Silvia Peters

4666 Rose Drive

Oceanside CA 92056
760.941.5924

CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 North Coast Hwy. Oceanside, CA 92054
760.435.4500
City of Oceanside
Mayor Jim Wood
Deputy Mayor Chuck Lowery
Councilmember Jerome M. Kern
Councilmember Esther Sanchez
Councilmember Jack Feller

RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF OCEANSIDE

NOVEMBER 2, 2016
Re: NOTICE OF CITY OF OCEANSIDE PUPLIC HEARING/ PUBLIC HEARING

I am a resident who lives in the boundaries within the city of Oceanside. In our neighborhood
we received a NOTICE OF CITY OF OCEANSIDE PUPLIC HEARING.1 I have lived in the city of
Oceanside for on or about 30-plus-years.
I will began with the Notice of Public Hearing document that the city sent via mail to the city
residents. The Notice reads under subheading, Public Hearing Information further In
compliance with Article XIIID of the California State Constitution and the Proposition 218
Omnibus Implementation Act, notice is hereby given to all affected Oceanside property owners
(including tenants responsible for the payment of water and wastewater charges) that the
Oceanside City Council will hold a public hearing regarding proposed water rate, pass through
charges, and wastewater rate maximum increases.

On proposed 2016 Water rate, Pass- through Charges and Water Maximum Rate Increases
and Charges.

The problem with this so called Notice of Public Hearing is that it is not a Notice of Public
hearing or a Publically held meeting rather a City council Meeting in which the council will
take action of a rate increases.
There never was a true, Publicly held Hearing as required by state law, under these city
actions that continue to be a violation of the California Ralph Brown Act, Bagley-Keene Act and
Roberts Rules of Order and other state regulations in regard to true, Public Meetings.2
Allow me to clearly explain; this is not a "Notice of a Public Hearing" in accordance to
Government Code Section 11346.5; (a) "In order to increase public participation and improve
the quality of regulations, state agencies proposing to adopt regulations shall, prior to
publication of the notice required by Section 11346.5, involve parties who would be subject to
the proposed regulations in public discussions regarding those proposed regulations, when
the proposed regulations involve complex proposals or a large number of proposals that
cannot easily be reviewed during the comment period."
What Government Code Section 11346.5; (a) is saying in plain English is that to be a "legal"
Publicly Held Hearing there has to be and include "Public Participation" and that the state
agency proposing to adopt regulations in this case "Water and Sewer Rate Increases" shall,
prior to publication of the notice required by Section 11346.5, involve parties who would be
subject to the proposed regulations in public discussions regarding those proposed
regulations." Further a huge water rate increase involves "complex proposals or a large
number of proposals that cannot easily be reviewed during the comment period."
There never was a "Publicly Held Hearing" as required by law prior to the Publication of this
presumed Notice of Rate Increase. A City Council Meeting is not and have never been a
proper or legal place for such complex proposals that impact the everyday life of the rate
payers in the city of Oceanside.
I have consistently explained to the city of Oceanside councilmembers for that past 30-years
and counting that these actions are in violation of state law. Once again there are no true
publicly held Hearings each and every time the city of Oceanside has had water, sewage and
other rate increases. To be clearer in a true Publicly held Hearing the majority of the city
council cannot be present and certainly not sitting at the dais. Should I plainly state that the

At a first brush this Notice of Public Hearing is misleading in which the Notice of Public Hearing
above is not a Public Hearing and is not in compliance with the standards, customs, guidelines;
with the Barclays California Code of regulations, California Government Code 11346.45;
Section 11346.5; Sections 11342.4 and 11349.1(c), Government Code. Reference: Section
11346.4, Government Code.

city does not provide the required Information Hearings per California laws regarding this
very vital issue that affects and consumes vital financial resources for most city residents.
So basically the only reason why the city conducts these so called, Public Hearings is because
the city wants to avoid the regulation requirements under a Quasi-judicial public hearings,
unlike legislative ones, involve the legal rights of specific parties, in this case the entire city
residents of the city of Oceanside are affected. The decisions made as a result of Quasi-judicial
public hearings, such hearings must be based upon and supported by the "record" developed
at the hearing. Quasi-judicial hearings are subject to stricter procedural requirements than
legislative hearings.
The city of Oceanside citation of a Notice of Public Hearing of Article XIIID of the California
State Constitution and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act3, is an oxymoron
citation for sidestepping the legal state requirement of a Public Notice and an Information
dissemination to the Public. To make my point clear is that the city needs to cite the California
Codes of Regulation to hold such hearings and the city is not in compliance with state
regulations governing such actions. The city of Oceanside is in violation of the above entitled
articles the city has quoted to support the, Notice of Public Hearing.

Under "Article XIIIC of the California Constitution." The city must comply with Article XIIIC of
the California Constitution:
SEC. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Constitution:
(a) All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or
special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no
power to levy general taxes. (Do you think this may apply to the San Diego Water Authority?)
(b) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until
that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall
not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum
rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a
regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local
government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing
body.
(d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until
that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall
3

California Constitution Article XIIID section 6 (Proposition 218) prohibits the City from
implementing the new rates if a majority of the affected property owners or tenants file written
protests opposing the rates before the end of the public hearing.

not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum
rate so approved.
The only time when voter approval is not required is set forth in section 3. Initiative Power for
Local Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Constitution, including, but not limited to, Sections 8 and 9 of Article II, the initiative power
shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax,
assessment, fee or charge. In this case the intent of the City of Oceanside is clearly stated in
the letter is to "Increase Water and Sewage Rates not reducing repealing fees or charge.
The City of Oceanside citation of Article XIIID of the California Constitution is pretty selfexplanatory by reading the above cited paragraphs.
Lastly the City of Oceanside cites Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act as an authority
of proposed Notice of Public Hearing or Rate Increase. To say that the city of Oceanside and
the San Diego Water Authority are not in compliance with Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act is an understatement. The City of Oceanside as well as the San Diego
Water Authority are not in compliance and have never been in compliance with Proposition
218. Even after the Fourth Appellate Division Three Ruled that the San Juan Capistranos
tiered water rate system was illegal4. Add to this bogus city of Oceanside defense as some
dubious argument that we live in a separate Appellate Division. The San Diego Water Authority
as well as the City of Oceanside have held their noses in the air and have maintained an illegal
scheme by imposing an Illegal Tier System5. Both cities clamming the Fourth Appellate Division
Three ruling does not apply to them or that they are in compliance with the governing laws.
When the city of Oceanside and San Diego Water Authority have never been in compliance to
the contrary these cities have maintained an Illegal Trier System scheme to defraud and
shakedown the ratepayers. Both cities have relied on a defense that they are passing on the
illegal shakedown on the San Diego Rate Payers. Alleging that the San Diego Water Authority
was duped into signing an illegal contract with the Metropolitan Water District.6 The San
4

Fourth Appellate Capistrano Decision

http://files.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/docs/G048969-c1.pdf
5 Oceanside being a member of the San Diego Water Authority and the San Diego Water
Authority a member of the California Metropolitan Water.
6

All of this information and evidence is included in the pleadings and exhibits set forth by the
San Diego Water Authority. A San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled Oct. 9 that the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California owes the San Diego County Water Authority
$43.4 million in prejudgment interest, in addition to the $188.3 million awarded on Aug. 28 as
contract damages for illegal rates MWD charged from 2011 to 2014. The order brings the
amount MWD owes the Water Authority to $231.7 million.

Francisco Superior Court judge Curtis E.A. Karnow ruled Oct. 9 that the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California was duped. So if you were duped why are you continuing to pass
on an illegal scheme on to us along with the illegal Trier System? After the legal proceeding will
the ratepayers be reimbursed for the extra fees the city of Oceanside and San Diego Water
Authority illegal schemed off of them? It's a legitimate and legal question right?
The city of Oceanside tiered rate structure violates Proposition 218 because the city's rates do
not meet 218's "proportionality" and "immediately available" mandates, and are not costbased per household.
More specifically, The Capistrano Appellate ruled that "conservation-oriented pricing system
can only be accomplished by giving an accurate pricing signal to all usersnot just some
users. As was alleged in the city's defense by BBK Amicus submitted to the Fourth Appetite
in the Capistrano ruling. For example, it seems very obvious that an agency can structure
tiers based directly on the cost of various sources of water. . . . Tiers may also be structured
based around differential cost of delivery. But when random 'allocations' of any type are
imposed on top of true cost-based tiers, there is an unconstitutional deviation from a cost
based rate structure. This is the 'inequality between tiers' found infirm in Palmdale and which
pervades the city's 218 noncompliant tiered water structure. The cost differentials connected
with the allocations, in fact, is arbitraryan act of policy or 'social engineering' violations.
"California Constitution, article X, section 2 is not at odds with article XIIID so long as, for
example, conservation is attained in a manner that 'shall not exceed the proportional cost of
the service attributable to the parcel.'" Palmdale, 198 Cal. App. 4th at 937 (citing Cal. Const.,
art. XIIID) (emphasis added).
One more point is that the city of Oceanside does not even have a swage meter so the swage
tier charges and tier charges go beyond state and constitutional violations.

Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow ruled that the Water Authority is entitled to 10 percent interest
annually on money that MWD over collected, applying the mandatory prejudgment interest rate
set by the state Legislature to encourage defendants to pay their debts on time. The postjudgment interest rate is 7 percent annually, meaning the total amount due to the Water
Authority under the courts final judgment will continue to grow until MWD pays what it owes.
MWD argued it owed only $4.16 million in prejudgment interest; the Water Authority argued it
was owed $43.4 million. Judge Karnow awarded $43,415,802. Added to the damages Judge
Karnow awarded in August, this fixes the final judgment amount at $231,711,404. Under state
law, this amount will accrue 7 percent interest annually until MWD pays the judgment. - See
more at: http://www.sdcwa.org/mwdrate-challenge#sthash.NkXDihHS.dpuf

Once again is the city afraid that someone may ask about the LEGALITY of these illegal fees and
Trier plied practices the city has imposed on many ratepayers? If the truth was set forth and if
the ratepayers were given an opportunity to understand their billing fees and if a legal Publicly
Held Hearing was conducted in compliance with the laws. Then the ratepayers would be
educated and oppose these illegally held actions. Very difficult to do when most residents
including the entire city council members do not understand the charges or how the Tiers are
calculated.
Is the city of Oceanside afraid that someone may ask these questions?

TIER SYSTEM? Does it violate State and Federal Constitutions Cal. Const., art. XIII D, 6
Does the TIER SYSTEM violate California Constitution Article XIIID, Sec. 6 (B) (3)
Does the TIER SYSTEM violate California Constitution Article XIIID, Sec. 6 (B) (4)
Does Oceanside TIER SYSTEM violate Proposition 218
Water and sewage rates set by the city are not across the board but by neighborhoods?
Different neighborhoods different rate charges? Same size meters different charges?
What has the city council done to protect the residents against the encroachment of
their Constitutional Rights?

I am not even going to ask the question as to why California is dumping trillions of clean water
into the ocean and declaring a manmade drought. "Only liberals would declare a water
shortage disaster after spending years dumping good, fresh water into the ocean to protect a
non-endangered bait fish".7 Whether it rains in California or not most of it will do little good.
The rain is going to go to a gutter and the gutter will go to a stream and that will go to an
ocean. Yes, much of the fresh water that California has runs into the Pacific Ocean. You might
wonder why the Pacific Ocean needs so much water, since 96 percent of Earth's water is already
in oceans, but the oceans are not asking for it. Instead, it is due to anti-science policies lobbied
for by well-heeled California environmentalists."8
When California is inundated and run by corrupt politicians who pander after the psycho
sociopathic environmentalists the results are devastating not just for the quality of human life
which they care little about. Many plants and trees are dying, wildlife is being depleted and we
have lost most of our agriculture. This has nothing to do with this bogus propaganda about this
so called "Global Warming." It's a manmade disaster and our elected officials have done
nothing for the benefit of the people who elected them or have made any attempts to stop this
madness. California government is not run by Constitutional or government Codes of

http://joeforamerica.com/2015/04/california-dumps-trillion-gallons-fresh-water-ocean-declares-water-shortage/
http://www.science20.com/science_20/california_government_is_the_big_water_management_problem154625
8

Regulations. Rather by patients from insane asylums whose aim is to turn California into a dust
bowl.
If these environmentalists and their sock puppet politicians, were truly concerned about the
environment, animal, and human life in California. The environmentalists would be opposing
Chem Trails, fluorinated drinking water, vaccines, pesticides, hormones and antibiotic in
animals and GMO's. Which they are not to the contrary they are taking anti science positions.
I am formally requesting that this letter be placed in the Protests and Comments for the illegal
presumed "NOTICE OF CITY OF OCEANSIDE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 2017 WATER RATE,
PASS-THROUGH CHARGES, AND WASTEWATER RATE MAXIMUM INCREASE" for November 2,
2016 per California Ralph Brown Act. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950-54963
Sincerely,
Silvia Peters