Sunshine on Housing Authority of Merced County

Continued from: node/474

From: MCCORRYM
To: pkhiek@co.merced.ca.us, rgabriele@co.merced.ca.us
CC: rlewis@co.merced.ca.us, jfincher@co.merced.ca.us, CALFMAN1, MCCORRYM
Sent: 3/31/2008 10:55:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Request to view active files pertaining to Felix Torres
Mr. Khiek and Mr. Gabriele,
On March 28, 2008, we received an email from Mr. Gabriele. In the body of the email was a reference to our potential request to view all files associated with the Felix Torres Child Development Center. We are confirming in this email our right to view these files.
In a previously scheduled meeting, we had incorrectly anticipated the timing of a Hearing Officer hearing. Typically, they have lasted between 30 minutes to one hour — this particular hearing ran nearly 2 hours - in which we were actively participating (February 25, 2008). As a result, Mr. Khiek, seems to have interpreted our actions as disrespectful to staff as we were late for our appointment (we met him after the meeting was over). Unfortunately, despite our good faith attempts, we have been unable to accurately predict the duration of County hearings — no disrespect to staff time, it is/was beyond our control.
We are unable to make the 10:30 a.m. time you offered for Wednesday, April 2nd. However, we will be in to view other files (Stillman) either Wednesday — late afternoon (2:30-4:00) or Thursday morning (8:00 -10:00 a.m.) — dependent on staff’s schedule. Since we have no control over the timing of any County held hearings and we will also be actively participating in the hearing tomorrow, we want to confirm that staff understands that the timing of the hearing — when the Board of Supervisor meeting is over, is beyond our control and therefore, we can not reliably predict when we will be available. We can state that we will come to the Planning Department at some point after the BOS meeting wraps up — be we can not set an exact time as to when we will actually walk through the door. It is incumbent on staff to be flexible on the timing. Since the last Planning Commission Hearing lasted nearly 5 hours, we want it to be clear that when this hearing ends could be anytime — between 12:00 p.m. and ?. We may want to take a short break if the hearing lasts more than a few hours. If this is clearly understood by staff, then we request to view all files — including a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration — associated with Felix Torres after the Board of Supervisor meeting, held tomorrow, April 1, 2008.
Please confirm that this will work for Planning Staff.
We look forward to your response.
Maureen McCorry, et al and
on behalf of Valley Land Alliance
P.O. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365
April 1, 2008
John Pedrozo, Supervisor, District #1
Merced County Administration Building
2222 M Street, 3rd Floor
Merced, CA 95340
Re: Notifying the Planada MAC regarding the developments related to the proposed Felix Torres Child Development Center (CUP #MM07-025-1st Modification to CUP#05-031 and Minor Deviation) Via: E-mail and U.S. Mail on April 1, 2008
Dear John,
As we indicated the email we sent to you and Merced County Planning Staff (March 17, 2008), the Planada MAC was led to believe on March 6, 2008, that the Felix Torres Day Care Center ran afoul of County policy and therefore would be deferred indefinitely. They were also led to believe that they would be briefed on this issue at future MAC meetings. The clear message was that this matter would not be heard on March 26, 2008, and furthermore, would not be heard any time in the foreseeable future by the Planning Commission due to blatant Housing Authority violations which continued well after the Planning Commission hearing on 2.27.08, (Mr. Richard Graves of the Building Department of Merced County, further corroborated these violations in his testimony on March 26, 2008 – indicating that work was continued in defiance of the County and relevant law until March 13, 2008). Yet, the County insisted on holding the public hearing on March 26, 2008, without ever notifying the Planada MAC.
We discussed this matter in detail in a conference call that included you, Mr. Graves, and Mr. Lewis on the day prior to the hearing. In that conversation, I re-iterated our concerns along with the issue of public process — that the MAC was not informed on an item with huge ethical, safety, traffic, and even storm water implications for the Planada Community.
We further understand that the regularly scheduled meeting which would have been held in advance of the next hearing on Felix Torres (April 3, 2008) has been canceled. We understand that either you cancelled it because the agenda did not go out or there was not a quorum. We also learned that there is no meeting being re-scheduled for April 10th. We further understand that no planning issues will be raised at the Planada MAC for its April meeting (whenever it is scheduled).
1) We request that you clarify why the regularly scheduled MAC meeting was cancelled (we have heard 3 different reasons circulating in the community) and evidently postponed indefinitely.
2) Indicate why Planning issues will be removed from MAC consideration during the month of April.
3) Update and inform – at minimum, MAC members regarding what has happened with the Felix Torres DCC – including the fact that a hearing was held on March 26, 2008. They should also be informed that the hearing lasted just short of 3 hours. The Planning Commission again took the unprecedented step of continuing this hearing (without approval) for a new hearing on April 9, 2008.
We did note Juan Corona’s presence throughout the March 26, 2008 Planning Commission Hearing. As you know the hearing for the Felix Torres CDC went on for nearly three hours. This is unprecedented. We believe this indicates the degree to which the manner and form in which the Housing Authority has behaved – is an issue. It would be a shame for the people of Planada to be left out of knowing what a public agency is doing with taxpayer dollars in the name of assisting Migrant Farm workers. We believe that if the community understood the behavior of this agency, they would be appalled.
We request that you write to the MAC and update them on the Felix Torres project, so at minimum they are aware that this project is moving forward.
Thank you for your time and we look forward to receiving your response and a copy of the letter you will be forwarding to the Planada MAC.
Sincerely,
Maureen McCorry et al and
on behalf of Valley Land Alliance
P.O. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365
cc: Richard Pulido, Chairman, Planada MAC
April 9, 2008
Merced County Planning Commissioners
2222 “M” Street, 3rd floor
Merced CA 95340
Re: Merced County Housing Authority (Modification No. MM-07-025 and Minor Deviation No. MD-08-04
The Merced County Farm Bureau submits the following comments on the Felix Torres Housing Center application to modify and deviate from Conditional Use Permit # CUP05-031:
First, there are new documents that were not made available to our organization, agencies and members of the public prior to the March 26, 2008 hearing. These include (but are not limited to the following):
· Richard Graves, County Building Official, Department of Public Works, Building and Safety, letter dated March 26, 2008*
*(This letter was made unavailable during the March 26, 2008 hearing)
· Don Borgwardt, Housing Authority of Merced County response to public comments, letter dated February 28, 2008 (not available in the last packet)
· Kathy Lasiter, Director of Operations, Stanislaus County Office of Education, letter dated March 10, 2008
· Daniel Chavez, president of the Planada Community Services District, letter dated November 20, 2007
· County Department of Public Works, Alfred Alvernaz, letter dated February 28, 2006
· County Department of Transportation, letter dated October 24, 2005
· Complaint, Bryant Owens, dated February 28, 2008
Based on the dates of the documents referenced above, these documents should have been included in the Commission packet as part of the hearing held on March 26th. We did not have access to these documents in order to analyze them in advance of the last hearing, therefore, they should be considered today as new information.
Second, Merced County’s role as “responsible agency” under CEQA is to monitor the lead agency. The staff report prepared for today’s hearing (and the previous hearing 3.26.08) reads as a justification for the violations and unlawful activities of the Housing Authority since construction began on the site on November 17, 2007. The Merced County Planning Department’s role is not to mask, rationalize, minimize, or provide excuses for these very serious violations. Staff is recommending this project for approval with conditions. Why not have the Housing Authority meet the conditions and then get their project approval when and if all the conditions are met? The County has a responsibility in ensuring and legal and transparent public process and the efficient expenditure of taxpayer dollars. It is rewarding inexcusable behavior from an agency that has demonstrated disregard for state law and local permitting processes.
Third, the Housing Authority of Merced County has had five years to build a new Felix Torres Center; the original center was demolished in 2003. The Housing Authority has had ample time to secure funding and follow federal, state, and local law and permitting procedures to re-build this facility. The migrant farm workers, who occupied the former site, have long since re-located. Whose interests are being served by a project that is five years past due, a budget that is incomprehensible yet steadily rising, and a refusal to follow the law even after they were ordered to cease construction?
Additionally, the MCFB is greatly concerned about the partnership that the Housing Authority had with Pacific Holt and developers of the Village of Geneva to build model homes. This project is supposed to be about migrant housing not a linchpin for affordable housing in a massive development scheme. MCFB still questions if this project can be using a mitigated negative declaration under CEQA when the conditions changed when the Village of Geneva was proposed and the above-mentioned agreement was entered into. They changed the rules of the game – farm worker housing on ag land is permitted not affordable housing without the proper review. This is supposed to be about farm workers and their families not developers benefiting from our tax dollars. The Planning Commission cannot dismiss evidence of past intentions in regards to this land, past projects or the current proposal in considering approval.
Fourth, as referenced in our letter dated March 26, 2008, we have learned that the Planada Community Services District (PSCD) has reached a settlement over a legal challenge regarding its proposed Wastewater Treatment and Expansion Project. This will impact capacity.
It is our further understanding that PCSD has no legal or practical authority to offer sewer service to the Felix Torres Day Care and Development Center based on the following:
As noted in the 11.20.07 PSCD letter:
· Condition 2: “Does not confer on the applicant a right to connect to the District’s water and sewer system until payment of connection, capacity and processing fees, in effect at the time of payment, is made.”
· Condition 3: “Payment of fees will not be accepted unless the District’s Engineer certifies that capacity is available in the PCSD sewage treatment plant.”
· Condition 8: “The conditions of this commitment must be fulfilled before the issuance of a final Water/Sewer Commitment Notice on specific lots of the development, necessary to obtain building permits.”
· The entire Felix Torres Center is outside the current SUDP.
· LAFCO has not yet considered or approved the proposed annexation which will ultimately include not only the proposed Felix Torres Center, but lands owned by private development interests and Bear Creek Village.
· There is no evidence to indicate that the PCSD can furnish sewer and water services to the Felix Torres Center and service its current clients and to residential and commercial developments which are within the District’s SOI.
Based on the PCSD and LAFCO policy and requirements, any Can and Will Serve letter presented at this hearing is void.
Based on the issues raised above and in previous testimony, we request that the Planning Commission continue this hearing, until at which time, the Housing Authority of Merced County has proven that they have met the requirements for the approval they are seeking in advance of the approval being granted. Given the irregularities and the number of violations that were either intentionally or unintentionally ignored by this entity and their consultants who are being paid for “permit processing,” the Housing Authority actions do not merit retroactive approvals.
Through its actions, the Housing Authority has squandered the public trust and those they are supposed to serve. The Planning Commission needs to support a process by which the Housing Authority and the expenditure of taxpayers dollars are subject to some basic level of accountability – even at this late date. As the responsible agency under CEQA, Merced County has the authority and the responsibility to withhold any further approval until the Housing Authority has met ALL the conditions before any approvals are granted on this project.
Sincerely,
Diana Westmoreland Pedrozo
Executive Director
(Merced County Farm Bureau)
April 10, 2008
Merced County
Board of Supervisors
2222 M Street
Merced CA 95340
Maureen McCorry
Valley Land Alliance
P.O. Box 158
Planada CA 95365
RE: Response to Correspondence Regarding the Felix Torres Center and Planada Municipal Advisory Council (MAC)
Dear Ms. McCorry:
This letter responds to your correspondence to me dated April 1, 2008. You raise several arguments about the operations of the Housing Authority of Merced County which is an independently run organization, not a function of the County of Merced. Therefore, I am limiting my responses to the three numbered questions and points raised in your letter, which are summarized below.
1. Why was the regular Planada MAC meeting cancelled for April 3rd?
The MAC meeting was not cancelled but was postponed until April 10, 2008.
2. Why were planning items removed from the MAC agenda?
There were no planning items set for the April 3rd meeting. There will be applications for the May meeting.
3. Update and Inform the MAC on the Felix Torres Center.
The MAC is given regular updates of pending planning applications at all their meetings, and this has been the practice for years. James Holland, Senior Planner, provided an update to the MAC about Felix Torres Center Minor Modification at their March 6 meeting and they will continue to get updates on this project and other planning items at future MAC meetings.
Thank you for your continued interest in the community of Planada. I trust this letter adequately responds to the questions raised in your letter concerning the Planada MAC.
Sincerely,
John Pedrozo
Supervisor, District One
April 9, 2008
Merced County Planning Commissioners
2222 “M” Street, 3rd Floor
Merced, California 95340
Re: Merced County Housing Authority (Modification No. MM07-025 and Minor Deviation No. MD08-04 Via: Hand Delivered 4.09.08
Commissioners,
Valley Land Alliance requests that you direct the Merced County Housing Authority to deny any further approvals for this project until the Housing Authority can demonstrate that it is legally compliant. Furthermore, we request that this hearing is open based on new information that has come to light, but has not been made available to the public until now.
According to Merced County staff, legally requested site plans for the Head Start project were not made available to your agency until after the March 26, 2008 (hearing). The public has a right to view these documents. Requests for a readable copy of these new plans were not made available to the public for study.
In addition, Richard Graves, Deputy Building Official, Merced County Department of Public Works, was not allowed to complete his testimony before this Commission at the last public hearing. His three page letter was made available to the public after March 26, 2008; yet it is highly relevant in documenting what is wrong with this project. This letter is particularly damning in that it includes evidence of 22 omissions and violations which come from you agency’s analysis of the project.
Furthermore, the letters written by Don Borgwardt, Housing Authority of Merced County and Kathy Lasiter of the Stanislaus County Office of Education (SCOE) were not made available in advance of the last hearing (March 26, 2008). We would trust that the public would have a right to study his response to our comments of February 27, 2008 – but this letter and the other referenced letter were not included for review in the last Commission packet.
The Merced County Planning Department’s role is not one that should be prejudiced – yet a careful reading of the staff report prepared for today’s hearing and the March 26, 2008 hearing reads as a defense of the Housing Authority. The County has a responsibility to ensure that the law is followed. Based on the preponderance of evidence that has been available at five separate hearings (3 in the last 8 weeks – and one extending nearly 3 hours), the track record of the Housing Authority on this project has been duly exposed. This agency has been given multiple years and multiple opportunities to get it right and they have either through sheer incompetence or manipulation have broken the law not once, but multiple times. Moreover, even after the County ordered the Housing Authority to stop work – work continued until March 13, 2008. Simply put, the Housing Authority has demonstrated that it will not recognize this agency’s authority unless it is forced to – if you remove the only leverage you have – your approval, you are rewarding illegal, unethical and irresponsible behavior on the part of an agency which is supposed to serve the most underserved in our community. To state that the public trust has been trampled upon by this agency is an understatement. The public demands and deserves better. As was noted at the last hearing and in this staff report, it is not unheard of for funding sources to extend their deadlines. One can certainly understand the reticence of the SCOE in requesting an extension, given that it is their and the Housing Authority violations which has forced this set of circumstances.
The Housing Authority of Merced County has had five years to build a new Felix Torres Center. When it did break ground on 11.17.07, it commenced its work in obvious violation of state law and County permitting processes. The County should not put itself in a position to reward illegal and irresponsible behavior. Public apologies and up to a few thousand dollars in fines for a $17 million dollar project – is a slap on the hand for very serious violations of law and a blatant disregard of the public trust. Migrant farm workers deserved a center four years ago. The public deserved a project that was transparent and made efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
It was revealed in the last hearing that the Planada Community Services district (PCSD) has reached a settlement that will limit its sewer capacity.
Based on the evidence presented thus far (testimony of Mr. Owens and Mr. Corser alongside the PCSD “Can and Will Serve” letter dated 11.20.07, the PCSD is not in a position to extend capacity to an entity outside its Sphere of Influence. The County therefore cannot accept a Can and Will Serve letter as evidence that capacity exists.
Merced County has the authority and a fundamental obligation to the public to oversee that henceforth, this project is completed legally. Merced County must withhold approval of this project until the Housing Authority can demonstrate that it has completed the requirements it ignored before any further approvals – conditional or otherwise – are granted. This is the only leverage that may force this agency to follow the law.
Sincerely
Maureen McCorry et al and
On behalf of Valley Land Alliance
P.O. Box 158
Planada CA 95365
cc. Interested Parties.
April 28, 2008
Ms. Rennise Ferrario, Executive Director
The Housing Authority of Merced County
405 “U” Street
Merced, California 95340
Re: California Public Records Act Request for form 700 for Housing Authority of Merced County employees
Via: E-mail and Hand Delivered, April 28, 2008
Dear Ms. Ferrario,
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 request to review the following documents, including but not limited to the items, listed below, in regards to Housing Authority of Merced County records:
· All 700 forms associated to current HACM board members and Executive staff and legal counsel.
We request the right to review the original records at a time to be arranged at the Merced County Planning Department prior to any copying taking place. As provided by the Public Records Act, you have ten days to determine whether you have records subject to the Act. If we can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to this request, please contact us at (415) 816-8872.
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.
Thank you for your time and courtesy. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Maureen McCorry et al., and on
behalf of Valley Land Alliance
P.O. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365
cc: Tom Lewis, Esquire
Interested parties
4-12-08
Merced Sun-Star
Until then, we won’t know much more than we do right now.
No place to call home: Planada farmworkers’ housing project once again delayed…LESLIE ALBRECHT
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/221311.html
Almost five years ago, the families living at the Merced County Housing Authority’s Felix Torres Farmworker Housing Center in Planada said goodbye to their modest houses…
The new Felix Torres Farmworker Housing Center — slated for a 21-acre parcel on Plainsburg Road — has been dogged by delays and opposition. Housing Authority officials say the project is crucial to meeting the pressing need for farmworker housing, but land-use activists — including the Merced County Farm Bureau — worry the 124-unit complex could open the door to unchecked development and tax water and sewer capacity in the tiny farm town of Planada. They’ve criticized the project at every step; at least one lawsuit has been filed against it.
Recently, the new complex hit another roadblock when the county discovered the Housing Authority had installed curbing and pavement on the site without permits or proper inspections. The county issued a stop-work order; it will stay in place until permits and approvals are obtained. After those problems are ironed out, the project should be ready to move ahead in earnest, say Housing Authority officials.
They now hope to have the complex complete by November 2009.
The new Felix Torres project is designed to replace both the old Felix Torres site and Planada Village…
The new Felix Torres will be the biggest of the farmworker housing projects the Housing Authority runs in Merced County. The Housing Authority is an independent government agency with a $36.9 million annual budget in state and federal dollars. It isn’t a county department, but its commissioners are appointed by the county Board of Supervisors…
The Housing Authority’s plans to build new farmworker housing date back to around 2003. At first the Housing Authority picked a 24-acre site on Gerard Avenue, just down the road from the old Felix Torres camp. But after neighbors opposed the plan, the Housing Authority shopped around for another piece of property, said Housing Authority attorney Tom Lewis.
In 2004, a real estate agent approached the Housing Authority with an offer: the Housing Authority could trade its Gerard Avenue land for some property on Plainsburg Road owned by developer Pacific Holt Corp. The land was surrounded by acreage where Pacific Holt hoped to build a development called the Village of Geneva. Plans for the development included 5,570 houses, stores, offices and parks.//
The Housing Authority agreed to the swap…
In 2006, the Merced County Board of Supervisors denied Pacific Holt’s request to start the environmental studies required to move forward with the Village of Geneva. The agreement to build model homes on the Housing Authority property expired this past January, said Lewis.
But the deal still raises red flags for Merced County Farm Bureau Executive Director Diana Westmoreland Pedrozo.
“Of course, we need housing for our migrant workers — that is a given,” said Westmoreland-Pedrozo. “We’re not protesting the housing complex; it’s how it’s been handled. What is the intent of the Housing Authority entering into agreements with developers? … How does that benefit farmworkers?”
Westmoreland-Pedrozo says she also has concerns about whether there’s enough sewer and water capacity to serve the new Felix Torres complex. She says the project is a classic example of the disconnect among county planners, developers and water and sewer service providers…
When first planned in 2003, the projected price tag for the new Felix Torres center was about $11 million, said Ferrario. Construction costs shot up during the housing boom; now the rough estimate to build the new camp is $17 million, she said…
Work started on the preschool site in November, without proper permits or county approvals. Housing Authority Development Manager Don Borgwardt says the lack of permits was a result of miscommunication with the Stanislaus County Office of Education…
Now it will take approvals from the County Board of Supervisors to undo the stop-work order on the project…

From: CALFMAN1@aol.com
Posted At: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:19 PM
Conversation: Letter to Editor
Subject: Letter to Editor
Dear Editor:
What was Leslie Albrecht thinking when she researched the Felix Torres project in Planada? Front page Sat Sun-Star 4-12-08. She did a disfavor to journalism by failing to report both sides she failed to research and report the testimony of the citizens and staff who are opposed to this project in its current form. All who opposed this modification application are involved in Agriculture. We will ultimately benefit from a project like this, as it is to provide housing for the migrant and year round farm workers. However, there is a reason for laws and due process to be followed in approving the planning for such a project. With all its flaws and errors the county is simply giving Housing Authority a pass on its blatant disregard for the planning and permitting process; this project reeks of corruption.
Ms Albrecht apparently failed to interview several of the persons who opposed this project. She failed to note in her article that there were county employees who were disgruntled to the point of resignation, and that the Planning Commission Chairman had verbally accosted and heckled both citizens and staff members who were giving testimony in opposition to this project.
I only hope Ms Albrecht does some more investigating into the many tentacles of dishonesty. Was she paid to sleep through one of the biggest stories of the month or did she simply run out of time on an assignment?
Rochelle Koch
Winton
From: LAlbrecht@MercedSun-Star.com
To: CALFMAN1@aol.com
Sent: 6/11/2008 6:21:18 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Letter to Editor
Dear Ms. Koch:
Thanks for writing. It’s always good to know that people are reading the Sun-Star.
The story I wrote about the Felix Torres project in April was meant to be an update about the status of the project.
I wanted to explain to readers what’s happened over the past several years since the Housing Authority first received taxpayer money to build the new complex.
I did interview people who are opposed to the project.
Space did not permit me to include all of the comments and issues that came up at this year’s Planning Commission meetings on Felix Torres.
Again, the point of the story was to give a broad update on the project, which means leaving out some of the details about the many steps and meetings that have happened during the life of the Felix Torres project.
What exactly do you think I should have included in the story that was missing?
I am very interested to hear about the county employees who were “disgruntled to the point of resignation”? Do you mean that a county employee resigned over this project? What is his or her name? Which department do they work in? What proof do you have that they were disgruntled to the point of resignation? Are there documents I could request in a Public Records Act request that would back up this claim? Is this person willing to speak on the record? As I’m sure you’re aware, county employees funnel all questions from reporters through the county’s spokespeople.
What do you mean that the county is “giving a pass” to the project? The county issued a stop work order when it discovered that work on the site had happened without permits.
I would very much like to discuss this with you for future stories about the Felix Torres complex.
You can reach me at my desk at 385-2484.
Sincerely,
Leslie Albrecht
Reporter
Merced Sun-Star
direct phone: (209) 385-2484
fax: (209) 385-2460
BADLANDS JOURNAL
June 27, 2008
http://www.badlandsjournal.com/?p=489
Public comment on the Felix Torres Project
On behalf of San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water, two local environmental groups, attorney Marsha A. Burch filed the following letter to the Merced Local Agency Formation Commission on June 26, regarding Planada Community Services District proposals to extend its sphere of influence to annex the new Felix Torres farm worker housing project.
In addition to Ms. Burch’s letter, Maureen McCorry, on behalf of San Joaquin Et Al, submitted the following documents in addition to oral testimony:
1) Planning Commission Minutes 2.27.08
2) Planning Commission Minutes 3.26.08
3) 4.12.08 Articles
4) Planning Commission Minutes 4.09.08
5) Amendment to Real Party Exchange Felix Torres
6) Badlands Felix Torres, Raptor/POW
7) Felix Torres Background:
Felix Torres 3.26.08 Farm Bureau letter
Felix Torres 4.09.08
Felix Torres 11.29.07
Felix Torres 12.29.07
Felix Torres 12.13.07
Felix Torres USDA 12.13.07
Merced County 4.04.08
Planning Commission Transcript
Owens/Corser Comments
2.06.06 Agency Letter
8) Felix Torres CUP 2.27.08
9) Access to Working Files
10) Comment on proposed subdivision
11) MSR Planada
12) Graves letter
13) Felix Torres 3.26.08
14) Mary Stillhan 3.18.08
15) Planada CSD Final Petition
16) Lawsuit filed over the Planada Community Plan
17) Planada Settlement Agreement, SJRRC, POW, and the PCSD
18) PCSD ledger of Can and Will Serve Letters 1992-2008;
and another member of the public submitted these documents in addition to oral testimony:
“A” 2002 Preliminary Engineering Report for Planada WWTF Expansion
“B” Can and Will Serve Ledgers and related e-mail (13 pages)
“C” E-mail from PCSD to David Capron (1pg)
“D” Letter from Ken Mackie LAFCo (2pg)
“E” 11/7/03 Modification of Escrow, 21 acre Felix Torres Parcel (1pg)
“F” Community Plan Update Map Showing Felix Torres on Gerard Ave (1pg)
“F-1” Planada Community Plan Update 2003, Included by Reference
“G” PHRC Letter to Robert Lewis dated 8/3/06 (2pgs)
“H” Tom Nevis to Terry Allen re: Planada/Tatum Inquiry, Grand Jury Notes (2pgs)
“I” Villages of Geneva EIR Guidance Package (13pgs)
“J” Merced County Municipal Service Review, 2007, Planada (6pgs)
“J-1” Local Agency Formation Municipal Service Review Guidelines August 2003
(Govt. Publication included in its entirety)
“K” Settlement Agreement between Bryant Owens and PCSD dated 5/27/08 (5pgs)
“L” CA Regional Water Quality Control Board Administrative Liability Order (6pgs)
“M” 1993 Bear Creek Village CUP and amendments
“N” LAFCo Sphere of Influence Amendment 1055B.
The LAFCo board voted unanimously for continuance until Aug. 28 to consider new information.
All in all, it was not a good day for Merced County officials, who believe that the proper public-comment letter is a hand-written note by a pencil stub on toilet paper tacked to a fence post as far away as possible from 2222 M. St., Merced.
– Badlands editorial staff
—————————————————–
MARSHA A. BURCH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
131 South Auburn Street
GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945
June 25, 2008
Via Email
Mr. Bill Nicholson, Executive Officer
Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission
2222 M Street
Merced, CA 95340
Re: Proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment No. 1055C to the Planada Community Services District and Planada Community Services District Annexation No. 2008-1, Planada, Merced County, California LAFCo File No. 0645
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
This office, in conjunction with the Law Office of Donald B. Mooney, represents the San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water, groups with an interest in the above-referenced proposed sphere of influence amendment and annexation (“Proposal”). We apologize for the late hour of these comments, but we were unable to obtain a copy of the Planada Municipal Services Review (“MSR”) until this afternoon. We submit the following comments on the Proposal.
By previous letters and comments to the Merced County Planning Commission our clients have raised concerns that the Merced County Housing Authority’s (“MCHA”) CEQA documentation related to the above-referenced Proposal is inadequate. The following comment provides additional detail regarding the flaws in reliance upon the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study prepared by the MCHA. This comment further describes the legal obligation of the LAFCo as a CEQA responsible agency to assume the role of lead agency and prepare subsequent environmental review before approving the Proposal.
I. Required Subsequent Environmental Review
A responsible agency may not grant a discretionary approval for a project for which a negative declaration has been prepared without first considering the environmental impacts outlined in the negative declaration. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096(f); cf. Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Board (1997) 63 Cal.App.4th 227.) A responsible agency must decide for itself how to respond to a project’s significant effects that will directly or indirectly result from the responsible agency’s own decision to approve an aspect of the project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(1); and Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(d).) The responsible agency must adopt any feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen such effects. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2).)
When a responsible agency believes that a lead agency has improperly relied on a negative declaration it may elect from options set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15096 as follows: (1) take the matter to court within the applicable limitations period; (2) prepare its own “subsequent EIR” if permissible under CEQA Guidelines section 15162; or (3) assume the role of lead agency if permissible under section 15052. (Guidelines § 15096; and see City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Comm. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1169, 1179-1181.)
As discussed in detail below, the initial study and negative declaration for the project failed to analyze certain impacts, and new information regarding potentially significant impacts has come to light since the MCHA approved the project. Thus, if the MCHA refuses to supplement the inadequate environmental
review, the LAFCo should assume the role of lead agency and evaluate the impacts of the project prior to approval.
It bears noting that the MCHA adopted the negative declaration for the project two and a half years ago on November 15, 2005. There is substantial evidence showing that the Felix Torres Housing Center is significantly different today in its construction phase than the project that was reviewed and approved
by the MCHA. Further, there is substantial evidence showing that the Planada Community Services District’s (“CSD”) plans to expand the wastewater treatment capacity have changed considerably, and the planned expansion formed a large portion of the MSR prepared by the LAFCo in April of 2007.
There is new information showing that the project will likely have significant impacts that were not addressed by the MCHA. (See Supporting Document Packet submitted by San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and Protect Our Water.)
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15052, the LAFCo as a responsible agency, shall assume the role of the lead agency when any of the following conditions occur:
(1) The Lead Agency did not prepare any environmental documents for the project, and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead Agency.
(2) The Lead Agency prepared environmental documents for the project, but the following conditions occur:
(A) A subsequent EIR is required pursuant to Section 15162;
(B) The Lead Agency has granted a final approval for the project;
and
(C) The statute of limitations for challenging the Lead Agency’s action under CEQA has expired.
(3) The Lead Agency prepared inadequate environmental documents without consulting with the Responsible Agency as required by Sections 15072 or 15082, and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead Agency.
Under Section 15052(1)(A), a subsequent environmental review is required because new information has come to light (see Supporting Document Packet) which was not known at the time the negative declaration was adopted by the MCHA, and the new information shows that significant effects to utilities and service systems will be more severe. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3).) This requirement applies to a negative declaration, and as a responsible agency, LAFCo may not grant a discretionary approval for the project until the subsequent negative declaration or EIR is adopted. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(b) and (c).)
Accordingly, if the MCHA is unwilling to prepare the supplemental environmental review necessary to bring the review into compliance with CEQA, the LAFCo must step into the role of the lead agency and prepare the necessary review before considering and approving the project. (CEQA Guidelines §
15052(a), subsections (1), (2) and (3).)
A. New Information and Changed Circumstances
The initial study/negative declaration is outdated with respect to its analysis of the CSD’s capacity for wastewater treatment and cumulative impacts. Since the MCHA approved the project, in March of 2008, the CSD settled a CEQA action in the Merced County Superior Court and agreed to limit treatment plant expansion to a maximum of 900,000 gallons per day (“GPD”).
The MSR adopted in April of 2007 assumed that the CSD would move forward with the expansion. The MSR also concludes that the community of Planada will likely grow to a population of 8,500 within the next seven years. (MSR, p. 74.)
None of these assumptions is correct at this point, and the erroneous information in the MSR should be identified and revised, or at least discussed.
Changes to the Felix Torres Project itself have also arisen. Project construction apparently began and deviated significantly from the configuration approved by the MHCA and so the Merced County Building Division halted construction. The MCHA applied for approval to deviate from the project as approved in the Conditional Use Permit and on April 9, 2008, the Planning Commission did not approve that application. It is our understanding that the Planning Commission’s decision has been appealed.
In summary, the LAFCo may not rely upon the negative declaration prepared for the Felix Torres Project because that project has evolved and transformed so significantly that additional environmental review is necessary.
The new information triggers the need for subsequent environmental review under Guidelines section 15162(a), and therefore triggers the responsible agency obligation to assume the role of lead agency and prepare the necessary review. (Guidelines § 15052.)
B. Impacts not Previously Addressed
The staff report concludes that the Proposal will not have a significant impact on agricultural lands. This conclusion violates CEQA, and also the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act (discussed below). With respect to CEQA, the conclusion that conversion of agricultural land is not significant is simply false, as the extension of the sphere of influence and infrastructure into the proposed annexation areas will remove a boundary to development on surrounding agricultural areas.
The staff report indicates that the County has denied applications for residential developments outside of the SUDP boundaries, but the fact that the County has denied applications in the past provides no assurance that such applications will be denied in the future. Thus, approval of the Proposal may
result in conversion of agricultural lands.
The Legislature has determined that the preservation of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary for the maintenance of California’s agricultural economy and the state’s economy. (Gov’t Code § 51220.) The Legislature found and declared that “the preservation of land in its natural, scenic, agricultural, historical, forested, or open-space condition is among the most important environmental assets of California.” (Civ. Code § 815.)
The Proposal’s impacts to agriculture must be evaluated in a subsequent environmental review. Gaps in the initial study and negative declaration for the project may not be overlooked, and must be addressed before the Proposal may be considered for approval.
II. The Proposal Is Inconsistent with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Statutory Requirements
As discussed above, the sphere amendment and annexation will result in the potential for conversion of additional agricultural land. The initial study for the Felix Torres Project does not adequately assess this potential and is insufficient under CEQA. It is also insufficient to approve the annexation under
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg.
Section 56377 of Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg sets forth the following requirements for LAFCo approval of annexations that convert open space and agricultural lands:
56377. In reviewing and approving or disapproving proposals which could reasonably be expected to induce, facilitate, or lead to the conversion of existing open-space lands to uses other than open-space uses, the commission shall consider all of the following policies and priorities:
(a) Development or use of land for other than open-space uses shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in open-space use toward areas containing nonprime agricultural lands, unless that action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area.
(b) Development of existing vacant or nonprime agricultural lands for urban uses within the existing jurisdiction of a local agency or within the sphere of influence of a local agency should be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for or lead to the development of existing open-space lands for non-open-space uses which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the local agency or outside of the existing sphere of influence of the local agency.
This section requires the Commission to guide development away from prime agricultural lands. Subsection (b) requires that development of existing vacant land within a sphere be encouraged before annexation of open-space land outside of the existing sphere.
To comply with these mandatory requirements, most LAFCo’s require a vacant land inventory and absorption analysis. This information is essential to determine if there is adequate vacant land already within the urban boundaries for the proposed development or whether there is a need to convert additional open space or agricultural land.
There is no such analysis done for this project. There is absolutely no evidence in the record to indicate that there is insufficient vacant and developable land within the urban boundaries and sphere of influence of the CSD that would justify further conversion of agricultural land outside the boundaries. In the absence of such information, Merced LAFCo cannot make the findings necessary to justify such a conversion.
III. The Proposal Is Inconsistent with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Statutory Requirements
The staff report indicates that Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg requires review of various factors for all reorganization proposals, citing Government Code section 56668. (Staff Report, p. 4.) The report goes on to say that certain Merced LAFCo policies provide a more focused review for rural service districts, and so
provides an analysis under the policy rather than the Government Code.
The mandatory requirements of CKH may not be so lightly disregarded.
Section 56668(d), for example, requires that the anticipated effects of the Proposal must be reviewed for consistency with adopted LAFCo policies on providing orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, and the policies and priorities set forth in Section 65377. These are the very priorities that were ignored by the MCHA in approving the Felix Torres Housing project at its present location, and they may not be ignored by the LAFCo.
IV. Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to provide the above comments. We respectfully request that the Commissioners carefully evaluate the shortcomings of the underlying CEQA document, and its inadequacy to support a discretionary determination by the LAFCo at this time. We respectfully request
that the LAFCo deny the Proposal.
Very truly yours,
Marsha A. Burch
Attorney
cc: San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center
Protect Our Water
Donald B. Mooney, Esq.
From a member of the public
July 04, 2008
Merced County Board of Supervisors
2222 M Street
Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-7366 via fax (209) 726-7977 and email
RE: Special Session July 8th 2008 10:00 a.m. Continued Public Hearing
COMMENT IN OPPOSITION to the Appeal of Planning Commission consideration of MM 07-025 and MD 08-004 to CUP 05- 031 Housing Authority County of Merced Felix Torres Farm worker Housing Project
Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Board of Supervisors,
Housing Authority County of Merced (HA) is the appellant for MM07-025 and MD 08-004. The project site lies within the boundary of the planned Pacific Holt Residential Communities (PHR Communities) ‘Villages of Geneva at Planada’ project which your board considered on July 25, 2006 in the form of a guidance package. The guidance package was denied on a 2/3 vote, with Supervisor Crookham stating that this is a good project but this isn’t the right time for it yet.
Just 9 days later in a letter addressed to Mr. Bobbie Lewis, and entitled: COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, were the following statements from PHRC.
“We believe that our plan represents the most appropriate use of the land northwest of and contiguous to the existing town of Planada. We therefore formally request that the land use plan that we have prepared be included and analyzed within the General Plan Update.” — Des Johnston, On behalf of PHR Communities. (dated: Aug. 3, 2006)
That letter was submitted subsequent to the Board’s denial of the Guidance Package and therefore the contents represent a statement of continuing residential development intentions. These comments, submitted by PHR for inclusion in the General Plan Update (GPU) project, confirm the ongoing threat of a 1,390 acre urban expansion into prime agricultural land east of Plainsburg Road and north of State Hwy 140 (contiguous with the parcels under consideration).
Further statements from Pacific Holt are noted in communications with the Merced County Civil Grand Jury:
“ The Pacific Holt Corp. has plans for a large development in the area east of Plainsburg Road and North of Hwy 140. The project area for this development already contains an affordable housing project built by Bear Creek Developments, but which is not associated with the Housing Authority of Merced County. The Pacific Holt Corp. felt that by locating the Mega-Plex in the same area, it would enhance the chances of getting approval for their development project.” — Merced Grand Jury, Case No. 05-06-14
Documents discovered in 2008 reveal that the Executive Director of the Housing Authority County of Merced (HA) entered into a Real Property Exchange Agreement with Pacific Holt Corporation (PHC), dated 11/10/04, which provided PHC with an option to build model homes on one acre of the 21 acres government-owned parcel in order to foster PHC’s major residential development plans for all the adjoining prime Ag-land.
The following is an excerpt of Housing Authority / Pacific Holt Property Exchange Agreement:
“The parties agree that PHC will be entitled to have use of one (1) acre of the Holt Parcel [Housing Authority’s 21 acre parcel on Plainsburg Rd] for the purpose of building and utilizing model homes in order to promote PHC’s planned residential development on the adjacent parcel.”
— Executive Director of Housing Authority
— Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Holt Corporation
That option, to build model homes, totally undermines the validity of Housing Authority’s later environmental findings (particularly regarding the issue of growth inducement) and belies subsequent statements in their Environmental Assessment (EA). Housing Authority, knowingly acting as an anchor tenant for Pacific Holt , described the HA ‘project’ as an adjunctive use permitted on agricultural land, when in fact Housing Authority, by consummating the Real Property Exchange Agreement, was obligated to promote the residential development of the surrounding 389+/- acres. However, the impacts from the 389-acre PHC residential development, contiguous to and surrounding the Felix Torres project are not analyzed in the EA. In light of this new information, CEQA Guidelines require that further environmental review be undertaken by the County of Merced. Partnerships with a common goal such as the PHC/HA Real Property Exchange Agreement imply must not divide a project into smaller projects for the purpose of circumventing appropriate environmental review under CEQA. At this point a supplemental environmental review is required by CEQA.
The Housing Authority, as Lead Agency for its own project, concealed the nature of the Real Property Exchange Agreement and did not evaluate any possible environmental effects of the proposed ‘model homes’ or the explicit promotion of the adjacent planned residential development. In preparing the Environmental Assessment for NEPA and CEQA review, Housing Authority claimed that there were no significant growth inducing effects from their ‘project’, in stark contrast to the ‘option’ included in the Real Property Exchange Agreement . This is a violation of CEQA and public trust. and invalidates the claims of the EA. This fraud on the public was repeated when HA submitted an application for a conditional use permit for the Felix Torres Project. This also was a fraud on the County as land use authority and was a betrayal of the public trust!
Now HA is asking the Board of Supervisors to be complicit in this corruption and fraud! The Board of Supervisors as a responsible agency must acknowledge the stark facts of the intentional betrayal of the public trust involved in the environmental findings by Housing Authority. There is no justification for any new discretionary approvals relating to the Felix Torres Mega-Plex in the absence of an updated, genuine and thorough environmental review. CEQA law requires a responsible agency to assume the role of Lead Agency before granting a discretionary approval if significant changes to the project or environmental conditions have occurred between the original approval and a subsequent modification to a project.
It should be noted that all the property in question is in Supervisory district one, and that Supervisor Gloria Keene was offered employment by Pacific Holt Corporation prior to leaving office, at the rate of $10,000 per month as a real estate consultant. Financial records confirm that Keene began receiving compensation from PHC as early as January 2005. It also bears noting that County CEO Dee Tatum was a party to the land swap which resulted in the creation of a 21 acre parcel on prime Ag-land (without the benefit of any public review). The 1 acre Housing Authority plot which was set aside for PHC’s model homes appeared as a cross-hatched area on maps presented to the Planning Commission & Supervisors and the acre was labeled “future development,” with no further explanation offered.
The following is an excerpt from a Joint Purchase Agreement between Hostetler Investments and Pacific Holt:
Section 3 Cooperation in Acquisition and Division of Kamangar Property (Planada)
The total purchase price for the Kamangar property as set forth in the Kamangar Purchase agreement is approximately $6,150,000.00. This purchase price consists of the sum of $500,000.00 which is the purchase price for a 21+/- acre portion of the Kamangar Property identified for sale to the Housing Authority of the County of Merced(the “HA Parcel”) and the sum of $5,650,000.00 for the remainder of the Kamangar Property consisting of 389+/- acres.
Hostetler and Pacific shall exchange the HA parcel with the Housing Authority for a 24acre parcel of real property (the “Replacement parcel”). Hostetler and Pacific shall then sell the replacement parcel to a third party (Dee Tatum) for the sum of approximately $230,000.00 (the ‘Replacement Parcel Proceeds’)…
Signed by Saundra Nevis for Pacific Holt
Signed by Greg Hostetler
(Dated 7/28/04)
Just 9 days after the above agreement was signed Greg Hostetler treated County CEO Dee Tatum to a pleasure trip to San Francisco:
Excerpt from (form 700) Statement of Economic Interests for
Demitrios Tatum from Schedule “E” Income - Gifts
Name of Source: Ranchwood Homes Corp
Date of trip: 8/5/04
Reason: Business/Pleasure trip to San Francisco, CA
Quid pro quo?
The paper trail from the residential developers’ schemes for the Planada area clearly shows that administrative and elected official have been the target of intense lobbying and in some cases became parties to the developers’ schemes. Regarding the current Minor Modification and Minor Deviation applications it is apparent that the applicant (HA) has totally disregarded the proper permitting procedures and has presented patently false commitment letters in the hopes of obtaining premature and unjustifiable building permits and project modification approvals.
Planada CSD has misrepresented that it has authority over and capacity to serve the Felix Torres Plainsburg Road parcel.( including the Head Start facility), to the County of Merced on multiple occasions during the review and permitting of this project. This is a complete fraud and we have been informed by the secretary of Planada CSD that Merced County, in fact, requested the fraudulent letters of commitment to be issued for the purpose of approving the Minor Modification and Minor Deviation. (This is outrageous behavior from county staff!!) The Planada CSD does not include the proposed parcels under consideration.
On November 20, 2007 Daniel Chavez the president of the Board of Directors, signed commitment letter number 159 for 128 residential units. This letter of commitment was issued as if the Felix Torres project were within the Planada CSD boundary, and was a continuation of the fraud which lead to the inappropriate approval of the Felix Torres CUP 05-031.
On April 4th 2008 Planada CSD approved two separate ‘WATER- SEWER COMMITMENT FOR BUILDING PERMITS” to the Housing Authority; one for 128 units, and one for one (1) unit for the day care facility, signed by Planada CSD Office Manager Martha S. Mayo. The Board action approving these out of bounds services came during the same meeting at which the Board of Planada CSD approved an application to LAFCo for annexation of the proposed Felix Torres Site. These documents were issued in full knowledge that the subject parcels were still outside the district and that Planada CSD had no legal authority to issue such commitment documents.
This action is clearly fraud. This Planada CSD’s action is growth inducing. This falsified documentation is intended to facilitate HA project approvals and grant proceeds as well as to satisfy developers who have prepaid for future connections in expectation of a significant sewer expansion. It should be noted for the record that Thomas J. Keene, husband of former District One Supervisor Gloria Keene, stated in recent correspondence that Planada CSD does not even have enough capacity to serve the land within its current boundaries. Planada CSD certainly should not be issuing Water-Sewer Commitments beyond their own legal authority:
“The Board of Directors of the District is no longer talking about a project large enough to serve all of the land in the District’s planning area. The project has been scaled back so that it will probably not serve all of the land within the District’s current Boundaries.”
— Thomas J. Keene , P.C.S.D. Special Counsel, Environmental Review (dated: Feb. 29, 2008)
CEQA Guidelines: Required Subsequent Environmental Review
A responsible agency may not grant a discretionary approval for a project for which a negative declaration has been prepared without first considering the environmental impacts outlined in the negative declaration. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096(f); cf. Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Board (1997) 63 Cal.App.4th 227.) A responsible agency must decide for itself how to respond to a project’s significant effects that will directly or indirectly result from the responsible agency’s own decision to approve an aspect of the project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(1); and Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(d).) The responsible agency must adopt any feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen such effects. (CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2).)
When a responsible agency believes that a lead agency has improperly relied on a negative declaration it may elect from options set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15096 as follows: (1) take the matter to court within the applicable limitations period; (2) prepare its own “subsequent EIR” if permissible under CEQA Guidelines section 15162; or (3) assume the role of lead agency if permissible under section 15052. (Guidelines § 15096; and see City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Comm. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1169, 1179-1181.)
As discussed in detail below, the initial study and negative declaration for the project failed to analyze certain impacts, and new information regarding potentially significant impacts has come to light since the HA approved the project. Thus, if the HA refuses to supplement the inadequate environmental review, the Board of Supervisors should assume the role of lead agency and evaluate the impacts of the project prior to approval of the above referenced MM and MD.
It bears noting that the HA adopted the negative declaration for the project two and a half years ago on November 15, 2005. There is substantial evidence showing that the Felix Torres Housing Center is significantly different today in its construction phase than the project that was reviewed and approved by the HA. Further, there is substantial evidence showing that the Planada Community Services District’s (“CSD”) plans to expand the wastewater treatment capacity have changed considerably. There is new information showing that the project will likely have significant impacts that were not addressed by the HA.
We feel, based upon the irregularities that have occurred from the inception of the Housing Authority’s project, that there is sufficient reason for the Board of Supervisors to deny this appeal outright. The application for a minor modification and minor deviation are truly deceptive captions for the matters up for consideration by the BOS today. There is sufficient evidence before the Board of Supervisors to trigger a supplemental environmental review of this project. Conditions have changed since the EA in 2005 and the CUP in 2006 were issued for this project.
Significant information that was not available to the board at the time the original CUP was approved has come to light. CEQA law requires that if the Lead Agency refuses to evaluate these subsequent environmental impacts then the Responsible Agency must assume the role of Lead Agency and conduct its own Initial Study and Notice of Preparation and from that process make its own independent findings.
For all of the above reasons we respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal of MM-07-025 and MD 08-004 of CUP 05-031.
Sincerely,
(Members of the public)
Attachments Submitted in person under separate cover.
“A” 2002 Preliminary Engineering Report for Planada WWTF Expansion
“B” Can and Will Serve Ledgers and related e-mail (13 pages)
“C” E-mail from PCSD to David Capron (1pg)
“D” Letter from Ken Mackie LAFCo (2pg)
“E” 11/7/03 Modification of Escrow, 21 acre Felix Torres Parcel (1pg)
“F” Community Plan Update Map Showing Felix Torres on Gerard Ave (1pg)
“F-1” Planada Community Plan Update 2003, Included by Reference
“G” PHRC Letter to Robert Lewis dated 8/3/06 (2pgs)
“H” Tom Nevis to Terry Allen re: Planada/Tatum Inquiry, Grand Jury Notes (2pgs)
“I” Villages of Geneva EIR Guidance Package (13pgs)
“J” Merced County Municipal Service Review, 2007, Planada (6pgs)
“J-1” Local Agency Formation Municipal Service Review Guidelines August 2003
(Govt. Publication included in its entirety)
“K” Settlement Agreement between Bryant Owens and PCSD dated 5/27/08 (5pgs)
“L” CA Regional Water Quality Control Board Administrative Liability Order (6pgs)
“M” 1993 Bear Creek Village CUP and amendments
“N” LAFCo Sphere of Influence Amendment 1055B
“O” Statement of Economic Interest Form 700 5/28/05 Dee Tatum
“P” Joint purchase Agreement 7/28/04 Pacific Holt/ Hostetler Investments/ HA.
“Q” Real Property Exchange Agreement HA/PHC
7-12-08
Merced Sun-Star
Safe water is scarce at Los Banos housing center
Migrant workers and their families are rationed fluids…COREY PRIDE, Los Banos Enterprise
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/343236.html
The Rafael L. Silva Migrant Family Housing Center has five-gallon containers placed outside its housing units five days per week.
The containers are used to provide the residents’ water ration, which is transported in by truck via the Housing Authority of the County of Merced.
There is a well at the Henry Miller Road facility. According to the Merced County Health Department, unacceptable amounts of arsenic, copper and radionuclides have made its water unsafe to drink since just before the migrant camp opened in May of 2006.
Migrant workers and their families say the ration they receive from the housing authority is not enough to drink and have clean water to perform household chores and practice good hygiene. They end up using the well water…
Construction on the center began in 2004. The new facility was designed to replace the former migrant housing that existed at the location, which is just outside of Los Banos’ city limits.
A letter Borgwardt wrote in June, which details the timeline of events, states that testing on the well was conducted in November of 2005. This was the first notice the housing authority received that there was a problem, the letter states.
Borgwardt said the migrant center opened in May in spite of the well contamination levels mainly out of a great need for the facility…
Until the housing authority can build its own pipeline, however, it has asked the California Department of Fish and Game to use the one it owns near the camp site. Those discussions began in December of 2005, according to Borgwardt’s letter…
A memorandum of understanding between the two sides was crafted and received by Borgwardt on May 26, 2006, according to the letter. The letter also states the housing authority spent $80,000 for storage tanks, a booster pump and other materials that would be needed to utilize Fish and Game’s pipeline.
But issues arose.
According to Fish and Game officials their pipeline was built in the 1970s, is 6 inches and only provides service to two bunkhouses and five employee units…
7-15-08
Merced Sun-Star
Letter: Outrageous salary…JUDY BERGER , Merced
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/177/story/346257.html
Editor: I too would like to know what Merced County CEO Dee Tatum does to justify the outrageous salary of $226,330, plus perks, per year? Makes me think twice when asked to vote on bonds or increased taxes for road repair, schools, etc.
As a comparison, the governor of the state of California is entitled to an annual salary of $206,500, the attorney general a salary of $175,525.
Why aren’t more taxpayers outraged at the blatant misuse of our funds by the bloated salaries of our county administrators, Mr. Tatum’s being the most mind-boggling? What is the the Board of Supervisors thinking?
As a taxpayer and property owner, I am distressed at the conditions in the county and certainly don’t feel that Mr. Tatum has demonstrated any abilities to alleviate or improve our present financial crisis — in fact, by his salary increase he has added to it.
I am looking to the Board of Supervisors to re-evaluate the salary of the next county CEO to a more realistic figure and to bid Mr. Tatum goodbye, or forget my “yes” vote on any new bonds or taxes.
7-16-08
Merced Sun-Star
Dirty tap water worries residents of migrant housing…LESLIE ALBRECHT
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/348113.html
LOS BANOS — For three years, the tap water at a Los Banos farmworker housing complex has been unsafe to drink. Now residents there hope shining a public spotlight on the problem will jump-start a solution.At tonight’s Los Banos City Council meeting, residents of the Rafael L. Silva Family Farmworker Housing Center on Henry Miller Road will ask the council to back an effort to get safe drinking water to flow from their taps.
Right now, tap water at the complex has too much arsenic, copper and radiation in it for drinking. Instead, every unit at the complex is equipped with a five-gallon dispenser of bottled water for drinking and cooking. But the residents use tap water to bathe and wash their clothes.
Some residents at the complex, which is home to almost 200 farmworkers, say the tap water has given them rashes and made their hair fall out. Others say the water hasn’t made them sick, but it has left residue in their sinks and a dry, dirty feeling on their skin.
Jeff Palsgaard, county director of environmental health, said residents at the center should be concerned about contaminants in the tap water. But because residents only live at the center for six months at a time during the growing season, they’re probably not being exposed to enough contamination to lead to health problems, he said. Palsgaard said his department will investigate residents’ complaints about rashes and hair loss to determine the source of those problems.
Meanwhile, the Merced County Housing Authority, the public agency that runs the farmworker complex, says it’s working to find a solution to the water problem. The farmworker center’s tap water comes from a well. Housing Authority officials say they could provide clean water to the center if they could hook up to a nearby water line that’s owned by the California Department of Fish and Game.
The department’s line supplies employee housing and other buildings at the nearby wildlife area the department manages. But fish and game officials say the 6-inch line they own is too old and too small to hook up to the center. As it stands now, the state fire marshal has said the line doesn’t have enough capacity to effectively fight fires in the wildlife area, said Jeffrey Single, an environmental program manager with fish and game.
Now center residents hope pressure from the city of Los Banos will persuade fish and game to share its line. But that solution is only a temporary one. The Housing Authority is also applying for state money to build an entirely new water line that would connect the farmworker complex to the city’s water system.
The center’s tap water hasn’t been drinkable since its doors opened in 2006, said Don Borgwardt, housing authority development manager.
The Housing Authority has spent about $60,000 to $80,000 total supplying bottled water to the complex. A new water line would cost $750,000 to $1 million, said Borgwardt.
Even if the Housing Authority wins state funding to build a new water line, it would be at least a year before the line would be up and running, said Palsgaard…