimmonsconcerningArea 8, for example,that Ed Simmonsis 100%
26 financially and legally responsibleandthat I shouldhaveno liability. If this tums out to be the
27 case,thenit would hardlybe fair or equitablefor me to be the only party taking actionat this
28 point and gettingfined for it, while Ed Simmonsdoesnothingand is later found to be
4DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA L. DRAKE
I
the
individually liable for beingthe one who causedthe contamination,at leastas betwee,n
2 owners. I certainlybelievethat this will be the casebecause,asI havealreadyindicatedin this
3 Declaration,he hasadmittedthis in the past,in writing'
4
15.
I haveincludedin the Compendiumof RelevantDocumentssubmittedwith my
5 written comments,a memorandumfrom my latehusband'sfiles datedFebruary4, 1988,a
my latehusbandand Ed SimmonsdatedJune3,
6 SettlementAgreemententeredinto betwee,n
7
agreementdatedAugust 1, 1995,all of which documentEd Simmons'
1994,andasubsequent
8 taking full personalresponsibilityin writing, asbetweenthe propertyownersfor havingcaused
soil to be placedon theStockPondkvee parcelby the City of Chicoandits
9 the contaminated
1 0 contractor,Baldwin ConffactingCompany'
1l
16.
I do not believethat thereis anyrisk of a dischargeor furtherdischargefrom
t 2 eitherof the two parcelsbetweennow andthe datethe PartitionAction goesto trial, giventhe
l 3 conditionof the propertyandits stateof non-use.Furthernore,and to my knowledge,therehave
t 4 beenno releasesor dischargesof any of the allegedcontaminantson my propertyto anywaters
1 5 of the State.
16
17.
But for the City of Chico's contaminatedfill dirt excavatedfrom the BruceRoad
L 7 extensionthat was depositedon the StockPondLeveeparcelin late 1987,and a batteryrecycling
l 8 operationon the BatteryBreakerparcelwhich apparentlyconcludedits operationslong before
1 9 my late husbandacquiredhis initial interestin thepropertiesback in 1978,I am unawareof any
20 otherdischargesof possiblehazardouswasteson myproperty, andI do not know how they
2I
22
would otherwisepossiblyhavecometo be depositedon the two propertiesin question.
18.
arguedthat it is not liableto me for causingits
The City of Chicohasconsistently
23 contaminatedwasteto be placedon the StockPondLeveeparcelbasedprincipallyupon its
24 contractwith Baldwin ContractingCompany,andits threesentencereleasewith Ed Simmons.
25 Neithermy late husbandnor I haveeversignedanyagreementwith the City of Chico transferring
26 liability for this waste,andin fact neitherof us was awareof the wasteuntil it wasalreadyin
27 place. Ed Simmonswas certainlynot authorizedto releaseliability on behalfof my husbandor
28 me in connectionwith the City of Chico or Baldwin ContractingCompany'sactions. By in
-5DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA L. DRAKE
I
essenceadoptingthe City of Chico's positionthat it is "not responsible"for cleaningup the
2 contaminatedwasteon the StockPondLeveeparcel,the Board staff is essentiallyreleasingthe
3 City from its legal,financialand,I believe,moral obligationsto cleanup my propertyand
4 remediatethe existingcontaminationcausedbyits own fill dirt.
5
19.
Referenceis madein the ACL Complaintsto the fact that the Chico
6 RedevelopmentAgency's("CRA') requestto enterupon my propertiesto do certainair
7 monitoringwas deniedby me, andthat this is in somewaya reasonto imposefines againstme.
8 First, asI understoodit, this activityhad nothingto do with the City of Chico,or more
9 specifically,anythingto do with remediationof the contarninationon my properties.Second,I
1 0 cameto learnmuch laterbut was neverspecificallytold, that Boardstaff hadmadeit known that
1 1 I had bettercooperatewith the CRA concerningits air monitoringor I would facefines for
1 2 failing to do so. None of the Boardstaff evermentionedthe latter issueto me at the time.
13
20.
The recordI havepresentedshouldreflectmy voluntary effortsto affecta
t 4 cleanup.I haveno previoushistoryof violations.
l5
21.
Although a summaryreferenceis madein the ACL Complaintsto "consideration
1 6 of economicbenefitor savingsresultingfrom the violations" I havenot realizedany savingsor
t 7 monetarygainfrom the allegedactsconstitutingviolations,as detailedin the ACL Complaints.
1 8 Specifically,no improvementsto a treatmentsystem,plant upgades,capitalimprovements,etc.,
a possible
1 9 havebeenpostponed,sinceall we aredealingwith is raw land that at bestthreate,ns
20 dischargeof leador sometype of othercontaminantat somepoint in the future. Therearereally
2l
no "delayedcostsl'andtherearecertainlyno "avoidedcosts"as I understandthe useof these
22 termsby the StateBoard. As long asthe propertyis left alone,as is the plan until thereis a full
23 cleanup,thereshouldbe no discharges.
24
22.
I am not askingat this time to be exoneratedof liability for the cleanupor from
25 reasonablefines. However,I certainlyfeel that asbetweenEd Simmons,the City of Chico and
26 me,I am the leastculpableparty in termsof legalresponsibilityfor the cleanupof the StockPond
27 Leveeparcel,and as betweenthe Simmonsesandme, similarly with respectto the Battery
28
-6DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA L. DRAKE
I
Breakerparcel. Yet, it seemsasthoughI am beingsingledout for punishmentsinceI am the
2
only partywho is being fined.
3
23.
I have searchedfor reasonsto explainwhy the Board staff is singlingme out for
4
punishment,and the only conclusionI cancometo is that theseare the arbitraryandcapricious
5
actsof certainmembersof the Boardstaff.
6
24.
For example,I havemadeseveralwritten requestsof certainmembersof the
7
Board staffwho are the samepersonsinvolvedin my investigationand arenow imposingfines
8
againstme. I havepreviouslyaskedthemto explainto me why enforcementof CAO 88-700has
9
not beenpursuedagainstttreCity of Chico,andI haveneverreceivedan answer. I havealso
1 0 request€da variety of differentdocumentsfrom the Boardstaff and was nevertold of their
1 1 existencenor voluntarily providedwith copiesof the sameuntil I drove to the Board'sofficesin
t2
Redding,reviewedthe file andcopiedthem for myself. I haveconsistentlybeentreatedin a very
1 3 hostilemanner.
t4
25.
At leastonememberof the Boardstaff (Jim Pedri)has alsoexhibiteda highly
1 5 unusual,personalinterestin me, andhasmadeseveralinappropriatecommentsto othersabout
r6
me, which may suggesthis reasonsfor wantingto punishme by leveling fines againstme, alone.
t 7 First, I shouldconfirm that I havean intimate,personalrelationshipwith a memberof the Board
1 8 staffnamedPhil Woodward. This hasbeenknown to the Board staff for quite someperiodof
1 9 time andMr. Woodwardis not involvedwith the investigationof my propertiesand doesnot
with me concerningthis matter.
20 haveanyrole to play in theBoard'scommunications
2l
Furthermore,I have avoidedaskinghim anyquestionsor askinghim to performany actson my
22 behalfin connectionwith my communicationswith the Board staff concemingthesematters.
23 Nevertheless,Mr. Pedrihaspersistedin attemptingto questionMr. Woodwardaboutme
24 regarding,for exampleandmost concerningto me, whereI live, what my homeis like, etc. Mr.
25 Pedrihasalsoridiculed Mr. Woodwardby makinghim awareof the fact that I was the only
26 personbeingfined and askingin front of otherstaffmembers"Is Gingerdonescreamingyet?"
27 aboutthe Board's actions. I havealsobeentreatedin an undignifiedand unjustmannerin terms
28 of mv recentcommunicationswith Boardstaff who haveessentiallyaccusedMr. Woodwardof
-7DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA L. DRAKE
I
inappropriately obtaining confidential information on mybeha$ which he has not done at any
2 time.
3
26.
In essence,my sensefrom reading the ACL Complaints is that cErtain membersof
4
the Bomd staffhave gone out of their way to avoid fining anyof the other ResponsibleParties,
5
and have instead explained away the liability of theseother ResponsibleParties md have leveled
6
fines againstme alone forreasons that camot have myhing to do with the good faith efforts I
7
have taken up to this point in time to try and do something to rmediate the contamination. The
8
fact that I have not cleanedup both properties is unfortunately hue, but it is not my fault, alone.
9
27.
At a minimum, I believe there is just and good causefor the Simmonsesand the
10 City of Chico to be addedto the ACL Complaints as dischargersand to be held jointly and
1 1 severally liable fu the fines being imposed as a result of the alleged violations ofthe CAOs in
t2
l3
question. I also believe the amount of the fines is excessiveand should be reduced.
I declare underpe,lraltyof perjury of the laws of the Stateof Califonria that the foregoing
t4
is true andcorrectandthat this declarationwasenecutedl*lis /h
t5
2005,at Chico,California.
16
17
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
vl
25
26
27
28
-8-
DECLARATIONOF VIRGINIA L. DRAKE
Exhibit "A"
Humboldt Road Burn Dump costsfrom 2004through October 10' 2005
Law Officesof K. GregPeterson- LegalCounselfor Water
Boardcompliance/remediation
$57,333.74
Risk-BasedDecisions,Inc. - consulting/fieldsamplingand
of RDIP
analysis/preparation
$119,160.92
Rolls AndersonRolls - Engineeringfees
$776.s0
- environmentalconsultants
VestraConsultants
$32s.00
Board- oversightcost
StateWaterQualityResources
reimbursement
$734.36
Dishict - permit fee
ButteCountyAir QualityManagement
$106.56
404pemtitandcompliance
FoothillAssociates- consultant/
$7.s63.4r
TOTAL
$186,000.49
EXHIBIT .t'N' ,
K. GREGPETERSON,ESQ.(SBN: 118287)
JAMESA. CLINCHARD,ESQ.(SBN: 200746)
2 LAW OFFICESOF K. GREGPETERSON
P.O.Box 254451
California95865
3 Sacramento,
Telephone: (916) 558-61'42
4 Facsimile: (916) 492-2680
[email protected]
E-Mail:
[email protected]
5
I
6
Attorneysfor VIRGINIA L. DRAKE, Trustee,DRAKE REVOCABLE TRUST
7
8
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER CONTROL BOARD
9
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
l0
l1
t2
13
t4
l5
WRITTEN RESPONSETO
ADMINISTRATME CMIL LI,ABILITY
AND
COMPLAINT NO. R5.2OO5-0524
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVL LIABILITY
1) HUMBOLDT ROAD BURN
DUMP AREA 7, APN 011-780-018, COMPLAINT NO. R5-2005.0525
BUTTE COUNTY; and
DECLARATION OF KENNETH R. STONE,
ESQ:
2) HUMBOLDT ROAD BURN
DUMP AREA 8, APN 011.780-014,
BUTTE COUNTY
In TE: VIRGINAL L. DRAKE, TRUSTEE,
DRAKE REVOCABLETRUST
t6
I, KENNETH R. STONE,declareasfollows,
t7
l.
18
t9
20
2l
CalifomiaandI am makingthis declarationin supportof the positionof Virginia L. Drake,
Trustee,DrakeRevocableTrust,in response
to the above-referenced
AdministrativeCivil
LiabilityComplaints.
2.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I am an attorneyat law duly licensedto practicein all the courtsin the Stateof
I makethis declarationbaseduponinformationthat is personallyknownto me,
exceptwherestatedason thebasisof my informationandbelief, andasto thosemattersI am
informedandbelievethat the sirmearetue andcorrectto thebestof myknowledge. If called
uponasa witness,I couldandwould competentlytesti$ to the sameof my own personal
knowledge.
3.
I am currentlythe counselof recordfor Virginia L. Drake,Trusteeof theDrake
RevocableTrust ("DrakeTrust") in the matterknown asVirginia L. Drake.Trustee.Drake
RevocableTrust v. JamesEdwardSimmons.et al., ButteCountySuperiorCourt caseno. 129127
-l-
DECLARATIONOF KENNETH R. STONE,ESQ.
I
(the "Partition Action') whereinthe Drake Trust is both the Plaintiffand Cross-defendant.The
2
areJamesEdwardSimmonsand JeanSimmons,andDarwin
Defendantsand Cross-complainants
3
of the SimmonsFamily Trust
Harold SimmonsandNina RaeSimmons,asCo-ffustees
4
(collectivelythe "Simmonses").
)
4.
The subjectmatterof the Partition Action involves the partition andsaleof a
6 numberof largepiecesof realpropertyin the Chicoareawhich areco-ownedby theDrakeTrust
7 andthe Simmonses.Thesepropertiesincludethe so-called"Stock PondLevee"parcel(Area8;
(Area7; APN 011-780-018).Themattersat
8 APN 0l l-780-014)andthe"BatteryBreaket''parcel
9 issuein the PartitionAction involvenot only the saleof the variousparcelsby thepartiesandthe
of
l 0 divisionof the saleproceedsaccordingto their interests,but alsoclaimsfor reimbursement
with theownership,maintenance
andrepairof the various
1 1 costsandexpensesassociated
1 2 properties.In the caseof the StockPondLeveeandBatteryBreakerparcels,the DrakeTrustis
1 3 seekingreimbursementof and/orindemnificationfor responsecosts,investigationandcleanup
t4 coststo remediatethe leadandotherhazardouswastecontaminationof theseparcels.
l5
5.
I haveattachedto my declarationasExhibit ".A" atrue andcorrectcopy of a letter
1 6 I recentlyreceivedin thePartitionAction from the Simmonses'counsel,RandallC. NelsorU
t 7 Esq.,datedAugust1, 2005. As canbe seenfrom this letter,asof Augustof 2005theparties
1 8 werestill attemptingto pursuea resolutionof themattersat issuein the PartitionAction. This
t 9 circumstancecontinuesto this very day,asthereis no agreementin placeconcemingthe sale
20 and/ormanagementof the propertieswhich form the basisof the disputein the PartitionAction.
2l
Evenasto the listing andsaleof theparcelsotherthanthe contaminated
parcels(theStockPond
22 LeveeandBatteryBreakerparcels),which is generallyconsideredthe aspectof thePartition
23 Action which is morecapableof resolution,settlonenthasthusfar provenelusive.
24
6.
Over the last year anda half to two years,the partieshaveattemptedto negotiatea
25 resolutionof the PartitionAction, includingreimbursement
of the responsecosts,responsibility
26 for conductingthe cleanupanddividingup the financialresponsibilityfor the samein relationto
27 the contaminatedparcels. After trvo (2) mediationsandthree(3) settlernentconferencesin front
28 of variousdifferentjudges,no agreement
existsat this time concerninga resolutionof anyaspect
-2DECLARATIONOF KENNETH R. STONE,ESQ.
I
of thesedisagreements.Furthermore,andin my view, the Simmonseshaveapproached
)
settlementin this matterin a very difficult andnonbusiness-likemannerwhich hasneedlessly
3 increasedthe litigationcostsanddelayin resolvingthe disputesbetweenthe parties.
4
7.
Currentlythereis a trial datein thePartitionAction setfor February13,2006,
)
I
beforethe HonorableMichaelKelly of the ButteCountySuperiorCourt. Barringa settlement,
6
or
do not anticipatethat beforethe Partition Action goesto hial therewill be any agreements
7
court ordersrespectingthe obligationsor responsibilitiesof the partiespertainingto the
8
parcels.
contaminated
9
8.
I am informedandbelievethat in connectionwith the above-referenced
have
10 AdministrativeCivil Liability Complaints,claimshavebeenmadethat a) the Simmonses
l1
agreedto fully reimbursethe DrakeTrust for theresponsecostsandcleanup costsassociated
t2
haveagreedwith the DrakeTrustto pay
with the StockPondLeveewaste;b) the Simmonses
with both parcels;c) the DrakeTrusthasassumed
1 3 their fair shareof all cleanupcostsassociated
l4
soleresponsibilityfor the cleanupof the StockPondLeveeparcelon behalfof theownership
or hassome
1 5 goup; andd) the DrakeTrusthasspecificallybeenauthorizedby the Simmonses
to conducta cleanupof the Area 8 waste.
in placewith the Simmonses
1 6 typeof agreement
t7
l8
g.
On the basisof my intimateknowledgeof the dealingsbetweenthe DrakeTrust
andthe Simmonsesconcerningthe BatteryBreakerand StockPondLeveeparcels,which form
1 9 an importantpart of the issuesin disputein thePartitionAction, I cansafelystatethat all of the
20 propositionssetforth item nos.a)-d),above,areto my knowledgeabsolutelyfalseanduntrue.
2L
10.
To the extentthat the Simmonses'ability to pay for the cleanupof the
parcelsis in question,it is my beliefbasedon what I know from thePartition
22 contaminated
23 Action that they havemore than adequateresourcesto pay for the cleanupwithout the
collective(50%)interestin the
24 participationof the DrakeTrust,if necessary.The Simmonses
25 propertiesin the Partition Action aloneis estimatedto be worth more than approximately
26 $10,000,000.
27
28
-3DECLARATION OF KENNETH R. STONE,ESQ.
r€.81
HEFNERSTARK NAROIS LLP
14:13
LA,/Lg/As
Dorcosts
novoluntaryolganupsffora undcnaken
I ama'are of absolutety
@sts'
rGsPonsc
in thePartitionAotionconcecning
iacurredandclairnedby 0rcsimmonses
propcrties'
oostspertainingto tbetwo above-references
cosrsor cleamrp-rolated
investigative
I l.
of californiathat0reforegoing
I declareunderpcnattyof perjuryof thelawsof theState
'
wasotecutel0lk-Jglaty ot &l{fu'r
is trueurd sonecrandthorthisd€clarstion
Califonia'
2005,at Sacramento,
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
n
28
R' SToNE'ESQ'
M).881
HEFNERSTRRKNRROISLLP
14:13
Lg/tg/as
t41^6l/ffi
ffi 2- 6344
15 r 56
CllB.sENNBDy.
ot/oL/}oOE l?:01 FAX 500 222 0..
@ooe
t
CARR.'KENNEov. Fereeeorr
r Fnosr
A LAW COFPOIIAYION
DAfrtlEL s- PROS?
r.. .raFotNc
ttocEFt
gv^{ L. DELTADg
}|ICHAEL F. AEHEY
FAPPAII 9. NELSON
XENFY E.E,OI,C
l.lARl( A \rECH
EEc' FEOCLIFT DFIVE
FEAalRg, E:lL)7Clxr^ tlef
o. til.tt.
", caLlFoixl^
l|EE|9lr{g.
t60rao
FEaNgE Aaa. .tr6.ral vigxcE!r. l(gNxg,DY. taat.r.7r
r4ut3irc3 t. xErxEgY. JR.. tl|tlrtrI.ATJRENCEv. c Fi. rclt-tCCl
r, wlc
rEYEit9r{,
FETISE,9
T?ttPdoNe (!rc, aEE.8r€
FAXtqsor 3Ba€sct.
Augusrl, 2005
sF,It YtA FAcsIn$LE
KemeftR. Stoue,
&9.
I,LP
Eebes,StarI,&Mar-ois,
2150RiverPlazeDrive, Strite450
Callforula95833-3883
Sactanemto,
Rs Drakcv. Simrmo
CaseNo. 129t27
otu Fits No. N'9294
Dcarl(cl:
Wo havetradedphouesnssages
overthelastfewweeks.but haverol bGG!ablcb
speaf,witb eac.hofber. My cligntsarecEgerto ptusuea rtsoludouof tbis Dattcr,st lea$to
0teexeil of tbEparcelsthatarenot affecFdby thscodrmiaatim. As I srandaftertbc last
to setartdsroy appraical
I bellevetbrt wc crr agt1]B
re{oircoeotasloqgas
courtappcarancc,
we canW@ on thespecificparcelstharwill benarkEediunediately..If we rre goiuglo do
this, howcvtr,I wouldlike tg getit underwayat soorasposeiblc.
Plcacecall meot your first opporOnityto diequehowwecaoprocced.I lookforw"ard
rc bariag from yott,
RCN:es
c.c. Mr. ald Mrs-IancgSinmous
Mr. andI'frE.DaEiD Simraous
EXHIBIT
DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLICWORKS
ENGINEERING
411 Main Street- 2nd Floor (530) 879-6900
Fax (530)895-4899
PO Box 3420
http://wtrvw.ci.chico.ca.us
Chico, CA 95927
Ms. KarenClementsen
CalifomiaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard
CentralValley Region
415 KnollcrestDrive,Suite100
Redding,CA 96002
October24,2005
DearMs. Clementsen,
Civil
The following arethe City of Chico'scommentson the two Administrative
that ihe RryQCB hasissuedagatnVirginiaDrakefor failing to
iiuulity
respectively
"o*lluirrtr
beginthe cleanupon Areas7 arrrd8of the HumboldtRoadBurn Dump,
8 and0l l-790-014'
APNs011-780-01
(former battery
Area7 of HRBD, APN 011-780-018
ACLC No. R5-2005-0524,
breaker area)
Revocable
This Complaintis for failure of Virginia L. Drake,asTrusteeof the Drake
waste
remove
waste,
7
Area
for cleanupof
Trust,to obtainregulatorypermitsnecessary
submita
from Area T,paynWQC'g'oversightinvoices,submitmonthlystatusreports,
,"gulutoryp"ttttitti"g tichnical refort, andsubmitan off-sitedisposalalternative/revised
plan technicalreport'
transportation
on
GeneralComment:The City of Chicohasneverownednor conductedoperations
ApN 0l l-7g0-01g.TheCity hasspentmanyyearsandmillionsof dollarsinvestigating
relatedto the HumboldtRoadBum
thenatureandoccurr.n." of h-*dous substances
includingAPN 011-780-018.The
o;0, andpreparingdesignplansfor remediation,
designincludedadequatecapacityin the consolidationcell for anywastespresent
permitsto
"*#
on ApN 0l l--7g0-01g.The iandowner,however,failedto obtainttrenecessary
allow this wasteto be removedduringthetimeframeconsistwith remediationactivities
Agency' It shouldalsobe noted
conductedby the city andthe chico Redevelopment
to APN 011-780-018
Agencyaccess
thatthe landowneraenieathe ChicoRedevelopment
Air Quality
County
Butte
for the placementof air monitoringequipmentrequiredby
Agencywasrequiredto
District. As a result,the ChicoRedevelopment
Management
station. These
monitoring
air
u-.rri'it, air monitoringplan andrelocatethe afflected
by the denialof accessfrom the
changesto the air moniioringplan,necessitated
recordavailableat boththe Regional
inthe administrative
aredocumented
lando-wner,
Watereuality ControlBoardoffice in Redding,Californiaandthe ButteCountyAir
QualityManagementDistrict office in Chico,Califomia'
S
*"uu
Becvcled
Paner
"-.
(stockpond levee
Area 8 of IIRBD, APN 011-780-014
ACLC No. R5-2005-0525,
area)
This Complaintis for failureof Virginia L. Drake,asTrusteeof the DrakeRevocable
for cleanupof Area 8 waste,removewaste
Trust,to obtainregulatorypermitsnecessaxy
a regulatorypermittingtechnical
status
reports,
submit
from Area 8, submitmonthly
plantechnical
transportation
report,andsubmitan off-sitedisposalalternative/revised
report.
GeneralComment:The City of Chicohasneverownednor conductedoperationson
APN 0l l-780-014. The City hasspentmanyyearsandmillions of dollarsinvestigating
relatedto the Humboldt RoadBum
the natureand occurrenceaf hazardoussubstances
plans
remediation,
includingAPN 011-780-014.The
for
Dump,andpreparingdesign
capacityin the consolidationcell for any wastespresent
currentdesignincludedadequate
permitsto
however,failedto obtainthe necessary
The
landowner,
011-780-014.
on APN
allow this wasteto be removedduringthetimeframeconsistwith remediationactivities
Agency. It shouldalsobe noted
conductedby the City andthe ChicoRedevelopment
Agencyaccessto APN 011-780-014
thatthe landownerdeniedthe ChicoRedevelopment
for theplacementof air monitoringequipmentrequiredby ButteCountyAir Quality
Agencywasrequiredto
District. As a result,the ChicoRedevelopment
Management
amendits air monitoring plan andrelocatethe affectedair monitoring station. These
by the denialof accessfrom the
changesto the air monitoringplan,necessitated
in the administrativerecordavailableat both the Regional
landowner,aredocumented
Board
offrcein Redding,Califomiaandthe ButteCountyAir
WaterQuality Control
QualityManagementDistrict office in Chico,Califomia.
SpecificComments:
PreviousEnforcement,CleanupandAbatementOrderNo. 88-700,FindingNo. 6 should
alsospeciff that the contractbetweenthe City andBaldwinnot only specifiesthat
disposalof surplusconstructionmaterialwasthe responsibilityof the contractor
(Baldwin),but thatthe contractorbecamethe ownerof the surplusmaterial.
PreviousEnforcement,CleanupandAbatementOrderNo. 88-700,FindingNo. 7. The
August13,1987letterfrom JamesE. Simmonsnot only grantedpermissionto Baldwin
to placesurplusconstructionmaterialon APN 0l l-780-014,Mr. Simmonsalso
specificallystatedin the letterthat"The City of Chicois herebyrelievedof any legal
responsibilityassociated
with this permission."
Remediationof HRBD Properties,FindingNo. 21. The secondsentenceshouldbe
correctedto showthat the Certificateof Completionwasissuedon March 10,2005,not
March10,2004.
Pleasefeel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding our comments.
Fritz McKinley
C: Tom Lando,City Manager
GregJones,AssistantCity Manager
David Frank,City Attomey
Andrew Kopania,EMKO Environmental