Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 5

50% Protest Vote Achieved! (But will LAFCO acknowledge it?)

The Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) recently held a protest vote which gave residents of the four communities the opportunity to block their annexation into the Carpinteria sewer district. If 50% of registered voters protested, the annexation would be stopped, and the sewer project would be killed. A protest by at least 25% of registered voters would bring the annexation to a confirmation yes-or-no vote.

Based on information from a Jan. 11 letter from LAFCO to Carpinteria Sanitary District, 83 protests were received out of 166 potential voters, or exactly 50%. However, thirty of these protests were declared invalid, for the following reasons:

a. Eighteen protests invalid because, according to LAFCO, the signers were not registered to vote. (65 / 148)
b. Ten protests invalid because they were signed before the individuals registered to vote. (55 / 148)
c. One protest invalid because it was allegedly not signed. (54 / 148)
d. One protest invalid because the signer was registered at an address outside the proposal area. (53 / 147)

Thus, LAFCO determined that the final tally was 53 protests out of 147 registered voters, or 36%. In any event, this is more than enough to bring the protest to a confirmation vote, which will take place in the next few months.

However, most if not all of the thirty invalidations are suspect. The cutoff date for the protest was December 3rd, yet word is that LAFCO arbitrarily decided to throw out the protests of anyone who registered to vote after November 30! This potentially accounts for the eighteen invalid protests in (a), as well as the protest in (d).The ten protests in [b] were improperly invalidated due to an obvious misreading of Government Code Section 57051, which states: "All signatures without a date or bearing a date prior to the date of publication of the notice shall be disregarded for purposes of ascertaining the value of any written protests." Nowhere does it state that individuals must be registered to vote before signing the protest. Finally, the single supposedly unsigned protest in [c] could be counted if it the individual's name was handwritten, which could arguably be considered a signature. (Admittedly, this is legal speculation.)

LAFCO is holding a hearing on Thursday, February 7, where we'll try to get more information. More on this situation as it develops.

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 4

Will Raw Milk Soon Be Banned in California?

Foodies are up in arms over new legislation that sets tighter cleanliness standards for unpasteurized milk. The new standards (not more than 10 coliform per milliliter) stand to make the production of raw milk in California "very, very difficult, if not impossible," according to Mark McAfee, managing partner of Organic Pastures Dairy in Fresno, which produces the bulk of California's raw milk.

Obviously, this safety standard is for a food product intended for direct human consumption, so we shouldn't expect a recreational body of water to be held to the same high standard. And yet, if you look at the 1999 Rincon Watershed DNA Study, every single water sample would have passed the new raw-milk coliform test by a considerable margin. In other words, our lagoon and ocean water is safe enough to drink, let alone swim in! So, will someone please remind me again why we need an $88,000-per-household sewer system??

The Pipe To Nowhere

Anyhow, in mid-2004, Carpinteria Sanitary District raised its rates 28% for existing customers, claiming the money would be used to "relocat[e] a pipeline away from eroding coastal bluffs.The pipeline is in danger of collapse with serious environmental consequences."

But now, three and a half years later, this pipeline remains untouched, and the cost of relocation has been silently passed along to Rincon homeowners as part of the proposed Septic to Sewer project. Is it any wonder that so many residents are strongly opposed to the project?

[UPDATE: Clarification -- The cost to Rincon homeowners is indirect, in that the Rincon line will initially be hooked up to the old decrepit bluffs pipeline, which must still be relocated in the future. If the pipeline had been relocated beforehand, the complexity of hooking up to it from Rincon would have been greatly reduced, and our expense considerably smaller. Specifically, City Planner comments indicated that locating the proposed line away from the bluff edge would not only facilitate relocation of the existing line, but would avoid impacts to biological resources on the Carpinteria Bluffs and reduce the environmental impacts of the project (FEIR Vol. II at page I - 51). Presumably, the eventual cost of relocation will be shouldered not only by Rincon homeowners but by all the sewer customers, even though it was represented that they had already paid for it through the 2004 rate increase. Carp San has tried but so far failed to to secure an additional grant to pay for this relocation. The FSEIR states: "The district has indicated that there is a goal to implement such a relocation project, however, this plan has not been scheduled or adequately financed to date." (FSEIR, page I-60.) This is in direct opposition to the statements used to justify their 28% rate increase in 2004.]

The Protest Vote

Speaking of which, on December 3rd, LAFCO held an official protest vote to oppose the annexation of Rincon Point into the Carpinteria Sanitary sewer district. Anyone registered to vote inside the four communities was given the option to protest the annexation, and if 50% of the registered voters protested, the annexation would be cancelled. If 25% protested, then the annexation would be brought to a subsequent yes-or-no vote.

In light of this protest, many part-time residents of Rincon realized that they were technically registered to vote at an address outside the Point. As a consequence, several of these residents decided to change their official voter address to Rincon Point, so that their protests would be counted. But since the only cutoff date specified in the LAFCO protest announcement was December 3rd, a substantial number of residents modified their voter registrations and filed their protests on the last day, not anticipating any problem. At a LAFCO hearing on December 6th, LAFCO's legal counsel confirmed the December 3rd cutoff date for registrations and protests.

But, out of nowhere, the word is that LAFCO is planning to throw out the protests of anyone who changed their voter registrations later than November 30, effectively disenfranchising all residents who updated their voting address on the day of the protest. Furthermore, Heal The Ocean has requested that the cutoff date be regressed all the way back to October 30 (the date the protest notice was mailed), which would disenfranchise even more voters! It's appalling to me that a nonprofit organization would resort to such blatantly anti-democratic tactics, but this is where we are. It also indicates that the protests easily reached at least the 25% level, and perhaps the 50% level, otherwise why would they fight so hard to retroactively change the cutoff date? More on this situation as it develops.

The State Grant

The Clean Beaches Initiative Grant #601 ostensibly allocates $2.1 million toward the Carpinteria sewer project, about half of which is targeted toward Rincon Point. From what I understand, Carp San will get reimbursed for 25% of their sewer-related expenses as they go along, but Rincon homeowners will not be reimbursed this 25% until the very end of the project, and only if the project comes in under budget! (Realistically, what are the odds?) The upshot is that Carp San will actually be in possession of funds totaling 125% of their projected cost of the project, with no mandate or incentive to return any of it to homeowners. The grant money, if it ever materializes, will essentially go into a slush fund with no public oversight. Slick.

Finally, here is a quote from the EPA on Septage, which is the waste product of septic systems that the pro-sewer folks seem to be so worried about:

"When properly managed, domestic septage is a resource. A valuable soil conditioner, septage contains nutrients that can reduce reliance on chemical fertilizers for agriculture. A good septage management program recognizes the potential benefits of septage and employs practices to maximize these benefits."

I welcome your comments.