Silvia Peters

4666 Rose Drive

Oceanside CA 92056
(760) 805-7860

City of Oceanside Mayor Peter Weiss

Deputy Mayor Jack Feller
Councilmember Christopher Rodriguez
Councilmember Esther Sanchez
Councilmember Ryan Keim

300 North Coast Hwy

Oceanside, CA 92054
T. (760) 435-4500

November 5, 2019

Dear Mayor and Members of Oceanside City Council

I received another "NOTICE OF CITY OF OCEANSIDE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 2019

WATER RATE, PASS-THROUGH CHARGES, AND WASTEWATER RATE MAXIMUM INCREASE"
Notice attached to my monthly bill notice is not dated.

The City of Oceanside, “Notice of Public Hearing, states:

“The city of Oceanside is considering rate charges that will affect your bill. This document
explains the public hearing and protest process. The public hearing will further explain the
reasoning and analysis behind these proposed rate adjustments.”

As you may know at its face the city is not in compliance with Article XIII of the California State
Constitution and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act, in the sense that the city of
Oceanside did not have or has not had a, “PUBLIC MEETING” as required by law since these
senseless rate increases began.

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;

1
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.

To begin with 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.

Based on the opinion of the California Supreme Court, “

PLANTIER v. RAMONA MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT S243360 Opinion of the Court by Corrigan,
J. Before a local governmental agency may impose or increase certain property-related fees and
charges, it must notify affected property owners and hold a public hearing. The hearing
requirement arises from article XIII D1, section 6 of the California Constitution, 1 which was

1 (e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less than 45 days
after mailing the notice of the proposed assessment to record owners of each identified parcel. At the
public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the
ballots. The agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest
exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed
the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted
according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property.
(f) In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the burden shall be on the agency to
demonstrate that the property or properties in question receive a special benefit over and above the

2
added in 1996 by Proposition 218. Though the city has complied with part of article XIII D it has
failed in these matters:

 The city has not held, “Educational Public Hearings” in which accurate education is
disseminated and the public can ask questions and have their questions answered. The
information pamphlet sent out is full of inaccuracies and fuzzy explanations as to the
need for rate increases. The true nature of the rate increases is not disclosed there is no
mention of the expensive litigation from the San Diego Water Authority verses the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in which the San Francisco County
Superior Court Judge Curtis E. A. Karnaw ruled stating that, “The litigation could save
the San Diego region $2 billion in overcharges created by MWD’s illegal rates over 45
years. Judge Karnow determined that MWD violated cost of service requirements of
California’s Constitution, statutes and common law when setting rates for 2011, 2012,
2013 and 2014…. Specifically, he said MWD’s rates violate California’s wheeling
statute, Government Code section 54999.7(a), and common law that apply
to ratemaking. He also said MWD’s 2013 and 2014 rates violate Proposition 26,
approved by voters in November 2010 and now embodied in the California
Constitution as Article 13C. Proposition 26 shifted the burden to public agencies to
prove they are not charging more than the actual cost of the services they provide.”2

What does this mean? It means that we are flipping the tab for the overcharges of way over 2-
billion dollars because we are paying two times for the delivery of water!!!!!!

 The city did not have a true, “Educational Informational Forum” as required by law in a
legal educational forum there is a question and answer format whereby there is NO
QUORUM of the city council. This has not happened for many years and I have
consistently notified the city council that voting on a partial notice is in violation of the
Ralph Brown Act, [Sunshine law, Roberts Rules of order] regulatory agencies and Prop
218.

Judge Curtis E. A. Karnaw further ruled that, “MWD’s current rates were expressly designed to
protect the agency’s monopoly and to discriminate against the Water Authority by shifting
unrelated water supply costs onto transportation rates, while illegally
subsidizing MWD’s water supply rate. MWD asserted in court it can set its rates without
regard to the actual costs of service, and that it can even collect more than the costs of the

benefits conferred on the public at large and that the amount of any contested assessment is
proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred on the property or properties in question.

2
https://www.sdcwa.org/node/9100

3
services it provides, as long as a majority of its board votes for it. MWD also contended in
court that it was exempt from Proposition 26, as well as other constitutional and statutory
provisions of California law. Judge Karnow’s ruling disagreed.” Do did include any of this in
the so called education pamphlet you sent out to the ratepayers within the city of Oceanside?
Did you include any information as to the fact that we are subsidizing for people who live inland
particularly LA County? What does this mean? It means that the rate for people who live inland
are subsidized by our rate increases and we are paying their bills!!! Instead of telling the truth
the city of Oceanside sends out this fibulas made up fictional facts.

 The city Notice of Public Hearing also states, “Any written protest must include a name,
signature, and the property address or Assessor Parcel Number (APN).” This too violates
the open government provisions of the Ralph Brown Act, [Sunshine law, Roberts Rules
of order] regulatory agencies and Prop 218. These acts simply state that a speaker,
protestor or whatever the city wants to call it can be anonymous and does not have to
disclose his name, address, phone number etc. What the city is doing is asking for this
information to take retaliatory measures against those who protest, speak out or
criticize the city rates. This is a known fact that has been established for decades.

The City of Oceanside "NOTICE OF CITY OF OCEANSIDE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 2019
WATER RATE, PASS-THROUGH CHARGES, AND WASTEWATER RATE MAXIMUM INCREASE" Cites
"Article XIIIC of the California Constitution" as the authority for the notice and the Rate
Increases.

Again at first brush of the Article XIIIC of the California Constitution states that this is a "VOTER
APPROVAL FOR LOCAL TAX LEVIES" Based in the City of Oceanside own authoritative citation
of Article XIIIC of the California Constitution this is "VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL TAX LEVIES"
What it means is that this "Taxation" needs to be approved by the voters and before that
happens the city must follow:

Section (7) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions
of Article XIII D. The local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than
necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in
which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the
payor's burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity."

See the way things have been operated not just in the City of Oceanside but San Diego Water
Authority has been Willie Nillie and the California Codes of Regulations have never been
followed. The true facts have not been disclosed to the ratepayers and asking for increases to
subsidize other cities, counties and municipalities plus paying double for pass through rates is
not just fraud but extreme egregious manipulation of facts.

4
Therefore, based on the "NOTICE OF CITY OF OCEANSIDE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 2019
WATER RATE,, PASS-THROUGH CHARGES, AND WASTEWATER RATE MAXIMUM INCREASE"
Cites "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.

(c) 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 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 XIIIC of the California Constitution is pretty self
explanatory by reading the above cited paragraphs.

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 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 is
not in compliance and has never been in compliance with Proposition 218. Even after The
California Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Appellate Division Three Ruling that the San Juan

5
Capistrano’s tiered water rate system was illegal3. 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 System4. 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.5 The San 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?

3
Fourth Appellate Capistrano Decision http://files.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/docs/G048969-c1.pdf
4
Oceanside being a member of the San Diego Water Authority and the San Diego Water Authority a
member of the California Metropolitan Water.

5
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.

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 post-judgment interest rate is 7
percent annually, meaning the total amount due to the Water Authority under the court’s 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

6
The Oceanside's city tiered rate structure violated Proposition 218 because the city's rates do
not meet 218's "proportionality" and "immediately available" mandates, and are not cost-
based 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 users—not 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 arbitrary—an 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.

So if there is no swage meter than the city cannot impose a trier system even if the trier system
was found to be legal and constitutional which it’s not and it’s in violation of prop 218 and all of
the above citations of law.6

Once again is the city afraid that someone may ask about the LEGALITY of these illegal fees and
Trier applications by the city if a true and legal Publicly Held Hearing was conducted in
compliance with the laws? Are you 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 not across the board but by neighborhoods?
Different neighborhoods different rate charges?

6
The PLANTIER lawsuit filed in January 2014 alleges that RMWD’s method of charging sewer fees based
on a parcel’s assigned equivalent dwelling units (EDUs), which estimates wastewater flow for various
types of occupancy, violates Proposition 218 because the charges can exceed the proportional cost of
the services.

7
  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 “It is raining in California as I write this but 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, 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
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 2019 WATER RATE,
PASS-THROUGH CHARGES, AND WASTEWATER RATE MAXIMUM INCREASE" for November 6,
2019 per California Ralph Brown Act. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950-54963

Sincerely,

Silvia Peters

7
http://joeforamerica.com/2015/04/california-dumps-trillion-gallons-fresh-water-ocean-declares-
water-shortage/
8
http://www.science20.com/science_20/california_government_is_the_big_water_management_probl
em-154625

8
9