HELP HELP HELP
I don't know why I didn't get this to you sooner BUT HERE IT IS
Best regards,
ALT
A JEM FOR YOU
-------Original Message-------
From: Armand L. Trinitapoli
Date: 08/30/06 22:18:01
Subject: URGENT & IMPORTANT PLS REVIEW & CONSIDER BEFORE TMWR's LAFCO Mtg / ALT
ALT
PACIFIC SHORES WATER DISTRICT
Partners With The Environment
Duane Bruce Smith, President
13220 Southport Lane 170-F, Leisure World, CA 90740
(562) 799-1134 e-mail: PSSCWD@netscape.com
Del Norte Local Agency Formation Commission August 26, 2006
Attention: Darren McElfresh, EO
508 H Street, Suite 2
Crescent City, CA 95531
(707) 465-0836 telephone
(707) 464-1881 fax
Via Email: darren@charterinternet.com
Re: August 28, 2006 Agenda Items A,B,C,D and All issues regarding the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District (PSSCWD)
The California Water District, respectfully requests that any reorganization, dissolution, proposed change in the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District or boundaries or thereof be DENIED.
A. 1:The Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District has not received any of the proper notices from the Del Norte Board of Supervisors as required by law.
2:The Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District has not received any of the proper notices regarding the above agenda from LAFCO as required by law.
B. ISSUES RAISED In the Del Norte Board of Supervisors Resolution 6002-061
1. Sarah Samples claims that “the Pacific Shores Subdivision has been in existence for some 42 years and continues to be without a County-approved specific plan or use permit.” She apparently misses the point, that it is the responsibility of the Del Norte Board of Supervisors to prepare and approve that plan. It does show that the delays in developing the Pacific Shores Subdivision are caused by the Board of Supervisors not PSSCWD.
2. That “only one development permit has ever been issued,” however, there were four other residences built in the district prior to that. It is also the responsibility of the county, not the PSSCWD to handle planning and development issues.
3. That the only improvements are the streets and roads. That also is not true, there are also existing power and telephone services.
4. That the “subdivision lot owners have paid “substantial annual assessments
special taxes to the Water District.” The truth is that they paid substantially less than it would have cost them to drill a well – which they would have had to do if it were left to the county to provide water. When it comes to money, it should be noted that while the PSSCWD has been working to provide water and sewage facilities in order to facilitate development, Del Norte County has collected their regular taxes from the property owners in Pacific Shores since 1964 without providing any services or benefits to the property owners whatsoever.
5. That “the Pacific Shores Subdivision has not prepared a Local Coastal Plan for the Pacific Shores subdivision.” Once again, Samples is blaming the PSSCWD for something the Board of Supervisors should have been doing and again illustrating how the Board of Supervisors’ failure to perform their duties is holding up development in the PSSCWD.
6. Amazing! One thing is correct. The PSSCWD has spent virtually all its funds over the years on legal fees, and environmental studies. But again she gets it wrong. Progress has been made and environmental issues are being resolved. These issues often do take a long time. The new privately funded Indian Casino development has had similar problems and delays.
7. Samples further claims “the County of Del Norte has received many dozens if not hundreds of complaints about Water District special taxes from Pacific Shores lot owners.” This is pretty ridicules considering that the lot owners implemented and approved those assessments themselves. We request from the Board of Supervisors a list of those lot owners who have complained so we might address their issues. There has never been a complaint from a lot owner forwarded to the PSSCWD from the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors.
8. That “literally hundreds of lots have gone into tax-default, causing the owners to lose their equity.” There is no evidence or anything else to suggest that any of the tax-defaults resulted from the Water District special tax rather then that the owners simply passed on intestate.
9. That “the draft LAFCO Municipal Services Review has been available for the Water District to comment upon or supplement since May 2005, and the district has not done so.” The person who was apparently contacted by LAFCO is no longer on the Board of Directors. We will investigate this matter.
C. The Exhibit B “Plan for Provision of Services within the Territory Currently Within the Boundaries of the Pacific Shores Subdivision Water District”
This plan provided by the Del Norte Board of Supervisors does not offer a better plan to the lot owners. The only thing it does, is to ensure that the property owners will never be able to build on their lots.
D. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS
The Del Norte county Board of Supervisors have withheld entitlements that should have been distributed to the PSSCWD. They are holding the funds hostage asking LAFCO to determine the disposition of those funds.
The Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to withhold the entitlements and LAFCO does not have any jurisdiction over them.
We request a statement from LAFCO directing the Board of Supervisors to immediately transfer the funds to the PSSCWD.
Respectfully yours,
Bruce Smith, President
By
Antoinette B. Seydoux, Secretary
Pacific Shores Property Owners Association
16026 Wyandotte Street, Van Nuys, CA 91406
Phone: (818) 780-0200 Fax: (818) 997-1771
Thomas W. Resch, President
Del Norte Local Agency Formation Commission August 26, 2006
Attention: Darren McElfresh, EO
508 H Street, Suite 2
Crescent City, CA 95531
(707) 465-0836 telephone
(707) 464-1881 fax
Via Email: darren@charterinternet.com
Re: August 28, 2006 Agenda Items A,B,C,D and All issues regarding the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District (PSSCWD)
As a property owner and representative of the other property owners within the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District, I respectfully request that any reorganization, dissolution, proposed change in the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District (PSSCWD) or boundaries thereof be DENIED.
The Pacific Shores Subdivision was officially formed and zoned a “Planned Community” around 1964. Many of the present lot owners purchased their lots at that time for a considerable amount of money.
If fully developed, the Pacific Shores Subdivision would generate about $6,000,000.00 in annual property tax revenues for Del Norte County.
The Del Norte County Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors) continuously refused to do anything to assist the property owners in the development of their properties. It was because of this lack of action by the Board of Supervisors, that eventually the property owners themselves created the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District in order to pay for the costs of the required studies before any water or sewer system would be approved in the Pacific Shores Subdivision.
The Pacific shores Subdivision California Water District (PSSCWD) is the only agency that has made any efforts to assist the property owners in the development of their properties.
As for the prospect of the Del Norte Board of Supervisors controlling the development of the properties, it is interesting that the very people who have been creating roadblocks and withheld assessments and entitlements that should have been distributed to the PSSCWD would claim to be interested in providing utility services or the development of the district. Particularly when several of the originators are personally involved with groups pressuring property owners to sell their properties for a great deal less than the property would be worth without them creating those obstacles to the development of the properties. Through their activities they have persuaded many PSSCWD property owners to sell their lots at $50,000.00 to $150,000.00 less than they should have received for them. They are
described as Willing Sellers by the County and State Agencies.
I. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED NOTICE
The Del Norte Board of Supervisors have failed to provide any of the notifications required by the California Government Code including, but not limited to:
1. The Executive Officer, at least 21 calendar days prior to the date set for hearing, gives notice by (56150-56157, 56300f, 56600, 56661):
A. Publication in a newspaper of general circulation;
B. Posting on the LAFCO Web Site and near the door of the hearing room (56300f, 56661); and
C. Mailing to each affected agency which contains territory or whose sphere of influence contains territory within the proposal, chief petitioner(s), persons requesting notice, each city within three miles, and the county in the case of incorporation or formation.
D. Mailing to the proponents, each person requesting special notice, the county clerk (for incorporations), and each affected local agency (by giving notice to each elected local official, each member of the governing body, and the executive officer of the agency) (56661a).
E. Mailing to the Director of Forestry (for annexations to or formation of a fire protection district in a state responsibility area), the Director of Conservation (for annexation of agricultural preserves to a city), and the Executive Officer and LAFCO members of adjoining counties (for changes of organization in more than 1 county) (56661f).
Mailing to all registered voters and property owners, as shown on the most recent assessment roll, within the affected area and 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the proposal.
56661. To the extent that the commission maintains an Internet Web site, notice of all public hearings shall be made available in electronic format on that site. The executive officer shall also give mailed notice of any hearing by the commission, as provided in Sections 56155 to 56157, inclusive, by mailing notice of the hearing or transmitting by electronic mail, if available to the recipient, to all of the following persons and entities:
(a)To each affected local agency by giving notice to the legislative body and the executive officer of the agency.
(d)If the proposal is for any annexation or detachment, or for a reorganization providing for the formation of a new district, to each city within three miles of the exterior boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed, detached, or formed into a new district.
(g)If the proposal would result in the annexation to a city of land that is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Division 1), to the Director of Conservation.
(h)To all landowners within the affected territory pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (d) of Section 56157.
(i)To all registered voters within the affected territory pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (f) of Section 56157.
56658. (a) Any petitioner or legislative body desiring to initiate proceedings shall submit an application to the executive officer of the principal county. (b) (1) Immediately after receiving an application and before issuing a certificate of filing, the executive officer shall give mailed notice that the application has been received to each interested agency and each subject agency, the county committee on school district organization, and each school superintendent whose school district overlies the subject area. The notice shall generally describe the proposal and the affected territory.
56628 (2) (e) The executive officer shall not accept an application for filing and issue a certificate of filing for at least 20 days after giving the mailed notice required by subdivision
56660. The executive officer shall give notice of any hearing by the commission by publication, as provided in Sections 56153 and 56154, and by posting, as provided in Sections 56158 and 56159.
II. LACK OF JURISDICTION
According to The California Association of LAFCOs, or CALAFCO:
“LAFCOs do not regulate boundaries for counties and the following local governments:
· Community facilities districts (Mello-Roos districts)
· Improvement districts
· Metropolitan water districts
Special assessment districts”
III. FAILURE TO PAY FEES
The Del Norte Board of Supervisors apparently failed to provide any funds in their resolution for the payment of fees. The proposal lacks processing deposit and cost reimbursement acknowledgment. Who paid the LAFCO processing fees?
IV. DEFECTS IN APPLICAT’S PLAN (EXHIBIT B)
An agency originating a reorganization is required to provide a plan as specified in the Government Code §56653 (attached).
A. The “Plan” proposed by the Del Norte Board of Supervisors as “Exhibit B” in Resolution 2006-061 (attached) is severely defective and fails to meet the requirements of GC §56063. The Plan states that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Does NOT have ANY “feasible plan for providing potable water and wastewater treatment services critical to the development of the individual lots in the Pacific Shores Subdivision.”
2. It fails to provide any detailed plans for construction or engineering or environmental reports necessary to construct a water system.
3. The Board of Supervisors have not provided any money or financing for implementing improvements within the PSSCWD.
4. Del Norte County lacks any experience providing or managing a water system. It was necessary for the Crescent City Municipal Water System to provide water service in the county to the Bertsch-Ocean View, Meadow Brook and Church Tree Districts of the county as well as the Pelican Bay State Prison, because the county lacked funds and the ability to do so.
5. Fails to provide the timely availability of an adequate water supply.
In other words, the Board of Supervisors plan is no plan at all, other than to dissolve the PSSCWD.
There are actually quite a few methods of providing water and waste disposal for the PSSCWD. However, the Board of Supervisors has never investigated them because their only interest is dissolving the PSSCWD so they can prevent property owners from using the new technology to develop their lots.
B. Regarding the Tax Default properties, I personally researched many of the tax-defaulted properties in the Pacific Shores Subdivision. The majority of them ended up defaulted because the owners died (without heirs) waiting for Del Norte County to provide the infrastructure necessary for them to develop their retirement homes. Many of those lots were defaulted prior to the creation of the PSSCWD. To make matters worse, Sarah Samples, as Tax Collector, held them hostage for five years and then refused to allow them to be sold at a tax auction at which there were many people from as far away as Los Angeles specifically to purchase those lots.
C. The Board of Supervisors mistakenly refers to the puddles formed within the PSSCWD during the rainy season as “wetlands”. They do not meet the new definition of “Wetlands” Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006), which represents some of the most highly anticipated changes in the Clean Water Act. Obviously, the Board of Supervisors was not interested in legal decisions that might help develop these properties.
D. The Board goes on to suggest there are sensitive species and habitats within the district. They fail to provide any supporting documentation. They fail to mention that the Board of supervisors annihilated what little there may have been, by raising the breach level thereby flooding their habitat and killing them.
E. Developing a “consolidated area”. Yea, I heard this one before. They have promised for years to provide a land exchange, but never came up with a viable plan to do so. Show us the detailed approved plans first!
F. Campgrounds. Many of the current owners of lots within the PSSCWD have purchased them to be used as recreational sites until they can be developed. I see no reason why they would want to exchange their nearly one acre lots for a crowded, tiny time share facility they have no intentions of building.
G. The Board of Supervisors further want the owners of property within the PSSCWD to only “explore” the development of a campground. Again, the Board of Supervisors provides no studies or other data in support of this whimsical proposal. There are no studies or detailed plans EIRs or CEQA reports.
H. The Board of Supervisors and County of Del Norte have no experience in developing or operating a beachfront campground.
I. The Board of Supervisors claim that “Del Norte County has no other RV-friendly, beachfront campground.” Apparently they are ignorant of the Harbor RV Anchorage on Starfish Way, or the facility on Sunset Circle in Crescent City. Or perhaps they do not realize Crescent City is within the county of Del Norte.
J. It is pretty obvious from their proposal that the only plan the Board of Supervisors has is to destroy the only agency that is working toward the development of the PSSCWD properties so they can force the property owners to sell their land for practically nothing. Again they use the term Willing Sellers!
K. Maps of the proposed change of organization provided fails to meet the current requirements of the Del Norte LAFCO or the State Board of Equalization.
L. CEQA – There is none of the required CEQA information provided.
M. EIR – There is none of the required EIR information provided.
N. CCC – There is no approval by the California Coastal Commission for plan.
O. The Board of Supervisors fails to State whether the proposal is consistent with or within the spheres of influence for any affected city or district and include evidence which addresses the factors that LAFCO considers in reviewing changes of organization; and
P. The Board of Supervisors Ordinance 2006-061 and the included Plan “Exhibit B” propose two different and mutually exclusive objectives. One being the creation of a new development district and another that is only the elimination of the current water district. Which are they really proposing???
V. CONSIDERATIONS
DEL NORTE COUNTY LACKS THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP PSSCWD
Factors to be considered in the review of a proposal shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: (GC§56668. attached).
1. The County of Del Norte has been having financial problems and has even been forced to close the County offices on Fridays because of lack of funds.
2. It should further be noted that the petitioner (Board of Supervisors of the County of Del Norte) have continuously failed to provide required county services to the properties in PSSCWD for over 60 years.
3. The Board of Supervisors has failed to maintain the public roads within the PSSCWD.
4. The County of Del Norte, under the direction of the Board of Supervisors has applied for and collected state funds for the maintenance of 27 miles of roads within the Pacific Shores Subdivision. The maintenance work was not done and the roads have been allowed to deteriorate to a nearly unusable condition.
5. The Board of Supervisors has failed to provide maintenance for the roadway drainage system within the PSSCWD causing flooding that endangered the lives of those living within the Pacific Shores Subdivision.
6. The Board of Supervisors has failed to provide tree and vegetation trimming along the roadways within the PSSCWD allowing trees and brush to grow onto the roadways making many of the public roads impassable.
7. The Board of Supervisors has failed to provide protection from flooding within the PSSCWD that they themselves created by raising the level of Lake Earl and Lake Talawa.
8. The Board of Supervisors has failed to take any action to prevent flooding in the Pacific Shores Subdivision Planned Community.
9. The Board of Supervisors has failed to comply with Government Code §65580-65581 by not working with the PSSCWD to promote development of the properties.
VI. HOUSING ASSESSMENT
There is no provision for creating accommodations for replacing the homes that would have been built in the Pacific Shores Subdivision. On the contrary, the proposed “Plan” (attached) of the Del Norte Board of Supervisors is solely to eliminate a 1,200 unit subdivision contrary to the purpose of developing housing.
The elimination of housing in one area only forces it into another. The long term effect of eliminating the Pacific Shores Subdivision will ultimately be the development of other agricultural or open space lands.
Government Code
56001. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the state.
65580. The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.
65580. (d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
VII. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There is a significant conflict of interest when Sarah Samples, Leslie McNamer and Martha McClure (Alternate) County Members of the LAFCO Board and the Board of Supervisors, who are directly involved with those attempting to purchase the properties for substantially less than they would be worth without their interference.
A. Leslie McNamer – LAFCO County Member & Member of the Board of Supervisors should be recused because she is related by marriage to the petitioner Carolyn Tweed who is her sister-in-law. This also casts doubt on the validity of the proceedings of the Del Norte Board of Supervisors, on which she sat and voted for this matter in total disregard of the impropriety.
B. Sarah Samples – LAFCO County Member & Member of the Board of Supervisors, as Tax Collector, withheld properties within the PSSCWD from being offered for sale at public tax auction for more than the five year period permitted by law (R&T 3691). She also removed tax-defaulted properties within the PSSCWD from being offered for sale at a public tax auction that would have put them back on the tax rolls so that she could sell them to her friends in the Smith River Alliance. This also delayed collecting assessments and eventually eliminated the assessment revenues that should have been generated by those properties thereby diminishing the financial base for the development of the area and depriving the county of future tax revenues that would have been generated by the fully developed properties.
C. One person listed their Assessors Parcel Number on their petition. We are not sure if they own property in Pacific Shores or not. All names must be certified by the county’s assessors office before any action can be taken. None of the plaintiffs listed by the Board of Supervisors have been certified to be property owners as required by GC §56710. They should also be required to disclose their relationship to any of the proponents as in GC §56700.1.
D. All of the proponents, members of LAFCO or members of the Board of Supervisor should be required to disclose all expenditures for political purposes related to a change of organization or reorganization proposal that has been submitted to the commission, and contributions in support of or in opposition to those measures reported to the same extent and subject to the same requirements as provided for local initiative measures to be presented to the electorate. GC §56700.1.
Very truly yours,
Thomas W. Resch
Thomas W. Resch
President, PSPOA
TWR:jm
CC: PSSCWD
PLAN REQUIREMENTS
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
56653. (a) Whenever a local agency or school district submits a resolution of application for a change of organization or reorganization pursuant to this part, the local agency shall submit with the resolution of application a plan for providing services within the affected territory. (b) The plan for providing services shall include all of the following information and any additional information required by the commission or the executive officer:
(1) An enumeration and description of the services to be extended to the affected territory.
(2) The level and range of those services.
(3) An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory.
(4) An indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if the change of organization or reorganization is completed.
(5) Information with respect to how those services will be financed.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
56668. Factors to be considered in the review of a proposal shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(a) Population and population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years.
(b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas. "Services," as used in this subdivision, refers to governmental services whether or not the services are services which would be provided by local agencies subject to this division, and includes the public facilities necessary to provide those services.
(c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county.
(d) The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the adopted commission policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, and the policies and priorities set forth in Section 56377.
(e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Section 56016.
(f) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.
(g) Consistency with city or county general and specific plans.
(h) The sphere of influence of any local agency which may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed.
(I) The comments of any affected local agency.
(j) The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services which are the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for those services following the proposed boundary change.
(k)Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in Section 65352.5 (as required by GC §56668S).
(l) The extent to which the proposal will affect a city or cities and the county in achieving their respective fair shares of the regional housing needs as determined by the appropriate council of governments consistent with Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7.
(m) Any information or comments from the landowner or owners.
(n) Any information relating to existing land use designations.
Del Norte Board of Supervisors - Exhibit B
PLAN FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES WITHIN THE TERRITORY CURRENTLY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PACIFIC SHORES SUBDIVISION CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
This plan is attached to and made a part of the Board of Supervisors’ Resolution adopted pursuant to Government Code section 56654, applying to the Del Norte County Local Agency Formation Commission for a change of organization dissolving the Water District.
The Board of Supervisor accepts that there does not appear to be a feasible plan for providing potable water and wastewater treatment services critical to the development of the individual lots in the Pacific Shores Subdivision. As evidence for this, it appears that the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District has acquired and expended millions of dollars and initiated a variety of technical studies, none of which have ever reached a positive conclusion. Nor have these studies even been finalized. Hundreds of lot owners have lost their property due to tax-default and hundreds of others have elected to sell their lots to the State of California.
The Board aspires to a positive vision, tempered with realism, for the Pacific Shores Property. In addition to the infrastructure limitation described above, the subdivision is a mosaic of wetlands in the wet winter months and contains a number of sensitive species and habitats. However, we believe that it may be productive to explore the possibility of development concentrated in on consolidated area of the property. This development may be seasonal or year-round and might consist of a time-shared recreational vehicle park or dry season campground. Potable water may be brought to the site and sewage waste would likely have to be contained and hauled to proper disposal site.
Because National and State Park campgrounds are generally full during the summer, we anticipate that this venture could provide willing lot owners in Pacific Shores the opportunity to trade their lots for an interest in the facility. Additionally, the County would be in a position to seek the funding from outside sources to conduct necessary feasibility and technical studies.
This idea would need to be explored with all stakeholders and permitting agencies. The County would be willing to facilitate the exploration of this idea, which we see as the most positive and mutually beneficial alternative to the mirage of subdivision consisting of individually developed lots.
Posts
