Try, try again
Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced CA 95341
Protect Our Water
3105 Yorkshire Lane
Modesto, CA 95350
City of Livingston 1416 C St.
Livingston, CA 95334
Community Development Director
Re: Public documents about the Hostetler/Livingston pipeline project
Date: March 21, 2006
Dear Livingston City Public Officials:
On February 6, we made a request under the California Public Records Act to inspect any indemnification agreements entered into by Greg Hostetler or Ranchwood Homes and/ or any of his associates, for example any companies controlled by Michael Gallo, ‘holding harmless’ the City of Livingston for any legal challenge to the environmental review of the proponents’ project. We also requested to inspect any documents showing any other agreements between the two named parties and the City of Livingston. We also requested to inspect any documents pertaining to any agreements between local business and industry (specifically Foster Farms) with regard to connection to the proposed waste water pipeline into the city of Livingston.
Pursuant to public rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and the California Constitution, as amended by passage of Prop 59 on November 3, 2004, we are writing to request to review all documents in City possession pertaining to the Ranchwood/Livingston pipeline including but not limited to:
(4) phone logs
(7) stop orders
(10) staff reports
(11) We also request any documents pertaining to connecting the Ranchwood/Livingston sewer trunk line to any other unincorporated areas, for example, Michael Gallo and Kelly family land near Stevinson.
Also on February 6, per our PRA request, we reserved the right to inspect any documents identified subsequent to the above request, prior to any copies being made. We will give specific instructions as to which documents we need copies of when they have been identified and are available for inspection.
If you determine that any or all or the information is exempt from disclosure, we ask that you reconsider that determination in view of Prop 59, which has amended the state Constitution to require that all exemptions be “narrowly construed.” Prop 59 may modify or overturn authorities on which you have relied in the past.
If you nonetheless determine that the requested records are subject to a still-valid exemption, we would further request that: (1) you exercise your discretion to disclose some or all of the records notwithstanding the exemption; and (2) that, with respect to records containing both exempt and non-exempt content, you redact the exempt content and disclose the rest.
Finally, should you deny part or all of this request, you are required to provide a written response describing the legal authority or authorities on which you rely. Please also address the question whether Prop 59 requires disclosure even though authorities predating Prop 59 may appear to support your exemption claim.
If we can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to this request, please contact us at (209) 723-9283.
The statutory deadline is past. We would like the City to notify us when it is planning to make these public documents available to us.
Lydia M. Miller Steve Burke
Cc: Bruce Owdom, Esq.