Marathon meeting fails to yield decision

Forgive me if I don't quite have the energy for a long, thorough post on this, but there seemed to be enough public interest that an update was in order.

Tuesday night's Patterson City Council meeting — one of the longest in recent memory, by some accounts — included more than THREE HOURS of legal arguments, public comment and discussion about the Del Puerto Health Care Center's proposed move to the Keystone Pacific Business Park and the appeal of that move by the health care district's current landlord, John Ramos. The meeting in its entirety lasted more than five hours and stretched past midnight (I'm assuming ... I left at about 11:45 p.m. with other agenda items still to come).

There were a lot of very technical legal interpretations of zoning ordinances, CEQA law and the developer agreement between Keystone and the city. There were a lot of impassioned pleas from patients, providers and health care district board members about the need for a bigger, better facility. The arguments on both sides were convincing.

As midnight approached, council members were still discussing whether they had a solid, impartial enough interpretation of the zoning laws and whether Ramos' motives — a matter of some debate — should be part of the discussion.

In the end, the council decided to solicit the opinion of a fifth lawyer — after hearing from attorneys for Ramos, the district and Keystone, as well as City Attorney George Logan — voting to seek out a land-use attorney while promising to come forth with a decision at the next council meeting.

It appeared as though the decision became more complicated as each argument was heard, and it doesn't appear likely this is going to be truly settled anytime soon. If the council votes for one side, the other could sue. If the council votes to amend the developer agreement and require CEQA approval, it could add precious months to the project for a district whose current lease expires in less than a year.

John Saiz will have a story on this in Saturday's Irrigator and probably on the Web site sometime this week. Stay tuned.

Man dies in I-5 crash

A fatal accident snarled southbound traffic on Interstate 5 around 4:30 p.m. today. I'll have a more complete story on the Web site Tuesday, along with photos, but here's what I know for now:

A car with three people was traveling northbound on I-5 just north of Sperry Avenue when it veered onto the right shoulder. The driver apparently over-corrected and lost control, peeling across the grassy divide at about 70 mph. The car struck a southbound car head-on.

The man in the second car, who was traveling alone, was pronounced dead on the scene. The three people in the first care all suffered moderate to major injuries, and at least one was taken by helicopter to a hospital (not sure which one at the moment).

By the time I left the scene, around 5:15 p.m., southbound traffic was backed up to about a mile from the Westley exit, but it appeared to at least be moving.

I don't have any info yet on the man who died. I'm hoping to get that from the coroner in the morning (they won't release any info until the family has been notified).

Expect photos and at least a brief story on the Web site tomorrow.

This is the second fatal accident on I-5 near Sperry in less than two weeks. A Stockton woman died while traveling the same direction, just on the other side of the exit.

Property tax scam targeting locals?

Our intrepid news reporter, John Saiz, is already working on this story for Wednesday's paper, but I thought it might be good to mention it now.

There appears to be a scam going around, targeting homeowners desperate to save money in any way possible. Homeowners in Patterson and apparently all over California are receiving a letter from a Los Angeles company stating that it can save them hundreds of dollars in property taxes by reassessing the person's home (presumably for a lower value than its previous assessment) for a reasonable price of $179, or something like that.

Problem is, assessing home values is the job of the county assessor, who does this sort of thing on a regular basis — for free.

So needless to say, nobody should be paying anyone anything, no matter how official their mailings appear — and I've seen this one; it looks legit — to reassess their home and lower their property taxes.

Here's a press release we received Thursday from the county assessor:

County Assessor Warns Area Taxpayers

Assistant Assessor, Steve Yauch, today issued a warning to Stanislaus County residents about a misleading offer targeting local homeowners.  The County was recently notified of the offer by a concerned taxpayer, who received the notification from the Los Angeles-based company offering to file a “Request for Review” form with the County Assessor for a $179.00 fee.  Property assessment and assessment reviews are free services offered by the County Assessor and property owners should never pay for a service to file a request for review.

“I want to remind property owners that our office regularly reviews property tax assessments, free of charge, to carry out our obligations under California Law.  Last year, our office reviewed approximately 60,000 properties and lowered over 40,000 assessments,” commented Mr. Yauch.  “The Assessor is required by law to review the properties that were reassessed at a lower value, as of January 1, 2009.  This year, our office will review most single family residences and condos as of January 1, 2009.”

Property owners who receive assessment related mail should check the validity of the sender and contact the County Assessor’s Office if you have questions or concerns related to your assessment. 

Owners of properties with resulting reduced assessments will receive a letter by the end of June notifying them of the results.  Owners who disagree with the results or did not receive a reduction for their 2009 assessment may call our office at (209) 525-6461 and/or file an application for reduced assessment with Clerk of the Board (209) 525-6414 between July 2^nd and November 30^th, 2009.

Willett: City doing OK despite drought

As farmers plan for one of their most challenging seasons in recent memory — the product of an ongoing drought and pumping restrictions at the San Joaquin Delta — residents in the city of Patterson seem to have less to worry about.

Patterson's public works director, Mike Willett, said last week that the city — which pulls all of its water from the ground using a series of wells — is in pretty good shape because it's not yet pulling more water than is typically replenished each year.

"We haven’t seen an impact on our supply at this point," Willett said. "The groundwater levels are trending little bit downward, but to this point, it hasn't been significant. There's a lot of water down there."

That doesn't mean residents should start flooding their lawns or keeping the water running while they brush their teeth, however. The great unknown for the city is not how much groundwater is available now, but how much will be used this year by farmers short on surface water.

With allocations from the Delta potentially being cut off this year, farmers might have no choice but to pump groundwater using their own wells to protect permanent crops. How much that might affect the groundwater supply is a complete unknown at this point, and it's one of the only possibilities that could force the city to crack down on its residents' water use.

Still, Willett thinks the city will be OK because the wells used by farmers are typically shallower than the city's wells.

"Most of the city's wells are deeper," he said. "We did that intentionally, so we're not in competition with other folks."

Willett said that with the city’s ninth well set to be completed by June 1 and with the City Council taking steps to ensure the city’s future water supply, Patterson should be in good shape for some time to come.

"We’re doing pretty well," Willett said. "I'd hate to say things are in bad shape, but I'd hate to say everything's fine. It's a fine balance between letting people know that we're OK for this year and still encouraging them to conserve."

**********************************************

Meanwhile, city officials and farmers alike will be praying for rain, and they might get some soon. According to AccuWeather, rain is in the local forecast throughout the rest of this week, and there could be more next week.

But it'll take a number of significant storms to bring local rainfall anywhere near normal.

After the city's most recent storm, which brought more than an inch of rain, the total for the season — which runs from July 1 to June 30 — was still at only 2.77 inches, or about half of the normal total for this point in the season.

The numbers are even scarier if you compare them to last season. In January 2008, a major storm brought the season total to 8.68 inches. But an incredibly dry spring brought less than 2 inches the rest of the season, and the total of 10.62 inches still fell short of the 10.68 average.

If this spring is anything like last spring, this season's rainfall won't sniff 5 inches, let alone 10.

More bad news for farmers

It just keeps getting worse for farmers all over the state.

The state Department of Water Resources today released the results of its second snow survey of the season, which show snow water content at just 61 percent of normal. It's a sharp decline from the last survey, taken in late December, which indicated snow water content at 76 percent of normal.

"We may be at the start of the worst California drought in modern history," DWR Director Lester Snow said in a statement. "It's imperative for Californians to conserve water immediately at home and in their businesses."

The continuing dry conditions (last weekend's local rain notwithstanding) are combining with regulatory restrictions on pumping from the Delta to create a perfect storm for local farmers.

We'll probably have a story on this in the Irrigator next week. In the meantime, here's the full text of the DWR press release on the snow survey:

DWR Announces Snow Survey Results

SACRAMENTO – The Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) second snow survey of the winter season indicates snow water content is 61 percent of normal for the date, statewide.

“The low precipitation in January and snowpack results from today’s survey indicate California is heading for a third dry year,” said DWR Director Lester Snow.  “We may be at the start of the worst California drought in modern history.  It’s imperative for Californians to conserve water immediately at home and in their businesses.”

Manual survey results were taken at four locations near Lake Tahoe, and combined with electronic readings, indicate a statewide snowpack water content of 61 percent (49 percent in the Northern Sierra, 63 percent in the Central Sierra, and 68 percent in the Southern Sierra.)  Last year at this time, snowpack was 111 percent of normal, but the driest spring on record followed resulting in a second consecutive dry water year.  Daily electronic readings may be accessed at http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/snowsurvey_sno/DLYSWEQ

Local water agencies are updating Urban Water Management Plans, and DWR is facilitating what water transfers may be available through its Drought Water Bank program.  Many providers have already enacted mandatory or voluntary water rationing and it is likely more agencies will require some form of rationing if dry conditions persist. 

Storage in California’s major reservoirs is low.  Lake Oroville, the principal storage reservoir for the State Water Project (SWP), is at 28 percent of capacity, and 43 percent of average storage for this time of year.  With only two months left in what is normally the wettest part of the season, it is growing increasingly unlikely that enough precipitation will fall to end the drought.

Continuing dry conditions and regulatory agency restrictions on Delta water exports are limiting water deliveries to farms and urban areas.  A Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service to protect salmon and steelhead is expected in March and is the latest action that may further reduce pumping capability.  DWR’s early estimate is that it will only be able to deliver 15 percent of requested State Water Project water this year to the Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Central Coast and Southern California.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has outlined steps to safeguard the state’s water supply through a comprehensive plan that includes water conservation, more surface and groundwater storage, new investments in the state’s aging water infrastructure, and improved water conveyance to protect the environment and provide a reliable water supply.  Today’s drought and regulatory restrictions underscore the need to take action to safeguard tomorrow’s water supply.

Here are results from today’s manual survey at Phillips Station and other sites near Lake Tahoe:

Location	Elevation	Snow Depth	Water Content	% of Long Term Average
Alpha	7,600 feet	40 inches	13 inches	62
Phillips Station	6,800 feet	34.6 inches	13.1 inches	68
Lyons Creek	6,700 feet	45.4 inches	15.5 inches	79
Tamarack Flat	6,500 feet	37.4 inches	13.2 inches	69

 

Importance of Snow Surveying

Snow water content is important in determining the coming year's water supply. The measurements help hydrologists prepare water supply forecasts as well as provide others, such as hydroelectric power companies and the recreation industry, with needed data.

Monitoring is coordinated by the Department of Water Resources as part of the multi-agency California Cooperative Snow Surveys Program. Surveyors from more than 50 agencies and utilities visit hundreds of snow measurement courses in California’s mountains to gauge the amount of water in the snowpack. The following websites offer an overview of important snow survey information.

Snowpack Site

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/snowsurvey_sno/DLYSWEQ

Reservoir Storage Site

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/reservoirs/RES

Snow Survey Illustrated

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/snow/hwy50/

Wal-Mart files papers with Patterson

Wal-Mart recently submitted an application to the Patterson Community Development Department indicating they intend to bring a store to the city.

Big box rumors have been running rampant for years now, but this is the first official action any massive retailer has taken to locate in Patterson.

Details — like where the proposed store would go — are a little scarce right now, but at 4 p.m. I'll get a chance to review the application and the plans that were submitted with them. Expect details galore on the Web site tomorrow.

City attorney: No decision on West Park appeal

George Logan, Patterson's city attorney, said the City Council made no decision during last night's closed session about whether to appeal a Fresno Superior Court judge's decision to throw out the city's lawsuit against West Park. And they might not decide anytime soon.

Logan said the city has 60 days to appeal after the judgment is entered — a formality that still has not been completed. He said it's likely the council will meet again in closed session, possibly in a month or so, before deciding anything.

As for the city's chances in an appeal, Logan was optimistic. He said the famed Save Tara case, used as precedent by both sides in the West Park case, was decided by the state Supreme Court because it failed in a trial court. That gives Logan some hope.

"Trial judges are just not as particular at enforcing environmental laws as appellate judges are," Logan said. "You get a better sense of justice in the appellate courts."

The council must also weigh the cost of moving forward with the case. In the revised budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year — which the council will review at its regular meeting Tuesday — the amount alotted for legal services nearly doubled from $140,000 to $275,000, the largest increase of any item in the budget.

"I think we'd have a very good chance on appeal, but the council will have to make that decision," Logan said.

UPDATE: Reporter John Saiz just spoke with Councilwoman Annette Smith, who wouldn't speak much on last night's discussion but did confirm that cost will be a factor in the council's decision on the case. She said the council has requested information on how much the suit has cost the city thus far, and that report could be available as early as next week.