Sunshine on Housing Authority of Merced County

Badlands is declaring the coming days a Sunshine Week to post a number of documents submitted to Merced County government in the last few months. Some of these documents have been included in the official packets of information for Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings. Others have been suppressed.
This material is best understood by reference to the audio or video archives of supervisors’ and planning commission meetings and we encourage readers seriously interested in understanding their local government to go to the Merced County webpage, http://www.co.merced.ca.us/CountyWeb/ [1], to seek out these hearings, particularly the two board of supervisors meetings on July 1 and July 8.
The following correspondence and public comment letters concern the approval of a Merced County Housing Authority project.

From: MCCORRYM
To: don@merced-pha.com [2]
CC: MCCORRYM
Sent: 11/28/2007 8:40:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: setting up a time to meet

Mr. Borgwardt,

Thank you for your return call. I would like to set up a time to meet this week to learn more about the Felix Torres Project. I can meet anytime this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Maureen McCorry
P.O. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365

From: MCCORRYM
To: don@merced-pha.com [2], jholland@co.merced.ca.us [3]
CC: MCCORRYM
Sent: 11/29/2007 5:29:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Felix Torres Project

November 29, 2007

Mr. Donald Borgwardt, Director
Development/Asset Management
Housing Authority of the County of Merced
405 U Street
Merced, California 95340

Mr. James Holland, Senior Planner
Merced County Planning Department
2222 M Street
Merced, California 95340
Via: Email and U.S. Mail 11-29-07
Dear Mr. Holland and Mr. Borgwardt,

We are seeking clarification on the current status of the Felix Torres Project on Plainsburg Road in Planada.

In seeking a renewal of the “can and will serve agreements” for the project, Mr. Borgwardt reported to the Planada Community Services District on November 20, 2007, that the “project had broken ground” on approximately 1+ acres for the establishment of the Headstart/Day Care Center. It is also our understanding that the county has not yet issued a permit for siting this structure on the south east corner. The original planning documents submitted and approved by the county show the Head Start Center in a more central location within the complex. It is our further understanding that the Merced County Planning Department has not yet approved any modifications to the Housing Authority's previous application.

Can you please clarify whether or not the current ground breaking is compliant with the permit?

If the project is proceeding outside the approved permit process, we request that the Housing Authority “cease and desist.”

Sincerely,
Maureen McCorry, et al
P.O. Box 158
Planada, California 95365

cc: Interested parties

From: MCCORRYM
To: Dist1@co.merced.ca.us [4]
CC: MCCORRYM, CALFMAN1
Sent: 12/13/2007 10:08:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: Felix Torres Project

From: MCCORRYM
To: jholland@co.merced.ca.us [3], don@merced-pha.com [2]
CC: CALFMAN1, MCCORRYM
Sent: 12/10/2007 12:10:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Felix Torres Project

Dear Mr. Holland and Mr. Borgwardt,

I still have not received an answer to the question posed in my letter/email sent on November 29, 2007. I would appreciate a response to the question as it is now December 10, 2007. I have received no information from county or from the Housing Authority clarifying the status of the project (original letter included below for your convenience).

In addition, could you clarify whether or not the proposed modification was not discussed by the Planada MAC on December 6th? What was the reason for pulling the discussion of the modification to the original CUP from the agenda as indicated in the county letter to the MAC on dated November 20, 2007?

I look forward to your receiving a response.

Sincerely,
Maureen McCorry, et al.,
P.0. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365

December 10, 2007

Mr. Don Borgwardt, Director
Development/Asset Management
Housing Authority of the County of Merced
405 U Street
Merced, CA 95340

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request on the Felix Torres Migrant and Low Income Housing Project Via Fax and email: December 10, 2007

Dear Mr. Borgwardt,

Pursuant to public rights under the United States Freedom of Information Act, we are writing to request to review all of the documents in possession of the Housing Authority of Merced County, including but not limited to:

Agendas, minutes, notes, action items, and emails, and correspondence related to this project to 2002:

Land purchases associated with this project

The decision to move the camp to North of 140

Housing Authority Plans for the current Planada Village vis a vis the new Felix Torres Camp

Financing arrangements for the project including USDA grants and loans or other agency or private funding that is being considered or has been secured

Pacific Holt’s role in the project and/or agents charged with carrying out Pacific Holt business arrangements related to any aspect of the Felix Torres Project

We request the right to review the original records at a time to be arranged prior to any copying taking place. As provided by the Freedom of Information Act, you have ten days to determine whether you have records subject to the Act.

We request that you forward this to the appropriate entity’s and/or public agency involved which may also possess documents listed above.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding this arrangement. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at the number/address listed below.

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.

If we can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to this request, please contact me at ..... Thank you for your time and courtesy.

Sincerely,
Maureen McCorry
P.O. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365

December 13, 2007

Ms. Janice Waddell
Community Programs Director
USDA, rural Development
430 “G” Street, Agency #4169
Davis, CA 95616

Mr. Jose Guardado
Area Specialist
USDA, Rural Development
2135 W. Wardrobe Avenue
Merced CA, 95340 Via Fax and U.S,. Mail, 12-13-07

Re: The Housing Authority of Merced County/Felix Torres Housing Center, Planada CA

Dear Mr. Guardado and Ms. Waddell,

We are requesting your assistance. A letter was sent to the Housing Authority of Merced County, a public agency, which is receiving funding from the USDA for this project. I sent a combination letter to Don Borgwardt, Director of the Housing Authority of Merced and James Holland, the Senior Planner responsible for monitoring this project for Merced County. Both are public agencies and both have failed to supply information I requested in a letter dated November 29, 2007. This was sent via email and U.S. mail.

Since your agency is providing public funding for this project, we would appreciate it if you could direct the relevant agencies to supply the information requested.

Thank you and Happy Holidays.

Sincerely,

Maureen McCorry, et al
P.O, Box 158
Planada CA 95365

Attachment (letter to James Holland and Don Borgwardt)
cc. Interested Parties

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
OFFICES OF MIGRANT SERVICES
1800 Third Street, Suite 390
P.O. Box 952054
Sacramento CA 94252-2054…

December 17, 2007
(Stamped: RECEIVED Clerk of the Board, Dec. 18, 2007 – ALL BOARD & CEO RECEIVED)

Board of Supervisors
County of Merced
2222 “M” Street
Merced, CA 95340

Dear Members of the Board:

The Office of Migrant Services (OMS) has provided safe, decent and affordable seasonal rental housing and support services for migrant farm worker families during the peak harvest season for more than 30 years. While construction and rehabilitation of center facilities has been financed by a variety of federal and state loans, grants and appropriations, the operations at the 25 OMS centers located in 15 counties is drawn from the State’s general fund.

This year the State of California is again facing a decline in general fund revenues which support many State programs, including the operation of our centers. For this reason, General Fund programs are facing reductions from the 2008-09 Fiscal Year, which begins in July 2008. The OMS, in accordance with Section 7650 of the OMS regulations, is requesting that the State’s agricultural employers (farmers, ranchers, canneries, packing operations and processing plants) consider assisting us with donations to meet the projected shortfall in funding from the State of California. We are also requesting that our partners (housing authorities and counties) do the same.

Our request is that you consider helping the OMS fund its operations for the upcoming harvest season and, if possible beyond. We are also requesting that the State’s agricultural employers (farmers, ranchers, canneries, packing and processing plants) do the same.

We are asking that your agency identify and pursue funding from not only employers in your area, but also from agencies that support farm workers and their families. As you know, a reduction in general fund money to our centers means a reduced subsidy for rents.

Many of you are aware that this is a step in the process designed to prevent the OMS from having to increase rents in our centers. It is also necessary to avoid the even more drastic measure of permanently closing one or more centers due to lack of operating funds.

Your ideas and comments on this issue are important to us. Please contact us with any ideas or thoughts that you may have to assisting the OMS with this difficult situation. As we embark on this season of housing some of California’s most impoverished and hard working people, we wish to acknowledge and thank you for your assistance.

Note: All funds collected should be sent to the following address and be designated for the OMS Migrant Housing Fund:

CA Department of Housing and Community Development
Accounting, MS 415
Farmworker Housing Grant, OMS Account
P.O. Box 952050
Sacramento, CA 94252-2050

Send ideas and comments to the address in the letterhead above.

Sincerely,

Arturo Rodriguez
Program Manager
Office of Migrant Services

United States Department of Agriculture
Rural Development
California
3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite E
Modesto CA 95358
Tel: (209) 491-9320 ext. 4
Fax: (209) 491-9331
Committed to the future of rural communities

December 19, 2007

Maureen McCorry
P,O, Box 158
Planada CA 95365

Dear Ms. McCorry:

We are in receipt of your letter dated December 13, 2007. It was forwarded to the Modesto office since we service the Merced County area for the Farm Labor Housing Program. In response to your question we have the following:

It is true our Agency USDA, Rural Development is providing some of the funding for the mentioned project, however; we have no enforcing power to “direct” or demand any kind of an answer to your request. You must continue to request the information through the proper sources within the County of Merced and not through our Agency.

Thank you,

ANTONIO GARCIA, JR.
Area Specialist

Cc: Jane Waddell, USDA, Rural Development, Davis, CA
Jose Guardado, USDA, Rural Development, Merced, CA
Richard Brassfield, USDA, Rural Development, Fresno, CA
Stephen Nnodim, USDA, Rural Development, Davis, CA

From: Rollie.Smith@hud.gov [5]
To: MCCORRYM@aol.com [6]
Sent: 12/19/2007 4:29:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: FW: Felix Torres Inquiry

From: Schneller, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:18 PM
To: Smith, Rollie
Subject: RE: Felix Torres Inquiry
As a state chartered authority, the PHA does not fall under HUD’s jurisdiction in this matter. That is, it’s not our responsibility to determine what laws govern FOIA for PHAs. Further, I can’t find a record that Felix Torres is even under the ACC or funded by HUD. Not that this would make a difference. It’s just that it would emphasize that we don’t have jurisdiction over PHAs themselves, only the funds in the ACC programs.

She is asking about CEQA, which is definitely not federal. Either way, if she’s trying to see documents at the PHA, they should be responding to her, but if they don’t, she needs to pursue it locally, not through HUD. And under federal FOIA, if she wants information from other agencies, she needs to submit separate requests directly to the other agencies, but this is not HUD’s responsibility to tell her this either.

Stephen Schneller
Director, San Francisco Office of Public Housing
stephen.schneller@hud.gov [7]

From: Smith, Rollie
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:53 AM
To: Schneller, Stephen
Subject: FW: Felix Torres Inquiry

Could you advise me on this one? The HA is not a federal agency but under the local jurisdiction, right? Doesn't she need to get this info from the local jurisdiction rather than use a FOIA?

From: MCCORRYM@aol.com [6] [mailto:MCCORRYM@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:26 PM
To: Smith, Rollie
Cc: CALFMAN1@aol.com; MCCORRYM@aol.com [6]
Subject: Felix Torres Inquiry
December 13, 2007

Mr. Rollie Smith, Director
Fresno Field Office
The Department of Housing and Urban Development
2135 Fresno Street, Suite 100
Fresno, CA 93721

Dear Mr. Smith,

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I am attaching the letter I sent via email to Don Borgwardt at the Housing Authority of Merced County as well as the Freedom of Information Act Request.

As I explained in our conversation earlier today, Mr. Borgwardt informed me that I needed to file a FOIA in order to look at the active file. He also indicated that the Housing Authority of Merced County was a federal, not county or state agency for purposes of reviewing public records. My understanding was that because I was interested in viewing an active project file that I could do that on a walk-in basis. I sent the FOIA because it seemed like the most expeditious way to view the files. Mr. Borgwardt also informed me that the Stanislaus County Office of Education had jurisdiction in this matter and in the FOIA I requested that his agency to forward my request to other agencies/entities that might be involved. My understanding from county planning staff is that the Housing Authority is the lead agency on the Felix Torres Center regarding CEQA review.

Thank you for your time. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Maureen McCorry et al
P.O. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365

Attachments (copy of email sent to Mr. Borgwardt and Mr. Holland and FOIA request)

cc: Interested Parties

December 31, 2007

Mr. Thomas Lewis, Esq.
Silveira, Mattos, and Lewis
P.O. Box 2287
Merced, CA 95340
Via email and U.S. Mail on 12.31.07

Mr. Lewis,

Thank you for your time Friday morning. We would like to confirm an appointment at the Housing Authority office on “U” Street at 10:00 a.m. on January 3rd to review the active file for Felix Torres.

As stated in our conversation, our original request was in the form of a Public Information Request – not a Public Records or Freedom of Information Act Request. We were told by Mr. Borgwardt that legal counsel had specifically advised that the agency was a federal agency and under federal authority, and therefore, any request would have to be in the form of a FOIA. Moreover, he indicated that based on advice from legal counsel, we did not have the right to view the active file without a written request. We attempted to convince him otherwise; however, he was adamant that a FOIA was required before any documents could be viewed by the public.

On November 29, 2007, we sent a letter to Mr. Borgwardt (attached) requesting an answer to a very specific question: Was the groundbreaking for the relocated Day Care Center compliant with the county permit? We never received a response.

When we did not hear back from Mr. Borgwardt, we contacted the local regional director, Mr. Roland Smith, Field Office Director, Fresno HUD. In two separate phone conversations, he confirmed what we had originally thought and that we restated in our conversation yesterday morning:

a) The Housing Authority is not a federal agency and therefore a FOIA was not necessary.
b) Finally, whether or not your agency is subject to the Public Records Act or the Freedom of Information Act is beside the point. A public agency is obligated to share its active files with members of the public “on demand” – a written request is not necessary.

Mr. Smith indicated that he would be contacting the Housing Authority directly on our behalf.

Separately, Mr. Smith contacted Stephen Schneller, Director San Francisco Office of Public Housing. As per your request, I sent a copy of his correspondence to Mr. Borgwardt’s email address yesterday. Mr. Schneller also independently confirmed that the agency you represent is not a federal agency.

We did review your letter dated December 19, 2007. To be clear, we are interested in reviewing the files associated with our written request since 2002. However, we request the right to review the active file for Felix Torres. After viewing these files, we request that the agency fulfill its obligation to the public and provide a written response to our letter of November 29, 2007, and prepare the documents for review in our request of December 10, 2007.

The Housing Authority is a public agency and is therefore obligated under state law to provide timely access to public documents. We are troubled by the fact that a request by the public to review an active file at the agency led to your retainer on this matter. From a taxpayer perspective, this is a very costly and inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. We would request that the Housing Authority make its policy available to the public regarding requests for public documents. Is it the policy of the Housing Authority of the County of Merced to retain legal counsel when members of the public request access to public documents?

Sincerely,
Maureen McCorry et al
P.O. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365

cc: Interested Parties

From: MCCORRYM
To: don@merced-pha.com [2]
CC: rennise@merced-pha.com [8], lewis@sml-law.net [9], richard.brassfield@ca.usda.gov [10], rollie.smith@hud.gov [11], CALFMAN1, MCCORRYM
Sent: 1/23/2008 10:32:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Response to November 28, 2007 letter

Mr. Borgwardt,

Mr. Lewis informed me that you sent a written response to me regarding my inquiry regarding the Felix Torres Housing Center. I have not received your response. Can you please resend it or fax it to: 209 722-3814?

It has been nearly two months and it was a single sentence question. In addition, as part of my original written request, I request direction to the staff and agency that I should contact in regards to the construction of the Day Care Center. I will be going back to the Housing Authority (in Merced) tomorrow and expect clear direction on the names and contacts for other agencies who are taking the lead on this project.

Sincerely,
Maureen McCorry
P.O. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365

cc: Interested Parties

Maureen McCorry, on behalf of Valley Land Alliance Testimony on Minor Modification #MM07-025 to Conditional Use Permit #CUP05-031 and Minor Deviation #MD08-004 Felix Torres, Housing Authority of Merced County:

Planning Commission Hearing, February 27, 2008, transcribed by Nicole Alvernaz and edited by Maureen McCorry

Minute: 27:30
Maureen McCorry on behalf of Valley Land Alliance

I’m here on behalf of a variety of individuals and organizations who have deep concerns about this. And I’m really gratified to see staff pointing out that this was actually moved forward without actually having your approval. I think it would have been making a mockery of your body and the whole Planning Commission process today if you had gone ahead and approved this conditional use permit because de facto on the ground it was already approved according to the staff with the Housing Authority in Merced County.

I am submitting a letter [and] I just wanted to let you know that letter is one day off. The Planada Community Service District meeting that I’m referencing on page one of my letter, is actually dated November 20.th And, that is when I first heard Mr. Borgwardt who represents the Merced District Housing Authority indicate(d) to the board of the Planada Community Service District and to the public sitting there that they had broken ground on the Day Care Center. It was a very clear statement, there was no ambiguity there. Martha Mayo takes excellent notes, I’m sure it is there in the minutes.

This is probably one of the most important projects we could have, really, for this county. Housing for migrant workers, a Head Start facility for poor children: I can’t think of anything more needed, and yet the agency that’s supposed to be charged with this important, critical responsibility can’t even open up its records, can’t even honestly address questions by the public that are very basic.

So I am submitting to you, along with my other correspondence, a series of letters to HUD. I had a conversation with a woman who works as staff for the housing community development agency at the state level in February, I’ve had to contact this county, I’ve had to contact numerous agencies because what I’ve been told is the housing authority is autonomous. I’ve also been told with what staff put up on the overhead today it is the lead agency. Evidently the Housing Authority does not understand that it is the lead agency. Because I have been misdirected over to the Stanislaus Office of Education and I honestly have seen our organization being pinged and ponged back and forth, to four or five different agencies, none of whom evidently have any responsibility for tax payer dollars; for placing a very large complex, I mean this is a huge complex out on prime agricultural land. Now I understand that [this] fits in the zoning code and as somebody who has been before this board as someone with an organization who is concerned about protecting agriculture, there’s nothing more important. This has a soccer field, it has 302 parking facilities, plus other parking facilities. There are concerns even that were brought up by staff reports on March 8th 2006, indicating that there is over 40 percent of impervious surfaces to this particular development, which is completely, evidently out of the context with what has happened in Merced County, where it’s [typically] only 10 percent. I have a letter from Mr. Borgwardt that tells me that the Housing Authority is in complete compliance with your agency, and that is a darn right lie. We see that today. I hate to use that terminology, but it’s completely factually inaccurate.

I didn’t receive anything back [in writing] from the County until today, until I heard what was being presented today regarding the legality of this. And, I asked this in November. This is a letter I sent on November 29 [2007], to the Housing Authority and to the County. It took almost two months for me to receive a simple answer to a one sentence question. I think that’s embarrassing. If we are supposed to be listening to what the [California] Office of Migrant Services is telling us, that we are really at a budget crisis at the state level and we need to ask for agricultural folks and other folks to pony up for migrant housing, we need a much more transparent process.

We have three different figures on what this Day Care [will] cost based on the records that I’ve looked at: a $1.7 million; a $900,000 dollar figure, and another figure that is $427,000. So we have three different figures for what the day care is going to cost. One is $400,000, one is $900,000 and one is $1.7 million. There is no break down, so I don’t know what that means. I don’t know if that includes land. And it seems to me highly embarrassing that if you’re going to market this as a cutting edge project you’re going to front it with portables. Having been a classroom teacher for many, many years, nothing is more insulting or offending to tell people you’re giving them a new building and starting them off with portable buildings. Is that what’s going to be the entre to a 17 million dollar project? Is that what the people of Planada are being told is going to be this wonderful cutting edge area right on prime farm land which is going to have an impact, there are safety issues. I’m glad to hear staff reference those, those [safety issues] are common occurrences.

I would highly recommend [that] every single commissioner go out there and look what is going to happen out there. Because this is a leapfrog growth pattern, and I’m submitting documents from Nick Benjamin indicating that others in the area of the old Felix Torres had an interest in selling their land. I’m sure they were never asked because there was interest with Pacific Holt that are well documented, they’re not being made up, they’re in writing from Mr. Nevis, who is part of that organization, indicating that they really had an interest. It’s not just, “sort of we want to help the community mentality that’s going on with Pacific Holt here,” there are some real interests that are being advocated here and advanced in the name -- and this is the sick part -- in the name of helping poor people. In the name of housing migrant farm workers and that is disgusting. Frankly, it’s offensive and disgusting.

And so I also just want to also direct you to the fact that the zoning code for Planada hasn’t yet been established, we don’t have one [a new zoning code]. We don’t have a zoning code yet with our Planada Community Plan, yet there are plans for Planada Village to turn it commercial. There are also plans, and I’m going to submit a letter that I got in the file that Housing Community Development Department that I’d like you to look carefully at, regarding Mr. Benjamin’s plan to sell that property but it’s going be sold at a loss, with the debt, is basically going be assumed by the state of California at a time where we’re trying to deal with budget issues. It seems to be very ironic to have a situation where the Office of Migrant Services is asking people in December of 2007, to pony up money because there’s no money available at the very same time this is going on and additional lands were purchased. We have other issues, there’s a 15 percent entrepreneurial benefit for the people that build this project. It was a negotiated bidding system, I don’t know what the hell that is. I have no idea, excuse my phrasing there. But I don’t know what a negotiated bidding process is. I tried to understand what the process was for securing the loans and securing the land that was used for Felix Torres but all of that was under closed session for over a year period. So it’s really incomprehensible to the public to how this was negotiated and how other alternatives were not pursued.

This is going to be a definite safety hazard for kids, it’ll be a definite safety hazard on the pesticide issue. And please go out there and look at this property because when you see what’s being proposed, and you think of the amount of cement that’s going out there, and you think about the extension of the SUDP lines to allow for sewer, I think you might realize there is something a little bit more than meets the eye here.

I would also argue that the negative dec was completely inappropriate but not surprising and I think we have the newspaper today, the headlines and headlines in previous weeks indicating that sometimes this county gets CEQA wrong.

So, that’s all I have to say. I hope that you will please read every document that I’m submitting to you. It took, hours, and hours, and hours, and hours for our organization to spend on time and effort to do this. We still have lots of questions. I don’t think we understand the process, I’m pretty sure no one does but the people who are orchestrating this I would love it for them to allow the public to ask them questions. When I went to the first, when I asked for this information this is an active file, I was told I have to submit a FOIA, then I was told that I lied and I made that up. I don’t even know what a FOIA was before I came to this county. So, for me to come up with that would have been pretty, pretty amazing.

Active files are supposed to be available to the public with a reasonable time. I had to wait almost two months to look at the records and then they were nicely presented and the staff in the room was very nice. But when I asked if Mr. Borgwardt was available to help me understand what he was leaving me I was told he wasn’t in the building. So when I called his number [from], guess what, he was in the building.

So these are the kinds of problems I see with the transparency issue here, I think that really has to be resolved in particular when you’re looking at services that are so desperately needed by the poorest people in our community. I think it’s a real, a real shame that this is the way that this process has been worked.

So, I don’t have all the answers, I hope you will be asking some of the same questions we have been asking and I’m going leave this material for you to take a look at. And if you have any questions for me like I said, I’m trying to figure this out on my own with the help of my staff, and with the help of other individuals and we can’t figure it out. So if you have some questions, maybe we can all ask the same questions and get some straight answers to something that’s supposed to be a public process, with a public agency that doesn’t want to be public.

Thank you for your time.
37:18

45:13

Maureen McCorry

I just wanted to add for the record that I did contact the Stanislaus County Office of Education, Mr. Hal DeArmond is the Assistant Superintendent and he is the person in charge of this particular arrangement that Mr. Borgwardt just described. I want to be crystal clear about what Mr. DeArmond said to me. And I memorialized that conversation in an email that I included in my remarks here. He did get back to me yesterday and told me he couldn’t clarify, or correct or offer any kind of substantiation of the conversations that we had last week. It was a week ago, I believe it was a week ago Thursday that I spoke to him on the telephone. I think it’s real important to understand that when he talked to me, I asked him very clearly, “Are you overseeing this project? Are you in charge of the infrastructure that is being laid out?” And he told me: “No.”

Now that was clear, I do understand English pretty well and I asked him that question pointedly. I said, “Are you in charge in anyway of building or doing the day to day work that is a part of this project?” And that’s where we’ve had some back and forth. It’s been excruciatingly painful.

So I would ask this agency as a responsible authority to please direct the Housing Authority to create a transparent, co-operative process for the public to meaningfully participate and understand what is going on. To be told that the Stanislaus County Office of Education is the one doing all of this and go to them and then be told by the County Office of Education Mr. DeArmond, go to the Housing Authority and ask them, gets a little exhausting after the third or fourth back and forth. Okay, we haven’t had that many on that particular topic, but I have given up on, frankly believing that if I contacted the Housing Authority in any good faith manner or form that they would actually sit down with me and help me and my organization to understand what’s happening in this community. Instead, what they’ve done is they’ve managed to drag this process out into a three month process, I’m still trying to figure this out. The people that I’m working with are still trying to figure this out and we can’t figure it out.

So I would please ask at least one agency, one governmental agency that is funded by taxpayer dollars to direct this organization to understand that the public does have a right to know, that we have a right to understand the files we’ve requested to look at, that we have a right to some explanation, so that we can participate in a public process here. Which I think has been absolutely denied.

So I think I’ll just leave it there. There are a lot of other issues. I hope that you will again please look carefully at the materials that have been submitted today.

Thank you.

February 27, 2008

Planning Commissioners
Merced County Planning Department
2222 M Street, 2nd Floor
Merced, California 95340
Via: Email and U.S. Mail 2-27-08

Members of the Planning Commission,

Re: Felix Torres Center, Planada, California, CUP #MM07-025-1st Modification to CUP#05-031

We are seeking to inform county on issues that have been uncovered from a FOIA, that we were asked to write to view the active Felix Torres files. Under state law, a Public Records Act Request or a Federal Information Act Request is not required by law to view active files. However, we were told in no uncertain terms that a FOIA had to be written in order to view any files as the Housing Authority was a federal agency and that we could not view the files without a FOIA. Based on our review, a response to our FOIA was received December 20, 2008. We reviewed these files on three separate occasions in January, 2008 (1.3; 1.24 and 1.25.08). We also met and spoke with staff at the Housing and Community Development Agency in Sacramento (February 6, 2008). We have been unsuccessfully seeking clarification in regards to the work that has already begun on the project. We have been delayed, harassed, and thwarted in our efforts. We still have critical questions that need to be addressed and respectfully request to continue this hearing until these questions are answered.

The Housing Authority of Merced County is its own lead agency under CEQA. Yet, for the Day Care facility despite all evidence to the contrary, Mr. Borgwardt has referred us to the Stanislaus Office of Education to answer questions re: legal compliance. In turn, Mr. DeArmond, has referred us back to the Housing Authority.

It our understanding that The Housing Authority of Merced County is a public agency and that it is autonomous for purpose of this project. Since it has been unwilling to assist the public, we are turning to the county, to critically examine this project before extending this and any future approvals. The Housing Authority of Merced County has failed to fulfill its obligations to provide for a transparent process to taxpayers and the public at large.

Ground has already broken on the .91 acre (part of APN# 53-120-058). The public and the Board was informed by Mr. Borgwardt at the Planada Community Services District on November 21, 2007, that ground had broken on the Day Care Facility for the Felix Torres Center – this is when we first developed concerns – how could a project that had not gained final approvals from the County go ahead and move the location of the service it will provide to children from this facility facing street side – basic safety concerns would have suggested a site well within the confines of the facility is better suited to serving children.

Since November, we have tried to learn if the new location had garnered appropriate by the County of Merced and the purposes for the move. In theory, this seemed like a straightforward request. A letter was simultaneously addressed and sent to Mr. Don Borgwardt and Mr. James Holland (as the Senior Planner in charge of this project). The letter was sent via email and US Mail on November 29, 2007. We received a response from the dated January 7, 2008 and postmarked January 22, 2008 on the 24th of January from the Housing Authority of Merced County.

If the information in his letter is accurate, there is no reason for a hearing today. We are submitting his response as part of the record. We are also submitting my letter as we did not receive a response from the county. We are deeply troubled by the fact that it took the Housing Authority nearly two months and responded inaccurately, while the county never responded to our letter – which was just three paragraphs long and included a very basic question: Is the breaking ground for the Day Care Center legally compliant?

Is it typical for the county to grant approval to a project (retroactively)? Is this body offended that it is being asked for approval of an item that has already transpired? Doesn’t this undermine the authority of this body and make a sham of the process? Is this standard procedure?

Pictures do not do justice here. We respectfully recommend that the Commissioners drive by the site, this week (less than 10 miles from Merced) and take a look at the work that has already progressed on a project you are being asked to approve today. Work began in November for an item that required a February approval by this body.

Why was a “negotiated bid” pursued over a competitive bidding process. Given the laws of supply and demand, wouldn’t it make sense to have done a competitive bidding process? Regardless of where our county is with respect to the boom, bust cycle of the housing market, one would assume that a competitive bid would be the preferred method. We have also learned that one contractor (Ashwood Construction) based in Fresno has captured all of the major projects developed in Merced County. In addition, the bidding meeting for subcontractors on this project was held in Fresno – with the unemployment rates skyrocketing in our own county – why Fresno? (see supplied document from minutes of meeting on 6.15.04—why is a public agency working on behalf of “very large construction contractors” – shouldn’t this be a transparent process as well).

Is a 15% “Entrepreneurial Profit” (see document submitted with this letter) seems high – especially given the current state of affairs in the Building Industry, but perhaps this is mandated by law. We seek clarification on this. Is this the profit margin that will accrue to contractors? The Merced County Housing Authority? Others?

What remaining interest, if any, does Pacific Holt have in this project? There are multiple conflicts of interest in having a project of this magnitude that have made the record at the Planning Commission, a Grand Jury investigation, and the Board of Supervisors. Pacific Holt is not a neutral broker – what role is it playing or has it played in this arrangement? Moreover, the last page of the land agreement establishing (submitted with this letter and secured through our record review).
On this same point, according to minutes from the Housing Authority of Merced County, 1.17.06: The agency was approached by the owner of the properties adjacent to the old Felix Torres Migrant Center. He went on to add that he would like to look into this opportunity further. One might ask, why wasn’t this owner approached as an alternative in 2004? This must not be the same property that was purchased in this area originally. Why was it important to cross over, North of 140 to create a facility that based on the county’s own policies will lead to potentially 40% impervious surface whereas typically for migrant housing this is at a 10% level. When one reads the scope and scale of this development in terms of the lighting, very significant safety issues, parking, traffic impacts, etc… on Ag land, when other alternatives existed – whose interests are ultimately being served?

The California State Office of Migrant Services sent a letter (included alongside this documentation) to all County Board of Supervisors asking for voluntary donations from private donors in the agriculture community to help address the budget shortfalls, this seems bizarre given the fact that the budget for the Day Care alone indicates four very different figures and is never clearly explained.

Nick Benjamin’s calculations on March 22, 2005: $427,900
An undated and unlabeled doc secured from the Merced County Authority indicates that the Day Care will cost: $ 925,828
The Budget that continues to be referred to in public meetings draws from a document dated, February 14, 2006 and shows that the budget for the Day Care Center is $1.7 million.

Which is it? We are still awaiting documents from the Stanislaus Office of Education – that designate the terms and nature of the lease on these portables.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the Housing Authority owned land to replace the Felix Torres Center. The traditional Felix Torres Center was within the Planada Community Service District (approximately 80 units being served under this arrangement at a time when sewer hookups carried a premium value). The land purchased with taxpayer dollars by the Housing Authority through an arrangement that is still unclear to the public with Pacific Holt and The Central Valley Coalition for Affordable Housing was not within the Planada Community Services District (this bears mention in that it is not at all clear that taxpayers and migrant workers were well served by this decision.

It also seems to defy common sense that a budget that has now morphed (based on Mr. Borgwardt’s own presentation to the Planada MAC on August 16, 2007 and documents retrieved from the Housing Authority) from $11- $17 million, will be fronted by portables for the Day Care facility. If the project budget that is being publicly shared is not the true budget, does the public have a right to see it. This project reads like it is supposed to be a state of the art, cutting edge facility and it seemingly has a budget to match – why is it to be fronted with portables. We disagree with the staff report of March 8, 2006, which states:

“The Project is close enough the Planada SUDP that the residents will be able to benefit from a range of goods and services ….without creating a substantial additional demand for the extension or provision of public services to new areas.”

By the county’s own estimate 450 people (excluding soccer matches) will be added to this area – the Department of Transportation is concerned enough by the potential impacts to request at Traffic Study – who will ensure that the public is engaged and the agencies charged with securing the public interest will be enforceable, when this agency has demonstrated behavior that implies that public review is of no consequence.

The Planada Village and the Planada Zoning Code: It is our understanding that the Zoning Code that is to accompany the Planada Community Plan is not yet available to the public. How do plans for the Planada Village interface with a zoning code that is of yet, non –existent.

Finally, the Planada Village arrangement with the State Housing and Community Development Agency (see letter to Ms. Martzloff, dated February 6, 2006) indicates that again, taxpayers are being shortchanged by this project – there is a debt that the State of California will write off at a time of incredible budgetary challenges – for whose ultimate benefit?

Will the county hold this agency responsible for the need to meet its obligations as approved by the Planning Commission on March 8, 2006? How will the county ensure that the conditions that the county has been laid out will be met? Will there be a public process? What happens in the future given what has happened with this particular approval?

Thank you for your consideration. We respectfully ask that you defer this application request until your body has had time to see the site and study this project in terms of the questions and concerns raised above.

The work of the Housing Authority of Merced County is being done outside of public review and this should be a concern to the entire community and to your agency.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Maureen McCorry, et al
P.O. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365

cc: Interested Parties

To: rlewis@co.merced.ca.us [12], jholland@co.merced.ca.us [3]
CC: Dist1@co.merced.ca.us [4], jfincher@co.merced.ca.us [13], mcfb@pacbell.net [14],
CALFMAN1, pjokuye@elite.net [15], Robbyavilla, csmagneson@gvni.com [16],
andalm@earthlink.net [17]
Sent: 3/17/2008 11:00:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Felix Torres CUP 05031

Mr. Lewis,

At a public meeting held on March 6, 2008 --The Planada Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), Merced County Planning staff indicated that the Felix Torres Conditional Use Permit hearing would not be heard on March 26, 2008. Staff explained that the County had decided to continue the hearing scheduled for
February 27, 2008, because the Planning Department discovered that the Housing Authority had exceeded its authority in building the foundation for a Day Care facility in an area that had not yet been approved by the County and moreover, the HAMC had ignored required permits to begin this work. In addition, Planada MAC members and the general public were told that the Housing Authority
of Merced County had not secured the appropriate permits, but had continued work in blatant disregard of the County's permitting process even after the February 27, 2008 hearing. In other words, despite one continuance and fines levied, the Housing Authority of Merced County continued to conduct the work without proper County approval. Staff indicated that precisely because the Housing Authority was ignoring County directives and disregarding the permitting process -- the next hearing for this matter would be continued once again and would not be heard on March 26, 2008 as originally anticipated and the Planada MAC would be advised regarding the next hearing date. Supervisor John Pedrozo and his associate, Juan Corona were also present during this briefing.

Our organization once again confirmed that this was pulled from the March 26, 2008, Planning Commission agenda, on Monday, March 10, 2008. We also understood that while the Housing Authority had applied for permits, they had not yet been granted. Based on our own observations, work at this site has continued since November, 2007, and without interruption after the February 27, 2008 hearing.

However, we did notice that the Felix Torres CUP is currently on the official Planning Commission agenda. In addition, the Merced Sun-Star featured this in their public notices on March 15, 2008. These newer public notices set the date for the Planning Commission hearing as March 26, 2008. These
statements are in complete contradiction to the information that was shared with the public and the Planada MAC.

We are requesting clarification on this matter. We assume that this item will be continued again to a later date (not the March 26, 2008) as advertised in the Merced Sun-Star until after the next Planada MAC meeting -- which is scheduled for April 3, 2008.

Finally, we find it odd that the work that is seeking approval is continuing without approval. Allowing a project to move forward without an approval through a formal decision by Commissioners at a public hearing makes a mockery of the public process.

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

March 18, 2008

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
THE COUNTY OF MERCED

Dear Esteemed Members of the Board,

At the January 15, 2008 meeting of the Board of Commissioners (BOC), I shared with you that I had earlier that day submitted to Ms. Rennise Ferrario, Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the County of Merced (HACM) my 60-day resignation from the position(s) I had held for over 13 years with the Agency. I stated that I would submit to you in writing an explanation for my resignation. I respectfully request that a copy of this signed document be kept in my personnel file with the HACM as an official statement as to why I resigned from employment with the Agency.

For the record, I was always a very happy, giving, competent and loyal, “team-playing” employee of the Agency. I have never had any “problems” with anyone; I have certainly never been a “disgruntled” employee, and have always held great respect for the Board and all fellow staff members. I enjoyed and took great pride in my work. I did, however, have concerns about Ms. Ferrario’s behavior and actions and I experienced a stressful and hostile work environment under Ms. Ferrario’s direction.

I had no reason or desire to leave my position, but I had observed and been subjected to unethical behavior and actions of Ms. Ferrario and Mr. Lewis (including instructions to lie to and/or withhold information from the Board.) In trying to seek advice from Chairman May regarding my concerns, he told me I should look for another job. He stated that he was “old school” and that he believed that the Executive Director should be able to do whatever they wanted to do. He also stated that he never thought it was a good idea for a person to stay at one job too long. He told me the entire Board was “mad” at me. He did not ask me for a written list in order to investigate my concerns. His advice was that I should quit. As Chairman of the Board, Mr. May was the appropriate person to whom I should go with concerns about Ms. Ferrario because I could not go to her. He was not interested in what I had to say and told me I must have sour grapes. When I stated it wasn’t about me, or choosing between Ms. Ferrario and me, but that I had serious concerns about Ms. Ferrario’s actions and that there were many others at the Agency who had also experienced and could attest to her unethical behavior and actions, he indicated that they all must have sour grapes as well. I have since heard that Mr. May and Ms. Ferrario have both labeled me a “liar” because I have tried to tell the truth about my concerns.

This is only a brief statement as to why I resigned. The full details and supporting evidence and documentation are available and can be provided at your request.

The Board has the power, authority and responsibility to investigate and take appropriate action to protect itself, the Agency and the staff from unethical and illegal standards of operation.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Stillahn

From: RLewis@co.merced.ca.us [18]
To: MCCORRYM@aol.com [6]
CC: AResendez@co.merced.ca.us [19], BNicholson@co.merced.ca.us [20], RGabriele@co.merced.ca.us [21]
Sent: 3/19/2008 2:13:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Fwd: Felix Torres CUP 05031

Hi Maureen,

I want to clear any confusion here. The Merced County Housing Authority permit modification request (MM07-025) and Minor Deviation request (MD08-004) is scheduled to heard at the March 26, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. We have completed the updated staff report and it will be posted on the County's website this afternoon with all the attachments.

Thanks,

Robert A. (Bobby) Lewis
Development Services Director
2222 M Street
Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-7654, Ex 4400
(209) 726-1710 Fax

Merced County Department of Public Works
Building and Safety Division

March 26, 2008

Report to the Planning Commission
Subject: Felix Torres Migrant Center Head Start Project

This Head Start project was initiated by the Housing Authority or by Stanislaus Office of Education in cooperation with the Housing Authority. They started the project without a permit from the Merced County Building and Safety Division or approval from other County Departments based on the idea that it was a State school project and, therefore, exempt from local review. This is not State owned land and not a state required educational program. I spoke to a Deputy Director of the California Division of the State Architect’s (DSA) office and was advised this project should be under local jurisdiction. Furthermore, the inspection reports provided by their third party inspector had “not available” listed under the “DSA Application” and “DSA file” meaning that DSA was not involved in the plan check or inspection of this project. Because the owners failed to obtain permits, licensed contractors working on this job site are in violation of Contractors’ License Law, jeopardizing their licenses, and may not even realize it.

The owners have also employed third party inspectors effectively to perform inspections on site that would be normally performed by Merced County Building and Safety Division inspectors. Such inspections are covered by Chaptor 17 of the California Building Code (CBC) and by a Special Inspection Policy in place at the Merced County Building & Safety Division. According to the CBC, the Building Official must approve all Special Inspectors before they are allowed to perform inspection work. In the event they are performing inspection normally performed by a government agency, Merced County, we would need a contract with insurance and indemnification in place. We already hire independent firms such as these to perform plan checks and inspection services.

Our Division was not aware this site work and underground construction was happening until it was nearly completed and brought to our attention by James Holland of the Merced County Planning and Community Development Department. When I was notified that site work was nearly completed, I requested that plans be submitted to our office for review and payment of plan check fees. Some plans were submitted by Garth Pecchenino on February 26th, however the required plan check fees were not paid until March 7th. At this same time, work was also supposed to be stopped at the site, but that did not occur. Our Supervising Inspector visited the job site on March 13th and officially stopped all construction work. A second site inspection was made on March 21st. Third party inspection records, contractor information, including workman’s comp. insurance information, was requested on March 19th; all requested information was provided by the Housing Authority the following day.

(top line of second page cannot be transcribed)
submitted by the Housing Authority and their Architects and Engineers (Freming, Parsons, and Pecchenino), inspection reports by Bruce Stewart (Stewart & Stewart, Inc.), and Technicon, Inc., and we have made two site inspections.

The plans submitted for the project are inadequate and contain many errors. A partial correction list has been given to the Housing Authority. A complete list will be forwarded when the Merced County Fire Department completes their plan review. Our current list of plan check corrections include the following:

1. State and County ordinances require additional space and a designated area be provided collection, storage and pick up of recyclable materials.
2. The structural plans need to be wet stamped and signed by the project engineer and state architect. The copied stamps are long expired.
3. The plans provided are only for the two-module 24’ x 40’ buildings. Please provide plans for the 12’ x 40’ and the 36’ x 40’ units.
4. Please provide the number of children for which this facility is licensed.
5. There is a note under “Building Data” on sheet TS-1 that says the buildings are not for B-3 daycare use, but one of the proposed uses is for infant/toddler daycare. Please clarify.
6. Comments 4 and 5 will affect occupant load and exiting requirements. Either way, the 36’ x 40’ buildingswill require at least two exits.
7. Detail fire exiting from the playground area, including gate swing direction and hardware. The Fire Marshal may have additional requirements. See CBC 1007.3.11.
a. There should be a second gate out of the preschool/office area.

8. Provide complete floor plans for the modular structures.
a. Show restrooms appropriate for the age group of the children.

9. Provide plans for the shade structures.
10. Provide details for the play structures: accessibility, achoring, seismic analysis, etc.
11. The shade structures and sand boxes need to be accessible.
12. The site plans use the fence symbols inconsistently. In several areas, the fence uses the symbol for wood, but is labeled chain link. On sheet C1 there is a note for a wood fence “upon completion of large project” that is noted as chain link on C2.
a. Any fence taller than six feet requires engineering, and a separate permit.
13. Provide details for the drinking fountains.
14. Show site accessibility details.
a. Signage
b. Parking stalls
15. Provide an area for emergency vehicle to turn around until the parking lot continuation is completed.
16. Perform a final as-built survey. One of our inspectors noted an area or two that may exceed slope requirements.
17. Note: these comments do not include any that may come from Roads, Health, Planning or Fire departments.
18. Sewer connections for the office and smaller classrooms (closer to Plainsburg) will be required to be moved 5’ to the west to accommodate revised building locations.
19. Accessibility is important in all public facilities and we are required to check compliance with California disabled access laws. There were many site features
(top line of page 3 blocked)
federal, you will need to comply with A.D.A. as well.
20. There are references on the plans to comply with requirements of the Delhi County Water District for sewer. The project is located in the Planada Community Water District. Another paragraph references “State Health Dept” requirements, which is also inappropriate for this project. It should meet the State Plumbing Code and the requirements of the Planada Community Water District who is providing sewer service to the site.
21. There were no specs shown on the plans for testing of the fire hydrant lines and the California Fire Code requires that they be tested at 200 psi for 2 hours with no significant loss of pressure. They were tested along with the other water lines at 150 psi and will be required to be retested as per Merced County Fire Marshal, Patrick Wright.
22. Notes on the plans call for a 6” separation between water and sewer lines where a water line crosses a sewer line or is in the same trench as the sewer line. California Plumbing Code calls for a 12” vertical separation when crossing for a short distance and 12” vertical and 12” lateral separation when located in the same trench.

INSPECTIONS

Bruce Stewart of Stewart and Stewart is certified by DSA as a school inspector and is qualified to the make the inspections for this project. The only part of Mr. Stewart’s inspection reports that bother me is that he was not always notified prior to work being done and as noted on a report dated 11/17/07, Teichert (a contractor) has 20 workers on site installing underground pipe. When the inspector arrived, “some area(s) are still open so I was able to check pipes. All appears to meet the plans and specs.” It appears to me that some of the pipes were covered and the inspector was not able to verify all work.

All of the deficiencies I have listed, including any Fire Department comments, can and will be corrected through the building permit process. Any construction already completed that does not meet building code will need to be corrected. The Housing Authority will be required to pay penalty fees as required by Merced County Code for starting construction without first obtaining building permits. Please note that the CBC would allow a commercial building to be located right on a property line with the proper fire protection (a fire rated wall). The Zoning Code is more restrictive than the Building Code in this case and requires a greater set-back from Plainsburg Road. Whatever the Planning Commission approves will be allowable by the Building Code.

Recommendation: I recommend that the Planning Commission approve this modification so the Housing Authority can modify and re-submit its building plans with all corrections for issuance of a Building Permit.

Yours truly,

Richard S. Graves, C.B.O.
Deputy Building Official
Merced County Public Works
Building and Safety Division

Merced County Ordinance No. 1817

AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION, REPAIR, MOVING, REMOVAL, DEMOLITION, CONVERSION, OCCUPANCY, EQUIPMENT, USE, HEIGHT, AREA, AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE COUNTY OF MERCED, AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS AND COLLECTION OF FEES…

(Amends Merced County Code Section 16.12.090 and Amends Ordinance No. 1702)

(Section) 16.12.030 Violation and Penalty Clause. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or demolish, equip, use, occupy, or maintain any building/structure, mechanical systems/equipment, plumbing system, or electrical system/equipment, or cause or permit the same to be done, or maintain an unsafe structure or sub-standard housing contrary to, or in violation of any of the provisions of this Title.

A. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor or an infraction. Each such person, firm, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day, or portion thereof, during which each and any violation of any provision of this Title is committed, continued, or permitted, and upon conviction of any such violation, such person, firm, or corporation shall be punished by a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1000) or by imprisonment in the County Jail for not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment if they are charged with a misdemeanor violation or shall be punishable by (1) a fine not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100) Dollars for first violation; (2) a fine no exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200) for the second violation of the section within one year; (3) a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500) for each additional violation of the same section with one year, if such violation be deemed an infraction. The provisions of this Section are in addition to and independent of any other sanctions, penalties or costs which are or may be imposed for a violation of any of the provisions of this Code.

March 26, 2008
Planning Commissioners
Merced County Planning Department
2222 M Street, 2nd Floor
Merced, California 95340

Dear Members of the Planning Commission,

Re: Felix Torres Center, Planada, California, CUP #MM07-025-1st Modification to CUP#05-031 and Minor Deviation Via: Hand Delivered 3.26.08

There are multiple legal, process, and budgetary issues that have yet to be addressed in regards to this application. We request that the Planning Commission continue this hearing in response to the failure of the Housing Authority of Merced to properly respond to the issues that have been raised at the 2.27.08 Hearing. Moreover, new information has come forward that has clearly indicated the Housing Authority’s disdain of the law and the public process that has brought us here today.

To review:

· The Housing Authority of Merced County is an autonomous public agency.

· The Housing Authority of Merced County is the lead agency under CEQA for this project.

· Merced County is the “responsible agency” under CEQA for this project. Therefore, the County of Merced does have authority and a responsibility to ensure that state and local land use law and policy is followed (not undermined by the Housing Authority of Merced County).

· As agencies charged with representing and serving the public, both The Housing Authority of Merced County and The Merced County Planning Department are not only bound by federal and state law, but is obligated to provide a transparent, open process.

· As the “responsible agency” in this application that County has the authority to ensure the letter and the spirit of state law nd use and permitting policy.

Relevant history:

1. There is a clear and well documented pattern of the Housing Authority violating the law and the County permitting process:

a) Mr. Borgwardt, Director, Development/Asset Management initiated a clear public statement at the November 21, 2007, Planada Community Services District monthly board meeting: “…we are breaking ground on the Day Care Facility for the Felix Torres Center…” (the .91 acre referenced here and in previous documents -- part of APN# 53-120-058). Mr. Borgwardt’s statement was unsolicited and unequivocal.

In the staff presentation by the Merced County Planning Department on February 27, 2008, staff clearly indicated that necessary permits and required approvals were not obtained by the Housing Authority of Merced County.

In the newest staff report, issued for this hearing, staff has taken a bizarre approach in trying to justify why three public agencies could not get it right.

b) At the regularly scheduled board meeting of The Housing Authority of Merced County (March 12, 2008), Mary Stillahn, Confidential Secretary to Nick Benjamin and Rennise Ferrario, announced her resignation (we were unable to secure this document from the Housing Authority or the Counsel serving the Housing Authority in advance of this hearing – see attached email correspondence), citing: The illegal and unethical conduct of the current Executive Director and the direction she received to lie to and mislead the Board. Based on our review of HAMC documents Ms. Stillahn has been privy to many meetings closed to the public in her capacity as “Confidential Secretary” that should be of interest to this body.

c) At this same meeting, Mr. Borgwardt briefed his board on the Felix Torres Center. He did not volunteer the issues that are well documented at this Hearing and the previous Hearing held on 2.27.08. We would further offer that based on what was left out of his presentation to the Board, HACM Board members have no understanding that the HACM is out of seriously out of compliance with the County in building the Felix Torres Child Development Center.

d) At this same meeting, the Housing Authority appeared to be out of legal compliance in that it was attempting to approve minutes from six previous board meetings – including an amended meeting from March 20, 2007 (italics, ours).

2. There is not only a lack of transparency but overt obfuscation by the lead agency:

a) Since the November 21, 2007 meeting, we have attempted to seek an answer to a very basic question: Is the breaking ground for the Day Care Center legally compliant? We are deeply troubled by the fact that it took the Housing Authority nearly two months and responded inaccurately, while the county never responded to our letter (sent via email and US Mail on November 29, 2007 (to County staff and Mr. Borgwardt). We received a response from the dated January 7, 2008 and postmarked January 22, 2008 on the 24th of January from the Housing Authority of Merced County.

b) We attempted (unsuccessfully) to secure a copy of Ms. Stillahn’s letter – a public document – a one page, public document. We were informed that this would be filed with the Board (Board president, Thomas May resides in Sacramento) and the ED, however; Rennise Ferrario was out of the office. We waited twenty minutes to secure this document and/or her email address which is not posted on the HACM website. A call and email request to Thomas Lewis requesting this document be sent to us via fax or email was not returned (Ms. Ferrario replied via email that she does not have a copy of the document – see attached email).

3. A lack of consistency and lack of transparency by the County or “responsible agency”:

a) We do not understand whose interests our being served when the most senior staff member in Planning Department with the most comprehensive understanding of this application has been replaced while this project is being actively considered.
b) Why has it been so difficult to get one answer from the County in setting this new Hearing date? Does Planada MAC merit such little respect or regard that it can be told that this project is deferred indefinitely only to find out retroactively that this Hearing has been held?
c) Why didn’t we receive a response from Mr. Lewis or Mr. Holland in response to the question we raised on November 29, 2007?

Finally, there are a whole host of unanswered questions:

a) The Budget: The Housing Authority of Merced County has not addressed the budgetary issues that we raised from the documents we were able to review from our FOIA/Public Records Request. How did the budget morph from $11- 17 million dollars? If the project budget that is being publicly shared is not the true budget, doesn’t the public have a right to not only view, but understand the wide ranging discrepancy for the Day Care Center alone? This project reads like it is supposed to be a state of the art, cutting edge facility and it seemingly has a budget to match – why is it to be fronted with portables.

b) Pacific Holt’s interest in this one acre parcel: What remaining interest, if any, does Pacific Holt have in this project? How does the Planada Village figure in? The Zoning Code that is set to accompany the Planada Community Plan is not yet available to the public. How do plans for the Planada Village interface with a zoning code that is of yet, non –existent.

c) Whose interests are being served when the State Housing and Community Development Agency (see letter to Ms. Martzloff, dated February 6, 2006, submitted in your packet on 2.27.08). This letter indicates that once again, migrant workers and taxpayers are being shortchanged by this project – especially given the enormous budget cuts the state is expected to endure this year.

At minimum, this application should be continued for any or all of the following reasons:

1) The County and the Planning Commission should not be in the business of setting up Public Hearings to retroactively ratify decisions/actions taken illegally by another agency or private consulting firm: Actions by the Housing Authority of Merced County, The Stanislaus County Office of Education, Fremming, Parson, & Pecchenino, make a mockery of the public process. What message is the County sending when it holds a public hearing after the approval being sought is for all intents and purposes complete. This is not the action of a responsible agency. This public is offended by a process that retroactively approves a project (See pictures taken on February 26, 2008 by County staff and compare to the pictures we took on March 25, 2008).

At what point is it the policy of the County to reward behavior that throws obstacle after obstacle at the public seeking a transparent process? When does it become County policy to hold a public hearing when “the facts on the ground” have the public hearing process and your decision-making, moot? What message do we send the public if we reward unethical and illegal behavior?

Anything short of a continuance, undermines the authority of Commission and the County and makes a sham of our public process.

2) The Planada MAC: On March 6, 2008, the Planada Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) was clearly told by Merced County Planning staff indicated that the Felix Torres Conditional Use Permit hearing would not be heard on March 26, 2008. Staff explained that the County had decided to continue the hearing scheduled for February 27, 2008, because the Planning Department discovered that the Housing Authority had exceeded its authority in building the foundation for a Day Care facility in an area that had not yet been approved by the County and moreover, the HAMC had ignored required permits to begin this work. In addition, Planada MAC members and the general public were told that the Housing Authority of Merced County had not secured the appropriate permits, but had continued work in blatant disregard of the County's permitting process even after the February 27, 2008 hearing. Staff pointed to the decision by the Housing Authority to lay asphalt and continue work (note improvements in photographs taken by staff on 2.26.08 and photos taken by our organization on 3.25.08).

Staff once again confirmed that this was pulled from the March 26, 2008, Planning Commission agenda, on Monday, March 10, 2008.

How does the County intend to hold this agency responsible for future work when it is rewarded for illegal and unethical behavior? How will the county ensure that the conditions that the county has been laid out will be met? Will there be a public process?

Thank you for your consideration. The work of the Housing Authority of Merced County is being done outside of public review and as the responsible agency, Merced County must take a stand.

We respectfully ask that you continue this application until a public audit of the Housing Authority of Merced County can take place to examine in more thorough detail the issues raised above.

Sincerely,
Maureen McCorry, et al and on
Behalf of Valley Land Alliance
P.O. Box 158
Planada, CA 95365

cc: Interested Parties

Continued at node/476 [22]